network noodles wrote:

"You little punk, I won't even waste the effort of backtracing you through t
he network."

Because this dickhead supposedly works for an ISP he thinks he can 'backtrac
e' my posts. What a ignorant sap. I bet he is just a body that answers the p
hones and does customer service. But he is trying to make out that he is som
e kind of technical whizz.
XXXXing gook.

You got a real chip on your shoulder, you little XXXXing prick.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> network noodles wrote:
>
> "You little punk, I won't even waste the effort of backtracing you through the net
work."

Learn to quote properly.
I didn't write that.

> Because this dickhead supposedly works for an ISP he thinks he can 'backtrace' my 
posts.

No, I said I wasn't going to waste the effort trying.

> What a ignorant sap.

About many things.  Just like everyone else.  Knowing the limits of
your own knowledge and knowing when to say 'I don't know' is a key
skill in building a reputation as someone who knows what he knows, and
isn't afraid to admit to not being omniscient.

> I bet he is just a body that answers the phones and does customer service.

Nope, never did that.  Just network geeking and other customer facing
application development.
Oh, and diagnosing major outages in the service provisioning systems.
(Usually a static data glitch in the database.)

> But he is trying to make out that he is some kind of technical whizz.

Only after you're selective editing and resinning of what I actually
wrote.

> XXXXing gook.

What makes you think I'm a sexy Vietnamese?  Oh, you're calling me
names.  Well, that really advances your argument.

Argument?  What am I saying.  You're just an abuse generator shell
script, aren't you?

> You got a real chip on your shoulder, you little XXXXing prick.

Penis envy.  How mature.

network_noadle

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"network_noadle" <william.noad@UK.IBM.com> wrote:
 
>
> No, I said I wasn't going to waste the effort trying.

A cheesy way of trying to tap dance around your threats to trace
someone through the remailer network. Obviously you know you can't,
but you threaten it anyway. Which makes this statement nothing but
empty rhetoric......

> About many things.  Just like everyone else.  Knowing the limits of
> your own knowledge and knowing when to say 'I don't know' is a key
> skill in building a reputation as someone who knows what he knows, and
> isn't afraid to admit to not being omniscient.

How quaint. Ranting on the ethics of admitting your limitations, after
claiming to be able to perform tasks nobody else on earth can but not
being "motivated" enough to bother with it.

What a laughable hypocrite you are.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> "network_noadle" <william.noad@UK.IBM.com> wrote:
> 
>
> A cheesy way of trying to tap dance around your threats to trace
> someone through the remailer network.

Once again you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.  There
never was a threat to trace you.  I know that its a WOMBAT trying to
backtrace through a remailer network, so I'm not going to waste the
effort trying.  That's all I said.  How did you construe that as a
threat to carry out the impossible?

You are selectively misquoting and misinterpreting simple statements of
fact.  That in itself weakens any argument you might be making.

> Obviously you know you can't,
> but you threaten it anyway. Which makes this statement nothing but
> empty rhetoric......

Having established a false premise, you use it to belittle me.
Unsuccessfully, since the premise was clearly false.

Attacking an argument ad hominem is (in most cases) indication that the
attacker has nothing to back their own position, and is instead
attempting disprove my position by discrediting me.

> How quaint. Ranting on the ethics of admitting your limitations, after
> claiming to be able to perform tasks nobody else on earth can but not
> being "motivated" enough to bother with it.

Once again you use the false premise you established (or rather failed
to establish), this time to claim I am exagerating my own abilities,
which I didn't.

> What a laughable hypocrite you are.

Your conclusion, based on your false premises is, clearly untrue.

The case for the defence rests.

network_noadle

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

 
>
> What makes you think I'm a sexy Vietnamese?

Do you think he meant 'Spook'?

I have no desire to think of you as 'sexy Vietnamese'!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

erewhon wrote:

> Do you think he meant 'Spook'?

Doubt it.  I've never worked for the security services and I'm still
breathing.

> I have no desire to think of you as 'sexy Vietnamese'!

I'd be more concerned if you admitted to harbouring such a desire, but
that's just me.

network_noadle

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 31 Aug 2006, "network_noadle" <william.noad@UK.IBM.com> wrote:
>Nomen Nescio wrote: 
>
>Learn to quote properly.
>I didn't write that.
> 
>
>No, I said I wasn't going to waste the effort trying.

please, try.  I'd like to see the results.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

network_noadle wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
<snip>

> Your conclusion, based on your false premises is, clearly untrue.
>
> The case for the defence rests.
>
> network_noadle
>
Noadle, dont feed the fools lol.

David

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

SubKool_Ntrance wrote:

> Noadle, dont feed the fools lol.
>
> David

It's been a while, don't spoil my fun!

network_noadle

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

network_noadle wrote:
> SubKool_Ntrance wrote:
> 
>
> It's been a while, don't spoil my fun!
>
> network_noadle

*They* dont change lol. Same foolish monkeys, same poo-fiend idiot
arguments started over nothing. But, by all means, throw them a leg lol.

David

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]