Lay off the Pizza Guys
Cainman
""Doc"" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:KyG49.1004$cg7.99...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> LOL!
>
> Too true Dean, too true. You get to know the neighborhood really well as
a
> pizza guy and everyone on staff knows when a no-tip run(s) comes up.
These
> poor jackasses who don't tip...............they wonder why it always takes
> so long for their pizza to arrive and then complain. Shit. Try a buck
next
> time and see how much quicker the service is!
>
> I'd come back off a run on a BUSY Friday night and have to leave the store
> with 10 deliveries. I delivered them in order of who tipped the best
> regardless of how old the orders were. I'd deliver a 15-minute old
5-dollar
> tip run before a 45 minute old no-tip run. The good tippers got their
pizza
> first, the no-tippers last. And the no tippers got the "free toppings" at
> no extra charge! And for the extra special no-tip ignoramouses, well,
lets
> just say they THOUGHT they were eating sausage chunks. ;-)
Admission of being a fucKKKheaded pizza boy noted. Please never post to
APDD again ever.
>
> Take er' easy!
>
> Doc
>
> "Dean Dardwin" <d...@dxd.com> wrote in message
> news:3D532731...@dxd.com...
> > Doc,
> >
> > I bought a new car with my pizza money... and the punks who didn't
> > tip... well let's just say the next time they got a sample of my DNA as
> > an extra "topping"!
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > \"Doc\" wrote:
> >
> > >To everyone who has been insulting the pizza delivery guys from this
post
> > >and on,
> > >
> > >Leave them ALONE and find someone else to project your social and
> > >intellectual inadequacies on. Without these guys you all would have to
> get
> > >off your lazy, socially deplorable asses and get the pizza yourself.
> Heaven
> > >forbid you would have to pry yourselves away from your pathetic,
> meaningless
> > >internet hobby of ripping on people to get some food.
> > >
> > >What the hell is so bad about delivering pizzas anyways? I delivered
> pizzas
> > >during my undergraduate and graduate years in college and made good
money
> > >doing so. With tips I averaged about $15 an hour AFTER gas costs. On
a
> > >good night I'd walk outta there with $200 cash. Delivering pizzas paid
> all
> > >of my room and board plus even some tuition so I didn't have to take
out
> > >quite so many student loans. On that topic, gas prices ARE of huge
> concern
> > >to not only delivery drivers but the delivery INDUSTRY as a whole.
Ever
> > >take your heads out of your asses long enough to think about the truck
> > >drivers who go through hundreds of gallons of diesel a week and what
> > >ever-increasing gas prices are doing to their ability to put food on
> their
> > >family's table? Probably not.
> > >
> > >Why don't you take all of your insultive energy and insult someone who
> > >really deserves it, like all the welfare sucking bums who refuse to
work
> > >because they're too lazy to do so? Oh, I'm sorry, you can't, you'd be
> > >insulting yourselves from the sounds of it.
> > >
> > >BTW, next time you get a laugh out of being ignorant and rude to the
> pizza
> > >guy and think it's funny to not give him a tip, think of what he'll do
to
> > >your food before you get it next time. Jackasses. I hope they shit in
> your
> > >pizza.
> > >
> > >Doc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
"Doc"
1) I'll post wherever and whenever I please. I haven't violated any USENET
rules or any of my ISP's AUP and there's absolutely nothing you can do to
keep me from posting in the future. Calling someone a f**khead then asking
them to "please never post again" isn't too convincing. The F-bomb and the
word please don't really do too well together. It's a public forum pal.
2) If you don't want outsiders chiming in on your ng, tell the jackass
(checkmate) who originally crossposted to not do so in the future. This guy
is a real maggot and we've been trying to rid ourselves of him for weeks.
This string ORIGINALLY started in a truck newsgroup as a conversation on
Mobil 1 motor oil and how it increases fuel economy. Why the moron felt he
had to crosspost to APDD and alt.clubs.just-for-fun is beyond me.
Take er' easy!
Doc
Julia Roberts' Teeth
"\"Doc\"" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
You expect us to believe that a thread titled "Lay off the Pizza Guys"
originated in a truck group? What drugs are you taking man?
Anyway, do you have any pizza delivery to discuss, abuser?
>
> Take er' easy!
>
> Doc
--
This message is encrypted with ROT-26 technology.
"Doc"
idiot news:100820021029345764%sp...@blocker.address...
> In article <z1a59.1496$PJ2.11...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> You expect us to believe that a thread titled "Lay off the Pizza Guys"
> originated in a truck group? What drugs are you taking man?
>
> Anyway, do you have any pizza delivery to discuss, abuser?
Dumbass,
The thread originated as "Dean, Doc...." in a truck newsgroup. Check the
message headers. It was a question about Mobil 1 oil. UID checkmate
crossposted to APDD and just-for fun which you can also see in the message
headers. I changed the message title when I got sick of people ripping on
the pizza guys.
Next time, do your research before you call someone a drug abuser and try to
be just a tad bit more intelligent in future correspondence eh? Jackass.
Doc
Julia Roberts' Teeth
"\"Doc\"" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> "Julia Roberts' Teeth" <sp...@blocker.address> babbled like a blithering
> idiot news:100820021029345764%sp...@blocker.address...
> > In article <z1a59.1496$PJ2.11...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>
> > You expect us to believe that a thread titled "Lay off the Pizza Guys"
> > originated in a truck group? What drugs are you taking man?
> >
> > Anyway, do you have any pizza delivery to discuss, abuser?
>
> Dumbass,
>
> The thread originated as "Dean, Doc...." in a truck newsgroup. Check the
> message headers. It was a question about Mobil 1 oil. UID checkmate
> crossposted to APDD and just-for fun which you can also see in the message
> headers. I changed the message title when I got sick of people ripping on
> the pizza guys.
>
> Next time, do your research before you call someone a drug abuser
Whoosh
<falls over>
Lurker Below
wrote:
>Dumbass,
That would be asking a lot of the entity known as "Julia Roberts'
Teeth" aka Dimwiddy. Logic does not penetrate it's thick skull, nor
does illogic. The entity exists to cause hate and discord.
--
KissAss threatens Assault & Battery in <3a2eadb1...@news.alt.net>
"Depending on your attitude would determine if I shoved your Maglite
up your ass."
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:42:09 GMT, "\"Doc\"" <som...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Julia Roberts' Teeth" <sp...@blocker.address> babbled like a blithering
> >idiot news:100820021029345764%sp...@blocker.address...
> >> In article <z1a59.1496$PJ2.11...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>
> >> You expect us to believe that a thread titled "Lay off the Pizza Guys"
> >> originated in a truck group? What drugs are you taking man?
>
> >> Anyway, do you have any pizza delivery to discuss, abuser?
>
> >Dumbass,
>
> >The thread originated as "Dean, Doc...." in a truck newsgroup. Check the
> >message headers. It was a question about Mobil 1 oil. UID checkmate
> >crossposted to APDD and just-for fun which you can also see in the message
> >headers. I changed the message title when I got sick of people ripping on
> >the pizza guys.
>
> >Next time, do your research before you call someone a drug abuser and try to
> >be just a tad bit more intelligent in future correspondence eh? Jackass.
>
> That would be asking a lot of the entity known as "Julia Roberts'
> Teeth" aka Dimwiddy. Logic does not penetrate it's thick skull, nor
> does illogic. The entity exists to cause hate and discord.
bwahaha
What the fuck are you trying to say, Lurker Below AKA Lick or Blow AKA
Captain Cadaver AKA dildo bottom AKA corpsefucker?
<notices the two extra groups in the headers>
Are you a rasslin kook?
Lurker Below
wrote:
>In article <qpdalukga70e7loj9...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:42:09 GMT, "\"Doc\"" <som...@nowhere.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Julia Roberts' Teeth" <sp...@blocker.address> babbled like a blithering
>> >idiot news:100820021029345764%sp...@blocker.address...
>> >> In article <z1a59.1496$PJ2.11...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>>
>> >> You expect us to believe that a thread titled "Lay off the Pizza Guys"
>> >> originated in a truck group? What drugs are you taking man?
>>
>> >> Anyway, do you have any pizza delivery to discuss, abuser?
>>
>> >Dumbass,
>>
>> >The thread originated as "Dean, Doc...." in a truck newsgroup. Check the
>> >message headers. It was a question about Mobil 1 oil. UID checkmate
>> >crossposted to APDD and just-for fun which you can also see in the message
>> >headers. I changed the message title when I got sick of people ripping on
>> >the pizza guys.
>>
>> >Next time, do your research before you call someone a drug abuser and try to
>> >be just a tad bit more intelligent in future correspondence eh? Jackass.
>>
>> That would be asking a lot of the entity known as "Julia Roberts'
>> Teeth" aka Dimwiddy. Logic does not penetrate it's thick skull, nor
>> does illogic. The entity exists to cause hate and discord.
>
>bwahaha
You laugh like an Evil Overlord Wanna Be.
>
>What the fuck are you trying to say, Lurker Below AKA Lick or Blow AKA
>Captain Cadaver AKA dildo bottom AKA corpsefucker?
Sticks and stones, Dimwiddy. Sticks and stones.
>
><notices the two extra groups in the headers>
>
>Are you a rasslin kook?
I neither wrestle or watch "wrestling." nor am I a "kook," unlike you.
--
"Okay, I *am* a weirdo."
"Alex Cain in <3A763D...@yahoo.com>
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
Stop watching cartoons. You're a grown man now.
> >
> >What the fuck are you trying to say, Lurker Below AKA Lick or Blow AKA
> >Captain Cadaver AKA dildo bottom AKA corpsefucker?
>
> Sticks and stones, Dimwiddy. Sticks and stones.
Stop behaving like a child, dildo. It's unbecoming.
> >
> ><notices the two extra groups in the headers>
> >
> >Are you a rasslin kook?
>
> I neither wrestle or watch "wrestling."
Then what was the point of x-posting this to RSPW?
> nor am I a "kook," unlike you.
However, nobody else agrees with you.
- remove !@#$&change$tos William R. Walsh
Don't you both think that's just a teensy, weensy, eeensy, little bit
disgusting?
You would kind of be sinking to the level of the non tippers if you "edited"
their pizzas the way you suggested. Sheesh. Makes me wonder what "else"
might have been in my pizzas over the years...good thing I've always tipped.
William
Julia Roberts' Teeth
Unfortunately, it's par for the course with pizzaboys.
Lurker Below
<sp...@blocker.address> whinged:
I don't have a TV. I don't watch cartoons.
>> >What the fuck are you trying to say, Lurker Below AKA Lick or Blow AKA
>> >Captain Cadaver AKA dildo bottom AKA corpsefucker?
>>
>> Sticks and stones, Dimwiddy. Sticks and stones.
>
>Stop behaving like a child. It's unbecoming.
Says the guy calling others silly names...
>> ><notices the two extra groups in the headers>
>> >
>> >Are you a rasslin kook?
>> I neither wrestle or watch "wrestling."
>Then what was the point of x-posting this to RSPW?
So your audience can get a load of how easily you are led around on
your leash, yap doggie.
>> nor am I a "kook," unlike you.
>
>However, nobody else agrees with you.
No one at all?
That's a tall burden of proof for you, Pom.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> I don't have a TV.
That's because pizza-bois can't afford cable, or a TV larger than a
19''. If I had to choose between the internet and my TVs, the TVs
would stay.
Lurker Below
LOL
I have two *cars* you ignorant fuckwit - and a motorcycle. you think I
can't afford a fucking TV?
DABŠ
giggle sounds pretty Jiffy to me! BTW Jiffy is the nickname a group of
the nastiest meanest foulmouthed, stanky Usenet Trolls felt the need to
bestow on us as in the Just For Fun Club and what brought their
attention to us you may ask? Well we was happy little clams posting
html and of course Top Posting when one of our most talented and
treasured posters [Manny from Hawaii ] unknowing..........[so He says]
replied to a post that was crossposted to some of the more interesting
new groups on Usenet.......alt.romath and some Usenet abuse group. The
rest is history.
http://www.just-for-fun-club.net and yes I did all the decorating
myself<G>
>
> Take er' easy!
We do and any which way we can!
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>On 10 Aug 2002 21:25:46 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>> I don't have a TV.
>
>>That's because pizza-bois can't afford cable, or a TV larger than
>>a 19''. If I had to choose between the internet and my TVs, the
>>TVs would stay.
>
> LOL
>
> I have two *cars* you ignorant fuckwit - and a motorcycle. you
> think I can't afford a fucking TV?
You said it, I didn't. I said you can't afford cable, but now that you
mention it...
No, I do not think you can afford a TV.
Lurker Below
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>On 10 Aug 2002 21:25:46 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>> I don't have a TV.
>>>That's because pizza-bois can't afford cable, or a TV larger than
>>>a 19''. If I had to choose between the internet and my TVs, the
>>>TVs would stay.
>> LOL
>> I have two *cars* you ignorant fuckwit - and a motorcycle. you
>> think I can't afford a fucking TV?
>You said it, I didn't. I said you can't afford cable,
That's not all you said, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>but now that you mention it...
