| |
|
Article: <5dcq7h$3bt@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Nancy/Zetas
Date: 6 Feb 1997 14:35:29 GMT
Here we have David and Paul pretending to fight. They did this once before, too, at the end of a months long sci.asto debate that went over the 1995 holiday season, the Re: Ephermerides - the Zetas Explain debate thread. I pointed out at the end of that debate that David and Paul and Thomas Randall were contradicting each other, but FAILING TO CORRECT EACH OTHER. However, they leapt on every possibility of a contradiction in the ZetaTalk postings, proving that they were working together. After that Paul and David instituted a thread that went on for weeks, wherein they degenerated into "did not", "did too", "did not", "did too". I certainly hope they don't go into this frenzy again, as no one will be fooled!
In article <5d1vht$n2f@news.Hawaii.Edu> David Tholen
writes:
> Paul Schlyter writes:
>> I've given up trying to have a meaningful conversation
>> WITH Nancy.
>
> I thought you had given up on reading my postings, Paul.
> You know, the alleged kill file entry.
>
>> But I've certainly not given up to inform others about
>> the madness of Nancy's claims.
>
> Then why did you complain about someone else allegedly
> being so eager to discuss her, when you in fact continue to
> discuss her?
>
>> Mostly I do this in email though, to avoid polluting
this
>> newsgroup further.
>
> Or to avoid showing your own eagerness to discuss her.
>
>> Obviously I should have done the same this time too,
since
>> you're sooooooo very eager to followup on any thread
dealing
>> with Nancy.
>
> Not as eager as you, apparently. You see, I don't email
> anyone to inform them of Nancy's madness, whereas you do
> "usually".
> tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu
In article <5d536e$map@electra.saaf.se> Paul Schlyter
writes:
> In article <5d1vht$n2f@news.hawaii.edu>,
<tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>> I thought you had given up on reading my postings, Paul.
>> You know, the alleged kill file entry.
>
> If this is true, i.e. if you REALLY thought so, why did you
> respond to me?
>
>> Then why did you complain about someone else allegedly
being
>> so eager to discuss her, when you in fact continue to
discuss
>> her?
>
> Bla bla bla......
>
>>> Mostly I do this in email though, to avoid polluting
>>> this newsgroup further.
>>
>> Or to avoid showing your own eagerness to discuss her.
>
> Bla bla bla......
>
>>> Obviously I should have done the same this time too,
since
>>> you're sooooooo very eager to followup on any thread
dealing
>>> with Nancy.
>>
>> Not as eager as you, apparently.
>
> Haven't you noticed how very eagerly you respond to even
this one
> single post I happened to make here,
> pausch@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)