In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the crosspost
> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim headers.
> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it there,
> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
> >>
> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
> >>any responsibility for it.
> >
> >
> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted it
> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
>
> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>
> You're responsible, Ron.

Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone not
wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
newsgroup.

uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>>engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted it
>>>there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
>>
>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>>
>>You're responsible, Ron.
>
>
> Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves?

He can't remove the crossposts from the headers of your
posts when you're composing the posts, Ron. You'd have
to do that.

You like to antagonize people.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >>engagement and wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted it
> >>>there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >>
> >>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >>
> >>You're responsible, Ron.
> >
> >
> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves?
>
> He can't remove the crossposts from the headers of your
> posts when you're composing the posts, Ron. You'd have
> to do that.
>
> You like to antagonize people.

He can remove them from his end. He can also choose to killfile me. He
can also choose to ignore the posts from this newsgroup and automate
that task. If admiral doesn't like X then, I recommend admiral do
something about X. I am unwilling to take responsibility for him, or the
person who placed the cross post in the first place.

It's his problem, I let him deal with it.

uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>>engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>>>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>>>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>>>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>>>>
>>>>You're responsible, Ron.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves?
>>
>>He can't remove the crossposts from the headers of your
>>posts when you're composing the posts, Ron. You'd have
>>to do that.
>>
>>You like to antagonize people.
>
>
> He can remove them from his end.

He cannot. They originate on your end, shitbag.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >>engagement and wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >>>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >>>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >>>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >>>>
> >>>>You're responsible, Ron.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves?
> >>
> >>He can't remove the crossposts from the headers of your
> >>posts when you're composing the posts, Ron. You'd have
> >>to do that.
> >>
> >>You like to antagonize people.
> >
> >
> > He can remove them from his end.
>
> He cannot. They originate on your end, shitbag.

Of course, you attribute responsibility to me for what is theirs. People
who dislike reading cross posts are responsible for their own actions of
opening and reading the crossposts and they are responsible for their
own feelings about their own actions of reading crossposts.

uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>>engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>He can't remove the crossposts from the headers of your
>>>>posts when you're composing the posts, Ron. You'd have
>>>>to do that.
>>>>
>>>>You like to antagonize people.
>>>
>>>
>>>He can remove them from his end.
>>
>>He cannot. They originate on your end, shitbag.
>
>
> Of course, you attribute responsibility to me

because the content of your posts IS your
responsibility. You are fully responsible for every
bit and byte of your posts, Ron.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >>engagement and wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>He can't remove the crossposts from the headers of your
> >>>>posts when you're composing the posts, Ron. You'd have
> >>>>to do that.
> >>>>
> >>>>You like to antagonize people.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>He can remove them from his end.
> >>
> >>He cannot. They originate on your end, shitbag.
> >
> >
> > Of course, you attribute responsibility to me
>
> because the content of your posts IS your
> responsibility. You are fully responsible for every
> bit and byte of your posts, Ron.

I am responsible for what I type. Thank you very much.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>> engagement and wrote:
>>
>> > In article t>,
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the crosspost
>> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
>> >>>headers.
>> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it there,
>> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
>> >>
>> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
>> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
>> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
>> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
>> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
>> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
>> >>any responsibility for it.
>> >
>> >
>> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted it
>> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
>>
>> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>>
>> You're responsible, Ron.
>
> Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone not
> wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
> back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
> newsgroup.

You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an expert
at something.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >> engagement and wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article t>,
> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the crosspost
> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
> >> >>>headers.
> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it there,
> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
> >> >>
> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
> >> >>any responsibility for it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted it
> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >>
> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >>
> >> You're responsible, Ron.
> >
> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone not
> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
> > newsgroup.
>
> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an expert
> at something.

