[this message is auto-posted to alt.seduction.fast regularly]
Welcome to unmoderated alt.seduction.fast (uASF).
uASF is a public USENet newsgroup and, as such, is essentially an unmoderated discussion forum within a communication anarchy. In many ways, this is good. However, this leads to a problem with what the USENet community refers to as "trolls", "flame wars", "newsloons", "off-topic" posts, "cross" posts, "spam", and a mess of other annoying disturbances which disrupt the topic of discussion.
There is an evolution to this group, mASF, which is available through:
mASF is a moderated discussion forum. PLEASE read the Posting Guidlines for mASF before posting on it.
No membership is required to browse/lurk the discussions through that web site. Membership is free. Once signed up, you will be able to post using the web interface as well as read/post to the groups using your newsreader or through the mailing list features.
If you want to post, a legitimate e-mail address is required to sign up and you will receive a password to the address you provide. You can edit your account profile to keep your address private. Posts made through all interfaces do not expose any identifying information such as IP address or host name.
Access to the newsgroup interface of the discussion system is available to registered members at:
discussion.fastseduction.com news://discussion.fastseduction.com (link for your web browser)
You can subscribe to that news server just like any other news server.
Your username/password is required to access the newsgroup interface. You obtain your username/password by registering for membership.
Additionally, the discussions can be read and posted to via the mailing list support feature of the system. You can choose to receive each post individually through e-mail or in a daily digest format. More information about the features and how to use them are available within the help system of the web interface.
> Welcome to unmoderated alt.seduction.fast (uASF).
> uASF is a public USENet newsgroup and, as such, is essentially > an unmoderated discussion forum within a communication anarchy. > In many ways, this is good. However, this leads to a problem > with what the USENet community refers to as "trolls", "flame > wars", "newsloons", "off-topic" posts, "cross" posts, "spam", > and a mess of other annoying disturbances which disrupt the topic > of discussion.
In other words, Gordon Roy Parker is able to post here.
> There is an evolution to this group, mASF, which is available > through:
There is no "moderated ASF" on USENET. If there were, it would be called alt.seduction.fast.moderated. And Gordon Roy Parker would STILL not be allowed to post there.
> PLEASE read the Posting Guidlines for mASF before posting on it.
> No membership is required to browse/lurk the discussions through > that web site. Membership is free.
See that? FREE...
> Once signed up, you will be able to post using the web interface > as well as read/post to the groups using your newsreader or through > the mailing list features.
The previous poster owns a commercial website from which he has made absolutely sure that anything Gordon Roy Parker might post, is fully BANNED.
USENET shows an e-mail address to anyone who knows how to read headers, and also shows your IP address when you visit.
If one can read headers, one can see these things.
While a commercial website may be useful, it is definitely not at all like USENET, and it is also commercial in nature, while USENET is not. Private news servers also allow people like Gordon Roy Parker to be banned from making off-topic and disruptive posts, which include threats of frivolous SLAPP-style litigation, and threats to minors.
The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation to others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an acceptance of such tactics.
While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote: > The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an > invitation to others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second > posting, and an acceptance of such tactics.
> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently > (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact > either way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table > for it. Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
I think it's funny that Gordon doesn't even see the irony of his own postings. He is sooooooo upset because all of the real discussion on seduction is now taking place where he can't cause disruption, yet he FAILS (there's that theme again) to see that it's his postings like the above that drive people to that place where he can't cause disruption.
>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact >> either way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table >> for it. Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
> I think it's funny that Gordon doesn't even see the irony of his own > postings.
User3247 thinks he's being cool by responding "indirectly." As I advise women who want to avoid abusive men, when they see a small characteristic like this, it's a red flag and that they shouldn't wait until they become the target of it.
>He is sooooooo upset because all of the real discussion on > seduction is now taking place where he can't cause disruption, yet he > FAILS (there's that theme again) to see that it's his postings like the > above that drive people to that place where he can't cause disruption.
> One of these days he might figure that out.
> Naaaahh. He's not bright enough.
What User3247 doesn't grasp is that I couldn't give a flying fuck about what any website does, or why, but what I sued over (and apparently will have to sue AGAIN over), is the marketing based on that type of disparagement. Ever notice that most companies never do this? There's a reason: the Lanham Act is a pretty strong deterrent, usually.
Never mind that more than one audience member in this group have given other explanations for why someone might move a site from a decentralized USENET board to a commercial website, and my name wasn't listed as a reason.
I suspect that rudimentary discovery, once we get past the technical phases of the next case (or if this one is overturned on appeal), will show that perhaps things aren't as simple as User3247 portrays them.
