Re: I am who I am

On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:17:54 +0800, Jim Walsh
<jimNOwalsSPAMh3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:31:04 +0800, Good soldier wrote
>(in article <aijk24965f8oip39q22cakt7t23kp9hsjc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:01:57 +0800, Jim Walsh
>> <jimNOwalsSPAMh3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:02:33 +0800, Good soldier wrote
>>> (in article <msvi24h2kl5325pkti8rr2u7bpl97t5iqt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting you should post the comment "Call me or email me, if you
doubt 
>>>> it". I did email you using both the From: address and the Reply to: 
>>>> address 
>>>> shown in your posts. Of course there was no response.
>>> 
>>> if you emailed me at jimwalsh3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 then I would have received
it. 
>>> Since I didn't, you didn't.
>> 
>> You are being very obtuse. 
>
>My email address is plain for all to see. Since I have not received email

>from you, you have not used it. I have received lots of email from other 
>posters over the years.


I've told you enough times - you have two different email addresses
which are included in the heading of your usenet messages. Both of
which are false, fake, use whatever word you wish, but you cannot be
contacted using these addresses. 

I do not understand while still using fake email addresses in the
heading of your posts, you keep rabbeting on about your "real"
address. Why isn't it a part of your message header?


Cheers,

schweik
(Correct Address is goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)