Heaven - 80 virgins?
zara
Snit
on 2/6/06 7:10 AM:
> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
--
Sex-based crimes are not synonymous with sex
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Tom Bates
"zara" <zsp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
not surprising for zero, the windiot. Good job proving what a low-life
you really are.
--
Yours,
Tom
Tim Crowley
zara wrote:
> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
figures.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>
> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
"Apple beat Wintel to market with 64 bit personal computers"
- Edwin
Snit
mr-122F7E.18...@individual.net on 2/6/06 10:59 AM:
> In article <C00CBAB1.44679%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>
>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>
> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>
Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
> >>
> >> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
> >
> > You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>
> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
perhaps you were just being generous?
--
Sandman[.net]
"Even Rocket Scientists canąt deal with Windows."
‹ Rocket Scientist at the Hubble Space Telescope
Science Institute, July 21, 2005.
GreyCloud
> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>
>
But when they get there, they'll see 80 Virginians instead. :-))
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
GreyCloud
> In article <C00CBAB1.44679%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>
>>There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>
>
> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>
>
I see he still lusts after someone here. :-))
GreyCloud
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-122F7E.18...@individual.net on 2/6/06 10:59 AM:
>
>
>>In article <C00CBAB1.44679%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>
>>>There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>
>>You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>
>
> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>
Why did you ever bring up the obsession at all?
Snit
> In article <C00CDE2E.446A5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>
>>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>
>>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>
>> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>
> You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
> assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
> perhaps you were just being generous?
What made you think of my wife? Please note I never mentioned her.
Snit
TNOdnVRbGOY...@bresnan.com on 2/6/06 11:22 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-122F7E.18...@individual.net on 2/6/06 10:59 AM:
>>
>>
>>> In article <C00CBAB1.44679%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>
>>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>
>>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>>
>>
>> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>>
>
> Why did you ever bring up the obsession at all?
I do not enjoy being obsessed over by an Internet stalker and would be happy
to have that whole nasty situation disappear. While it has taken a pause I
am thankful for, I have no reason to think I will be targeted in such a way
again, the pattern has been going on for too long to believe that.
RichardK
> In article <C00CDE2E.446A5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>
>>>>There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>
>>>You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>
>>Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>
>
> You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
> assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
> perhaps you were just being generous?
See. This is where the issues are.
Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion, but
instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
(sn)it to argue against and whine about.
It's fair enough if there's actually something to base the remarks on,
but there's no mention of wife until you make it, so the leap is
unfounded and pointless.
That's Stew's level.
Richard
--
RichardK - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - retro, music, cars.
2006 Mazda RX8, 1992 Sera Phase III -= Do Not Tempt With New Cars =-
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for more than 15 seconds I
am to assume I am not allowed to do it". * 64 is 128 for email *
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
> >>>
> >>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
> >>
> >> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
> >
> > You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
> > assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
> > perhaps you were just being generous?
>
> What made you think of my wife?
Your reference to a dirty slut that obsessed over you. I naturally
assumed that the only person you could be in reference to is your wife.
Sandman
RichardK <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> >>>>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
> >>>
> >>>You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
> >>
> >>Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
> >
> > You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
> > assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
> > perhaps you were just being generous?
>
> See. This is where the issues are.
Indeed.
> Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion, but
> instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
> (sn)it to argue against and whine about.
Exactly. Michael is eager to dish out insults and lies high and low in
unrelated threads. In this case he aimed for Elizabot like the troll
he is - and I responded by using that insult against him instead of
playing along with the Elizabot angle, in an equally low poor taste as
he himself had started up.
Just like he would want to have us think of Elizabot as a "dirty
slut", the same can be said about his wife - and probably equally
unfounded and uncalled for.
<snip>
Snit
44pljfF...@individual.net on 2/6/06 12:16 PM:
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <C00CDE2E.446A5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>>
>>>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>>
>>> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>>
>>
>> You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
>> assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
>> perhaps you were just being generous?
>
> See. This is where the issues are.
>
> Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion, but
> instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
> (sn)it to argue against and whine about.
Correct. I was in reference to Elizabeth. She has not been trolling,
flaming, and obsessing over me recently (or at least not in a public
fashion) so my comment was in poor taste. I have made several such comments
about her recently, even if thinly veiled and not mentioning her by name.
Elizabeth: I apologize.
>
> It's fair enough if there's actually something to base the remarks on,
> but there's no mention of wife until you make it, so the leap is
> unfounded and pointless.
>
> That's Stew's level.
That's Sandman's level.
Snit
> In article <C00CEBD7.446BD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>>>
>>>> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>>>
>>> You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
>>> assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
>>> perhaps you were just being generous?
