In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>
> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
> >> >
> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
> >> >
> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
> >> > ignorant.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
> >> asshole.
> >
> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
> > evaluation.
> >>
> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted and
> >> close-minded.
> >
> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
> >
> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a pretentious
> >> jerk.
> >
> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
> > jerk?"
> >
> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
> >
>
> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a prick
> know it all.

don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
perhaps, you can begin to correct them

> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on someone's
> posting method until

which is your admission you did exactly as i said.

run along.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com