Request for comments - Tremere Trophy Hunters

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <opsti60206o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:16:57 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <opstht65fqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
>> writes:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:06:44 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> It makes me wonder how dishonest a person you must naturally be to be
>>>> automatically assuming such things, though.
>>>
>>> Maybe it has less to do with my honesty, and more to do with yours...
>>
>> Could you provide some concrete examples of Derek's dishonesty?
>
>Simple deduction.
>
>He reasoned that if I really think he is dishonest (in this particular
> example that he would create a nick just to post something he had no
> guts to post under his usual nick), then I must be dishonest myself.

No, he didn't say that, as can be seen from the quoted material. Just a
wonder. Perhaps you are confusing the "must" in "wonder how dishonest a
person you must naturally be" with "you must be a dishonest person".

The two phrases in English are quite different, with "must" performing a
somewhat different role grammatically.

>While I vehemently disagree with that chain of thought, I can respect
> this as his way of reasoning;

It is intellectually foolhardy to say "This reasoning is wrong, but I
shall use it myself because it happens to be convenient here."

Also, it is rather different to defend oneself when someone accuses you
of something that you know isn't true (because you know you aren't the
sock, and there is no evidence for you being the sock, so why is the
other person claiming this?) and to out-of-the-blue accuse someone of
sock-puppetry, with absolutely zero evidence.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:16:57 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <opstht65fqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:06:44 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> It makes me wonder how dishonest a person you must naturally be to be
>>> automatically assuming such things, though.
>>
>> Maybe it has less to do with my honesty, and more to do with yours...
>
> Could you provide some concrete examples of Derek's dishonesty?

Simple deduction.

He reasoned that if I really think he is dishonest (in this particular
example that he would create a nick just to post something he had no
guts to post under his usual nick), then I must be dishonest myself.

While I vehemently disagree with that chain of thought, I can respect
this as his way of reasoning; this, however, puts him in an inconvenient
position, because applying that same chain of thought to himself, having
accused me of dishonesty naturally makes him dishonest.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:08:47 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I also think the cap of "obsessed with Derek" fits you pretty well, too.

Oh, don't get flattered. The single most memorable thing on usenet in the
last few days was a great Assamite newsletter. There may have been other
stuff, but what I've actually read (based on what interests me) was
mostly just some fruitless back-and-forth. It's natural that I look for
more reliable entertainment. Reading your flames can be loads of fun...

> Do you REALLY think I'd waste time creating sock-puppet accounts for
> that sort of thing?

Well, I can't rule it out. I tend towards no though. But the fact that
you replied to my undirected post suggests that you have cause to
suspect someone might suspect it was you...

(I'd say I was just teasing you, but then I'd probably deprive myself
of your funny flames. So please, by all means, entertain us!)

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daneel wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:08:47 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I also think the cap of "obsessed with Derek" fits you pretty well, too.
>
> Oh, don't get flattered. The single most memorable thing on usenet in the

You know, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

....and right now, you're lookin' mighty white and feathery.

> last few days was a great Assamite newsletter. There may have been other
> stuff, but what I've actually read (based on what interests me) was
> mostly just some fruitless back-and-forth. It's natural that I look for
> more reliable entertainment. Reading your flames can be loads of fun...

Like I said... Obsessed. They make medication for this.

>> Do you REALLY think I'd waste time creating sock-puppet accounts for
>> that sort of thing?
>
> Well, I can't rule it out. I tend towards no though. But the fact that
> you replied to my undirected post suggests that you have cause to
> suspect someone might suspect it was you...

More evidence of your natural dishonesty... Considering you
basically came right out and said you thought it was me, I figure that's
plenty of cause to suspect you're just furthering your obsession.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCzRehtQZlu3o7QpERAk2NAJ9IBK79ukSFduiZL5VgVoGhzq69ZwCghj7t
RQ/yap0sGyHuHFBLHfkdYQE=
=LdFv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:19:21 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <opsthui2hgo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> But other people may consider that he is working on building a player
>> base (not lazy) and giving away decks for free to do this (not selfish).
>
> For free?
>
> No he isn't, he's putting them up on Ebay: <http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayI
> SAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5215606696>

That does not necessarily mean he isn't also giving them away for free.

I did not state that he did not attempt to sell those BWP decks. I merely
stated (based on Preston's posts) that he is giving away BWP decks for
free to build a VTES community. Selling those very decks on eBay
probably has little impact on his local community.

Mind you, I don't really KNOW that he gave the decks away locally. But
without an indication to the contrary, I have no reason to disbelieve
his recounts. Also, it would not be logical; even if motivated by a
desire to make some profit off his unused cards, building a community
is probably the best way to to that. I mean, it's not like the whole
collectible card game industry was based on principles of charity...

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 6 Jul 2005 10:19:05 -0700, <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote:

> Daneel wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2005 23:04:13 -0700, <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm curious about something. Is the below link the only thread in
>> which
>> > the Ash Heap folks have been talking about what an ass Derek is?
>>
>> I'm also curious how these never-before-seen nicks keep poppin' up when
>> someone wants to say something like this. This is not the first
>> time...
>
> Sorry. My name's John Eno, and I used to occasionally post here as
> Kushiel. There was a snafu involving my fiance's Google account and
> mine revolving around staying logged in and a shared computer, so I
> changed it to the current one.
>
> John Eno

I apologise for my post. I should've checked with google before implying
an accusation. Sorry...

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daneel wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2005 10:19:05 -0700, <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry. My name's John Eno, and I used to occasionally post here as
>> Kushiel. There was a snafu involving my fiance's Google account and
>> mine revolving around staying logged in and a shared computer, so I
>> changed it to the current one.
>>
>> John Eno
>
> I apologise for my post. I should've checked with google before implying
> an accusation. Sorry...

Apology accepted.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCzRh5tQZlu3o7QpERAulBAJ0T9IBtNYfrO3PKZ8O5b9Tx6hQpPACg0Sig
5/1T1V2dFXqV2vzlOoZ4hsg=
=b5xZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Frederick Scott wrote:
> The answer is clear: the account posting under the name of "Derek Ray" is a
> John Eno sock puppet. You just never know...

Yeah, my secret's out.

In response to why I thought that Daneel was accusing me of being a
secretly disguised Derek Ray, I hate having words put into my mouth.
Daneel didn't quite go that far, but it irked me that someone thought
that I'm, like, somebody's minion or something, when in fact I just
wanted to know if there are other threads over at the Ash Heap forums
that I'd somehow missed.

John Eno

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
> I apologise for my post. I should've checked with google before implying
> an accusation. Sorry...

Apology accepted. Just, y'know, don't go hunting for Derek Rays where
there aren't any.

John Eno

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:23:40 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <opsti60206o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:16:57 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <opstht65fqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
>>> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:06:44 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> It makes me wonder how dishonest a person you must naturally be to be
>>>>> automatically assuming such things, though.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it has less to do with my honesty, and more to do with yours...
>>>
>>> Could you provide some concrete examples of Derek's dishonesty?
>>
>> Simple deduction.
>>
>> He reasoned that if I really think he is dishonest (in this particular
>> example that he would create a nick just to post something he had no
>> guts to post under his usual nick), then I must be dishonest myself.
>
> No, he didn't say that, as can be seen from the quoted material. Just a
> wonder. Perhaps you are confusing the "must" in "wonder how dishonest a
> person you must naturally be" with "you must be a dishonest person".
>
> The two phrases in English are quite different, with "must" performing a
> somewhat different role grammatically.

Hairsplitting. The meaning of the phrase is clear.

"I wonder how stupid you must be to write something like this" is quite
the euphemism for "you are quite stupid for having written this".

Not sure about your motives, but it was a nice try anyway.

>> While I vehemently disagree with that chain of thought, I can respect
>> this as his way of reasoning;
>
> It is intellectually foolhardy to say "This reasoning is wrong, but I
> shall use it myself because it happens to be convenient here."

That is quite far from what I reasoned. Rereading it may help to grasp
the basics. I merely assumed that if someone uses a reasoning to draw
conclusions regarding someone else, that same reasoning must also
equally apply to him - according to his point of view, anyway.

> Also, it is rather different to defend oneself when someone accuses you
> of something that you know isn't true (because you know you aren't the
> sock, and there is no evidence for you being the sock, so why is the
> other person claiming this?) and to out-of-the-blue accuse someone of
> sock-puppetry, with absolutely zero evidence.

To sock the example into a clearer fasion:

A (Statement): I wonder if this is a sock.
B (Reply): If you accuse me of being a sock, you are a sock yourself.
A (Reasoning): If accusing someone of being a sock makes you a sock, then
according to your own reasoning, having just accused me of being a sock,
you must be a sock.

Hope that helps...

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daneel wrote:
> To sock the example into a clearer fasion:

You mean, to lie about the sequence of events? More dishonesty.

> A (Statement): I wonder if this is a sock.
> B (Reply): If you accuse me of being a sock, you are a sock yourself.

False. Actual reply:

If you accuse me of being a sock, you must be quite a liar, because I'm
not the sock and last time you accused me of this, I wasn't either.
Only a person who WOULD make a sock would automatically assume that an
unknown post was a sock.

> A (Reasoning): If accusing someone of being a sock makes you a sock, then
> according to your own reasoning, having just accused me of being a sock,
> you must be a sock.

Making, of course, this whole reasoning flawed and this final point
completely invalid.

