wrote:

Maybe it is annoying, but at the same time there are new people coming on
all the time looking for help with sick fish, so if they can get the phone
number of somebody can help them right away and for free .....

(a) that's why we have google.
(b) once a month, or even once a week, advertising Jo Ann's services
wouldn't bother me. It was the multiple-times-per-day that got annoying.
--
derek

wrote:

The main reason I dont respond to any of the flaming

and continually reposting the same message is not a response?

is that when I
correct the mis-information it does absolutely no good.

That's part of the problem. The other part is that you have all the answers
and anybody else's knowledge is wrong if it contradicts yours. Allow
people an opinion once in a while.
--
derek

wrote:

The main reason I dont respond to any of the flaming

and continually reposting the same message is not a response?

is that when I
correct the mis-information it does absolutely no good.

That's part of the problem. The other part is that you have all the answers
and anybody else's knowledge is wrong if it contradicts yours. Allow
people an opinion once in a while.
--
derek

wrote:
The main reason I dont respond to any of the flaming is that when I
correct the
mis-information it does absolutely no good.

Because it is frequently replaced with yet more "information" from
questionable sources, or it's information that is arrived at in a not
too scientific way (gravel is bad).

Jo Ann did not use nor sell "activated carbon", the stuff that is
normally sold in
LFS or on the internet and must be heated to high temps for reuse.

Backpeddle much Ingrid? Gawd I wish I had a copy of that thread. I may
still have it stashed somewhere in my archives. I distinctly remember
Ms. Burke touting it as the "be all end all never have to purchase
carbon again" carbon; carbon that could be "recharged" with a good
squirt from a garden hose. I also see that there are other long time GF
people from the original list that remember it the same way I do. We
can't all be crazy with failing memory.

Last time I looked the U.S. is a free market system. Sellers get to
charge what they
think they can sell it for and buyers can pay the price, not pay the
price or get it
somewhere else.

Let me get on record here. I am NOT against anybody making a fair and
reasonable profit. We all have to pay the rent/mortgage and feed our
families. I do object to seeing business gouge their customers with
insane prices.

Let us not forget the Burke approved airstones, food, meds, fish
emergency kit, salinity meter and other dry goods she sold for more
than a reasonable profit. THEN implied that if you used anyone else's
product(s) you were endangering the health and welfare of your
goldfish. And let us also not forget the fish that were touted as top
quality, along with price tags to match.

The list of wild claims and dubious "help" is longer than I have either
the time or incentive to type down.
Neither of you pass the sniff test.

Lilly

wrote:
The main reason I dont respond to any of the flaming is that when I
correct the
mis-information it does absolutely no good.

Because it is frequently replaced with yet more "information" from
questionable sources, or it's information that is arrived at in a not
too scientific way (gravel is bad).

Jo Ann did not use nor sell "activated carbon", the stuff that is
normally sold in
LFS or on the internet and must be heated to high temps for reuse.

Backpeddle much Ingrid? Gawd I wish I had a copy of that thread. I may
still have it stashed somewhere in my archives. I distinctly remember
Ms. Burke touting it as the "be all end all never have to purchase
carbon again" carbon; carbon that could be "recharged" with a good
squirt from a garden hose. I also see that there are other long time GF
people from the original list that remember it the same way I do. We
can't all be crazy with failing memory.

Last time I looked the U.S. is a free market system. Sellers get to
charge what they
think they can sell it for and buyers can pay the price, not pay the
price or get it
somewhere else.

Let me get on record here. I am NOT against anybody making a fair and
reasonable profit. We all have to pay the rent/mortgage and feed our
families. I do object to seeing business gouge their customers with
insane prices.

Let us not forget the Burke approved airstones, food, meds, fish
emergency kit, salinity meter and other dry goods she sold for more
than a reasonable profit. THEN implied that if you used anyone else's
product(s) you were endangering the health and welfare of your
goldfish. And let us also not forget the fish that were touted as top
quality, along with price tags to match.

The list of wild claims and dubious "help" is longer than I have either
the time or incentive to type down.
Neither of you pass the sniff test.