>No, I do not think you can afford a TV.
Which statement proves that you are an ignorant fuckwit, Ignorant
Fuckwit.
--
Jason Crowell shows he doesn't know anything about spam in
<MPG.149bb1fe9...@news.iquest.net>
"The BI ... has to reach 20 before it's spam..."
ScottZf
>On 11 Aug 2002 14:14:59 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>>On 10 Aug 2002 21:25:46 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>>>> I don't have a TV.
>
>>>>That's because pizza-bois can't afford cable, or a TV larger than
>>>>a 19''. If I had to choose between the internet and my TVs, the
>>>>TVs would stay.
>
>>> LOL
>
>>> I have two *cars* you ignorant fuckwit - and a motorcycle. you
>>> think I can't afford a fucking TV?
>
>>You said it, I didn't. I said you can't afford cable,
>
> That's not all you said, Ignorant Fuckwit.
I said that you cannot afford cable TV or a TV larger than 19". I
stand corrected, for as I state below I don't believe you can afford
one at all.
>
>>but now that you mention it...
>
>>No, I do not think you can afford a TV.
>
> Which statement proves that you are an ignorant fuckwit, Ignorant
> Fuckwit.
I don't know. Tell me which statement does.
Lurker Below
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 11 Aug 2002 14:14:59 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>>>On 10 Aug 2002 21:25:46 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>>>>> I don't have a TV.
>>
>>>>>That's because pizza-bois can't afford cable, or a TV larger than
>>>>>a 19''. If I had to choose between the internet and my TVs, the
>>>>>TVs would stay.
>>
>>>> LOL
>>
>>>> I have two *cars* you ignorant fuckwit - and a motorcycle. you
>>>> think I can't afford a fucking TV?
>>
>>>You said it, I didn't. I said you can't afford cable,
>>
>> That's not all you said, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>
>I said that you cannot afford cable TV or a TV larger than 19". I
>stand corrected, for as I state below I don't believe you can afford
>one at all.
Do you seriously believe that a person with two cars *and* a
motorcycle can't afford a TV at all?
You're absolutely nuts.
>>
>>>but now that you mention it...
>>
>>>No, I do not think you can afford a TV.
>>
>> Which statement proves that you are an ignorant fuckwit, Ignorant
>> Fuckwit.
>
>I don't know. Tell me which statement does.
It's not a question, Ignorant Fuckwit.
--
Taylor NetScum Relates His Crimes In <e01t2tcpf911m9vc3...@4ax.com>
"As usual, I let the dogs loose and count how many times the pizza boy
trips as he runs for the gate."
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2002 18:08:11 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
> >"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
> >
> >>On 11 Aug 2002 14:14:59 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
> >>>alt.usenet.kooks:
> >>
> >>>>On 10 Aug 2002 21:25:46 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
> >>>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
> >>
> >>>>>> I don't have a TV.
> >>
> >>>>>That's because pizza-bois can't afford cable, or a TV larger than
> >>>>>a 19''. If I had to choose between the internet and my TVs, the
> >>>>>TVs would stay.
> >>
> >>>> LOL
> >>
> >>>> I have two *cars* you ignorant fuckwit - and a motorcycle. you
> >>>> think I can't afford a fucking TV?
> >>
> >>>You said it, I didn't. I said you can't afford cable,
> >>
> >> That's not all you said, Ignorant Fuckwit.
> >
> >I said that you cannot afford cable TV or a TV larger than 19". I
> >stand corrected, for as I state below I don't believe you can afford
> >one at all.
>
> Do you seriously believe that a person with two cars *and* a
> motorcycle can't afford a TV at all?
Considering that he originally said you couldn't afford *CABLE* or a
larger than 19" TV, and the fact that you replied with "I have two
*cars* you ignorant fuckwit - and a motorcycle. you think I can't
afford a fucking TV?" I think it's pretty obvious that you can't afford
a TV. You gave yourself away, and everyone knows it.
>
> You're absolutely nuts.
> >>
> >>>but now that you mention it...
> >>
> >>>No, I do not think you can afford a TV.
> >>
> >> Which statement proves that you are an ignorant fuckwit, Ignorant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Fuckwit.
^^^^^^^^
> >
> >I don't know. Tell me which statement does.
>
> It's not a question, Ignorant Fuckwit.
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak
Then what the fuck was the mangled underlined string of words supposed
to be?
Lurker Below
Free Clue: I have no car (or motorcycle) payments.
Do you seriously think that a person who has the proven ability to pay
for vehicles doesn't have the ability to buy a TV?
>> You're absolutely nuts.
>> >>
>> >>>but now that you mention it...
>> >>
>> >>>No, I do not think you can afford a TV.
>> >>
>> >> Which statement proves that you are an ignorant fuckwit, Ignorant
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> Fuckwit.
> ^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >I don't know. Tell me which statement does.
>>
>> It's not a question, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>
>bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak
Maybe you ought to have that looked at, Dimwiddy.
>
>Then what the fuck was the mangled underlined string of words supposed
>to be?
"Which statement proves..." roughly equals "Your statement proves..."
It's not a question, it's a statement.
HTH
HAND
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:29:59 -0500, Math Challenged Dimwiddy
><sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>
>>In article <t6adluk8op1u78nnj...@4ax.com>, "Lurker
>>Below" <lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 Aug 2002 18:08:11 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>> >alt.usenet.kooks:
<snip>
>
> Free Clue: I have no car (or motorcycle) payments.
So you paid $300 cash for a 1974 Gremlin and Pacer, and a scooter. Big
fucking deal.
>
> Do you seriously think that a person who has the proven ability to
> pay for vehicles doesn't have the ability to buy a TV?
Yep, as you have proven nothing. You claim to not have a TV, and claim
to have two "cars" and a "motorcycle." Those claims are about as valid
as your dream theories.
<snippity-snip>
>>> >> Which statement proves that you are an ignorant fuckwit,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> >> Ignorant
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>> >> Fuckwit.
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>> >
>>> >I don't know. Tell me which statement does.
>>>
>>> It's not a question, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>>
>>bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak
>
> Maybe you ought to have that looked at, Dimwiddy.
>>
>>Then what the fuck was the mangled underlined string of words
>>supposed to be?
>
> "Which statement proves..." roughly equals "Your statement
> proves..." It's not a question, it's a statement.
Uh, huh. Caught in a lie again, and back-pedalling at the speed of
light. Why didn't you say "your" instead of "which?" No, don't answer
that. It was rhetorical. (But of course you will, because for some
silly reason you think you have to prove something to the one or two
people still on your side, that support you in email.)
Lurker Below
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:29:59 -0500, Math Challenged Dimwiddy
>><sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <t6adluk8op1u78nnj...@4ax.com>, "Lurker
>>>Below" <lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11 Aug 2002 18:08:11 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>> >alt.usenet.kooks:
>
><snip>
>>
>> Free Clue: I have no car (or motorcycle) payments.
>So you paid $300 cash for a 1974 Gremlin and Pacer, and a scooter.
Um, no. A Tempo, an Accord and a V65 Magna.
>Big fucking deal.
And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
>> Do you seriously think that a person who has the proven ability to
>> pay for vehicles doesn't have the ability to buy a TV?
>
>Yep, as you have proven nothing. You claim to not have a TV, and claim
>to have two "cars" and a "motorcycle." Those claims are about as valid
>as your dream theories.
LOL
Just so that you understand that your claims have an equal amount of
weighting.
><snippity-snip>
>
>>>> >> Which statement proves that you are an ignorant fuckwit,
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> >> Ignorant
>>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>> >> Fuckwit.
>>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>> >
>>>> >I don't know. Tell me which statement does.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a question, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>>>
>>>bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak
>>
>> Maybe you ought to have that looked at, Dimwiddy.
>>>
>>>Then what the fuck was the mangled underlined string of words
>>>supposed to be?
>>
>> "Which statement proves..." roughly equals "Your statement
>> proves..." It's not a question, it's a statement.
>
>Uh, huh. Caught in a lie again, and back-pedalling at the speed of
>light. Why didn't you say "your" instead of "which?"
It's a colloquialism.
Yeesh.
>No, don't answer that. It was rhetorical.
Kissem me toukis.
>(But of course you will, because for some
>silly reason you think you have to prove something to the one or two
>people still on your side, that support you in email.)
?!?
Have you tried e-mailing the e-mail address?
Stiff Me Alot
<lur...@below.nospam>wrote:
>Free Clue: I have no car (or motorcycle) payments.
So you paid them off years ago.
>Do you seriously think that a person who has the proven ability to pay
>for vehicles doesn't have the ability to buy a TV?
Sure, happens every day. Someone could have been making adequate wages
to buy a couple cars and a bike ten years ago. But things happen, they
could have lost their job and weere forced to become a pizzaboy like
you. And your old TV blows up. So because pizzaboys make moron wages,
you don't have enough money to buy food for the kids, make the trailer
payment, electircity and other utilities and afford to go out and buy
a TV.. You live paycheck to paycheck. Happens all the time, pizzaboy.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>On 11 Aug 2002 19:36:32 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
>>Uh, huh. Caught in a lie again, and back-pedalling at the speed
>>of light. Why didn't you say "your" instead of "which?"
>
> It's a colloquialism.
>
> Yeesh.
Like "Maurice Ronald?"
>
>>No, don't answer that. It was rhetorical.
>
> Kissem me toukis.
>
>>(But of course you will, because for some
>>silly reason you think you have to prove something to the one or
>>two people still on your side, that support you in email.)
>
> ?!?
"The lurkers support me in email." I know it is more obscure than the
crickets chirping thing, so I shouldn't have taxed your little brain
with it.
>
> Have you tried e-mailing the e-mail address?
I haven't even bothered to look at it. Are you telling me that you
have no email address at all? That must be some cheap internet
account you have. Then why are you bothering to put a spam block on
it?
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>On 11 Aug 2002 19:36:32 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>> Free Clue: I have no car (or motorcycle) payments.
>
>>So you paid $300 cash for a 1974 Gremlin and Pacer, and a scooter.
>
> Um, no. A Tempo, an Accord and a V65 Magna.
OK, a $300 Tempo, Accord, and V65. Big fucking deal.
>
>>Big fucking deal.
>
> And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
>
I know, and even bigger than 19". Pretty sad when you can't afford
one.
Judge Roy Bean
Huh? Is yous trying to get free pizza or a can of Mobil 1 motor oil outa these guys?
Lurker Below
I noticed that you snipped out everything that you'd lost decisively -
like the $300 TV. I even kept the Sunday ads, so I could post proof if
you had been so St00pid as to call me on it.
Oh, well.
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 11 Aug 2002 19:36:32 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Uh, huh. Caught in a lie again, and back-pedalling at the speed
>>>of light. Why didn't you say "your" instead of "which?"
>>
>> It's a colloquialism.
>>
>> Yeesh.
>
>Like "Maurice Ronald?"
"Maurice Ronald" is word play.
>>
>>>No, don't answer that. It was rhetorical.
>>
>> Kissem me toukis.
>>
>>>(But of course you will, because for some
>>>silly reason you think you have to prove something to the one or
>>>two people still on your side, that support you in email.)
>>
>> ?!?
>
>"The lurkers support me in email." I know it is more obscure than the
>crickets chirping thing, so I shouldn't have taxed your little brain
>with it.
>>
>> Have you tried e-mailing the e-mail address?
>
>I haven't even bothered to look at it. Are you telling me that you
>have no email address at all? That must be some cheap internet
>account you have.
I have an e-mail address. I just don't post it here. You know, like
Dimwiddy doesn't post his real address.
>Then why are you bothering to put a spam block on it?
It's not there for spam-blocking, Ignorant Fuckwit.
Lurker Below
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 11 Aug 2002 19:36:32 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>
>>>> Free Clue: I have no car (or motorcycle) payments.
>>
>>>So you paid $300 cash for a 1974 Gremlin and Pacer, and a scooter.
>>
>> Um, no. A Tempo, an Accord and a V65 Magna.
>
>OK, a $300 Tempo, Accord, and V65.
PPOR.
>Big fucking deal.
>>
>>>Big fucking deal.
>>
>> And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
>>
>I know, and even bigger than 19". Pretty sad when you can't afford
>one.
You lie so easily. No wonder no one trusts you. I can afford a TV,
Lurker Below
<Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>On 11 Aug 2002 14:15:17 -0500, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam>wrote:
>
>>Free Clue: I have no car (or motorcycle) payments.
>
>So you paid them off years ago.
>
>>Do you seriously think that a person who has the proven ability to pay
>>for vehicles doesn't have the ability to buy a TV?
>
>Sure, happens every day. Someone could have been making adequate wages
>to buy a couple cars and a bike ten years ago. But things happen, they
>could have lost their job and weere forced to become a pizzaboy like
>you. And your old TV blows up. So because pizzaboys make moron wages,
Wishing will not make it so. Š
>you don't have enough money to buy food for the kids, make the trailer
>payment, electircity and other utilities and afford to go out and buy
>a TV.. You live paycheck to paycheck. Happens all the time, pizzaboy.