Daneel: pwn3d again by reality.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCzRhUtQZlu3o7QpERAuI2AKDsq7jzEyon6BNoSRkD2VRyIF0ygQCg7DwK
vu2efIjVU8eNX2+mAEoIj1o=
=4RUP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:23:40 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> Also, it is rather different to defend oneself when someone accuses you
> of something that you know isn't true (because you know you aren't the
> sock, and there is no evidence for you being the sock, so why is the
> other person claiming this?) and to out-of-the-blue accuse someone of
> sock-puppetry, with absolutely zero evidence.

I'm also curious whether you consider yourself to be biased.

For you, it seems, Daneel's "I'm also curious how these never-before-seen
nicks keep poppin' up when someone wants to say something like this" is
quite equal to out-of-the-blue accusing Derek of sock-puppetry.

However, the reply of "It makes me wonder how dishonest a person you must
naturally be to be automatically assuming such things, though" is so
remarkably different from "I think you are dishonest because you wrote
this" that you actually go into the length of pointing this out.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

James Coupe wrote:
> In message <bumdndM38L1RPlDfRVn-ug@giganews.com>, Derek Ray
> <lorimer@yahoo.com> writes:
> >I, on the other hand, haven't accused anyone of being a sock, although I
> >know of at least two who post here on a regular basis. =)
>
> Uh-oh.
>
> You've found out about me and LSJ, haven't you? :-(
>
I thought it was common knowledge that you two were standard issue
Pentex Industries rules response droids.

LSJ is the Mark I, before they installed the pedantry and any emotion
chips. The Mark II Coupe version is less likley to generate sponaneous
correct responses but cracks under the slightest pressure when actually
playing the game. The Mark III Lasombrabot is widely regarded as the
best model to date. However, it has recently started to post Tremere
decks to discussion groups, immediately scotching rumors of it being
able to realistically act like a human.


MattGreen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:

> The problem, I think, is that you may actually see more copies of
> Restructure, Lure of the Serpent, Far Mastery, Entrancement, The
> Ercyes Fragments or similar cards than Carlton himself. This is
> heavily metagame-dependent, but if you do, you might be punching
> yourself in the nuts by playing him as a defence against himself.

Allies in general are hot right now, making all those cards pretty good
metagame calls for Ye Generic Tournament Environment.

P.S. You forgot to mention Kiss of Lachesis.

--

David Cherryholmes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:53:06 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Do you REALLY think I'd waste time creating sock-puppet accounts for
>>> that sort of thing?
>>
>> Well, I can't rule it out. I tend towards no though. But the fact that
>> you replied to my undirected post suggests that you have cause to
>> suspect someone might suspect it was you...
>
> More evidence of your natural dishonesty... Considering you
> basically came right out and said you thought it was me, I figure that's
> plenty of cause to suspect you're just furthering your obsession.

When did I actually say I thought it was you? Just curious...

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message newspstjwm7r2o6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:53:06 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> More evidence of your natural dishonesty... Considering you
>> basically came right out and said you thought it was me, I figure that's
>> plenty of cause to suspect you're just furthering your obsession.
>
> When did I actually say I thought it was you? Just curious...

Personally, I didn't see you saying you thought it was Derek. But John
Eno seemed to think so. ("So, now that we've hopefully cleared up that
Derek Ray's hand is not, in fact, up my ass,...") I was wondering what
that was about. I must have missed something somewhere along the line.

Fred

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:56:04 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daneel wrote:
>> To sock the example into a clearer fasion:
>
> You mean, to lie about the sequence of events? More dishonesty.
>
>> A (Statement): I wonder if this is a sock.
>> B (Reply): If you accuse me of being a sock, you are a sock yourself.
>
> False. Actual reply:
>
> If you accuse me of being a sock, you must be quite a liar, because I'm
> not the sock and last time you accused me of this, I wasn't either.
> Only a person who WOULD make a sock would automatically assume that an
> unknown post was a sock.

Same. So now you accuse me of being a "person who WOULD make a sock"
because you think I accused you of being a sock.

Note that I did not outright accuse anyone of anything. I was just
curious what will turn out of it. Seems like the cap seemed to fit
you; my implied accusation, though it wasn't directed at anyone,
seemed to hit you on the head. It seems that people who are as
verbal as you are about their honesty usually have something to
hide... Not really though, as we all have your posts to testify.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daneel wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:56:04 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Same. So now you accuse me of being a "person who WOULD make a sock"
> because you think I accused you of being a sock.

Now that you've falsely accused me of it twice, I DO think it's quite
likely that you would do so.

I, on the other hand, haven't accused anyone of being a sock, although I
know of at least two who post here on a regular basis. =)

> you; my implied accusation, though it wasn't directed at anyone,
> seemed to hit you on the head. It seems that people who are as

As you admit elsewhere and your past actions bear out, it was directed
at me. Hiding behind semantics is the sort of thing grade schoolers
try; in the grown-up, real world, it is typically met with deserved disdain.