Of course, User3247 likes to play both sides against the middle; on the one hand, he trashes me to gain favor with the "seduction community," and on the other, he pumps that community for information -- very specific information -- that he can feed to the various online groups that are his real internet interest, namely the ones who go trolling on the net as underage girls trying to catch the very same guys in the act. Not that it's a bad thing to catch these people (I certainly am not one of them), but to use me as a pawn to infiltrate his personal enemies is something I find distasteful.
Ray Gordon wrote: > The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation to > others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an > acceptance of such tactics.
> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently > (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either > way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. > Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation >> to >> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an >> acceptance of such tactics.
>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either >> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. >> Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
> more crap lawsuits, Ray?
You'd have to be a lawyer to even have an opinion that mattered, now would you?
If the first lawsuit were crap, it'd have been dismissed with prejudice, not without.
Gordon Roy Parker who lives in the Fairfax Apartments, on Locust Street in Philadelphia, PA wrote:
> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an > invitation to others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the > second posting, and an acceptance of such tactics.
#1: There was nothing, repeat NOTHING in the original post in this thread that contained the term "FAQ". Therefore, anyone who sees such is willfully ignoring the fact that they are the only one banned from said forum... Pure jealousy.
#2: Nobody is responsible for anything on Usenet, except the person who sends an individual message. Anyone else who wishes to make anyone responsible for anything other than their own posting history is mentally ill.
> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting > independently (though a jury could take the evidence and > make a finding of fact either way), that won't be relevant > because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. Were the "FAQ" > not posted, that would not be my position.
#3: The original respondent to the automatically posted message that began this thread, is not in any way responsible to, or for the content of the previous message. And there is absolutely no way to prove otherwise.
#4: There is no "FAQ" in the original post.
#5: Anyone has the right to respond in any manner to any post he or she wishes to respond to. Even if, and especially when Gordon Roy Parker doesn't like it. That's the beauty of Free Speech.
> It seems someone wants a return trip to court.
#6: In order for anyone to want a "return" trip, they would have to have been gotten into a court in the first place.
> So be it.
This is being construed as your statement that you are once again threatening litigation to silence the free speech of others and to harass, intimidate, and cause financial drain on those who choose to have a differing viewpoint from you.
No court has ever agreed with your delusuional premise that your rights have been violated in any way. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
in article gijFd.13504$4b.6732@trndny09, Ray Gordon at r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 1/12/05 7:30 PM:
> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation to > others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an > acceptance of such tactics.
> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently > (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either > way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. Were > the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the law.
He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he doesn't like.
>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation >> to >> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an >> acceptance of such tactics.
>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either >> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. >> Were >> the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
> It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the > law.
> He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he > doesn't like.
Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he wanted.
>>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation >>> to >>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an >>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either >>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. >>> Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>> more crap lawsuits, Ray?
> You'd have to be a lawyer to even have an opinion that mattered, now would > you?
No, just an opinion that's shared.
> If the first lawsuit were crap, it'd have been dismissed with prejudice, > not without.
Again, no it wouldn't have to be. Too bad it'll take nothing less than a dismissal with prejudice to drive the whole "crap lawsuit" thing through Gordon's nothing-but-bone head.
>>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation >>> to >>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an >>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either >>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. >>> Were >>> the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>> It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the >> law.
>> He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he >> doesn't like.
> Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
Only Gordon seems to think they are. While I do not take Alex's opinion as legal, I do share them.
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the > dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he > wanted.
Gordon's trying anything he can to convince himself that his lawsuits aren't a waste of time. Too bad it'll take nothing less than a dismissal with prejudice to drive that point home and shatter his reality.
Ray Gordon wrote: >>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation >>> to >>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an >>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either >>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. >>> Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>> more crap lawsuits, Ray?
> You'd have to be a lawyer to even have an opinion that mattered, now would > you?
> If the first lawsuit were crap, it'd have been dismissed with prejudice, > not without.
again you miss the point and will fail to pull me into your little seduction oriented world. the point is, REAL people have REAL need of the legal system and folks like you clog it up with pointless lawsuits that will accomplish nothing.
Ray Gordon wrote: >>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation >>> to >>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an >>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either >>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. >>> Were >>> the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>> It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the >> law.
>> He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he >> doesn't like.
> Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the > dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he > wanted.
sayeth he who cloggem legal system with crap lawsuits
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote: >>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting >>> independently (though a jury could take the evidence and make a >>> finding of fact either way), that won't be relevant because the >>> "FAQ" sets the table for it. Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would >>> not be my position.
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>> I think it's funny that Gordon doesn't even see the irony of his own >> postings.
> User3247 thinks he's being cool by responding "indirectly." As I > advise women who want to avoid abusive men, when they see a small > characteristic like this, it's a red flag and that they shouldn't wait > until they become the target of it.
Again, Gordon here is too stupid to understand the irony. He makes a post by reponding to an anonymous poster "indirectly", then when someone responds to him in the same manner, all of a sudden it's a "red flag" of an abusive man.