<shrug>
Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>On 11 Aug 2002 20:40:37 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
> I noticed that you snipped out everything that you'd lost
> decisively - like the $300 TV. I even kept the Sunday ads, so I
> could post proof if you had been so St00pid as to call me on it.
>
It's in another post, nitwit. You know, the one where you keep saying
"PPOR."
The rest of your shit is flushed as it makes no sense. Hell, even the
above makes no sense, eg the "sunday ad."
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>
> Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
Post proof it didn't. Dance, puppet, dance.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
<sprays Sprite(tm) on my monitor>
How does he expect to prove something online using an ad from his
newspaper?
Tehawk
Hawk's fans, the person known only as ScottZf <sco...@dwave.net>
mumbled some gaga:
Now where have I seen this line before?
Tehawk ©2002
The Master of Mind Games
ICQ #4610826
http://www.tehawk.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~tehawk
Check Out My Pics Of The 20th Annual Mermaid Parade
http://members.fortunecity.com/tehawk/mp02h1.html
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 11 Aug 2002 20:40:37 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that you snipped out everything that you'd lost
>> decisively - like the $300 TV. I even kept the Sunday ads, so I
>> could post proof if you had been so St00pid as to call me on it.
>>
>It's in another post, nitwit.
You couldn't answer it all at once? Attention span to short, Scoot?
>You know, the one where you keep saying "PPOR."
>
>The rest of your shit is flushed as it makes no sense. Hell, even the
>above makes no sense, eg the "sunday ad."
An ad in the Sunday edition of the newspaper, Maurice Ronald (that's
word play, by the way).
Lurker Below
wrote:
>In article <Xns9267E86332845emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>, ScootZf
><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
>> "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>> alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>> >On 11 Aug 2002 20:40:37 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I noticed that you snipped out everything that you'd lost
>> > decisively - like the $300 TV. I even kept the Sunday ads, so I
>> > could post proof if you had been so St00pid as to call me on it.
>> >
>> It's in another post, nitwit. You know, the one where you keep saying
>> "PPOR."
>>
>> The rest of your shit is flushed as it makes no sense. Hell, even the
>> above makes no sense, eg the "sunday ad."
>
><sprays Sprite(tm) on my monitor>
>
>How does he expect to prove something online using an ad from his
>newspaper?
I would provide a reference from a printed source - a Sunday newspaper
supplement ad.
One of the supplements (Ultimate Electronics) mentions locations in
Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
Dakota and Utah.
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
You first.
And since you won't, I'll go ahead and take the "SPANK" on you now.
Yap, toy poodle, yap.
Nice haircut, BTW.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:06:19 -0500, Dimwiddy <sp...@blocker.address>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <Xns9267E86332845emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>, ScootZf
> ><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
> >> alt.usenet.kooks:
> >>
> >> >On 11 Aug 2002 20:40:37 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I noticed that you snipped out everything that you'd lost
> >> > decisively - like the $300 TV. I even kept the Sunday ads, so I
> >> > could post proof if you had been so St00pid as to call me on it.
> >> >
> >> It's in another post, nitwit. You know, the one where you keep saying
> >> "PPOR."
> >>
> >> The rest of your shit is flushed as it makes no sense. Hell, even the
> >> above makes no sense, eg the "sunday ad."
> >
> ><sprays Sprite(tm) on my monitor>
> >
> >How does he expect to prove something online using an ad from his
> >newspaper?
>
> I would provide a reference from a printed source - a Sunday newspaper
> supplement ad.
>
> One of the supplements (Ultimate Electronics) mentions locations in
> Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
> Dakota and Utah.
As I am in none of these states, your "proof" is meaningless.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:06:19 -0500, Dimwiddy <sp...@blocker.address>
> wrote:
>>How does he expect to prove something online using an ad from his
>>newspaper?
>
> I would provide a reference from a printed source - a Sunday
> newspaper supplement ad.
>
> One of the supplements (Ultimate Electronics) mentions locations
> in Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
> South Dakota and Utah.
You do realize how stupid the above "proof" is in relation to the
question asked, I hope. Besides, it is absolutely ludicrous when you
consider that it was originally supposed to be "proof" that you could
afford a TV, and the true original that you can afford cable TV.
No wonder no one tips you.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>On 12 Aug 2002 03:51:19 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>>On 11 Aug 2002 20:40:37 GMT, ScootZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed that you snipped out everything that you'd lost
>>> decisively - like the $300 TV. I even kept the Sunday ads, so I
>>> could post proof if you had been so St00pid as to call me on it.
>>>
>>It's in another post, nitwit.
>
> You couldn't answer it all at once? Attention span to short,
> Scoot?
Two differnt subjects. And concerning you, yes my attention span is
too short.
>
>>You know, the one where you keep saying "PPOR."
>>
>>The rest of your shit is flushed as it makes no sense. Hell, even
>>the above makes no sense, eg the "sunday ad."
>
> An ad in the Sunday edition of the newspaper, Maurice Ronald
> (that's word play, by the way).
I know what a "sunday ad" is, dimwit. My mind was completly boggled by
how that would be "proof."
ScottZf
> On 12 Aug 2002 03:53:04 GMT, one of the millions and millions of the
>Hawk's fans, the person known only as ScottZf <sco...@dwave.net>
> mumbled some gaga:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>>
>>> Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
>>
>>Post proof it didn't. Dance, puppet, dance.
>
> Now where have I seen this line before?
>
In every final post from people that respond to you? Oh, wait...Alex
Cain, right? Are you in love with him or something?
ScottZf
>On 12 Aug 2002 03:53:04 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>>
>>> Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
>>
>>Post proof it didn't. Dance, puppet, dance.
>
> You first.
>
> And since you won't, I'll go ahead and take the "SPANK" on you now.
Take whatever you want. No tips for you, though.
>
> Yap, toy poodle, yap.
>
> Nice haircut, BTW.
Thank you.
Lurker Below
wrote:
So, if I were to post a quote from a printed book or magazine, you
wouldn't accept that?
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
LOL
It was supposed to be proof that you can buy a TV (a 27" one in this
particular case) for under the amount that you claim I spent on each
car, Ignorant Fuckwit. You're yapping up the wrong tree, little
Pomeranian.
Now, if I can afford the cars, then I can afford a TV.
As for the cable, you'll just have to take my word for it.
>No wonder no one tips you.
PPOR
And since you won't, because you can't, I claim SPANK on you, Ignorant
Fuckwit.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
If I were unable to get my hands on the printed book or magazine, then,
no, I wouldn't accept it.
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 12 Aug 2002 03:53:04 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
>>>
>>>Post proof it didn't. Dance, puppet, dance.
>>
>> You first.
>>
>> And since you won't, I'll go ahead and take the "SPANK" on you now.
>
>Take whatever you want.
LOL
Giving up so easily?
>No tips for you, though.
I get them from my customers.
>>
>> Yap, toy poodle, yap.
>>
>> Nice haircut, BTW.
>
>Thank you.
The little ball at the end of your tail fits you so well, little
yapper.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>
> It was supposed to be proof that you can buy a TV (a 27" one in
> this particular case) for under the amount that you claim I spent
> on each car, Ignorant Fuckwit. You're yapping up the wrong tree,
> little Pomeranian.
>
I never said you couldn't, silly loon. There goes that
misinterpretation again. In fact, I said I know you can buy a TV for
$300, and one larger than 19". I also said it was sad that you can't
afford it. Besides, I will now say that although you could afford your
$300 "cars," you had nothing left to spend on even a 9" [sic] TV.
Saying you saw it in a newspaper isn't proof anyway, and that was the
whole point. Just saying it is so doesn't prove anything. You seem to
understand this when others laugh at you, but don't understand it when
you say it. This whole trolling concept seems far too complicated for
you. But you gobble the bait pretty good, so I'll overlook your
looniness.
ScottZf
>On 12 Aug 2002 14:36:20 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>>On 12 Aug 2002 03:53:04 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
>>>>
>>>>Post proof it didn't. Dance, puppet, dance.
>>>
>>> You first.
>>>
>>> And since you won't, I'll go ahead and take the "SPANK" on you now.
>>
>>Take whatever you want.
>
> LOL
>
> Giving up so easily?
Yep, since it is silly arguing with a crazy person. I have already
stated why you were wrong, and all you did was say "no I am not!" If
you feel that made you "win," then more power too you. In your dreams,
of course.
>
>>No tips for you, though.
>
> I get them from my customers.
No you don't. They told me in email.
>>>
>>> Yap, toy poodle, yap.
>>>
>>> Nice haircut, BTW.
>>
>>Thank you.
>
> The little ball at the end of your tail fits you so well, little
> yapper.
Thank you again.
Lurker Below
wrote:
LOL
That's not *my* problem, Dimwiddy.
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>>On 12 Aug 2002 14:36:20 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>
>>>>On 12 Aug 2002 03:53:04 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
>>>>>
>>>>>Post proof it didn't. Dance, puppet, dance.
>>>>
>>>> You first.
>>>>
>>>> And since you won't, I'll go ahead and take the "SPANK" on you now.
>>>
>>>Take whatever you want.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Giving up so easily?
>
>Yep, since it is silly arguing with a crazy person.
Nah, it's entertaining arguing with you, you crazy guy.
>I have already
>stated why you were wrong, and all you did was say "no I am not!"
<snort>
That was all that was required for your St00pid explanation. Your
reasons have no facts backing them up. None. A simple denial has just
as much weight as your blatherings - so that's all that was needed and
all that you got. Come back when you have anything of substance - but,
you won't, because none of it's true.
>If you feel that made you "win,"
There is no "win" on Usenet.
>then more power too you. In your dreams, of course.
Actually, it's only in your *wet* dreams that you have "won," Ignorant
Fuckwit.
>>>No tips for you, though.
>>
>> I get them from my customers.
>
>No you don't. They told me in email.
Oh really?
ALL of them told you that?
And you confirmed they were my customers by what means, exactly?
There are so many holes in this bullshit that I'll just go ahead and
take my SPANK on you now.
>>>> Yap, toy poodle, yap.
>>>>
>>>> Nice haircut, BTW.
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>
>> The little ball at the end of your tail fits you so well, little
>> yapper.
>
>Thank you again.
You're welcome, little yapper.
--
"RSPW Rawks" Threatens Violence in <20001208105237...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
"Today's Friday, Neal. Guess what that means? It means I'm going to be calling
all the pizza stores on that yahoo list until I find yours. 8) Are you
working tonight? I'd love to finally slap you around somewhere other than
virtually."
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
You don't consider your inability to provide proof a problem?
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>> It was supposed to be proof that you can buy a TV (a 27" one in
>> this particular case) for under the amount that you claim I spent
>> on each car, Ignorant Fuckwit. You're yapping up the wrong tree,
>> little Pomeranian.
>I never said you couldn't, silly loon. There goes that
>misinterpretation again. In fact, I said I know you can buy a TV for
>$300, and one larger than 19". I also said it was sad that you can't
>afford it. Besides, I will now say that although you could afford your
>$300 "cars," you had nothing left to spend on even a 9" [sic] TV.
LOL
Considering that I make money 5 nights a week, your statement is
ludicrous. I have more than enough *on hand* to but a TV.
>Saying you saw it in a newspaper isn't proof anyway, and that was the
>whole point.
LOL
I would not just fricking say I saw it, Ignorant Fuckwit.
There are accepted standards for evidence. I would have told you the
paper, the store(s) and the pages in each supplement. I could even do
more than that.
But, it's all moot, since you accepted my word.
>Just saying it is so doesn't prove anything.
Well, luckily for me, I wouldn't have had to "just" say it.
>You seem to
>understand this when others laugh at you, but don't understand it when
>you say it. This whole trolling concept seems far too complicated for
>you. But you gobble the bait pretty good, so I'll overlook your
>looniness.
>No wonder no one tips you.
LOL
You keep trotting this out and I keep getting SPANK on you for it -
because you can't back it up, Ignorant Fuckwit.
Lurker Below
I don't consider it an inability to provide proof.
It's acceptable in Academic Debate, it's acceptable here. Now, if you
could prove the publication *doesn't exist*, then you'd be onto
something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
concise citation, is not *my* problem.
Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
$300, so there's no problemo, anywho.
--
Taylor NetScum Relates His Crimes In <e01t2tcpf911m9vc3...@4ax.com>
"As usual, I let the dogs loose and count how many times the pizza boy
trips as he runs for the gate."
ScottZf
It's not up to me to back it up. It is meant to insult you, whether
true or not, and it is working, as you seem to get all worked-up by it.
Read the first paragraph in this post again, and perhaps it will
finally sink in what is going on.
::crickets chirp::
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>On 12 Aug 2002 16:47:22 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>>No tips for you, though.
>>>
>>> I get them from my customers.
>>
>>No you don't. They told me in email.
>
> Oh really?
>
> ALL of them told you that?
>
> And you confirmed they were my customers by what means, exactly?
>
> There are so many holes in this bullshit that I'll just go ahead
> and take my SPANK on you now.