Considering you've wrongly accused me of it in the past, it wasn't much
of a leap to figure you were yet again wrongly accusing me... just
another symptom of your...

Obsession.

Seek help, man.

> verbal as you are about their honesty usually have something to
> hide... Not really though, as we all have your posts to testify.

Yes, Mr. "I never break a deal." They DO have something to hide, don't
they? *smirk* Me, I break deals and everyone knows it.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCzaPKtQZlu3o7QpERAuxiAKC5avhlQLP6Y50L1g7V5aXRrpJCygCfcimU
GJgToa7bEEL+w8tkZmH9Q1w=
=yxfL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:56:41 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daneel wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2005 10:19:05 -0700, <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry. My name's John Eno, and I used to occasionally post here as
>>> Kushiel. There was a snafu involving my fiance's Google account and
>>> mine revolving around staying logged in and a shared computer, so I
>>> changed it to the current one.
>>>
>>> John Eno
>>
>> I apologise for my post. I should've checked with google before implying
>> an accusation. Sorry...
>
> Apology accepted.

I'm glad John was so quick to reply, but I'm not entirely sure why he chose
you as his messenger. Unless you are just lying, and have no real
knowledge
how he took my apology. Knowing you I have little doubt what it really
is...

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
newspstjw5hsio6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:56:41 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2005 10:19:05 -0700, <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry. My name's John Eno,
....
>>>
>>> I apologise for my post. I should've checked with google before implying
>>> an accusation. Sorry...
>>
>> Apology accepted.
>
> I'm glad John was so quick to reply, but I'm not entirely sure why he chose
> you as his messenger.

The answer is clear: the account posting under the name of "Derek Ray" is a
John Eno sock puppet. You just never know...

Fred

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daneel wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:56:41 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Daneel wrote:
>>
>>> I apologise for my post. I should've checked with google before implying
>>> an accusation. Sorry...
>>
>> Apology accepted.
>
> I'm glad John was so quick to reply, but I'm not entirely sure why he chose
> you as his messenger. Unless you are just lying, and have no real
> knowledge
> how he took my apology. Knowing you I have little doubt what it really
> is...

No, I consider your apology to John to be sufficient public admission of
your own wrongdoing. This serves as enough of an apology for my
purposes; I just wanted you to know that I saw your admission, and took
it as such.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCzaRetQZlu3o7QpERAk06AJ9nZ4Szm79fV3wAMs971+4Wab70HgCffUQw
X9g4lRb1lNhrMHtaoQMOLwI=
=qkfa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <bumdndM38L1RPlDfRVn-ug@giganews.com>, Derek Ray
<lorimer@yahoo.com> writes:
>I, on the other hand, haven't accused anyone of being a sock, although I
>know of at least two who post here on a regular basis. =)

Uh-oh.

You've found out about me and LSJ, haven't you? :-(

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James Coupe wrote:
> In message <bumdndM38L1RPlDfRVn-ug@giganews.com>, Derek Ray
> <lorimer@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>I, on the other hand, haven't accused anyone of being a sock, although I
>>know of at least two who post here on a regular basis. =)
>
> Uh-oh.
>
> You've found out about me and LSJ, haven't you? :-(

....Wrong kind of sock, James. Mind out of the gutter!

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCzat2tQZlu3o7QpERAnqnAJ4/zzY6kXvO320RM0F4bCuEkLUruACgosrr
FmojKgGlzODME1QkErQrVtI=
=CNEK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:11:19 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>
> "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> newspstjwm7r2o6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:53:06 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> More evidence of your natural dishonesty... Considering you
>>> basically came right out and said you thought it was me, I figure
>>> that's
>>> plenty of cause to suspect you're just furthering your obsession.
>>
>> When did I actually say I thought it was you? Just curious...
>
> Personally, I didn't see you saying you thought it was Derek. But John
> Eno seemed to think so. ("So, now that we've hopefully cleared up that
> Derek Ray's hand is not, in fact, up my ass,...") I was wondering what
> that was about. I must have missed something somewhere along the line.

I think this was because of Derek's reply to my implication-of-accusation
post. And the (main) reason why Derek replied was that back when the
Prophecies League was hot, a highly flammative post appeared by an
infrequent poster. I accused the poster of being Derek in disguise (he
was flaming 24-7 in various threads).

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 7 Jul 2005 11:04:37 -0700, <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote:

> Daneel didn't quite go that far, but it irked me that someone thought
> that I'm, like, somebody's minion or something, when in fact I just
> wanted to know if there are other threads over at the Ash Heap forums
> that I'd somehow missed.

Well, that's quite understandable. My only excuse is that I never really
caught your new nick (I remembered the old one, but did not know that
the apparently new nick was in fact an old timer.) Well that, and my
sometimes trollish posting habits...

--
Bye,

Daneel