🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:50:28 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:10:57 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:49:45 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:45:59 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can't you do any better than pull up of that 3-year-old misbegotten
>>>>marketing stunt again...
>>>
>>>I'll take a misbegotten marketing stunt at the rate of once every
>>>three years in exchange for your misbegotten anti-Steam rants at the
>>>rate of once every couple of weeks, if I'm given the choice.
>>>
>>>How are the meds going?  Doesn't seem like you're getting your moneys
>>>worth.  Not combining them with paint huffing against doctors orders
>>>again are ya?
>>
>>
>>Run out of logical arguments again ? Back to the personal insults ?
>>How sad.  
>>
>>Methinks you should killfile me. Then my replies to your postings
>>would not cause you to waste any more of your valuable time in
>>creating responses
>>
>> I guarantee that my kill-filed replies will not stoop to belittling
>>insults. However, I might have a little fun with your "screen-name" on
>>these newsgroups.
>
>Is that an official request?  If so, then noted, and I will keep it
>under consideration.
>
>The folks who have been killfiled got where they are because of
>*intentional* douchebaggery.  I truly believe yours is unintentional,
>and prescription meds and other issues beyond your control are
>responsible for a considerable amount of it.  As I've said before, you
>do have some redeeming things to say when in the rare state of not
>ranting against Valve, so to be honest you haven't even been in the
>aiming reticle for a  killfiling.  I actually try to refrain from
>killfiling people wherever possible, because it can muck up the
>threads when folks reply to the killfilees.
>
>As I've said in the past though, I do accept requests for killfiling
>and take each one into careful consideration, so if that's what you
>really want, then your  request has been noted for future review.
>However if your request is an evasive action to avoid ongoing
>ball-busting by yours truly, I'm afraid it will be ineffective.  A
>unilateral killfile job means I will still be able to bust your balls,
>yet won't have to read your feeble attempts to do same.
>
>

Still trying to be the big quack in this little duck-pond ?

Were you also the school-yard bully in your youth? 

John Lewis