Author: Pete Galati
Date: 11:28:55 03/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2001 at 11:21:22, Paul wrote: >On March 22, 2001 at 10:32:59, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On March 22, 2001 at 09:03:58, David Wilke wrote: >> >>>>You phoned yourself? Sorry David/Peter, like I said, you're not the least bit >>>>hidden using this alias. If you want to prove that you shipped that computer >>>>and it arrived at my house and that I signed for it, then that shouldn't be the >>>>least bit difficult to do. The reason I know for a fact that you can't do that >>>>is because I never received the computer. >>>> >>>>Pete >>> >>>The reason I am not the least bit hidden is due to the fact THAT I DON'T NEED TO >>>HIDE. >>> >>>I have no reason to. I didn't make a deal to sell a computer to you. Peter did. >>> >>>Is it that hard to believe that I am not him? What is the problem? >>> >>>You bring up writing styles, yet I see 20 other people that write like me. So >>>there is nothing there. You think I am him because I know and work with him. >>>Well everyone in our building has to be Peter then to. He must do this magical >>>morphing thing that we all just can't see. >>> >>>There is obviously _nothing_ that I can do to make you see that I am not Peter. >>>This is actually starting to piss me off. It only takes one idiot to ruin the >>>reputation of a person. You are doing exactly that to me. I can see how you need >>>to blame someone, hell I would do it to if someone ripped me off. Please, and I >>>am going to ask very nicely. PLEASE STOP REFERING TO ME AS PETER. >>> >>>I am a very different person than him. We have differnet lives, lifestyles, >>>interests, job positions, and hair color. If you think by my writing style that >>>I am Peter, then there is nothing I can do. I will not change my writing style >>>just to please you, or to get rid of this rediculous theory that you have. >>> >>>If anything I have been partially on your side; I did ask him to post the >>>shipping reciept on the web for everyone to see. I want to find out the truth >>>just as everyone else here does. As I stated in a reply to Chessfun that I think >>>both you and Peter are not giving up the whole truth on the matter. >>> >>>After this post I am simply going to ignore you if you continue on this course. >>>If you would like help in resolving this matter, I am more than willing to do >>>so. >>> >>>If you don't called me Peter one more time. >> >>This is exactly the same person. The same reactions and everything. He knows >>the arguement is lost, and then says "After this post I am simply going to >>ignore you", that's right out of the book of Peter Skinner. Same guy, same >>story. >> >>Pete > >I (and probably a lot of others) agree with you Pete: Skinner = Wilke and vice >versa. Skinner was a regular CCC poster from the 2nd of May 1999 until the 3rd >of January 2001. Then his posts suddenly stopped and guess what? The first post >of Wilke happened to be on ... January 4th of 2001. > >And then the soap of the 25th of February when one posted under the name of the >other ... that said it all I think. That was pretty funny watching him scramble to explain his mistake. > >I really hope "they" will get their act together again ... the only possible way >out of this unfortunate mess is for "them" to post a scanned image of the >receipt of delivery on a website (like Sarah and others have said) and take it >from there. I hope this won't take too long, shouldn't be too difficult. We are >all waiting for it to happen. > >Groetjes, >Paul That's the only thing that makes any sence at all. Scan the images, and upload them or email them to someone here, but it doesn't appear that he has anything to scan. Pete
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.