Doesn't the sound of jet planes going over your head all the time get
distracting?
Dance, kook, dance. I'll bet I can get your frothing like a rabid mutt
soon.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:44:00 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post proof of this or retract, o mass repeater of words.
Weren't you whining about being unable to prove a negative a few posts
back? Prove that the flier exists.
> then you'd be onto
> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
Inability to provide proof noted.
>
> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
> $300, so there's no problemo,
Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
meaningless.
> anywho.
<snarf>
Lurker Below
<Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>On 12 Aug 2002 12:41:12 -0500, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>
>>
>>On 12 Aug 2002 16:47:22 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>>>On 12 Aug 2002 14:36:20 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 12 Aug 2002 03:53:04 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>>>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Post proof that's it's happened to me or retract.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Post proof it didn't. Dance, puppet, dance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since you won't, I'll go ahead and take the "SPANK" on you now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take whatever you want.
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> Giving up so easily?
>>>
>>>Yep, since it is silly arguing with a crazy person.
>>
>>Nah, it's entertaining arguing with you, you crazy guy.
>
>I find it highly entertaining when you lunatics think you are the sane
>ones and we are the crazies.l
Truth hurts, don't it, Dead Meat Stiffy?
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 12 Aug 2002 16:42:50 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>> wrote:
>>>You seem to
>>>understand this when others laugh at you, but don't understand it
>>>when you say it. This whole trolling concept seems far too
>>>complicated for you. But you gobble the bait pretty good, so I'll
>>>overlook your looniness.
>>
>>>No wonder no one tips you.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> You keep trotting this out and I keep getting SPANK on you for it
>> - because you can't back it up, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>
>It's not up to me to back it up.
Sure it is.
>It is meant to insult you, whether true or not,
So, you have to lie in order to try and insult others.
How very revealing, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>and it is working, as you seem to get all worked-up by it.
LOL
I laugh at your desperation.
>Read the first paragraph in this post again, and perhaps it will
>finally sink in what is going on.
What? That I'm laughing *at* you, Scoot?
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 12 Aug 2002 16:47:22 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>>>No tips for you, though.
>>>>
>>>> I get them from my customers.
>>>
>>>No you don't. They told me in email.
They do so. They told me in e-mail.
LOL
>> Oh really?
>>
>> ALL of them told you that?
>>
>> And you confirmed they were my customers by what means, exactly?
>>
>> There are so many holes in this bullshit that I'll just go ahead
>> and take my SPANK on you now.
>Doesn't the sound of jet planes going over your head all the time get
>distracting?
No.
I am under a flight path, BTW.
>Dance, kook, dance.
LOL
Say yon Kookburger.
Irony, thy name is Usenet.
>I'll bet I can get your frothing like a rabid mutt soon.
I'll be too busty laughing at your ignorant ass, Ignorant Wanker
Fuckwit.
ScottZf
>On 12 Aug 2002 18:18:44 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
> wrote:
>>It is meant to insult you, whether true or not,
>
> So, you have to lie in order to try and insult others.
>
> How very revealing, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>
>>and it is working, as you seem to get all worked-up by it.
>
> LOL
>
> I laugh at your desperation.
>
Uh huh. That's why you are running arond like a dog chasing it's tail,
huh? No wonder you don't get any tips.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> On 12 Aug 2002 18:22:48 GMT, Ignorant WANKER Fuckwit
><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>I'll bet I can get your frothing like a rabid mutt soon.
>
> I'll be too busty laughing at your ignorant ass, Ignorant Wanker
> Fuckwit.
You'll be too busty? Are you taking hormone supplements or something?
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>>On 12 Aug 2002 18:18:44 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>> wrote:
>>>It is meant to insult you, whether true or not,
>>
>> So, you have to lie in order to try and insult others.
>>
>> How very revealing, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>>
>>>and it is working, as you seem to get all worked-up by it.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> I laugh at your desperation.
>>
>Uh huh. That's why you are running arond like a dog chasing it's tail,
>huh?
LOL
As Dimwiddy would say "Bwaaaaaaaaak!"
All your yapping won't change facts, Ignorant Fuckwit. You're dancing
to my tune as I hold out your doggie treats and tease you.
Jump, boy! Jump!
>No wonder you don't get any tips.
Wishing will not make it so, Ignorant Fuckwit. Š
LOL
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
Ah, poor Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit - reduced to spelling lames. Nothing
more than mindless yapping.
How sad.
>No wonder you don't get any tips.
LOL
"Don't stop believing. Hold on to that feeeeeeeling."
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2002 19:22:55 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
> >
> >>On 12 Aug 2002 18:18:44 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>It is meant to insult you, whether true or not,
> >>
> >> So, you have to lie in order to try and insult others.
> >>
> >> How very revealing, Ignorant Fuckwit.
> >>
> >>>and it is working, as you seem to get all worked-up by it.
> >>
> >> LOL
> >>
> >> I laugh at your desperation.
> >>
> >Uh huh. That's why you are running arond like a dog chasing it's tail,
> >huh?
>
> LOL
>
> As Dimwiddy would say "Bwaaaaaaaaak!"
Actually I wouldn't. You don't have permission to speak for me.
Fuckhead.
>
> All your yapping won't change facts, Ignorant Fuckwit. You're dancing
> to my tune as I hold out your doggie treats and tease you.
>
> Jump, boy! Jump!
>
> >No wonder you don't get any tips.
>
> Wishing will not make it so, Ignorant Fuckwit. Š
>
> LOL
--
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> Wishing will not make it so, Ignorant Fuckwit. Š
>
> LOL
You say "lol" a lot. What does that mean? Besides, it doesn't matter
what I wish. Saying it annoys you, and in your case that is good
enough for me. No wonder no one tips you, and you can't afford a TV.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> On 12 Aug 2002 19:24:56 GMT, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit
><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>
>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>> On 12 Aug 2002 18:22:48 GMT, Ignorant WANKER Fuckwit
>>><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>>>I'll bet I can get your frothing like a rabid mutt soon.
>>>
>>> I'll be too busty laughing at your ignorant ass, Ignorant Wanker
>>> Fuckwit.
>>
>>You'll be too busty? Are you taking hormone supplements or
>>something?
>
> Ah, poor Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit - reduced to spelling lames.
> Nothing more than mindless yapping.
>
> How sad.
It wasn't a spelling lame. I really thought you were "too busty."
It's not my fault you are so inarticulate. Besides, I wouldn't go
around pointing out spelling lames if I were you, Mr upto-lurks-alot.
>
>>No wonder you don't get any tips.
>
> LOL
>
> "Don't stop believing. Hold on to that feeeeeeeling."
No wonder you don't get any tips, and cannot afford a TV.
DABŠ
news:ITz59.79758$Z7.82...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> DABŠ wrote:
>> ""Doc"" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:z1a59.1496$PJ2.11...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Two things:
>>>
>>> 1) I'll post wherever and whenever I please. I haven't violated
>>> any USENET rules or any of my ISP's AUP and there's absolutely
>>> nothing you can do to keep me from posting in the future. Calling
>>> someone a f**khead then asking them to "please never post again"
>>> isn't too convincing. The F-bomb and the word please don't really
>>> do too well together. It's a public forum pal.
>>>
>>> 2) If you don't want outsiders chiming in on your ng, tell the
>>> jackass (checkmate) who originally crossposted to not do so in the
>>> future. This guy is a real maggot and we've been trying to rid
>>> ourselves of him for weeks. This string ORIGINALLY started in a
>>> truck newsgroup as a conversation on Mobil 1 motor oil and how it
>>> increases fuel economy. Why the moron felt he had to crosspost to
>>> APDD and alt.clubs.just-for-fun is beyond me.
>>
>> giggle sounds pretty Jiffy to me! BTW Jiffy is the nickname a group
>> of the nastiest meanest foulmouthed, stanky Usenet Trolls felt the
>> need to bestow on us as in the Just For Fun Club and what brought
>> their attention to us you may ask? Well we was happy little clams
>> posting html and of course Top Posting when one of our most talented
>> and treasured posters [Manny from Hawaii ] unknowing..........[so He
>> says] replied to a post that was crossposted to some of the more
>> interesting new groups on Usenet.......alt.romath and some Usenet
>> abuse group. The rest is history.
>>
>> http://www.just-for-fun-club.net and yes I did all the decorating
>> myself<G>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Take er' easy!
>>
>> We do and any which way we can!
>
> Huh? Is yous trying to get free pizza or a can of Mobil 1 motor oil
> outa these guys?
Neither just joining in the thread.
Lurker Below
<sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>In article <2f3glu44t76jp3n1f...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Aug 2002 19:22:55 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>> >
>> >>On 12 Aug 2002 18:18:44 GMT, Ignorant Fuckwit <sco...@dwave.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>It is meant to insult you, whether true or not,
>> >>
>> >> So, you have to lie in order to try and insult others.
>> >>
>> >> How very revealing, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>> >>
>> >>>and it is working, as you seem to get all worked-up by it.
>> >>
>> >> LOL
>> >>
>> >> I laugh at your desperation.
>> >>
>> >Uh huh. That's why you are running arond like a dog chasing it's tail,
>> >huh?
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> As Dimwiddy would say "Bwaaaaaaaaak!"
>
>Actually I wouldn't.
Another moron who doesn't understand English.
It's the word you use when people "parrot." Ignorant Fuckwit is
parroting me, since I already used the image of you trolls as dogs
chasing your tails. Ergo...
>You don't have permission to speak for me.
I'm not. I'm speaking *as* you would.
>Fuckhead.
"Bwaaaaaaaak!"
>> All your yapping won't change facts, Ignorant Fuckwit. You're dancing
>> to my tune as I hold out your doggie treats and tease you.
>>
>> Jump, boy! Jump!
>>
>> >No wonder you don't get any tips.
>>
>> Wishing will not make it so, Ignorant Fuckwit. Š
>>
>> LOL
--
"It's not up to me to back it up. It is meant to insult you, whether
true or not..."
ScottZf explaining that he'll lie at the drop of a hat in
<Xns926887D128E06emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>
Lurker Below
wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>> Wishing will not make it so, Ignorant Fuckwit. Š
>>
>> LOL
>You say "lol" a lot. What does that mean?
It means I'm laughing at you - but, you knew that, Ignorant Fuckwit.
>Besides, it doesn't matter
>what I wish. Saying it annoys you, and in your case that is good
>enough for me.
LOL
Saying it makes me laugh at your ignorance.
>No wonder no one tips you, and you can't afford a TV.
"Don't stop believing, hold on to that feeeeeeeling."
--
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
No, it's the word I use when *YOU* parrot.
>
> >You don't have permission to speak for me.
>
> I'm not. I'm speaking *as* you would.
No, you're not.
>
> >Fuckhead.
>
> "Bwaaaaaaaak!"
Glad you're getting your parrot-boy terminology right.
>
> >> All your yapping won't change facts, Ignorant Fuckwit. You're dancing
> >> to my tune as I hold out your doggie treats and tease you.
> >>
> >> Jump, boy! Jump!
> >>
> >> >No wonder you don't get any tips.
> >>
> >> Wishing will not make it so, Ignorant Fuckwit. Š
> >>
> >> LOL
--
Lurker Below
<sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>In article <3vtfluk3m3e191uqi...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:44:00 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Post proof of this or retract, o mass repeater of words.
You've done it. You *know* you've done it. You did it consciously. If
you'd think for just a minute, you'd be able to figure out *where*
you've done it. You'll be angry when you do figure it out - if you
can, but, it still happened. You have edited several posts.
You trolls never retract anything you say, whether or not you're
proven right or wrong. I see no reason to do so because you're
whinging pitiably about something you've actually done.
And BTW, I consider all you trolls (you, ScottZf, Meat->Plow, Cain,
etc.) to be like the Three Musketeers - "All for one, and one for
all." - so anything *any* of you do, will be visited on all the
others, just like you trolls blame me for things Stiffy and Griffiths
do or have done (or that you just claim they've done).
Like the taste of your own medicine, Dimwiddy? I hope you choke on it.
LOL
>> >> LOL
The flier is immaterial, since it hasn't been submitted as evidence of
anything. Ignorant Fuckwit agreed with the point the flier was
intended to prove - that TVs (27" ones, no less) can be bought for
less than $300.
If it had been, I could conclusively prove it's existence (and one
from Best Buy, as well). As it is, you can go suck eggs, Post Editing
Fuckwit.
Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>> then you'd be onto
>> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
>> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
>Inability to provide proof noted.
LOL
If it would prove something, I would. As it is, well, just see above.
>> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
>> $300, so there's no problemo,
>
>Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
>but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
>meaningless.
<shrug>
He claimed I could spend $300 on a car, two separate times. If I could
afford $300 for a superfluous car (and then there's the *totally*
unnecessary motorcycle which we've even begun to fix a price on...),
it stands to reason that I can afford $300 (actually less - a lot less
for the 27" and a WHOLE lot less for the 20" which also exceeds the
specified 19" standard and that's just UE, the Best Buy ad shows a 25"
and two 27" models *under* the target price) to buy a TV.
Get that, Maurice Ronald?
>> anywho.
>
><snarf>
Bad little doggie...
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>> On 12 Aug 2002 19:24:56 GMT, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit
>><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>
>>>> On 12 Aug 2002 18:22:48 GMT, Ignorant WANKER Fuckwit
>>>><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>>>>I'll bet I can get your frothing like a rabid mutt soon.
^^^^
Of course, he who adds letters himself should not cast the first
stone...
I read that for context and didn't give you any crap, Ignorant Lying
Wanker Fuckwit. Then, you prove just what a wanker git you truly are.
I'm laughing at your hypocritical ass.
>>>> I'll be too busty laughing at your ignorant ass, Ignorant Wanker
>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>
>>>You'll be too busty? Are you taking hormone supplements or
>>>something?
>>
>> Ah, poor Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit - reduced to spelling lames.
>> Nothing more than mindless yapping.
>>
>> How sad.
>
>It wasn't a spelling lame.
LOL
You can't expect anyone to believe you...can you? Are you really
*that* St00pid?
>I really thought you were "too busty."
Inability to read for context noted.
And, of course, you're on record as a liar...
>It's not my fault you are so inarticulate. Besides, I wouldn't go
>around pointing out spelling lames if I were you, Mr upto-lurks-alot.
?
That was a Helpful Hint.
You can't honestly think that was a spelling lame - it was too nice to
be a spelling lame. I try to do something nice and you just cast all
sorts of aspersions on it.
>>>No wonder you don't get any tips.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> "Don't stop believing. Hold on to that feeeeeeeling."
>
>No wonder you don't get any tips, and cannot afford a TV.
Lies noted and logged. Yapping sounds ignored.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:28:53 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
> <sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>
> >In article <3vtfluk3m3e191uqi...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
> ><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:44:00 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Post proof of this or retract, o mass repeater of words.
>
> You've done it. You *know* you've done it. You did it consciously. If
> you'd think for just a minute, you'd be able to figure out *where*
> you've done it. You'll be angry when you do figure it out - if you
> can, but, it still happened. You have edited several posts.\
No, I haven't, fuckface.
>
> You trolls never retract anything you say, whether or not you're
> proven right or wrong. I see no reason to do so because you're
> whinging pitiably about something you've actually done.
One reason: I haven't edited any posts.
>
> And BTW, I consider all you trolls (you, ScottZf, Meat->Plow, Cain,
> etc.) to be like the Three Musketeers - "All for one, and one for
> all." - so anything *any* of you do, will be visited on all the
> others, just like you trolls blame me for things Stiffy and Griffiths
> do or have done (or that you just claim they've done).
Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, or even reply. This will
continue for as long as you want it to.
>
> Like the taste of your own medicine, Dimwiddy? I hope you choke on it.
You sound really bitter.
>
> LOL
Weren't you the one who said that constant laughter is a sign of
insanity?
Um, I've seen nothing to back this claim of yours up. Tell me, in what
post did Scott say this?
>
> If it had been, I could conclusively prove it's existence (and one
> from Best Buy, as well). As it is, you can go suck eggs, Post Editing
> Fuckwit.
More lies from Parrot-boy. Nobody is surprised.
>
> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
If I were truly a poodle, I would have chewed your leg off long ago.
>
> >> then you'd be onto
> >> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
> >> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
>
> >Inability to provide proof noted.
>
> LOL
>
> If it would prove something, I would. As it is, well, just see above.
You NEVER prove anything.
>
> >> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
> >> $300, so there's no problemo,
> >
> >Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
> >but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
> >meaningless.
>
> <shrug>
>
> He claimed I could spend $300 on a car, two separate times. If I could
> afford $300 for a superfluous car (and then there's the *totally*
> unnecessary motorcycle which we've even begun to fix a price on...),
> it stands to reason that I can afford $300 (actually less - a lot less
> for the 27" and a WHOLE lot less for the 20" which also exceeds the
> specified 19" standard and that's just UE, the Best Buy ad shows a 25"
> and two 27" models *under* the target price) to buy a TV.
Your rant doesn't prove anything.
>
> Get that, Maurice Ronald?
>
> >> anywho.
> >
> ><snarf>
>
> Bad little doggie...
<pisses on your shoes>
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> --
> "It's not up to me to back it up. It is meant to insult you,
> whether true or not..."
> ScottZf explaining that he'll lie at the drop of a hat in
> <Xns926887D128E06emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>
I stop debating with someone when they have been proven an idiot.
After that I just poke them with sticks. If lies are what annoy you,
then I use lies. Whatever works. Of course, the below is not a lie.
Lurker Below
<sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>In article <ieahlukdblh3r19mg...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:28:53 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
>> <sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3vtfluk3m3e191uqi...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
>> ><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:44:00 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >Post proof of this or retract, o mass repeater of words.
>>
>> You've done it. You *know* you've done it. You did it consciously. If
>> you'd think for just a minute, you'd be able to figure out *where*
>> you've done it. You'll be angry when you do figure it out - if you
>> can, but, it still happened. You have edited several posts.\
>
>No, I haven't, fuckface.
LOL
Yes, you have. At least three times.
>> You trolls never retract anything you say, whether or not you're
>> proven right or wrong. I see no reason to do so because you're
>> whinging pitiably about something you've actually done.
>
>One reason: I haven't edited any posts.
Think *hard*, Dimwiddy.
>> And BTW, I consider all you trolls (you, ScottZf, Meat->Plow, Cain,
>> etc.) to be like the Three Musketeers - "All for one, and one for
>> all." - so anything *any* of you do, will be visited on all the
>> others, just like you trolls blame me for things Stiffy and Griffiths
>> do or have done (or that you just claim they've done).
>
>Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, or even reply. This will
>continue for as long as you want it to.
I will continue to make fools out of you morons foe as long as you
want to post here.
>> Like the taste of your own medicine, Dimwiddy? I hope you choke on it.
>
>You sound really bitter.
<yawn>
Says the git who's so bitter that he stays here on the off chance that
Stiffy will show.
>> LOL
>
>Weren't you the one who said that constant laughter is a sign of
>insanity?
You're misquoting there, Dimwiddy. I didn't say "constant" laughter.
<Xns9267A007349BBemykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>
------------------
> And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
>
I know, and even bigger than 19". Pretty sad when you can't afford
one.
------------------
There you go...
>> If it had been, I could conclusively prove it's existence (and one
>> from Best Buy, as well). As it is, you can go suck eggs, Post Editing
>> Fuckwit.
>
>More lies from Parrot-boy.
PPOR
>Nobody is surprised.
>> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>
>If I were truly a poodle, I would have chewed your leg off long ago.
LOL
All you yap doggies think you're the shit, but all you ever manage to
do is yap.
Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>> >> then you'd be onto
>> >> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
>> >> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
>>
>> >Inability to provide proof noted.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> If it would prove something, I would. As it is, well, just see above.
>
>You NEVER prove anything.
LOL
I just proved *this* wrong in this very post, you St00pid git.
>> >> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
>> >> $300, so there's no problemo,
>> >
>> >Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
>> >but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
>> >meaningless.
>>
>> <shrug>
>>
>> He claimed I could spend $300 on a car, two separate times. If I could
>> afford $300 for a superfluous car (and then there's the *totally*
>> unnecessary motorcycle which we've even begun to fix a price on...),
>> it stands to reason that I can afford $300 (actually less - a lot less
>> for the 27" and a WHOLE lot less for the 20" which also exceeds the
>> specified 19" standard and that's just UE, the Best Buy ad shows a 25"
>> and two 27" models *under* the target price) to buy a TV.
>
>Your rant doesn't prove anything.
If you think it's a rant, then no wonder you can't follow the logic
chain.
>> Get that, Maurice Ronald?
>>
>> >> anywho.
>> >
>> ><snarf>
>>
>> Bad little doggie...
>
><pisses on your shoes>
--
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:12:56 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
> <sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>
> >In article <ieahlukdblh3r19mg...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
> ><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:28:53 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
> >> <sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3vtfluk3m3e191uqi...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
> >> ><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:44:00 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >Post proof of this or retract, o mass repeater of words.
> >>
> >> You've done it. You *know* you've done it. You did it consciously. If
> >> you'd think for just a minute, you'd be able to figure out *where*
> >> you've done it. You'll be angry when you do figure it out - if you
> >> can, but, it still happened. You have edited several posts.\
> >
> >No, I haven't, fuckface.
>
> LOL
>
> Yes, you have. At least three times.
Post proof or retract
And no, restoring a post edited quote to what it originally said !=
post editing.
>
> >> You trolls never retract anything you say, whether or not you're
> >> proven right or wrong. I see no reason to do so because you're
> >> whinging pitiably about something you've actually done.
> >
> >One reason: I haven't edited any posts.
>
> Think *hard*, Dimwiddy.
See above.
>
> >> And BTW, I consider all you trolls (you, ScottZf, Meat->Plow, Cain,
> >> etc.) to be like the Three Musketeers - "All for one, and one for
> >> all." - so anything *any* of you do, will be visited on all the
> >> others, just like you trolls blame me for things Stiffy and Griffiths
> >> do or have done (or that you just claim they've done).
> >
> >Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, or even reply. This will
> >continue for as long as you want it to.
>
> I will continue to make fools out of you morons foe as long as you
> want to post here.
Translation : You will all kick my ass, but I'll pretend I'm on top,
because a have a masochistic streak a m1ile long.
>
> >> Like the taste of your own medicine, Dimwiddy? I hope you choke on it.
> >
> >You sound really bitter.
>
> <yawn>
>
> Says the git who's so bitter that he stays here on the off chance that
> Stiffy will show.
Is that what you think? Heh. I'm here, because the pizzaboys have
completely lost my respect, and my presence here is a slap in their
collective faces.
>
> >> LOL
> >
> >Weren't you the one who said that constant laughter is a sign of
> >insanity?
>
> You're misquoting there, Dimwiddy. I didn't say "constant" laughter.
Autoflame : B-
There is no evidence in this post to back up your assertion.
>
> ------------------
> > And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
> >
> I know, and even bigger than 19". Pretty sad when you can't afford
> one.
> ------------------
>
> There you go...
>
> >> If it had been, I could conclusively prove it's existence (and one
> >> from Best Buy, as well). As it is, you can go suck eggs, Post Editing
> >> Fuckwit.
> >
> >More lies from Parrot-boy.
>
> PPOR
Post proof that I'm a post editor. Your lack of proof is my proof.
>
> >Nobody is surprised.
>
> >> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
> >
> >If I were truly a poodle, I would have chewed your leg off long ago.
>
> LOL
>
> All you yap doggies think you're the shit, but all you ever manage to
> do is yap.
Hah. You still don't get that us "yap doggies" are in control here, do
you?
>
> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>
> >> >> then you'd be onto
> >> >> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
> >> >> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
> >>
> >> >Inability to provide proof noted.
> >>
> >> LOL
> >>
> >> If it would prove something, I would. As it is, well, just see above.
> >
> >You NEVER prove anything.
>
> LOL
>
> I just proved *this* wrong in this very post, you St00pid git.
No, you haven't.
>
> >> >> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
> >> >> $300, so there's no problemo,
> >> >
> >> >Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
> >> >but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
> >> >meaningless.
> >>
> >> <shrug>
> >>
> >> He claimed I could spend $300 on a car, two separate times. If I could
> >> afford $300 for a superfluous car (and then there's the *totally*
> >> unnecessary motorcycle which we've even begun to fix a price on...),
> >> it stands to reason that I can afford $300 (actually less - a lot less
> >> for the 27" and a WHOLE lot less for the 20" which also exceeds the
> >> specified 19" standard and that's just UE, the Best Buy ad shows a 25"
> >> and two 27" models *under* the target price) to buy a TV.
> >
> >Your rant doesn't prove anything.
>
> If you think it's a rant, then no wonder you can't follow the logic
> chain.
Prove you can afford a TV.
>
> >> Get that, Maurice Ronald?
> >>
> >> >> anywho.
> >> >
> >> ><snarf>
> >>
> >> Bad little doggie...
> >
> ><pisses on your shoes>
I see, from your lack of response, that you enjoy having your shoes
pissed on.
Lurker Below
<sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>In article <219iluoljvgf2j5qg...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:12:56 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
>> <sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ieahlukdblh3r19mg...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
>> ><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:28:53 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
>> >> <sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <3vtfluk3m3e191uqi...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
>> >> ><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:44:00 -0500, Post Editing Wanker
>> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> >Post proof of this or retract, o mass repeater of words.
>> >>
>> >> You've done it. You *know* you've done it. You did it consciously. If
>> >> you'd think for just a minute, you'd be able to figure out *where*
>> >> you've done it. You'll be angry when you do figure it out - if you
>> >> can, but, it still happened. You have edited several posts.\
>> >
>> >No, I haven't, fuckface.
>> LOL
>> Yes, you have. At least three times.
>Post proof or retract
>And no, restoring a post edited quote to what it originally said !=
>post editing.
LOL
Figured it out all by yourself, did you?
Good doggie.