I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
responsibility accurately. Admiral has many means at his disposal to
address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>> >> engagement and wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article t>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement
>> >> >>and
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the
>> >> >>>crosspost
>> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
>> >> >>>headers.
>> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it
>> >> >>>there,
>> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
>> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
>> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
>> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
>> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
>> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
>> >> >>any responsibility for it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted
>> >> > it
>> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
>> >>
>> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>> >>
>> >> You're responsible, Ron.
>> >
>> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone not
>> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
>> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
>> > newsgroup.
>>
>> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an
>> expert
>> at something.
>
> I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
> responsibility accurately.

That is one of the things you get the most WRONG.

> Admiral has many means at his disposal to
> address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
> thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
> crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
> refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.

Immaterial, you proposed an illogical solution and I pointed it out.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >> >> engagement and wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article t>,
> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement
> >> >> >>and
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the
> >> >> >>>crosspost
> >> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
> >> >> >>>headers.
> >> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it
> >> >> >>>there,
> >> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
> >> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
> >> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
> >> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
> >> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
> >> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
> >> >> >>any responsibility for it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >> >>
> >> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >>
> >> >> You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >
> >> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone not
> >> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
> >> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
> >> > newsgroup.
> >>
> >> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an
> >> expert
> >> at something.
> >
> > I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
> > responsibility accurately.
>
> That is one of the things you get the most WRONG.
>
> > Admiral has many means at his disposal to
> > address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
> > thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
> > crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
> > refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.
>
> Immaterial, you proposed an illogical solution and I pointed it out.

Like the eating disordered, you excluded the action and others and
placed me as the nexus point. As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
of the universe. I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
events and outcomes.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article et>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>> >> >> engagement and wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article t>,
>> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>> >> >> >>engagement
>> >> >> >>and
>> >> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the
>> >> >> >>>crosspost
>> >> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
>> >> >> >>>headers.
>> >> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it
>> >> >> >>>there,
>> >> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
>> >> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
>> >> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
>> >> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
>> >> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
>> >> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
>> >> >> >>any responsibility for it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
>> >> >> > wanted
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> >> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> >> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> >> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're responsible, Ron.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone
>> >> > not
>> >> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
>> >> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
>> >> > newsgroup.
>> >>
>> >> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an
>> >> expert
>> >> at something.
>> >
>> > I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
>> > responsibility accurately.
>>
>> That is one of the things you get the most WRONG.
>>
>> > Admiral has many means at his disposal to
>> > address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
>> > thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
>> > crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
>> > refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.
>>
>> Immaterial, you proposed an illogical solution and I pointed it out.
>
> Like the eating disordered, you excluded the action and others and
> placed me as the nexus point.

Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would anyone but
you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?

> As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
> of the universe.

You are the centre of *yours*.

> I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
> events and outcomes.

Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and share
no responsibility in the death of the animal.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article et>,
> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >> >> >> engagement and wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article t>,
> >> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >> >> >> >>engagement
> >> >> >> >>and
> >> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the
> >> >> >> >>>crosspost
> >> >> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
> >> >> >> >>>headers.
> >> >> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it
> >> >> >> >>>there,
> >> >> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
> >> >> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
> >> >> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
> >> >> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
> >> >> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
> >> >> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
> >> >> >> >>any responsibility for it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
> >> >> >> > wanted
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
> >> >> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
> >> >> > newsgroup.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an
> >> >> expert
> >> >> at something.
> >> >
> >> > I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
> >> > responsibility accurately.
> >>
> >> That is one of the things you get the most WRONG.
> >>
> >> > Admiral has many means at his disposal to
> >> > address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
> >> > thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
> >> > crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
> >> > refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.
> >>
> >> Immaterial, you proposed an illogical solution and I pointed it out.
> >
> > Like the eating disordered, you excluded the action and others and
> > placed me as the nexus point.
>
> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would anyone but
> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
>
> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
> > of the universe.
>
> You are the centre of *yours*.
>
> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
> > events and outcomes.
>
> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and share
> no responsibility in the death of the animal.

I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course, one
who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same way.