>>
>> What made you think of my wife?
>
> Your reference to a dirty slut that obsessed over you. I naturally
> assumed that the only person you could be in reference to is your wife.
I had no desire to get such insight into your views of marriage. Sorry I
asked. Really.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Your reference to a dirty slut that obsessed over you. I naturally
> > assumed that the only person you could be in reference to is your wife.
>
> I had no desire to get such insight into your views of marriage.
Your wife isn't related to my views of marriage in general.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > See. This is where the issues are.
> >
> > Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion, but
> > instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
> > (sn)it to argue against and whine about.
>
> Correct. I was in reference to Elizabeth. She has not been trolling,
> flaming, and obsessing over me recently (or at least not in a public
> fashion) so my comment was in poor taste. I have made several such comments
> about her recently, even if thinly veiled and not mentioning her by name.
>
> Elizabeth: I apologize.
Then I apologize for using your own insults and lies against you in
the same fashion you dish it out.
Snit
> In article <C00CF0B4.446CD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> See. This is where the issues are.
>>>
>>> Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion, but
>>> instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
>>> (sn)it to argue against and whine about.
>>
>> Correct. I was in reference to Elizabeth. She has not been trolling,
>> flaming, and obsessing over me recently (or at least not in a public
>> fashion) so my comment was in poor taste. I have made several such comments
>> about her recently, even if thinly veiled and not mentioning her by name.
>>
>> Elizabeth: I apologize.
>
> Then I apologize for using your own insults and lies against you in
> the same fashion you dish it out.
>
Even though your apology is trollish and clearly meant to push your circus I
shall simply accept that you are apologetic for your actions and hope we can
move forward from here. At least you admitted you acted poorly, not sure I
have ever seen you make such an admission before. :)
Snit
> In article <C00CF0ED.446CE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Your reference to a dirty slut that obsessed over you. I naturally
>>> assumed that the only person you could be in reference to is your wife.
>>
>> I had no desire to get such insight into your views of marriage.
>
> Your wife isn't related to my views of marriage in general.
I am not interested in your trolling.
Snit
> In article <44pljfF...@individual.net>,
> RichardK <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>>>
>>>> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>>>
>>> You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
>>> assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
>>> perhaps you were just being generous?
>>
>> See. This is where the issues are.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion, but
>> instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
>> (sn)it to argue against and whine about.
>
> Exactly. Michael is eager to dish out insults and lies high and low in
> unrelated threads. In this case he aimed for Elizabot like the troll
> he is - and I responded by using that insult against him instead of
> playing along with the Elizabot angle, in an equally low poor taste as
> he himself had started up.
>
> Just like he would want to have us think of Elizabot as a "dirty
> slut", the same can be said about his wife - and probably equally
> unfounded and uncalled for.
At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments. I
appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Just like he would want to have us think of Elizabot as a "dirty
> > slut", the same can be said about his wife - and probably equally
> > unfounded and uncalled for.
>
> At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments.
Of course - it was a response to your unfounded and uncalled insults
and lies. I merely treated you the same way you treated Elizabot.
> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
I am always honest.
RichardK
> In article <C00CF65E.446E0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>>Just like he would want to have us think of Elizabot as a "dirty
>>>slut", the same can be said about his wife - and probably equally
>>>unfounded and uncalled for.
>>
>>At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments.
>
>
> Of course - it was a response to your unfounded and uncalled insults
> and lies. I merely treated you the same way you treated Elizabot.
>
>
>>I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
>
>
> I am always honest.
It is internet. No one treats or mistreats anyone. They only waste
bandwidth and massage their egos.
Sandman
RichardK <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
>>> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
>>
>> I am always honest.
>
> It is internet. No one treats or mistreats anyone. They only waste
> bandwidth and massage their egos.
This is, after all, csma - it's purpose is to keep trolls like Michael
away from other Mac groups.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>
Muslim Hell is a lot like Muslim Paradise. You still get the virgins.
The main difference is that in Muslim Hell they're 35 year old
Dungeons and Dragons geeks. 8)
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
RichardK
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:10:25 -0500, "zara" <zsp...@aol.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>
>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>
>
>
> Muslim Hell is a lot like Muslim Paradise. You still get the virgins.
> The main difference is that in Muslim Hell they're 35 year old
> Dungeons and Dragons geeks. 8)
Like csma?
Snit
> In article <C00CF65E.446E0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Just like he would want to have us think of Elizabot as a "dirty
>>> slut", the same can be said about his wife - and probably equally
>>> unfounded and uncalled for.
>>
>> At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments.
>
> Of course - it was a response to your unfounded and uncalled insults
> and lies. I merely treated you the same way you treated Elizabot.
Again: At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments. it
is rare for you to be willing to admit to your mistakes. I am impressed
that you would do so in this case.
>
>> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
>
> I am always honest.
At least you have a sense of humor.
Wayne Stuart
> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
If they got there and found there was only 79, would that throw their
entire belief system into chaos?
Just curious. ;p
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Snit
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <C00CF65E.446E0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Just like he would want to have us think of Elizabot as a "dirty
>>>> slut", the same can be said about his wife - and probably equally
>>>> unfounded and uncalled for.
>>>
>>> At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments.
>>
>>
>> Of course - it was a response to your unfounded and uncalled insults
>> and lies. I merely treated you the same way you treated Elizabot.
>>
>>
>>> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
>>
>>
>> I am always honest.
>
> It is internet. No one treats or mistreats anyone. They only waste
> bandwidth and massage their egos.
Here I disagree with you; as with all social situations people can be good
or bad to each other.
I am generally good to people, though I will mirror back people's rudeness -
though I *never* sink as far as some do in this group.
GreyCloud
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
> TNOdnVRbGOY...@bresnan.com on 2/6/06 11:22 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>>>mr-122F7E.18...@individual.net on 2/6/06 10:59 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <C00CBAB1.44679%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>>Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>>
>>>>You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>>>
>>
>>Why did you ever bring up the obsession at all?
>
>
> I do not enjoy being obsessed over by an Internet stalker and would be happy
> to have that whole nasty situation disappear. While it has taken a pause I
> am thankful for, I have no reason to think I will be targeted in such a way
> again, the pattern has been going on for too long to believe that.
>
Then it is best not to bring it up.
Steve Carroll
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> zara wrote:
>
> > I like 80 dirty sluts better.
> >
> >
>
> But when they get there, they'll see 80 Virginians instead. :-))
Here are your raisins;)
--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
> TNOdnVRbGOY...@bresnan.com on 2/6/06 11:22 AM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> >> mr-122F7E.18...@individual.net on 2/6/06 10:59 AM:
> >>
> >>
> >>> In article <C00CBAB1.44679%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
> >>>
> >>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
> >>
> >
> > Why did you ever bring up the obsession at all?
>
> I do not enjoy being obsessed over by an Internet stalker and would be happy
> to have that whole nasty situation disappear.
Says the guy who has posted more to csma in a 2 year period than those
that have been here for a dozen or more years... the guy who creates
webpages over those he can't deal with.
> While it has taken a pause I
> am thankful for, I have no reason to think I will be targeted in such a way
> again, the pattern has been going on for too long to believe that.
Stop pretending you want your circus to end while you are in the middle
of baiting to keep it alive, Snit. It makes you appear even more
idiotic... if that's possible.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-AD9949.21...@individual.net on 2/6/06 1:52 PM:
>
> > In article <C00CF65E.446E0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>> Just like he would want to have us think of Elizabot as a "dirty
> >>> slut", the same can be said about his wife - and probably equally
> >>> unfounded and uncalled for.
> >>
> >> At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments.
> >
> > Of course - it was a response to your unfounded and uncalled insults
> > and lies. I merely treated you the same way you treated Elizabot.
>
> Again: At least you admit to making unfounded and uncalled for comments.
Yeah... he said he was just following your lead, Snit... now go cap off.
Steve Carroll
RichardK <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
> > In article <C00CDE2E.446A5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
> >>>
> >>>You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
> >>
> >>Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
> >
> >
> > You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
> > assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
> > perhaps you were just being generous?
>
> See. This is where the issues are.
Depends on one's point of view.
> Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion,
This is where the issue is IMO... but Snit is trying to troll so what do
you expect? Oh, I get it, you thought your point of view is more
important than that of others. Well... you can toss that silly idea
right now.
> but
> instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
> (sn)it to argue against and whine about.
Yeah, so? This ng was designed to contain people like Snit. Got a point?
> It's fair enough if there's actually something to base the remarks on,
> but there's no mention of wife until you make it, so the leap is
> unfounded and pointless.
So? You act as if Snit deserves something more than this.
> That's Stew's level.
Poor timing to prove you're a hypocrite by pulling a Snit...
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
> >
> > I am always honest.
>
> At least you have a sense of humor.
Indeed. Honesty and humor or two of my traits, I'd say.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin, on protecting against malware:
"I use Avast AV, the Yahoo anti-spy toolbar, the MS
anti-spy software, Windows SP2 with its firewall,
AdAware, Spybot Search and Destroy, and SpywareBlaster."
Snit
> In article <C00D1380.44715%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
>>>
>>> I am always honest.