Gordon is too stupid to understand that. I wonder if Gordon "advises" women to stay away from himself.
>>He is sooooooo upset because all of the real discussion on >> seduction is now taking place where he can't cause disruption, yet he >> FAILS (there's that theme again) to see that it's his postings like >> the above that drive people to that place where he can't cause >> disruption.
>> One of these days he might figure that out.
>> Naaaahh. He's not bright enough.
> What User3247 doesn't grasp is that I couldn't give a flying fuck > about what any website does, or why,...
Another outright lie by Gordon Roy Parker. Gordon cares so much what one particular website does that he automatically responds to EVERY SINGLE POST mentioning that website. He cares so much that he tried (and failed) to sue that website to get it shut down. It burns him up that he's banned from that website, because he can't get the people there to pay any attention to him.
> ... but what I sued over ...
And FAILED to do what was necessary to get the case heard before a judge.
> ... (and apparently will have to sue AGAIN over),...
And will most likely FAIL again.
> ...is the marketing based on > that type of disparagement. Ever notice that most companies never do > this? There's a reason: the Lanham Act is a pretty strong deterrent, > usually.
He failed to convince anyone of that before, and he will fail again. It's amazing to me that with all of his disappointments from his many, MANY failures in the court system that Gordon would be so afraid of women. One would think that he wouldn't fear a woman rejecting him.
> Never mind that more than one audience member in this group have given > other explanations for why someone might move a site from a > decentralized USENET board to a commercial website, and my name wasn't > listed as a reason.
> I suspect that rudimentary discovery, once we get past the technical > phases of the next case (or if this one is overturned on appeal), will > show that perhaps things aren't as simple as User3247 portrays them.
I suspect that Gordon will not even making it to the rudimentary discovery phase, based on his total incompetance in getting his cases to that point in the past. I also suspect that Gordon's last case will never be overturned on appeal, as none of his other cases have been.
> Of course, User3247 likes to play both sides against the middle; on > the one hand, he trashes me to gain favor with the "seduction > community," ...
Gordon's feeble brain is jumping to conclusions that are way off base. He's also projecting. I aim to gain favor with no one. You don't see me responding to anyone that is considered to be in the "seduction community", begging for attention. I seldom even read or post to that "seduction community" to which Gordon claims he doesn't "give a flying fuck" about.
> ... and on the other, he pumps that community for information > -- very specific information -- ...
Gordon is assuming. Or he's just being an ASS. I pump that community for nothing. I seldom even gain access to it. I occasionally read it to see if I can lend some advice to anyone, but other than that, I don't even have that site bookmarked on my browser.
I think it's very funny that Gordon assumes that everyone who thinks he's an idiot is in on come sort of grand conspiracy. He can't comprehend that maybe he's just an irritating asshole, and various unconnected people think so.
> ...that he can feed to the various online > groups that are his real internet interest, namely the ones who go > trolling on the net as underage girls trying to catch the very same > guys in the act.
Again Gordon assumes. I posted one time regarding that site, only mentioning that it was funny that Gordon made such a hit with the people running that particular site that he was banned from it in less than 24 hours of his first post. That goes to prove my point above. No one at that site knew anything of Gordon Roy Parker (who posted using the fictitious name Ray Gordon), or his posts on usenet, but independently found him to be an annoying asshole and banned him ("Welcome to banned camp" hehe funniest line I read on that site).
That being said, Gordon is once again making an ASS out of himself. I posted to that board a few times when I first found it. I have not posted to it in over a year. I have not even accessed it in almost a year. For Gordon to post here that he knows me to be one of those people affilated with that site that trolls the net to catch potential pedophiles is defamatory, and I would advise him that unless he has proof that I am in any way affiliated with that site other than making a few posts on their public message boards, he should cease and desist, lest he find himself standing before a federal judge to explain why he is making libelous and defamtory posts on usenet.
> Not that it's a bad thing to catch these people (I > certainly am not one of them),...
Gordon thinks that people don't realize his postings are archived.
> ... but to use me as a pawn to infiltrate > his personal enemies is something I find distasteful.
I use Gordon for nothing. I post here to point out his stupidity, and to make sure that new readers of this group don't get tangled up in believing his drivel, only to find themselves being harassed by him when he enters a manic phase (he's admitted to being bi-polar).
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cyber<notalawyer>.com> wrote: > Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
Neither is Gordon. His opinions should be viewed in the same light as Gordon's.
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why > the dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that > if he wanted.
No, the judge dismissed the case because of the total ineptitude of the plaintiff. He couldn't judge the case because you FAILED to prove to him that you even had a case.
In a civil suit, that's even worse than dismissal with prejudice.
It cannot have escaped your attention that nobody cares how you construe anything. The man is just giving people an alternative where actual discussions of the subject matter can take place without all the ranting, threats, and assiciated off topic posts. YOU created that website with your mouth, and people like you are creating moderated forums all over the internet.
It's a sad fact, that as you look around USENET, you find that almost all the groups have at least one newsloon that spoils things for everyone else. Perhaps you think that people have to listen to you, but the fact is that they are voting with their feet.
Take your threats, bullying and lawsuit crap, and shove it up your ass. Ranting about a bot is about like fighting the windmill isn't it?
KaBoong
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation to > others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an > acceptance of such tactics.
> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently > (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either > way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. > Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation >>> to >>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an >>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently >>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either >>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. >>> Were >>> the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>> It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the >> law.
>> He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he >> doesn't like.
> Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
Neither is Gordon and his opinions should be viewed in that light as well.
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the > dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he > wanted.
That Gordon can't follow procedure well enough to get his case tossed on its merits is hardly evidence of his claim to possess superb legal abilities.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 5:18:36 -0800, El Kabong wrote (in message <WyuFd.10595$Tf5.9758@lakeread03>):
> Ranting about a bot is about like fighting the windmill isn't it?
Erm...tell me, genius- do you think "bots" are actually like "robots" from Star Wars or 'HAL" from 2001? You idiot. "Bots" are programs,as such they are under the control of the person who wites the scripts as are content of the message, frequency it's delivered, etc. It's not some mindless automaton that runs amok, you jackass. It's a safe bet that the SPAM footer at the end of each "bot" message is the prerson who paid for the software and can- belive it or not- control the "bot."
I can't belive how dense some of you fucking nitwits are.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
I can't believe that someone who TWICE misspelled the word "believe" would call someone else a "nitwit".
"I belieeeeeeeve....if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade... and try to find someone who's life has given them vodka... and have a party."
Extra bonus points if anyone can tell me who said it, and what movie it's from (no points awarded if you have to use Google to get it).
I know very well what a bot is shit for brains. I was simply saying that arguing with one is not productive, and will not achieve anything. Software does not talk back... KaBoong
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 5:18:36 -0800, El Kabong wrote > (in message <WyuFd.10595$Tf5.9758@lakeread03>):
>> Ranting about a bot is about like fighting the windmill isn't it?
> Erm...tell me, genius- do you think "bots" are actually like "robots" from > Star Wars or 'HAL" from 2001? You idiot. "Bots" are programs,as such they > are > under the control of the person who wites the scripts as are content of > the > message, frequency it's delivered, etc. It's not some mindless automaton > that > runs amok, you jackass. It's a safe bet that the SPAM footer at the end of > each "bot" message is the prerson who paid for the software and can- > belive > it or not- control the "bot."
> I can't belive how dense some of you fucking nitwits are.
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet > News==---- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 > Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:43:55 -0800, El Kabong wrote (in message <FtFFd.74535$Jk5.73371@lakeread01>):
> I know very well what a bot is shit for brains. I was simply saying that > arguing with one is not productive, and will not achieve anything. Software > does not talk back... > KaBoong
I think someone dropped you on yer head as a baby and the sound was "KABONG."
You most certainly were not saying that, you said arguing with a bot was futile, like windmills or some other trite, innapropriate analogy.
I'd look for your quote, but you obviously know you're beaten already and are trying some chick- like, immature attempt at damage control.
You lost. nitwit, now be a good pea- brain and eat your bowl of feces.
Have a nice day.
Oh, this will written by a "bot" and I'll post it ad- nauseum day and night so don't bother replying or defending yourself. After all, it will be a bot at the controls, and, as you know, bot's will be bots!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:13:13 -0800, User3247 wrote (in message <Xns95DDCDAF9C63532471863987639...@news.teranews.net>):
> I can't believe that someone who TWICE misspelled the word "believe" would > call someone else a "nitwit".
Uh, thanks for the unsolicited spelling corrections. Who needs spell checker in SW when there's bitches who do it for free?
you'd make a wonderful spinster school marm. Yer mom should be proud.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
> Uh, thanks for the unsolicited spelling corrections.
I wasn't making spelling corrections. I was simply pointing out that your accusations of others being "nitwits" is ironic since it is clear you are below that level of mental functioning yourself, not being smart enough to spell a word as simple as "believe". Don't point out the flaws of others if you're not mature enough to have your own pointed out as well.
> Who needs spell > checker in SW when there's bitches who do it for free?
I'm a bitch? Wow. Did you come up with that insult all by yourself? Or did you get a few of your pimply faced, adolescent buddies to work it out over a circle jerk?
> you'd make a wonderful spinster school marm. Yer mom should be proud.
She is. She raised a man intelligent enough to write clear English. "Yer" mom, on the other hand, must be very ashamed of you, considering on your postings.
