Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Robert M.
    Guest
    They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.



    See More: Schlumberger is checking USENET




  2. #2
    Lawrence Glasser
    Guest

    Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET

    "Robert M." wrote:
    >
    > They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.


    How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
    on USENET.

    Larry



  3. #3
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Robert M." wrote:
    > >
    > > They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.

    >
    > How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
    > on USENET.


    Someone who calls dozens of folks on USENET a moron is behaving badly.

    You disagree?



  4. #4
    Lawrence Glasser
    Guest

    Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET

    "Robert M." wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Robert M." wrote:
    > > >
    > > > They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.

    > >
    > > How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
    > > on USENET.

    >
    > Someone who calls dozens of folks on USENET a moron is behaving badly.
    >
    > You disagree?


    If someone calls *dozens* of folks "a moron," then yes, I agree.

    I don't see where that happened.

    As someone whose apparent frequent intention, on USENET, is solely
    to stir up trouble, I think then term is "The pot( i.e., you) calling
    the kettle black."

    Larry



  5. #5
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Robert M." wrote:
    > >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Robert M." wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on
    > > > > USENET.
    > > >
    > > > How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad
    > > > behavior"
    > > > on USENET.

    > >
    > > Someone who calls dozens of folks on USENET a moron is behaving badly.
    > >
    > > You disagree?

    >
    > If someone calls *dozens* of folks "a moron," then yes, I agree.
    >
    > I don't see where that happened.


    Do a Google search on your friend and "moron".

    THAT HAPPENED.



  6. #6
    John S.
    Guest

    Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET

    >How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
    >on USENET.


    And your reply to him keeps him going. There should be no comments or replies
    to anything that he or and of his 65 or so aliases post. With NO audience he
    might just go away!

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net



  7. #7
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET

    "John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > >How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
    >>on USENET.

    >
    > And your reply to him keeps him going. There should be no comments or replies
    > to anything that he or and of his 65 or so aliases post. With NO audience he
    > might just go away!


    Indeed. I killfiled him about a month ago, and won't be replying to any of his posts.

    --

    John Richards





  • Similar Threads