Lilly

I simply dont know how you can equate my reposting a message "call Jo Ann if you
need help" with the individuals saying that I and my friends are full of crap, are
liars, etc. Perhaps a framework is needed. I havent posted this in a while.
http://www.mu.edu/~buxtoni/wsFALL200...l_attacks.html

HOW TO DETERMINE THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK IS OCCURRING
1. A personal attack or assault is not a discussion of facts. It begins with the
attacker clearly identifying the person being attacked either by name or by the use
of "you" repeatedly
2. The attack is full of emotional words, feelings, beliefs and opinions, but few
facts.
3. The attacker typically proposes or insinuates elaborate motives (often
conspiracies) for behavior that has no basis in fact. Ascribing motives to another
person is, of course, unknowable. Motives are negative for the most part.
4. Name calling and character assassination is typical.
5. The attacker will often refer to "unidentified others" who share their beliefs and
"know what they know".
6. The attack is most often public to be effective.

A major point I make to my students is that there cant be any debate of facts if one
person is attacking, or, if people are presenting their beliefs or feelings rather
than factual material. Scientists can discuss competing theories using facts without
resorting to calling names, questioning another scientists motives, or using
emotional language. How people "feel" is not debatable, facts are. Opinions may be
feelings or beliefs, or, they may be presented as facts. If you say "in my
experience ponds that freeze over dont kill fish" I can hardly say "no, you didnt
experience that". What I can say is "boy are you lucky because the following facts
suggest that more often than not fish die in frozen ponds. "

Even your statement "you have all the answers" is not a statement of fact, it is a
belief or a feeling that you have. Because of course I dont have all the answers and
most of the time I dont post anything on a very wide range of topics on this list.
Then you continue "anybody else's knowledge is wrong if it contradicts yours" which
is a sweeping statement of how you feel about my posting facts that contradict facts
that you? post. The assumption is that contradictory facts mean somebody is right
and somebody wrong but this is a fallacy. The honest debate of facts is what leads to
forward movement and a synthesis. Which is a good thing.

I will however admit that as a scientist and a teacher I do love good debates.
Ingrid


Derek Broughton wrote:
That's part of the problem. The other part is that you have all the answers
and anybody else's knowledge is wrong if it contradicts yours. Allow
people an opinion once in a while.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

I simply dont know how you can equate my reposting a message "call Jo Ann if you
need help" with the individuals saying that I and my friends are full of crap, are
liars, etc. Perhaps a framework is needed. I havent posted this in a while.
http://www.mu.edu/~buxtoni/wsFALL200...l_attacks.html

HOW TO DETERMINE THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK IS OCCURRING
1. A personal attack or assault is not a discussion of facts. It begins with the
attacker clearly identifying the person being attacked either by name or by the use
of "you" repeatedly
2. The attack is full of emotional words, feelings, beliefs and opinions, but few
facts.
3. The attacker typically proposes or insinuates elaborate motives (often
conspiracies) for behavior that has no basis in fact. Ascribing motives to another
person is, of course, unknowable. Motives are negative for the most part.
4. Name calling and character assassination is typical.
5. The attacker will often refer to "unidentified others" who share their beliefs and
"know what they know".
6. The attack is most often public to be effective.

A major point I make to my students is that there cant be any debate of facts if one
person is attacking, or, if people are presenting their beliefs or feelings rather
than factual material. Scientists can discuss competing theories using facts without
resorting to calling names, questioning another scientists motives, or using
emotional language. How people "feel" is not debatable, facts are. Opinions may be
feelings or beliefs, or, they may be presented as facts. If you say "in my
experience ponds that freeze over dont kill fish" I can hardly say "no, you didnt
experience that". What I can say is "boy are you lucky because the following facts
suggest that more often than not fish die in frozen ponds. "

Even your statement "you have all the answers" is not a statement of fact, it is a
belief or a feeling that you have. Because of course I dont have all the answers and
most of the time I dont post anything on a very wide range of topics on this list.
Then you continue "anybody else's knowledge is wrong if it contradicts yours" which
is a sweeping statement of how you feel about my posting facts that contradict facts
that you? post. The assumption is that contradictory facts mean somebody is right
and somebody wrong but this is a fallacy. The honest debate of facts is what leads to
forward movement and a synthesis. Which is a good thing.

I will however admit that as a scientist and a teacher I do love good debates.
Ingrid


Derek Broughton wrote:
That's part of the problem. The other part is that you have all the answers
and anybody else's knowledge is wrong if it contradicts yours. Allow
people an opinion once in a while.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

doing a google search for "Jo Ann asked me to remind"
...............on rec.goldfish etc. I posted
Dec 24 2004, 6:52 am
Dec 31 2004, 4:52 pm
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
.................on rec.ponds I posted
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
Jan 3, 6:03 pm
Jan 4, 3:18 pm
Jan 8, 2:16 pm

This is a total of 6 times with one cross posting over 18 days. There werent multiple
posts per day for an average of one posting every 3 days. I cannot be held
accountable for others replying and including my text.