But, yes, you *did edit my posts*. You could have chosen another way
to protest my "spelling corrections," but you *chose* to edit my
posts.
>> >> You trolls never retract anything you say, whether or not you're
>> >> proven right or wrong. I see no reason to do so because you're
>> >> whinging pitiably about something you've actually done.
>> >
>> >One reason: I haven't edited any posts.
>>
>> Think *hard*, Dimwiddy.
>
>See above.
No matter how you slice it, you still edited my posts, Dimwiddy.
Deal.
>> >> And BTW, I consider all you trolls (you, ScottZf, Meat->Plow, Cain,
>> >> etc.) to be like the Three Musketeers - "All for one, and one for
>> >> all." - so anything *any* of you do, will be visited on all the
>> >> others, just like you trolls blame me for things Stiffy and Griffiths
>> >> do or have done (or that you just claim they've done).
>> >
>> >Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, or even reply. This will
>> >continue for as long as you want it to.
>>
>> I will continue to make fools out of you morons foe as long as you
>> want to post here.
>
>Translation : You will all kick my ass, but I'll pretend I'm on top,
>because a have a masochistic streak a m1ile long.
You have a funny concept of kicking someone's ass, Dimwiddy.
>> >> Like the taste of your own medicine, Dimwiddy? I hope you choke on it.
>> >
>> >You sound really bitter.
>>
>> <yawn>
>>
>> Says the git who's so bitter that he stays here on the off chance that
>> Stiffy will show.
>
>Is that what you think? Heh. I'm here, because the pizzaboys have
>completely lost my respect, and my presence here is a slap in their
>collective faces.
Oh yeah. You're really taking it to the drivers. Only one of us posts
here on anything close to a regular basis.
You're delusional, Dimwiddy.
>> >> LOL
>> >
>> >Weren't you the one who said that constant laughter is a sign of
>> >insanity?
>>
>> You're misquoting there, Dimwiddy. I didn't say "constant" laughter.
>
>Autoflame : B-
Are you the French Judge?
Boy are you St00pid.
You're so bitter that you'll make an absolute fool of yourself just to
say "No." to me?
LOL
What a git.
No wonder you have no friends.
>> ------------------
>> > And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
>> >
>> I know, and even bigger than 19". Pretty sad when you can't afford
>> one.
>> ------------------
>>
>> There you go...
>>
>> >> If it had been, I could conclusively prove it's existence (and one
>> >> from Best Buy, as well). As it is, you can go suck eggs, Post Editing
>> >> Fuckwit.
>> >
>> >More lies from Parrot-boy.
>>
>> PPOR
>
>Post proof that I'm a post editor. Your lack of proof is my proof.
<yawn>
You edited my posts. You acknowledge your deed above.
No matter how you want to slice it, you changed words from my posts.
You could have left in my "spelling correction" as proof of what *you*
might call (if you had the vocabulary) my "perfidy," but, you did not.
And, if you want to get nit-picky, I can show that you've snipped
stuff, which is another form of editing.
But, for now, you acknowledge that you've changed my words, *for
whatever reason*, and that is editing posts.
>> >Nobody is surprised.
>>
>> >> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>> >
>> >If I were truly a poodle, I would have chewed your leg off long ago.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> All you yap doggies think you're the shit, but all you ever manage to
>> do is yap.
>
>Hah. You still don't get that us yap doggies are in control here, do
>you?
I know that all yap doggies *think* they're the masters of their
domains.
>> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>>
>> >> >> then you'd be onto
>> >> >> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
>> >> >> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
>> >>
>> >> >Inability to provide proof noted.
>> >>
>> >> LOL
>> >>
>> >> If it would prove something, I would. As it is, well, just see above.
>> >
>> >You NEVER prove anything.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> I just proved *this* wrong in this very post, you St00pid git.
>
>No, you haven't.
LOL
Now you're just being St00pid.
>> >> >> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
>> >> >> $300, so there's no problemo,
>> >> >
>> >> >Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
>> >> >but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
>> >> >meaningless.
>> >>
>> >> <shrug>
>> >>
>> >> He claimed I could spend $300 on a car, two separate times. If I could
>> >> afford $300 for a superfluous car (and then there's the *totally*
>> >> unnecessary motorcycle which we've even begun to fix a price on...),
>> >> it stands to reason that I can afford $300 (actually less - a lot less
>> >> for the 27" and a WHOLE lot less for the 20" which also exceeds the
>> >> specified 19" standard and that's just UE, the Best Buy ad shows a 25"
>> >> and two 27" models *under* the target price) to buy a TV.
>> >
>> >Your rant doesn't prove anything.
>>
>> If you think it's a rant, then no wonder you can't follow the logic
>> chain.
>
>Prove you can afford a TV.
You've already seen as much proof as you are going to get, Dimwiddy.
>> >> Get that, Maurice Ronald?
>> >>
>> >> >> anywho.
>> >> >
>> >> ><snarf>
>> >>
>> >> Bad little doggie...
>> >
>> ><pisses on your shoes>
>
>I see, from your lack of response, that you enjoy having your shoes
>pissed on.
LOL
No, you see that I won't indulge your golden shower fantasies, widdle
piss-sniffing poodle.
Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
No liar. I'll spell this out for you slowly. I D-I-D N-O-T
C-H-A-N-G-E Y-O-U-R W-O-R-D-S. Y-O-U C-H-A-N-G-E-D M-Y W-O-R-D-S,
A-N-D I W-A-S O-B-L-I-G-A-T-E-D T-O C-H-A-N-G-E T-H-E-M B-A-C-K,
I-N T-H-E N-A-M-E O-F T-R-U-T-H A-N-D A-C-C-U-R-A-C-Y.
And as far as choosing another way to protest your "spelling
corrections", you could have said "ITYM me" instead of changing "you"
to "me."
>
> >> >> You trolls never retract anything you say, whether or not you're
> >> >> proven right or wrong. I see no reason to do so because you're
> >> >> whinging pitiably about something you've actually done.
> >> >
> >> >One reason: I haven't edited any posts.
> >>
> >> Think *hard*, Dimwiddy.
> >
> >See above.
>
> No matter how you slice it, you still edited my posts, Dimwiddy.
>
> Deal.
Liar. Provide evidence where I edited your posts, that wasn't a
correction of your revisionist lies.
>
> >> >> And BTW, I consider all you trolls (you, ScottZf, Meat->Plow, Cain,
> >> >> etc.) to be like the Three Musketeers - "All for one, and one for
> >> >> all." - so anything *any* of you do, will be visited on all the
> >> >> others, just like you trolls blame me for things Stiffy and Griffiths
> >> >> do or have done (or that you just claim they've done).
> >> >
> >> >Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, or even reply. This will
> >> >continue for as long as you want it to.
> >>
> >> I will continue to make fools out of you morons foe as long as you
> >> want to post here.
> >
> >Translation : You will all kick my ass, but I'll pretend I'm on top,
> >because a have a masochistic streak a m1ile long.
>
> You have a funny concept of kicking someone's ass, Dimwiddy.
Considering that I recently added a new entry to my score card...
Show me yours.
>
> >> >> Like the taste of your own medicine, Dimwiddy? I hope you choke on it.
> >> >
> >> >You sound really bitter.
> >>
> >> <yawn>
> >>
> >> Says the git who's so bitter that he stays here on the off chance that
> >> Stiffy will show.
> >
> >Is that what you think? Heh. I'm here, because the pizzaboys have
> >completely lost my respect, and my presence here is a slap in their
> >collective faces.
>
> Oh yeah. You're really taking it to the drivers. Only one of us posts
> here on anything close to a regular basis.
And why do you think that is?
>
> You're delusional, Dimwiddy.
Nope.
>
> >> >> LOL
> >> >
> >> >Weren't you the one who said that constant laughter is a sign of
> >> >insanity?
> >>
> >> You're misquoting there, Dimwiddy. I didn't say "constant" laughter.
> >
> >Autoflame : B-
>
> Are you the French Judge?
Non, monsieur.
Wow! I called you bitter a few posts back, and looky here, you called
me bitter. Bwaaaaaaaaak.
>
> LOL
>
> What a git.
>
> No wonder you have no friends.
Post evidence to back up your assertion.
>
> >> ------------------
> >> > And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
> >> >
> >> I know, and even bigger than 19". Pretty sad when you can't afford
> >> one.
> >> ------------------
> >>
> >> There you go...
> >>
> >> >> If it had been, I could conclusively prove it's existence (and one
> >> >> from Best Buy, as well). As it is, you can go suck eggs, Post Editing
> >> >> Fuckwit.
> >> >
> >> >More lies from Parrot-boy.
> >>
> >> PPOR
> >
> >Post proof that I'm a post editor. Your lack of proof is my proof.
>
> <yawn>
>
> You edited my posts. You acknowledge your deed above.
I acknowledge no such thing.
>
> No matter how you want to slice it, you changed words from my posts.
> You could have left in my "spelling correction" as proof of what *you*
> might call (if you had the vocabulary) my "perfidy," but, you did not.
Post editing is intellectual dishonesty. It's not dishonest to correct
someone else's lies.
>
> And, if you want to get nit-picky, I can show that you've snipped
> stuff, which is another form of editing.
Apples and oranges, bitch.
>
> But, for now, you acknowledge that you've changed my words, *for
> whatever reason*, and that is editing posts.
Liar liar pants on fire.
>
> >> >Nobody is surprised.
> >>
> >> >> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
> >> >
> >> >If I were truly a poodle, I would have chewed your leg off long ago.
> >>
> >> LOL
> >>
> >> All you yap doggies think you're the shit, but all you ever manage to
> >> do is yap.
> >
> >Hah. You still don't get that us yap doggies are in control here, do
> >you?
>
> I know that all yap doggies *think* they're the masters of their
> domains.
You know no such thing. Have you ever stopped to wonder why all of your
posts here are about us?
>
> >> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
> >>
> >> >> >> then you'd be onto
> >> >> >> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
> >> >> >> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Inability to provide proof noted.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL
> >> >>
> >> >> If it would prove something, I would. As it is, well, just see above.
> >> >
> >> >You NEVER prove anything.
> >>
> >> LOL
> >>
> >> I just proved *this* wrong in this very post, you St00pid git.
> >
> >No, you haven't.
>
> LOL
>
> Now you're just being St00pid.
That doesn't change the fact that you haven't proved a damn thing, and
you never will.
>
> >> >> >> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
> >> >> >> $300, so there's no problemo,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
> >> >> >but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
> >> >> >meaningless.
> >> >>
> >> >> <shrug>
> >> >>
> >> >> He claimed I could spend $300 on a car, two separate times. If I could
> >> >> afford $300 for a superfluous car (and then there's the *totally*
> >> >> unnecessary motorcycle which we've even begun to fix a price on...),
> >> >> it stands to reason that I can afford $300 (actually less - a lot less
> >> >> for the 27" and a WHOLE lot less for the 20" which also exceeds the
> >> >> specified 19" standard and that's just UE, the Best Buy ad shows a 25"
> >> >> and two 27" models *under* the target price) to buy a TV.
> >> >
> >> >Your rant doesn't prove anything.
> >>
> >> If you think it's a rant, then no wonder you can't follow the logic
> >> chain.
> >
> >Prove you can afford a TV.
>
> You've already seen as much proof as you are going to get, Dimwiddy.
HA! Since you haven't posted ANY proof whatsoever...
>
> >> >> Get that, Maurice Ronald?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> anywho.
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snarf>
> >> >>
> >> >> Bad little doggie...
> >> >
> >> ><pisses on your shoes>
> >
> >I see, from your lack of response, that you enjoy having your shoes
> >pissed on.
>
> LOL
>
> No, you see that I won't indulge your golden shower fantasies, widdle
> piss-sniffing poodle.
Ha! You have fantasies about sniffing piss! Ha!
CLUE: Discussing pissing on someone isn't having a golden shower
fantasy. However, discussing being pissed on IS
>
> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
--
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
>In article <82dilu4sao2aom19o...@4ax.com>, "Lurker
>Below" <lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>> Oh yeah. You're really taking it to the drivers. Only one of us
>> posts here on anything close to a regular basis.
>
> And why do you think that is?
>
Turkey-lurky still hasn't figured out that although this whole thing
started as a lesson in how to use killfiles, the chasing all the pizza-
bois off of usenet was a desirable side-effect.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
And we're dancing on their usenet-graves.
Lurker Below
Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>On 13 Aug 2002 12:06:17 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>
>>On 13 Aug 2002 15:29:41 GMT, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit
>><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "It's not up to me to back it up. It is meant to insult you,
>>>> whether true or not..."
>>>> ScottZf explaining that he'll lie at the drop of a hat in
>>>> <Xns926887D128E06emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>
>>>
>>>I stop debating with someone when they have been proven an idiot.
>>>After that I just poke them with sticks. If lies are what annoy you,
>>>then I use lies. Whatever works. Of course, the below is not a lie.
>>>
>>>No wonder you don't get any tips, and cannot afford a TV.
>>
>>No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends.
>
>Post proof that he has no friends and he's a wanker or retract your assertions.
No wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a cyber
cafe.
Lurker Below
<sp...@blocker.address> wrote:
Let *me* spell this out for *you* slowly. Y-O-U C-H-A-N-G-E-D M-Y
P-O-S-T-S. T-H-A-T I-S E-D-I-T-I-N-G. I-T D-O-E-S-'-T M-A-T-T-E-R
H-O-W Y-O-U R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-Z-E I-T, D-I-M-W-I-D-D-Y.
You can yap all you want, but the fact remains that you edited my
posts.
>And as far as choosing another way to protest your "spelling
>corrections", you could have said "ITYM me" instead of changing "you"
>to "me."
I did it that way and *immediately noted that I had corrected your
spelling error*. I directed your attention to it just as if I *had*
said, "ITYM me." The effect is exactly the same. And, BTW, that's
exactly why it's not changing it so that I "win."
All you're doing now is yapping your widdle fool head off for nothing,
Poodle-Boy.
>> >> >> You trolls never retract anything you say, whether or not you're
>> >> >> proven right or wrong. I see no reason to do so because you're
>> >> >> whinging pitiably about something you've actually done.
>> >> >
>> >> >One reason: I haven't edited any posts.
>> >>
>> >> Think *hard*, Dimwiddy.
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> No matter how you slice it, you still edited my posts, Dimwiddy.
>>
>> Deal.
>
>Liar. Provide evidence where I edited your posts, that wasn't a
>correction of your revisionist lies.
They aren't revisionist lies. I corrected your spelling error,
Dimwiddy. Deal.
>> >> >> And BTW, I consider all you trolls (you, ScottZf, Meat->Plow, Cain,
>> >> >> etc.) to be like the Three Musketeers - "All for one, and one for
>> >> >> all." - so anything *any* of you do, will be visited on all the
>> >> >> others, just like you trolls blame me for things Stiffy and Griffiths
>> >> >> do or have done (or that you just claim they've done).
>> >> >
>> >> >Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, or even reply. This will
>> >> >continue for as long as you want it to.
>> >>
>> >> I will continue to make fools out of you morons foe as long as you
>> >> want to post here.
>> >
>> >Translation : You will all kick my ass, but I'll pretend I'm on top,
>> >because a have a masochistic streak a m1ile long.
>>
>> You have a funny concept of kicking someone's ass, Dimwiddy.
>Considering that I recently added a new entry to my score card...
LOL
The obsessed fuckwit is keeping score! What are you going to do with
your scorecard, ankle biter? Grow bitter and resentful that I won't
stop making a fool of you?
>Show me yours.
I'm not anal-retentive, like you are, widdle poodle. Go sniff some
butts, Poodle-Boy.
Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>> >> >> Like the taste of your own medicine, Dimwiddy? I hope you choke on it.
>> >> >
>> >> >You sound really bitter.
>> >>
>> >> <yawn>
>> >>
>> >> Says the git who's so bitter that he stays here on the off chance that
>> >> Stiffy will show.
>> >
>> >Is that what you think? Heh. I'm here, because the pizzaboys have
>> >completely lost my respect, and my presence here is a slap in their
>> >collective faces.
>>
>> Oh yeah. You're really taking it to the drivers. Only one of us posts
>> here on anything close to a regular basis.
>
>And why do you think that is?
Because they wanted to discuss pizza delivery and you wanted to be a
flame warrior, but can't handle a real flame group, little yapper.
>> You're delusional, Dimwiddy.
>
>Nope.
Denial is one of the signs of your delusion, Dimwiddy.
>> >> >> LOL
>> >> >
>> >> >Weren't you the one who said that constant laughter is a sign of
>> >> >insanity?
>> >>
>> >> You're misquoting there, Dimwiddy. I didn't say "constant" laughter.
>> >
>> >Autoflame : B-
>>
>> Are you the French Judge?
>
>Non, monsieur.
Well, there's something left of a sense of humour in your addled
brain, yap doggie.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Olkahoma, South Dakota and Utah.
If the shoe fits, little yapper, you'll chew it.
You doggies have a big problem with that foot in mouth thing, don't
'cha?
>> LOL
>>
>> What a git.
>>
>> No wonder you have no friends.
>
>Post evidence to back up your assertion.
As anal as you are, it's no wonder that you have no friends.
>> >> ------------------
>> >> > And BTW, you can buy a TV for $300...
>> >> >
>> >> I know, and even bigger than 19". Pretty sad when you can't afford
>> >> one.
>> >> ------------------
>> >>
>> >> There you go...
>> >>
>> >> >> If it had been, I could conclusively prove it's existence (and one
>> >> >> from Best Buy, as well). As it is, you can go suck eggs, Post Editing
>> >> >> Fuckwit.
>> >> >
>> >> >More lies from Parrot-boy.
>> >>
>> >> PPOR
>> >
>> >Post proof that I'm a post editor. Your lack of proof is my proof.
>>
>> <yawn>
>>
>> You edited my posts. You acknowledge your deed above.
>
>I acknowledge no such thing.
Your own words give lie to that statement. You acknowledge that you
changed something I wrote, yapper.
>> No matter how you want to slice it, you changed words from my posts.
>> You could have left in my "spelling correction" as proof of what *you*
>> might call (if you had the vocabulary) my "perfidy," but, you did not.
>
>Post editing is intellectual dishonesty. It's not dishonest to correct
>someone else's lies.
Nor is it to correct someone else's errors - and that is what I did to
you, yapper.
>> And, if you want to get nit-picky, I can show that you've snipped
>> stuff, which is another form of editing.
>
>Apples and oranges,
But, still editing.
So now there's even more reason to call you a Post Editing Wanker
*and* proclaim that you acknowledge that you edit posts.
>bitch.
LOL
Such a bitter little yapper you are.
>> But, for now, you acknowledge that you've changed my words, *for
>> whatever reason*, and that is editing posts.
>
>Liar liar pants on fire.
LOL
Still in grade school, I see.
>> >> >Nobody is surprised.
>> >>
>> >> >> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>> >> >
>> >> >If I were truly a poodle, I would have chewed your leg off long ago.
>> >>
>> >> LOL
>> >>
>> >> All you yap doggies think you're the shit, but all you ever manage to
>> >> do is yap.
>> >
>> >Hah. You still don't get that us yap doggies are in control here, do
>> >you?
>>
>> I know that all yap doggies *think* they're the masters of their
>> domains.
>
>You know no such thing.
Your ESP has failed you yet again, butt-sniffer.
>Have you ever stopped to wonder why all of your posts here are about us?
They're not.
>> >> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
>> >>
>> >> >> >> then you'd be onto
>> >> >> >> something. But, your mere inability to obtain it, given a clear and
>> >> >> >> concise citation, is not *my* problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Inability to provide proof noted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LOL
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If it would prove something, I would. As it is, well, just see above.
>> >> >
>> >> >You NEVER prove anything.
>> >>
>> >> LOL
>> >>
>> >> I just proved *this* wrong in this very post, you St00pid git.
>> >
>> >No, you haven't.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Now you're just being St00pid.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that you haven't proved a damn thing, and
>you never will.
You're starting to foam there, butt-sniffer. Have you had your rabies
shots?
>> >> >> >> Besides, Ignorant Fuckwit accepted that a TV can be bought for under
>> >> >> >> $300, so there's no problemo,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Considering that he didn't say a TV couldn't be bought for under $300,
>> >> >> >but that *you* couldn't afford a TV, the above statement is
>> >> >> >meaningless.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <shrug>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He claimed I could spend $300 on a car, two separate times. If I could
>> >> >> afford $300 for a superfluous car (and then there's the *totally*
>> >> >> unnecessary motorcycle which we've even begun to fix a price on...),
>> >> >> it stands to reason that I can afford $300 (actually less - a lot less
>> >> >> for the 27" and a WHOLE lot less for the 20" which also exceeds the
>> >> >> specified 19" standard and that's just UE, the Best Buy ad shows a 25"
>> >> >> and two 27" models *under* the target price) to buy a TV.
>> >> >
>> >> >Your rant doesn't prove anything.
>> >>
>> >> If you think it's a rant, then no wonder you can't follow the logic
>> >> chain.
>> >
>> >Prove you can afford a TV.
>>
>> You've already seen as much proof as you are going to get, Dimwiddy.
>
>HA! Since you haven't posted ANY proof whatsoever...
It's right before your eyes, Maurice Ronald.
>> >> >> Get that, Maurice Ronald?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> anywho.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><snarf>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bad little doggie...
>> >> >
>> >> ><pisses on your shoes>
>> >
>> >I see, from your lack of response, that you enjoy having your shoes
>> >pissed on.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> No, you see that I won't indulge your golden shower fantasies, widdle
>> piss-sniffing poodle.
>
>Ha! You have fantasies about sniffing piss! Ha!
LOL
No, sniffing piss is what widdle poodle yap doggies, like you do. It's
their doggie nature - just like sniffing butts.
>
>CLUE: Discussing pissing on someone isn't having a golden shower
>fantasy. However, discussing being pissed on IS
CLUE: You're wrong.
Both givers and receivers of such things can have fantasies. And
you're definitely fantasizing about it. You want to sooooooo bad,
don't 'cha, Poodle-Boy?
LOL
What a maroon.
>> Beg, widdle poodle. Beg!
--
Jonathan Swift
Lurker Below
Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>On 13 Aug 2002 14:10:09 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:01:44 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>So you don't post edit ?
LOL
Just what does the attribution line have do with anything meaningful,
little Yorkie? Jump, doggie. Jump!
For all you know, I have a script that does that.
>>>On 13 Aug 2002 12:06:17 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>>On 13 Aug 2002 15:29:41 GMT, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit
>>>><sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>>>>>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>>>>>alt.usenet.kooks:
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "It's not up to me to back it up. It is meant to insult you,
>>>>>> whether true or not..."
>>>>>> ScottZf explaining that he'll lie at the drop of a hat in
>>>>>> <Xns926887D128E06emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>
>>>>>I stop debating with someone when they have been proven an idiot.
>>>>>After that I just poke them with sticks. If lies are what annoy you,
>>>>>then I use lies. Whatever works. Of course, the below is not a lie.
>>>>>No wonder you don't get any tips, and cannot afford a TV.
>>>>No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends.
>>>Post proof that he has no friends and he's a wanker or retract your assertions.
>>No wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a cyber
>>cafe.
>Non Sequitur noted.
Chase your tail, little Yorkie.
>Guess you can't prove any assertion you make.
"It's not up to me to back it up. It is meant to insult you,
whether true or not..."
ScottZf explaining that he'll lie at the drop of a hat in
<Xns926887D128E06emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>
If Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit doesn't have to prove his little bon mots,
neither do I.
Deal.
>And post proof of your most recent assertion. You couldn't possibly know
>anything about me.
No wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a cyber
cafe.
--
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:03:12 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>
>>On 13 Aug 2002 14:10:09 -0500, "Lurker Below"
>><lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:01:44 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>So you don't post edit ?
>
> LOL
There's that silly acronym again...
>
> Just what does the attribution line have do with anything
> meaningful, little Yorkie? Jump, doggie. Jump!
Are you really as dumb as you make yourself out to be? I had to edit
the above, since one (or both) of you are not using fixed-width font.
Changing attribution lines *is* post-editing, you bubble-headed
doorknob.
No wonder you don't get tips, and cannot afford a TV.
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> whinged like a small child:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:03:12 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> yapped:
>>
>>>On 13 Aug 2002 14:10:09 -0500, "Lurker Below"
>>><lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:01:44 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>So you don't post edit ?
>>
>> LOL
>
>There's that silly acronym again...
Whatever...
LOL
>> Just what does the attribution line have do with anything
>> meaningful, little Yorkie? Jump, doggie. Jump!
>Are you really as dumb as you make yourself out to be? I had to edit
>the above,
You post editing git, you.
That's two of you that have now admitted that you edit posts.
>since one (or both) of you are not using fixed-width font.
Who cares, Fuckwit? Well, obviously you do, so to soothe your frazzled
brain, I'll tell you that I compose in fixed width...
>Changing attribution lines
ROFLMAO
I *originated* the attribution lines he's whinging about. They haven't
been *CHANGED* AT ALL.
What fucking morons you little yap doggies are, Ignorant Wanker
Fuckwit.
And, in his case, with him bouncing back and forth between Meat->Plow,
Stiff Me Alot, Gwyneth Paltrow's Voice and whatever other St00pid nom
de plume he's using at the moment it means even less to set up
something to give him a consistent "look."
Jump, little Pom. Jump!
>*is* post-editing, you bubble-headed doorknob.
For your next act, are you going to try and argue that putting in
"whinged like a small child" instead of "wrote" is post editing,
Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit?
I eagerly await your next permutation of chasing your own tail, you
Post Editing Git.
>No wonder you don't get tips, and cannot afford a TV.
No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends.
Lurker Below
Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> moaned feebly:
>On 14 Aug 2002 00:33:21 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:03:12 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Aug 2002 14:10:09 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:01:44 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>So you don't post edit ?
