> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Prakash
> >> Prakash
> > ROFL Bharat. The 'staged' exchange of responses between the two of you
> > may ever so slightly threaten Laurel and Hardy in comedy content but
> > definitely in the size of participants. So don't give up hope yet.
> Do yourself a favor. Don't embarass yourself any further. Do you seriously
> think Mike H and I "staged" this? You have a major case of hubris if you
> that you, or rsc for that matter, are important enough for us to plan this
Don't pretend Bharat. Both of you independently thought of the same
idea of signing in my name on the same day. You kid not. Are you really
so naive? Add another lie to your collection.
> If you even remotely the veteran of rsc that you claim to be (with your "you
> are well known for"..)
I never claimed I was a veteran so don't try to put your words in my
mouth. If you have thinking difficulties, that's your problem.
Don't just write "you are well known for" in quotes. Write the full
context because I don't know what you are claiming. IF YOU DON'T GIVE A
FEW OF THE EXACT LINKS of these quoted words ( hope you have figured
out what a quote means), you will once again be guilty of trying to
making up facts.
>you would know that MikeH very much marches to
> his own drummer -- and wouldn't stage-manage anything like this...
Why should I know? I don't know Mike as intimately as you definitely do
so I don't have a clue what you are speaking about.
> But that wouldn't have been worthwhile for me to follow up to this excuse
> for a newsgroup post, but for the following..
> > You will however have to work harder on how to apologise when you are
> > caught out on facts. And how to try not to lie (I fully realise how
> > tough this must be for you) - even when signing emails. I can well
> > understand how thoroughly embarrassed you feel by your recent emails to
> > me that you do not have the courage to write your your own name.
> > However, if you were even slightly more logical, even you MAY have
> > realised that your email address would give you away.
> I am hoping that by "email" you actually mean "post". I have not sent you
> email. I find it hard to believe that in this day an age, anyone -- even an
> internet newbie -- does not know the difference between an email and a
> newsgroup post.
Yes, I mean post. Apology for having got you so e***d with your first
success at finding a mistake. Hope you have a party to celebrate.
> Here's a clue. An email is a PRIVATE communication sent from one email
> to another (or many others). A newsgroup post is a PUBLIC communication
> posted on an (electronic) bulletin board. Normally, I wouldn't bother
> to this, but I want to categorically state that I have never sent you email.
> And, again -- if you had more than a few weeks experience on rsc, you would
> know that the above stuff -- posting under your own email address, and
> a post parodying someone else's style of writing and then signing the post
> their name is a well-established tradition on rsc. And if you jumped in
> just discovered the internet 3 weeks ago, are you really so clueless to
> think that
> I was actually trying to forge a post in your name? Or Mike H was?
Yes. Both were in a joint plan. Plain and simple.
> We posted (not emailed -- I would appreciate it, if you would understand the
> ABC's of netiquette before posting in future) -- we posted under our own
Don't play with words - or in your language - twist facts. You signed
in my name.
> so nobody with a modicum of intelligence (present company excepted)
Good you apologise for yourself.
> even think it was you that was posting. There was no attempt at subterfuge,
ROFL. Hope you believe it.
> simply a parody of your inimitable posting style..
Do you know what the word parody means? Do you know what the word
inimitable means? My dear friend, you are just confusing yourself by
using these contradictory words. Stick to simple words you actually
understand. As you seemed to possess a dictionary last time, why don't
you list the meanings of both words so that even you may understand. No
objection to you repeating it thrice to make sure you follow
> > On the other hand, it may be that you thought using my name would
> > automatically improve the quality of your email. It is definitely
> > better than your normal but my dear friend, try to be more accurate,
> > honest and logical in what you write. You may well think it is a tough
> > call but don't give up hope. I can see that there is a will but you
> > will just have to try harder because practice makes - or hopefully may
> > make in your case - perfect.
> Again, I did not send you email. Fun is fun -- but either you are a fool
> who doesn't know the difference between email and posts, or a liar, or
> someone has emailed you privately pretending to be me. If it is the
> last (which I doubt), then I didn't email you. PERIOD.
If you had more logic, you would know it is a typo. In fact you do but
pretend otherwise. Earlier in the post you have written and I quote:
"I am hoping that by "email" you actually mean "post".
And now he lies he doesn't know - or hopes. You really are a confused
person - but that is quite normal for a person who lies.
But that would be too much to expect honesty from somebody so e***d
at having actually found something to mitigate having being found out
cheating. Hope you are fully e***d.
> > Perhaps you will have the courage to be honest in your reply - if you
> > dare reply. But that would require massive courage.
> > So the real question is - Does Bharat have the courage to turn over a
> > new leaf and be honest? Time alone will tell whether you dare reply -
> > and whether you are honest, do not twist the facts and learn what is a
> > 'quote'. If you do, I may even think of 'heartily endorsing' your views
> > - flawed as they presently are - instead of Moin's :-)
> Before you accuse others of being dishonest, how about retracting the
> two blatant lies in your post (not email). The first lie being that I sent
> you email?
No, you did not send an email. Happy since you were hoping it was this
> The second that I impersonated you in some way, which is
> a serious accusation.
You did. You definitely impersonated me 'in some way' - and it is a
serious accusation since you say so.
>I have not done either of these things.
You have impersonated - and been caught.
> communications with you have been on rsc via posts that I posted using
> my own email handle.
And signed with my name. Always being deliberately incomplete to hide
> Ignorance of netiquette is no excuse. Read the newsgroup faq, watch
> how others post, and then post.. Wish it was compulsory for newbies
> to read these before posting...
Make up your confused mind - is it veteran or newbie? But I almost
forgot it is your normal style to buy red and black simultaneously in
roulette - and '0' and '00' as pointed out by you.
> "Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.
> "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al
> > The real Prakash
> > (not the imposter Bharat who posted above)
> You really really are deficient in internet IQ, if you think my post or
> Holman's post was an attempt at "impersonation". We USED OUR OWN
> EMAIL HANDLES -- do you understand the difference?
Yes, but b you signed in my name - do you understand the difference?
> On the other hand, why am I expecting someone who knows not the
> difference between public and private communication to understand
> anything about the internet.
> Fun is fun, but don't go around making baseless accusations.
There are no baseless accusations. You have twisted facts in various
postings in recent days. These have been listed out and you have been
caught cheating. If you claim you don't know, I will list them out for
your pleasure again. Agree to reply if you claim that you haven't been
You have now also signed a post in my name. As stated, I wrongly wrote
'emails' instead of 'posts' and you yourself stated that you hoped it
Now that has been cleared up, explain all your lies where you twisted
facts in your recent POSTS. You can start with your claim of ''until
Dravid fell ill, all the hoo-haa was
about Ganguly not being in the XI." I even asked you whether it was a
typo and you ignored my comment.
Or just run away happy at having caught a typo - and not apologise.
And remember, GIVE A FEW INSTANCES where I have used the exact words
quoted by you of "you are well known for". Or you will look even a more
childish liar who makes up things but gets truly thrilled at catching
typos, the meanings of which you yourself have guessed.