HI
elizabeth anderson
HI !!!!!! How are you ?
John Lynch
In article <34D1CC...@mailbox.mail.umn.edu>, elizabeth anderson
<ly...@mailbox.mail.umn.edu> writes
>HI !!!!!! How are you ?
Fuck off
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <FBZWWLAh...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk "John Lynch" writes:
Come on John, no need for the polite shorthand, surely you mean:
"Fuck off you festering pustule of a syphilitic scab on the arsehole of
a cesspit and die the death that nature intended for such miserable
faecal matter that dares to claim the name life, you fucking moron!"
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Barry Twycross
In article <FBZWWLAh...@ldta.demon.co.uk>, John Lynch
<jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34D1CC...@mailbox.mail.umn.edu>, elizabeth anderson
><ly...@mailbox.mail.umn.edu> writes
>>HI !!!!!! How are you ?
>
>Fuck off
I see John got back in my absence.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
<Obsolete sig deleted>.
David John
In article <34D1CC...@mailbox.mail.umn.edu>, elizabeth anderson
<ly...@mailbox.mail.umn.edu> writes
>HI !!!!!! How are you ?
Dunno. Ask me again tomorrow.
--
David John
John Lynch
In article <886198...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>> Fuck off
>> --
>>
>Come on John, no need for the polite shorthand, surely you mean:
>"Fuck off you festering pustule of a syphilitic scab on the arsehole of
>a cesspit and die the death that nature intended for such miserable
>faecal matter that dares to claim the name life, you fucking moron!"
>
I'm sorry, Peter--I just don't feel as strongly about the stupid cow as
you clearly do
--
John Lynch
Beam me up, Spotty
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <rt7d9HAr...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk "John Lynch" writes:
Apology accepted, actually, I wasn't feeling strongly about the said cow,
just feeling strongly.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alan Pollock
Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <rt7d9HAr...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that the
posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
personas. Nex
__________________________________________________________________________
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms, perhaps
then in springtime our hearts would be at peace." Ariwara no Narihira
__________________________________________________________________________
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>
ne...@king.cts.com "Alan Pollock" writes:
> :>
> :> I'm sorry, Peter--I just don't feel as strongly about the stupid cow as
> :> you clearly do
> :>
> :Apology accepted, actually, I wasn't feeling strongly about the said cow,
> :just feeling strongly.
> :
>
> Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
> provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that the
> posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
> attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
> personas. Nex
>
Don't be so hard on yourself, Nex. You are probably not quite as benign,
insipid and boring as you think that you are.
Maybe you will feel better if you don't post at all, let alone to nesgroups
that make you feel so inferior.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alan Pollock
:
You seem to have a peculiar case of the Reversals. Still, I give you this:
it's rather daring of you to speak that way to your betters. That you didn't
actually say anything of value is of no consequence. Your tone was
wonderfully irreverent, and for that I give you one half point. Oh, and of
course the by now de rigeur 'HI' which you obviously, and puriently
appreciate. Nex
John Lynch
In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>
>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that the
>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
>personas. Nex
>
Alan Pollock
John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
little sentence above.
As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread. I thought
that was quite clear. Perhaps 'benign' your case relates more to stupidity
than to irrelevance. Nex
John Lynch
In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>
>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak.
Bit of a semi-literate, are you, Matthew?
David John
>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>:>
>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that the
>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
>:>personas. Nex
>:>
>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
>:
>:Beam me up, Spotty
>
>
>little sentence above.
>
>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
>
--
David John
Alan Pollock
John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
:>
:>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak.
:
:Bit of a semi-literate, are you, Matthew?
:John Lynch
:
:Beam me up, Spotty
Most probably just your lack of comprehension skills. I wouldn't parade them
so openly if I were you. But then, lack of comprehension often comes with
lack of style, so it's perfectly understandable. One commiserates, to
a degree. Nex
(not Matthew, Nex - put that 16th drink down - it's not helping any)
Alan Pollock
David John (da...@concern.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
:>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
:>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
:>:>
:>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
:>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that the
:>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
:>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
:>:>personas. Nex
:>:>
:>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
:>:
:>:Beam me up, Spotty
:>
:>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
:>little sentence above.
:>
:>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
:Hey, I'd resent that if I wasn't so ineffective and weak.
:>
:
:--
:David John
Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
John Lynch
In article <88638618...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>Most probably just your lack of comprehension skills.
I once heard Jesse Jackson say: The predicate of peace is justice. He
probably thought he was making sense--I'm sure he didn't realise he was
simply making a fool of himself with a big word he hadn't understood.
You remind me of him. Do try to read more widely, and then come back.
Ten years should do it.
Alan Pollock
John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88638618...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
In fact, while we'd all benefit from reading, you might benefit the most, as
you're obviously starting from a more rudimentary position.
If you refer to the word 'benign' in your cryptic little missive, then you
have conveniently forgotten to look at the results of the concept, which is to
what I was referring.
In other words: hellbent, ardent, inflammatory invective aimed at causing
grief in the mind and heart of the recipient, turns out to have been benign,
since it was weak ineffective, and worse: insipid. Comprehension, my boy,
comprehension. Nex
Sue Spence
> :<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
> :>John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> :>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
> :>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
> :>:>
> :>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
> :>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that the
> :>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
> :>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
> :>:>personas. Nex
> :>:>
> :>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
> :>:John Lynch
> :>:
> :>:Beam me up, Spotty
> :>
> :>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
> :>little sentence above.
> :>
> :>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
> :Hey, I'd resent that if I wasn't so ineffective and weak.
> :>
> :
> :--
> :David John
> :
>
> Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
>
Who's "we", Pillock?
John Lynch
In article <88643776...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>In other words: hellbent, ardent, inflammatory invective aimed at causing
>grief in the mind and heart of the recipient, turns out to have been benign,
>since it was weak ineffective, and worse: insipid. Comprehension, my boy,
>comprehension. Nex
Indeed; the only drawback, you half-witted sack of shit, is that that is
not what the word means. Now suck this
David John
In article <88640252...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>David John (da...@concern.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>:>John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>:>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>:>:>
>:>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
>:>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that
>the
>:>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
>:>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
>:>:>personas. Nex
>:>:>
>:>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
>:>:
>:>:Beam me up, Spotty
>:>
>:>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
>:>little sentence above.
>:>
>:>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
>:Hey, I'd resent that if I wasn't so ineffective and weak.
>:>
>:
>:--
>:David John
>:
>
>Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
>
I've always had this rule that I never comment on people's names. I could
make an exception in your case.
--
David John
Sue Spence
You don't need to as I've already done it.
Alan Pollock
Alan Pollock
John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88643776...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
:>In other words: hellbent, ardent, inflammatory invective aimed at causing
:>grief in the mind and heart of the recipient, turns out to have been benign,
:>since it was weak ineffective, and worse: insipid. Comprehension, my boy,
:>comprehension. