FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

In article . com>,
wrote:
>Victor Sack wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > Wrong thread for that sort of discussion. It's a call for votes, not a
>> > call for whingers to moan and groan about being ignored becuase their
>> > objections aren't being agreed with. Nothing flew over my head other
>> > than your need to go on and on and on about something that is obviuosly
>> > outside your bounds of control. Do you like to be controlling and hate
>> > it when things don't go your way?
>>
>> I'm arguing my case in the only thread that is relevant to it. Are you
>> trying to be controlling of what and where people post? What a hypocrite!
>>
>> > > It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about.
>> > > What an unprincipled decision!
>> >
>> > What's more unethical than hijacking a thread about a new aus food
>> > group to rant and rave about your feelings on the whole aus hierarchy?
>>
>> Hijacking a thread, indeed! Any thread about any new group in an
>> administrative newsgroup is almost by definition about the whole
>> hierarchy too, when there are issues that obviously touch the whole.
>> Duh!
>>
>> > You're allowed your opinion and yes, you've made it perfectly clear
>> > many, many times. Have you thought about the negative impact that it
>> > could have on other posters attitude toward the subject? Feh, talk
>> > about principles.
>>
>> Why, yes, one posts one's opinion to have a negative or positive or
>> neutral impact, as the case may be. Else why post at all? Have I had
>> such a negative impact on you? Has your attitude toward the subject
>> suffered a lot? Oh, the poor, poor attitude! And such a touchy concern
>> for those hapless sheep (other posters) who cannot even form their own
>> opinion! You wouldn't know principles if they hit your on the head.
>
>And there lies the rub. other posters are just hapless sheep? You're

Rather missed the point of that didn't ya, mate!

ROTFLMAO

>opnion of yourself is vastly over inflated. I wouldn't know principles
>if they hit me on the head? What are you blithering on about man?
>
>FYI I was pointing out that by posting over and over and over again
>with the same whiney attitude that you would have a negative impact on
>those who were understanding of your cause. Now by posting such inane
>diatribe you've cemented those 'hapless sheep's thoughts (even though
>they can't 'form their own opinion') into voting for this NG. I've seen
>a couple of posts mentioning this because of your 'attitude'. Which, by
>the way, sucks. Big Time.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID