Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Steeler wannabes

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Nomen Nescio

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 8:20:04 PM1/22/09
to
http://tinyurl.com/d3qlfa


Reverend Ozone

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 9:13:11 PM1/22/09
to
And lo, did *Nomen Nescio* did scribe these words:

> http://tinyurl.com/d3qlfa

a.k.a., Black and Yellow Punks on Dope.

If, G-d forbid, the Steelers should win the SB, this will add a new meaning to
the "FIXED!" accusations of their last SB win, and, dare I say, further
tarnishing the already low opinion Browns fans have of everything to do with
Steeler-dom (or, in this case, Steeler-*dumb*).

Go Kurt's Kards!

--
Reverend Ozone, Marxist.

Groucho (et. al.), that is.


Flying Willard

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 10:54:08 PM1/22/09
to
On Jan 22, 9:13 pm, "Reverend Ozone"

<CaptainOzon...@netzero.oh.no.you.dont.com> wrote:
> If, G-d forbid, the Steelers should win the SB, this will add a new meaning to
> the "FIXED!" accusations of their last SB win...

Winning the 2009 Super Bowl will be further proof that NFL officials
fixed the 2006 Super Bowl?!

Please elaborate.

Reverend Ozone

unread,
Jan 23, 2009, 12:42:08 AM1/23/09
to
And lo, did *Flying Willard* did illogically scribe these words:

Uh, no, dimbulb, the operative word was *accusations*. I said /nothing/ about
proof. Reading comprehension and logic aren't your strong suit, are they?

<sigh> OK, if I /have/ to explain....

SB XL - anti-Steeler diatribes about how the refs "fixed" their previous win.
No, I don't get it, either, but surely you've read/seen/heard about them? Where
have you been the last four years? No, wait, I don't wanna know....

SB XLIII - per the recent article, the accusers /could/ say the players
themselves are "fixed", contingent upon the outcome. See the connection now?
That's called a "double entendre". Look it up. No, wait, I'll tell you; it
basically Frenchy for "double hearing" i.e., two meanings for the same word or
expression.

I don't make the argument, I just regurgitate it, so don't get hissy with me
about it.

Reverend Ozone

unread,
Jan 23, 2009, 12:51:04 AM1/23/09
to
And lo, did *Flying Willard* did scribe these words:

Uh, no, dimbulb, the operative word was *accusations*. I said /nothing/ about


proof. Reading comprehension and logic aren't your strong suit, are they?

<sigh> OK, if I /have/ to explain....

SB XL - anti-Steeler accusations about how the refs "fixed" their win.


No, I don't get it, either, but surely you've read/seen/heard about them? Where
have you been the last four years? No, wait, I don't wanna know....

SB XLIII - per the recent article, the accusers /could/ say the players
themselves are "fixed", contingent upon the outcome. See the connection now?
That's called a "double entendre". Look it up. No, wait, I'll tell you; it
basically Frenchy for "double hearing" i.e., two meanings for the same word or
expression.

I don't make the argument, I just regurgitate it, so don't get hissy with me
about it.

--

Israeltine?

unread,
Jan 23, 2009, 1:33:39 AM1/23/09
to
On Jan 23, 12:42 am, "Reverend Ozone"

<CaptainOzon...@netzero.oh.no.you.dont.com> wrote:
> I don't make the argument, I just regurgitate it, so don't get hissy with me
> about it.

I'll vouch for the 'Reverend'. He hasn't had an original thought in
years.

<cue fake plonk>

Reverend Ozone

unread,
Jan 23, 2009, 1:52:27 AM1/23/09
to
And lo, did *Israeltine?* did scribe these words:

Heh, that's why I usually lurk, only to pounce when the spirit moves.... *eg*

0 new messages