"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2005 08:48:13 GMT, "Mark"
wrote:

.
." .
. . .Mike Vandeman wrote in
. . :
. . .
. . .Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical
. .interpretations.
. . .It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how
it
. .should
. . .be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done
.nothing
. .but
. . .insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop
the
. .act.
. . .
. . .Done. Later.
. . .
. . .Ikonicus
. . .1-202-518-1515
. . .415-203-1513
. .
. . Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously.
MAYBE.
. .
. .As you are someone with links to a cult, namely synanon, with a
history
.of
. .violent retribution against people disagreeing with them, I find it
. .interesting you constantly ask this same question, wanting personal
.details.
.
. I take it back. Stay as paranoid as you are.
.
.
.Paranoid?
.
.I think you fail to understand the meaning of that word, personally , I
.think its sensible not to give someone with obvious mental problems my
.personal details, the fact you have in the last couple of weeks, asked
.several people for thir names to go along with thier email and isp detail
.you get from headers is telling in itself.

Failure to give one's real name is a sure sign of dishonesty.

On what grounds do you make this statement?

Please show, with valid data from a peer reviewed , acknowledged expert that
people who dont include their personal details posting to usenet are more
dishonest than those that do.

Or is that another of your 'truths' that cant be proven because they simply
arent true?