On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:24:55 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 08:55:39 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 08:29:29 +1100, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Jeßus says...
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 08:11:28 +1100, Bruce >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article >, Dave Smith says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I didn't I was responding to someone about the psychotic
>>>> >> nymshifters who
>>>> >> has mentioned her and talked about her being bullied out of the group.
>>>> >
>>>> >I think she's quite resistant to bullying or she wouldn't have lasted so
>>>> >long. That's not a reason to bully her, of course.
>>>>
>>>> She wasn't ever bullied. Why are you so selective about who is and
>>>> isn't 'bullied' here on rfc? If I or anyone else posted half the stuff
>>>> she did, I'd be taken to task for it, and rightly so.
>>>
>>>The people who I've ever seen consistently being bullied here, are Julie
>>>by a group, and the victims of the troll just by the troll.
>>
>>Sorry, I still don't see any bullying towards Julie. She gets the
>>responses she deserves just like everyone else here.
>
>But then at some point it's time to totally ignore her, same as with
>any troll... ignoring her was the response she deserved. I don't
>believe she was driven from RFC because people were harranguing her
>(although a few did), she left when she finally realized that most
>people were ignoring her.

I ignored her for extended periods of time. Other times I chose not
to.

Anyway, why not reply to my response to your drunken rant yesterday?
Why is it you always somehow manage to stop replying to a thread after
you've made a fool of yourself?

In future, switch off your modem before reaching for the bottle.