Your use of the word "services" suggests a "pay for service" which of course is
incorrect. There is no cost for Jo Ann's help. Ingrid

Derek Broughton wrote:
(b) once a month, or even once a week, advertising Jo Ann's services
wouldn't bother me. It was the multiple-times-per-day that got annoying.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

doing a google search for "Jo Ann asked me to remind"
...............on rec.goldfish etc. I posted
Dec 24 2004, 6:52 am
Dec 31 2004, 4:52 pm
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
.................on rec.ponds I posted
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
Jan 3, 6:03 pm
Jan 4, 3:18 pm
Jan 8, 2:16 pm

This is a total of 6 times with one cross posting over 18 days. There werent multiple
posts per day for an average of one posting every 3 days. I cannot be held
accountable for others replying and including my text.

Your use of the word "services" suggests a "pay for service" which of course is
incorrect. There is no cost for Jo Ann's help. Ingrid

Derek Broughton wrote:
(b) once a month, or even once a week, advertising Jo Ann's services
wouldn't bother me. It was the multiple-times-per-day that got annoying.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Why Tom, we all know you follow Puregold very carefully so you would of course know
that neither I nor Jo Ann posts to the list very often these days (which is just as
well since she is very busy with her antique business while I am just busy!) and that
most people are doing so very well with their fish. there are of course the typical
floating problems, wen problems, etc. that are easily handled by the other
experienced and knowledgable GF keepers on the list. Lately there has been a
discussion about KH and pH, a biowheel problem and the posted "help needed" messages
from rec.gf and other help wanted requests to the list. What has been an exciting
development on the list are the independent experiments a couple people been doing.
Ingrid

"Tom L. La Bron" wrote:
Being on your list must not be that much help or that much of an advantage
if Jo Ann is so busy helping people with problems on your list. You would
think that being on Puregold would have everyone is Goldfish paradise with
no problems at all, with you and Jo Ann there helping at the drop of a hat,
obviously they are not listening or the proper information is not being
given. I wonder what it is.

Tom L.L.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Why Tom, we all know you follow Puregold very carefully so you would of course know
that neither I nor Jo Ann posts to the list very often these days (which is just as
well since she is very busy with her antique business while I am just busy!) and that
most people are doing so very well with their fish. there are of course the typical
floating problems, wen problems, etc. that are easily handled by the other
experienced and knowledgable GF keepers on the list. Lately there has been a
discussion about KH and pH, a biowheel problem and the posted "help needed" messages
from rec.gf and other help wanted requests to the list. What has been an exciting
development on the list are the independent experiments a couple people been doing.
Ingrid

"Tom L. La Bron" wrote:
Being on your list must not be that much help or that much of an advantage
if Jo Ann is so busy helping people with problems on your list. You would
think that being on Puregold would have everyone is Goldfish paradise with
no problems at all, with you and Jo Ann there helping at the drop of a hat,
obviously they are not listening or the proper information is not being
given. I wonder what it is.

Tom L.L.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

wrote:
I simply dont know how you can equate my reposting a message "call
Jo Ann if you
need help" with the individuals saying that I and my friends are full
of crap, are
liars, etc. Perhaps a framework is needed. I havent posted this in
a while.
http://www.mu.edu/~buxtoni/wsFALL200...l_attacks.html

HOW TO DETERMINE THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK IS OCCURRING

Seems Ingrid uses all below except rules #4 and #12.

THE THIRTEEN COMMANDMENTS OF FLAMING:

Flames should be witty, insulting, interesting, funny, caustic, or
sarcastic, but NEVER, EVER, should they be boring. The Thirteen
Commandments of Flaming

1. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies
sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly,
Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."

2. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of
Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're
qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebred, by using the
word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis
envy."

3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the
next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal! From the Apple II
RoundTable to X-10 Powerhouse RoundTable, they're all holding their
breath until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't
*possibly* be that you're an obnoxious sh??head. There's obviously a
conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by
exposing it.

5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the
Yin &
Yang of Flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in
good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Bertha has
libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha."

6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states
outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand
documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta
preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.

7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca
of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times
per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum," "veni,
vidi, vici," and "fetuccini alfredo."