>>
>> At least you have a sense of humor.
>
> Indeed. Honesty and humor or two of my traits, I'd say.
>
Your score: 50%.
Not so good, Sandman.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
> >>>
> >>> I am always honest.
> >>
> >> At least you have a sense of humor.
> >
> > Indeed. Honesty and humor or two of my traits, I'd say.
>
> <trolling snipped>
It's ok if you don't think I'm funny.
--
Sandman[.net]
"I am loyal to Apple and love my Mac because I have PCs to
compare it to."
- Edwin
Snit
C00DFA6C.4480D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 2/7/06 7:19 AM:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-3818CA.07...@individual.net on 2/6/06 11:50 PM:
>
>> In article <C00D1380.44715%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I appreciate that you have opted to be honest about it.
>>>>
>>>> I am always honest.
>>>
>>> At least you have a sense of humor.
>>
>> Indeed. Honesty and humor or two of my traits, I'd say.
>>
> Your score: 50%.
>
> Not so good, Sandman.
And in response Sandman dishonestly snips and runs. The humor is wearing
off.
Elizabot v2.0.3
> Sandman wrote:
>
>> In article <C00CDE2E.446A5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>>
>>>
>>> Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>>
>>
>>
>> You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
>> assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
>> perhaps you were just being generous?
>
>
> See. This is where the issues are.
>
> (sn)it to argue against and whine about.
>
> but there's no mention of wife until you make it, so the leap is
> unfounded and pointless.
"unfounded and pointless" lol. This whole thread is pointless. Do you
have another point? :-)
> That's Stew's level.
Actually, it's Snit's level to make sexually derogatory remarks about me
in threads I have not been participating in. Would you like me to point
out a few more instances of this behavior?
--
"if you decide to stop trolling and actually give reasoned answers or
make reasoned comments please let me know. Until then please test your
new put downs where they might be appreciated - such as an elementary
school playground." -says the dirty pervert "Snit"
Snit
11ulv8g...@corp.supernews.com on 2/9/06 1:27 AM:
> Actually, it's Snit's level to make sexually derogatory remarks about me
> in threads I have not been participating in. Would you like me to point
> out a few more instances of this behavior?
Here are some examples of your behavior:
<http://snipurl.com/elizabeths_obsession>
You are obsessive and offensive and have made it clear you are unable to
come up with a defense of your despicable actions. And, no, Elizabeth, that
is not a challenge for you to create some dishonest "defense".
Elizabot v2.0.3
> "Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> stated in post
> 11ulv8g...@corp.supernews.com on 2/9/06 1:27 AM:
>
>
>>Actually, it's Snit's level to make sexually derogatory remarks about me
>>in threads I have not been participating in. Would you like me to point
>>out a few more instances of this behavior?
>
>
> Here are some examples of your behavior:
>
> <http://snipurl.com/elizabeths_obsession>
>
> You are obsessive and offensive and have made it clear you are unable to
> come up with a defense of your despicable actions. And, no, Elizabeth, that
> is not a challenge for you to create some dishonest "defense".
Hey, Snit! Which one do you like better:
Elizabot v2.0.3
> "RichardK" <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> stated in post
>
>
>>Sandman wrote:
>>
>>>In article <C00CDE2E.446A5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I like 80 dirty sluts better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is one that obsesses over me - you are welcome to her. Please.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're marriage isn't going well, Michael?
>>>>
>>>>Er? Why do you even bring up the topic of my marriage?
>>>
>>>
>>>You seemed so eager to "lend" your wife to zara, so I naturally
>>>assumed it was related to some problem in your marriage. If not, then
>>>perhaps you were just being generous?
>>
>>See. This is where the issues are.
>>
>>Snit is clearly referring to Elizabot in a deragatory fashion, but
>>instead of just ignoring it, you have to introduce another angle for
>>(sn)it to argue against and whine about.
>
>
> flaming, and obsessing over me recently (or at least not in a public
> fashion) so my comment was in poor taste. I have made several such comments
> about her recently, even if thinly veiled and not mentioning her by name.
>
> Elizabeth: I apologize.
As you have continued to make another unwarrented sexually disparaging
remark after this apology, I find your apology to be insincere. As such,
I reject this apology.
The remark:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/573160f9aa3d3728?dmode=source
Snit
I care neither about your approval nor your acceptance, and most certainly I
do not wish for your pre-teen obsession over me.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
Elizabot v2.0.3
So you were apologizing to the public, but not to me? LMAO!
> and most certainly I
> do not wish for your pre-teen obsession over me.
Get some new material, Mike. This is really getting old.
Have you found anyone willing to host your trolling web pages yet, Snitwit?