Re: I am who I am

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. You post messages that includes two email
addresses. A From: address and a Reply To: address.

The From: address is "jimNOwalsSPAMh3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
The Reply To: address is "JimNOwalsSPAMh3REALLY@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"

I sent an email to both of these addresses; with no reply. When I
mention that there was no answer from these addresses - a part of your
usual posting, and in fact a part of the very message I am replying to
here - you come up with another address.

In short, in your normal posts you identify yourself in two different,
and false, ways and if someone questions it you immediately come up
with yet another identification. How many of these fake identities do
you have?

And, as you are still using not one but two false email addresses in
your current messages don't you think it is a bit hypocritical to
object to other posters for doing the same thing. 

Or, are you like another poster we have here in sct who appears to
believe that everything he writes was carried down from the mountain
on tablets of stone while anyone who disagrees with him is
automatically wrong?

Cheers,

schweik
(Correct Address is goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)