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>Just what does the attribution line have do with anything meaningful,
>It has everything to do with your constant whine about others post editing
LOL
You certainly have a *creative* definition of "whine" there, HCFC. I
simply started pointing out that you little yap dog trolls post edit
after Dimwiddy raised a big stink. I pointed out his hypocrisy to him
and he didn't like what he saw. Now, ol' Scoot has admitted his own
post editing. He won't like me pointing *it* out to the world, either.
But, this bullshit here just takes the cake, HCFC. I *wrote* the
attribution lines you're whinging pitiably about here. There's no
editing involved.
NONE.
Next, you'll be whinging that it doesn't say you "wrote" something
anymore...
You morons are *SO* fucking St00pid (and petty). It's a wonder that
food makes it into your mouths from your hands.
>when in fact the acronym PKB was custom made just for you.
Anything that makes you whinge is a good thing, HCFC.
Now...
Here's a doggie treat...
Jump, little Yorkie. Jump!
No wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a cyber
cafe.
--
"I had to edit the above..."
ScottZf Admitting That He Edits Posts in
<Xns926A104B4F7D9emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>
Lurker Below
Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> whinged pitiably:
>On 14 Aug 2002 12:27:10 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:34:39 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> moaned feebly:
>>
>>>On 14 Aug 2002 00:33:21 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:03:12 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 13 Aug 2002 14:10:09 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:01:44 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>>>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>>So you don't post edit ?
>>>>
>>>>LOL
>>>>
>>>>Just what does the attribution line have do with anything meaningful,
>>
>>>It has everything to do with your constant whine about others post editing
>>
>>LOL
>>You certainly have a *creative* definition of "whine" there, HCFC.
I put back in your little edit, HCFC. I'm sure the other Post Editing
Stooges will welcome you to their club - The Three Stooges.
Are you Moe, Larry or Curly Joe?
>No, your whine is very distinct and pathetic. You're doing it right now.
LOL
You have a serious case of cognitive dissonance going there, HCFC.
Laughter is not whining.
>Everyone will agree.
No doubt that everyone there in your inbred little yapper's club
*will* agree, HCFC. Like anyone there in the Liar's Club will admit
that someone got the better of them...
I put back in this giant edit you made so people can really that you
have no coherent answer for anything.
It's really very entertaining to see you Three Stooges frothing and
flailing like this, especially *you* over attrib lines that I *wrote*,
as opposed to edited.
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:23:59 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> whinged pitiably:
So who is "Hillary Clinton's Festering Cooze?"
> I put back in this giant edit you made so people can really that
> you have no coherent answer for anything.
>
And I took it back out again, and put in the part *you* snipped,
telling you why he snipped your shit. What are you going to do
about it? Whine some more?
>> [..snip irrelevant bullshit..]
But I'll leave this part in, as it is an interesting look into what
passes for as your brain.
>>> and he didn't like what he saw. Now, ol' Scoot has admitted his
>>> own post editing. He won't like me pointing *it* out to the
>>> world, either.
I admitted to changing the lines that were underlined so that they
were formatted properly using fixed-width font. One should never
underline using variable. But even if I did more than that, I
wouldn't care that you point "it" out "to the world," because I have
a life and don't care what you do. If you want to go spastic over
it, then knock yourself out. Did you ever wonder why no other
pizza-boi posts to your group anymore? It's because they have
gotten over it and moved on, something you seem to be incapable of.
You can "LOL" about it all you want, but I think it is a pretty sad
comment on your life.
No wonder no one tips you, or you cannot afford a TV.
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> whined like a bitch in heat:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:23:59 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> whinged pitiably:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>So you don't post edit ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL
>>>>>>Just what does the attribution line have do with anything meaningful,
>>>>>It has everything to do with your constant whine about others post editing
>>>>LOL
>>>>You certainly have a *creative* definition of "whine" there, HCFC.
>>I put back in your little edit, HCFC. I'm sure the other Post Editing
>>Stooges will welcome you to their club - The Three Stooges.
>>Are you Moe, Larry or Curly Joe?
>>>No, your whine is very distinct and pathetic. You're doing it right now.
>>LOL
>>You have a serious case of cognitive dissonance going there, HCFC.
>>Laughter is not whining.
>>>Everyone will agree.
>>No doubt that everyone there in your inbred little yapper's club
>>*will* agree, HCFC. Like anyone there in the Liar's Club will admit
>>that someone got the better of them...
>So who is "Hillary Clinton's Festering Cooze?"
You're a pretty sad little doggie if you can't figure that out, given
that the stated e-mail addresses of you Three Stooges are left
unchanged. I underlined it for you - in fixed pitch.
>> I put back in this giant edit you made so people can really that
>> you have no coherent answer for anything.
>And I took it back out again,
So, of course, you know I'm going to put it right back in.
All your yapping has no effect, little Pomeranian. None.
Impotent little yapper...
>and put in the part *you* snipped,
>telling you why he snipped your shit. What are you going to do
>about it? Whine some more?
Correct it so it reflects reality...
>>> [..snip stuff I have no answer for..]
LOL
Are you going to yap some more about it, Pomeranian bitch? Are you
going to whinge to your butt-buddies in auk?
You're like the dog in the old Beggin' Strips commercial.
>But I'll leave this part in, as it is an interesting look into what
>passes for as your brain.
>>It's really very entertaining to see you Three Stooges frothing and
>>flailing like this, especially *you* over attrib lines that I *wrote*,
>>as opposed to edited.
>>>>I simply started pointing out that you little yap dog trolls post edit
>>>>after Dimwiddy raised a big stink. I pointed out his hypocrisy to him
>>>>and he didn't like what he saw. Now, ol' Scoot has admitted his own
>>>>post editing. He won't like me pointing *it* out to the world, either.
>I admitted to changing the lines that were underlined so that they
>were formatted properly using fixed-width font.
You edited, in other words.
>One should never underline using variable.
I compose in fixed. Go whinge at your fellow Stooge, Hillary Clinton's
Festering Cooze.
>But even if I did more than that, I
>wouldn't care that you point "it" out "to the world," because I have
>a life and don't care what you do.
As your reply gives *complete* and total lie to your words, Ignorant
Wanker Fuckwit.
Yap all you want. No one will care that you're yapping, but all the
world will be able to see your hypocrisy.
>If you want to go spastic over it, then knock yourself out.
Says the widdle doggie yapping it's widdle heart out at me because I
spoke sharply to it.
Aw...
Isn't it just precious.
>Did you ever wonder why no other
>pizza-boi posts to your group anymore? It's because they have
>gotten over it and moved on, something you seem to be incapable of.
<snort>
Says a guy who maintains a presence in apdd simply because *he* can't
"get over it." How laughable.
Maybe you could learn a thing or two about "getting over" something,
Pomeranian.
>You can "LOL" about it all you want, but I think it is a pretty sad
>comment on your life.
>No wonder no one tips you, or you cannot afford a TV.
So, it's either or now, is it?
Poor little yapper. He yapped so much he's foaming at the snout.
No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends
>>>>But, this bullshit here just takes the cake, HCFC. I *wrote* the
>>>>attribution lines you're whinging pitiably about here. There's no
>>>>editing involved.
>>>>NONE.
>>>>Next, you'll be whinging that it doesn't say you "wrote" something
>>>>anymore...
>>>>You morons are *SO* fucking St00pid (and petty). It's a wonder that
>>>>food makes it into your mouths from your hands.
>>>>>when in fact the acronym PKB was custom made just for you.
>>>>Anything that makes you whinge is a good thing, HCFC.
>>>>Now...
>>>>Here's a doggie treat...
>>>>Jump, little Yorkie. Jump!
>>>>No wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a cyber
>>>>cafe.
>>No wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a cyber
>>cafe.
--
ScottZf
alt.usenet.kooks:
> Says a guy who maintains a presence in apdd simply because *he*
> can't "get over it." How laughable.
>
Dear Turkey-lurky...
Look at my attribution line, and take a wild-assed guess why your
statement is ridiculous.
(rest snipped for irrelevancy, and I didn't read any of it any way)
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> whinged pitiably:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in
>alt.usenet.kooks:
>> Says a guy who maintains a presence in apdd simply because *he*
>> can't "get over it." How laughable.
>Dear Turkey-lurky...
>Look at my attribution line, and take a wild-assed guess why your
>statement is ridiculous.
LOL
Then you were lying when you said, "Did you ever wonder why no other
pizza-boi posts to your group anymore?" in
<Xns926AB017B24B2emykatdomjil@emykatdomjil>? If you don't maintain a
presence here, just how do you know no other "pizza-boi" posts to the
group? One way or another, you're lying, little Pomeranian.
Yap, little bitch. Yap!
>(rest snipped for irrelevancy, and I didn't read any of it any way)
Then you've no idea if it's relevant or not, now, do you? You're such
a liar, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit.
No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends
ScottZf
> On 15 Aug 2002 00:17:55 GMT, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit
><sco...@dwave.net> whinged pitiably:
>>(rest snipped for irrelevancy, and I didn't read any of it any way)
>
> Then you've no idea if it's relevant or not, now, do you? You're such
> a liar, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit.
>
> No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends
Dear Mr Turkey-lurky:
My newsreader is set-up to put quoted text in red, and new text in
blue. When someone replies to my 40 line post with 170 lines of red
text, I don't have to read it to know it is irrelevant. Besides, it
made you have a hissy-fit, so it accomplished my purpose.
Lurker Below
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>"Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam> posted this in alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2002 00:17:55 GMT, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit
>><sco...@dwave.net> whinged pitiably:
>>>(rest snipped for irrelevancy, and I didn't read any of it any way)
>>
>> Then you've no idea if it's relevant or not, now, do you? You're such
>> a liar, Ignorant Wanker Fuckwit.
>>
>> No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends
>
>Dear Mr Turkey-lurky:
>
>My newsreader is set-up to put quoted text in red, and new text in
>blue.
"Well, ain't that purty."
>When someone replies to my 40 line post with 170 lines of red
>text,
LOL
The whole thing was only 170 lines long - including the .sig and the
attrib line. It wasn't all quoted text, so you're lying yet *again*.
Why lie when the truth is so easily determined?
It must be your inane need to yap, little Pom.
>I don't have to read it to know it is irrelevant.
<snort>
You might try looking at the actual post instead of some made-up one
that fits whatever description you want to babble about.
>Besides, it
>made you have a hissy-fit, so it accomplished my purpose.
Oh yeah, guys having hissy fits are always laughing as hard as I laugh
when I see your auto-flaming posts. You lie so much, so St00pidly, so
easily seen through that it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Go ahead and delude yourself that I'm having "a hissy-fit" when I see
your posts if you want. But, the truth is more like I'm trying to keep
myself from busting a gut because your replies are so St00pid.
No wonder you're a wanker git who has no friends.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
<some delusional nonsense nobody cares to read>
Don't you realise, little turkey-lurkey, that you're doing a fine job
of keeping the other pizzaboys out of here?
Lurker Below
Festering Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> contradicted itself
thusly:
>On 14 Aug 2002 15:13:24 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:23:59 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> whinged pitiably:
>>
>>>On 14 Aug 2002 12:27:10 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:34:39 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> moaned feebly:
>>>>
>>>>>On 14 Aug 2002 00:33:21 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:03:12 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>>>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 13 Aug 2002 14:10:09 -0500, "Lurker Below" <lur...@below.nospam>,wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:01:44 -0400, "Hillary Clinton's Festering
>>>>>>>>Cooze" <Me...@hell-flame-wars.orq> wrote:
>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So you don't post edit ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just what does the attribution line have do with anything meaningful,
>>>>
>>>>>It has everything to do with your constant whine about others post editing
>>>>
>>>>LOL
>>
>>>>You certainly have a *creative* definition of "whine" there, HCFC.
>>
>>I put back in your little edit, HCFC. I'm sure the other Post Editing
>>Stooges will welcome you to their club - The Three Stooges.
>
>It wasn't an edit you babbling bag of net-shit, it was a mercy flush of
>irrelevant bullshit.
>
>
>[-----FLUSH----]
LOL
You mean you didn't mean this when you later said (in
<ajls2v$jbj$o...@pita.alt.net>) "The point is that you POST EDIT
and not what you POST EDIT."?
I know, I know...
You'll spout some bullshit that will amount to "It's okay when *I* do
it, but not when *you* do it, <inappropriate slur>." which will only
serve to highlight what a giant hypocrite and net.kook you are.
It's no wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a
public library computer.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
<snip>
>It's no wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a
>public library computer.
Projection my dear (cough) boy, projection.
Lurker Below
<sp...@blocker.address> whimpered:
>In article <gdc2muk9avf6j22bh...@4ax.com>, "Lurker Below"
><lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
><snip>
>>It's no wonder you're a smelly homeless guy, with no friends, using a
>>public library computer.
>Projection my dear (cough) boy, projection.
LOL
Wishing will not make it so Š, Post Editing Wanker.
No wonder you're a meathead with delusions of grandeur.
Julia Roberts' Teeth
<lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
<nothing important>
No wonder you're a tipless, friendless pizzaboy who can't afford a TV.