On Jan 17, 11:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:12:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Jan 17, 5:53 pm, Adam Hart  wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:55 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Jan 15, 10:42 am, David L  wrote:
>
> >> >> > Subscribers might find it interesting to see Pete's posting history
> >> >> > using this pseudonym.
>
> >> >> > Go to:http://groups.google.com/finda post by David L, click on
> >> >> > "View profile" next to the name at the top of the post
>
> >> >> > Best hurry before he cancels them all, like he did for many other
> >> >> > pseudonyms he has used over the years
>
> >> >> The trouble is David, when you get excited, upset and confused you
> >> >> start stuttering and making a bigger fool of yourself than usual.
>
> >> >> So pete is david and david is david so who's pete?
>
> >> >Another identity crisis, Pete? Not surprising given your sexual
> >> >proclivities, as revealed by those May 2004 posts to a multitude of
> >> >sex groups. You really ought to be more careful about which persona
> >> >posts to which group, if you don't want people (Angus apart) to know
> >> >your dark little secrets.
>
> >> I think it's you who has the identity crisis.  You seem to make up
> >> names as you go along.
>
> >Oh, really? What names would those be?
>
> Pete, for one.
>
>
>
> >> Who's John Howard Morgan other than a sloppy scientists who seems to
> >> go onto alt.telephone.sex while his computer illiterate wife keeps
> >> house.
>
> >There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
> >you obviously know better - as always.
>
> You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.

Well, you presumed wrongly, didn't you? Just like you presume wrongly
about everything to do with natural history and conservation.
>
> >Is it your's and Pete's private
> >website, or something? Here's what Google throws up:
>
> Who's Pete?
>
> >"No groups match alt.telephone.sex.
> >Suggestions:
>
> Did you make it up?
>
> >    - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
> >    - Try different keywords."
>
> >So, do you want to have another stab at it?
>
> Not particularly.  I think you made it up like most of what you seem
> to do.

If you wish to verify whether or not I am lying, search for the
profile of David L (aka too many names to list here) on "Google
Groups" Why do I think you won't bother doing that?

> >> Did the mayor know all about this before he asked you to stand as a
> >> councillor?  Or is he an alt.telephone.sex freak as well?
>
> >You'll need to ask him that, as I don't keep track of his personal
> >life.
>
> OK. What's his name and email address?

I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
privately without asking the address owner first

> >Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
> >when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
> >personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after the above
> >posting, you know.
>
> You've a vivid imagination.
>
> Pity it didn't improve your science.

If this means you are offering criticism of my recent paper, I suggest
you write a reasoned rebuttal and send it to the editor. That's the
way it's done.