On Jan 18, 5:53 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 11:44 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >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:
>
> ><snip>
> >> >> >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.
>
> >> So you made it up.
>
> >Nope. Just a senior moment during which the news group title I 'd
> >spotted in David L.'s "Profile" (aka Pete the Perve) was not correctly
> >stored in memory. Nice though, 'cos I was able to use this
> >recollection error to stuff one to you.
>
> No you didn't. You just made yourself look a fool.

Oh yes I did.  But I won't crow about it any longer 'cos it's not that
hard to stuff one to an easy target like you.

> >> Did you make up all your scientific nonsense as
> >> well?
>
> >You'll need to be more specific as there may be some old stuff that
> >has been superseded and therefore contains hypotheses no longer
> >supportable. That's how it works in science. There are no absolutes.
> >Doesn't mean it was made up, although it can look that way to 'hoi
> >polloi'
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >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?
>
> >> Not particularly interested if it's more of your trolling.
>
> >So if I tell you it's not trolling, will you go and look it up? Or
> >does the real Pete scare you a tad? You really ought to read some of
> >stuff he/she/it has posted to a shed load of dodgy sounding ngs.
> >Specially the pseudonyms he used at the time.
>
> Who's Pete?

See below

> ><snip>
>
> >> >I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
> >> >privately without asking the address owner first
>
> >> I don't mind giving out my address.  Do you yours?
>
> >Not at all. But there are people who clearly do - Pete the Perve for
> >one.
>
> Who's Pete?

Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know. I recognise that
you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.

> >> >> >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.
>
> >> What paper's that?
>
> >Do your own research. It's not difficult to find. I refuse to be a
> >self-publicist.
>
> >> Andrex?
>
> >Your obssesion with things excremental is becoming clearer.
>
> Answering your posts must be something to do with it.

Have you tried to stop. Oh, I forgot. You're obsessed.