8. Tell 'em how smart you a Why use intelligent arguments to
convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State
that you're a member of Mensa, or Mega, or Dorks of America. Tell them
the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800
on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word
'premeiotic' ." Stick a bunch of impressive initials on your sig, and
make that sig at least 10 lines long, to show people how Really
Powerful you are. Loudly point out their spelling errors.

9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American
citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by
the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your
cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a communist, a
fascist, or both.

10. Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent,
have you? And since you're the Center Of The Universe and Chief
Net-Cop, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore,
THEY DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

11. Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up. Who cares! You're
probably a fat, pimply-faced, manipulative computer-nerd with no social
skills, and your opponent is worse. Besides, if you were getting laid
at all by anything other than the cheap hookers down the street, you
wouldn't be flaming anyway.

12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 12 rules, remember
this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a Flamer you
will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than
you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make
you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing
to do: INSULT THE DIRTBAG!!! "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange
things with vegetables."

13. Last, but not least, threaten to tell their sysadmin or postmaster
all about them. You can always hope that they are newbie enough to feel
threatened by this, unless they had a younger brother or sister who was
always tattling to Mommy.

EXAMPLE...for the Rookie Flamer

Dear Fred,

I object to your use of the word "dear." It shows you are a
condescending, sexist pig. Also, the submissive tone you use shows that
you like to be tied down and flagellated with licorice whips.

While I found your article "The Effect of Belly-Button Lint on
Western Thought" to be extremely thought-provoking,

"Thought-provoking?" I had no idea you could think, you rotting piece
of swamp slime.

it really shouldn't have been posted in rec.scuba.

Your attempts constitute nothing less than censorship. There is a
conspiracy against me. You, Riff Raff, and Simon Sinister have been
constantly harassing me by email. This was an ad hominem attack! I have
therefore cross-posted this to alt.flame, rec.nude, comp.graphics, and
rec.arts.wobegon. I have also copied this whole correspondence to your
sysadmin/postmaster, so he can delete your account.

Perhaps you should have posted it in misc.misc.

It is my right, as granted in the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the
Bible and the Koran, to post where ever I want to. Or don't you believe
in those documents, you damn fascist? Perhaps if you didn't spend so
much time sacrificing virgins and infants to Satan, you would have
realized this.

Your article would be much more appropriate there.

Can you document this? I will only accept documents notarized by my
attorney, and signed by you in blood. Besides, you don't really exist
anyway, you AI project, you.

At all times, remember what the original meanings of the word "flamer"
we 1) a loud, obnoxiously gay man, and 2) a person who lights their
farts for amusement.

wrote:
I simply dont know how you can equate my reposting a message "call
Jo Ann if you
need help" with the individuals saying that I and my friends are full
of crap, are
liars, etc. Perhaps a framework is needed. I havent posted this in
a while.
http://www.mu.edu/~buxtoni/wsFALL200...l_attacks.html

HOW TO DETERMINE THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK IS OCCURRING

Seems Ingrid uses all below except rules #4 and #12.

THE THIRTEEN COMMANDMENTS OF FLAMING:

Flames should be witty, insulting, interesting, funny, caustic, or
sarcastic, but NEVER, EVER, should they be boring. The Thirteen
Commandments of Flaming

1. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies
sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly,
Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."

2. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of
Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're
qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebred, by using the
word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis
envy."

3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the
next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal! From the Apple II
RoundTable to X-10 Powerhouse RoundTable, they're all holding their
breath until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't
*possibly* be that you're an obnoxious sh??head. There's obviously a
conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by
exposing it.

5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the
Yin &
Yang of Flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in
good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Bertha has
libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha."

6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states
outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand
documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta
preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.

7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca
of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times
per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum," "veni,
vidi, vici," and "fetuccini alfredo."

8. Tell 'em how smart you a Why use intelligent arguments to
convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State
that you're a member of Mensa, or Mega, or Dorks of America. Tell them
the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800
on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word
'premeiotic' ." Stick a bunch of impressive initials on your sig, and
make that sig at least 10 lines long, to show people how Really
Powerful you are. Loudly point out their spelling errors.

9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American
citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by
the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your
cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a communist, a
fascist, or both.

10. Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent,
have you? And since you're the Center Of The Universe and Chief
Net-Cop, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore,
THEY DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

11. Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up. Who cares! You're
probably a fat, pimply-faced, manipulative computer-nerd with no social
skills, and your opponent is worse. Besides, if you were getting laid
at all by anything other than the cheap hookers down the street, you
wouldn't be flaming anyway.

12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 12 rules, remember
this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a Flamer you
will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than
you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make
you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing
to do: INSULT THE DIRTBAG!!! "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange
things with vegetables."

13. Last, but not least, threaten to tell their sysadmin or postmaster
all about them. You can always hope that they are newbie enough to feel
threatened by this, unless they had a younger brother or sister who was
always tattling to Mommy.

EXAMPLE...for the Rookie Flamer

Dear Fred,

I object to your use of the word "dear." It shows you are a
condescending, sexist pig. Also, the submissive tone you use shows that
you like to be tied down and flagellated with licorice whips.

While I found your article "The Effect of Belly-Button Lint on
Western Thought" to be extremely thought-provoking,

"Thought-provoking?" I had no idea you could think, you rotting piece
of swamp slime.

it really shouldn't have been posted in rec.scuba.

Your attempts constitute nothing less than censorship. There is a
conspiracy against me. You, Riff Raff, and Simon Sinister have been
constantly harassing me by email. This was an ad hominem attack! I have
therefore cross-posted this to alt.flame, rec.nude, comp.graphics, and
rec.arts.wobegon. I have also copied this whole correspondence to your
sysadmin/postmaster, so he can delete your account.

Perhaps you should have posted it in misc.misc.

It is my right, as granted in the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the
Bible and the Koran, to post where ever I want to. Or don't you believe
in those documents, you damn fascist? Perhaps if you didn't spend so
much time sacrificing virgins and infants to Satan, you would have
realized this.

Your article would be much more appropriate there.

Can you document this? I will only accept documents notarized by my
attorney, and signed by you in blood. Besides, you don't really exist
anyway, you AI project, you.

At all times, remember what the original meanings of the word "flamer"
we 1) a loud, obnoxiously gay man, and 2) a person who lights their
farts for amusement.

wrote:
doing a google search for "Jo Ann asked me to remind"
..............on rec.goldfish etc. I posted
Dec 24 2004, 6:52 am
Dec 31 2004, 4:52 pm
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
................on rec.ponds I posted
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
Jan 3, 6:03 pm
Jan 4, 3:18 pm
Jan 8, 2:16 pm

This is a total of 6 times with one cross posting over 18 days. There
werent multiple
posts per day for an average of one posting every 3 days. I cannot
be held
accountable for others replying and including my text.

Oh my, aren't we the good doobie. Just six posts in eighteen days? Wow,
how do you restrain yourself.


Your use of the word "services" suggests a "pay for service" which of
course is
incorrect. There is no cost for Jo Ann's help. Ingrid

Get what you pay for. Short of a few obvious afflictions, like ich,
diagnosing over the 'net or phone is just a shot in the dark. You would
not see any MD or DVM worth their salt doing what you, or Burke, does.
Even though I've got several decades of keeping fish under my belt, and
I stick to the basics of good housekeeping and quality food advice
thankyouverymuch.

I still say, the two of you don't pass the sniff test. BTW, where IS
that diagnostician certificate of JoAnne's? I've been asking for it for
a couple of weeks now (or maybe it just feels that way).

Lilly

wrote:
doing a google search for "Jo Ann asked me to remind"
..............on rec.goldfish etc. I posted
Dec 24 2004, 6:52 am
Dec 31 2004, 4:52 pm
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
................on rec.ponds I posted
Jan 2, 2:15 pm
Jan 3, 6:03 pm
Jan 4, 3:18 pm
Jan 8, 2:16 pm

This is a total of 6 times with one cross posting over 18 days. There
werent multiple
posts per day for an average of one posting every 3 days. I cannot
be held
accountable for others replying and including my text.

Oh my, aren't we the good doobie. Just six posts in eighteen days? Wow,
how do you restrain yourself.


Your use of the word "services" suggests a "pay for service" which of
course is
incorrect. There is no cost for Jo Ann's help. Ingrid

Get what you pay for. Short of a few obvious afflictions, like ich,
diagnosing over the 'net or phone is just a shot in the dark. You would
not see any MD or DVM worth their salt doing what you, or Burke, does.
Even though I've got several decades of keeping fish under my belt, and
I stick to the basics of good housekeeping and quality food advice
thankyouverymuch.

I still say, the two of you don't pass the sniff test. BTW, where IS
that diagnostician certificate of JoAnne's? I've been asking for it for
a couple of weeks now (or maybe it just feels that way).

Lilly