On Oct 10, 6:40 pm, "@@^" wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."

wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete,

You love pete -true- xx

which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?"

That's a nasty, malicious libel and as such I will refer you to the
brief of OgilvieO, only he's a bit busy at the moment and not taking
on any new cases. Can you wait?

Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context, and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

pete has another stalker, seems to be catching in the obsessive,
compulsive disorder personality trait these days.

Who'd have thought exposing yet another of your sox would rattle you
so?

He Ho.

Perhaps changing synonyms for every post you send will fool the odd
lurker, Pete, but it won't cut the mustard here.

By the way, why don't you use Malcolm's real addy when you forge posts
purporting to come from him? It would look more realistic if you did.