OK Let's Play Nice

I realize that there are people here who posting in an irritating manner.
Not the least of whom is myself. But this is a technical group so we ought
to try and maintain a little more precision and a little less demeanor.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I realize that there are people here who posting in an irritating
> manner. Not the least of whom is myself. But this is a technical group
> so we ought to try and maintain a little more precision and a little
> less demeanor.
>

1. it's the /type/ of demeanor that you're having a problem with, not
the fact that they have one - all people have some kind of a demeanor.

2. you requesting "precision" is a joke - you can't even bother with
facts, let alone a dictionary.

[how's that for soliciting your intended type of response?]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I realize that there are people here who posting in an irritating
>> manner. Not the least of whom is myself. But this is a technical group
>> so we ought to try and maintain a little more precision and a little
>> less demeanor.
>>
>
> 1. it's the /type/ of demeanor that you're having a problem with, not
> the fact that they have one - all people have some kind of a demeanor.
>
> 2. you requesting "precision" is a joke - you can't even bother with
> facts, let alone a dictionary.
>
> [how's that for soliciting your intended type of response?]

Cool - the RBR bot engages the RBT bot in battle!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> I realize that there are people here who posting in an irritating
>>> manner. Not the least of whom is myself. But this is a technical
>>> group so we ought to try and maintain a little more precision and a
>>> little less demeanor.
>>>
>>
>> 1. it's the /type/ of demeanor that you're having a problem with, not
>> the fact that they have one - all people have some kind of a demeanor.
>>
>> 2. you requesting "precision" is a joke - you can't even bother with
>> facts, let alone a dictionary.
>>
>> [how's that for soliciting your intended type of response?]
>
> Cool - the RBR bot engages the RBT bot in battle!
>

and here we are, yet another factless, useless, meaningless lightweight
"contribution" from tom sherman. nothing changes.

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> I realize that there are people here who posting in an irritating
>>>> manner. Not the least of whom is myself. But this is a technical
>>>> group so we ought to try and maintain a little more precision and a
>>>> little less demeanor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1. it's the /type/ of demeanor that you're having a problem with, not
>>> the fact that they have one - all people have some kind of a demeanor.
>>>
>>> 2. you requesting "precision" is a joke - you can't even bother with
>>> facts, let alone a dictionary.
>>>
>>> [how's that for soliciting your intended type of response?]
>>
>> Cool - the RBR bot engages the RBT bot in battle!
>>
>
> and here we are, yet another factless, useless, meaningless lightweight
> "contribution" from tom sherman. nothing changes.
>
Yes, without "jim beam" stalking Jobst Brandt, where would we be?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> I realize that there are people here who posting in an irritating
>>>>> manner. Not the least of whom is myself. But this is a technical
>>>>> group so we ought to try and maintain a little more precision and a
>>>>> little less demeanor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. it's the /type/ of demeanor that you're having a problem with,
>>>> not the fact that they have one - all people have some kind of a
>>>> demeanor.
>>>>
>>>> 2. you requesting "precision" is a joke - you can't even bother with
>>>> facts, let alone a dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> [how's that for soliciting your intended type of response?]
>>>
>>> Cool - the RBR bot engages the RBT bot in battle!
>>>
>>
>> and here we are, yet another factless, useless, meaningless
>> lightweight "contribution" from tom sherman. nothing changes.
>>
> Yes, without "jim beam" stalking Jobst Brandt, where would we be?
>

since when was calling a bull****ter on their bull**** "stalking"???
goddamned factless, useless, meaningless lightweight.

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> I realize that there are people here who posting in an irritating
>>>>> manner. Not the least of whom is myself. But this is a technical
>>>>> group so we ought to try and maintain a little more precision and a
>>>>> little less demeanor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. it's the /type/ of demeanor that you're having a problem with,
>>>> not the fact that they have one - all people have some kind of a
>>>> demeanor.
>>>>
>>>> 2. you requesting "precision" is a joke - you can't even bother with
>>>> facts, let alone a dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> [how's that for soliciting your intended type of response?]
>>>
>>> Cool - the RBR bot engages the RBT bot in battle!
>>>
>>
>> and here we are, yet another factless, useless, meaningless
>> lightweight "contribution" from tom sherman. nothing changes.
>>
> Yes, without "jim beam" stalking Jobst Brandt, where would we be?
>

I know which one is de more knowledgeable, but which one is de meaner?

Mark J.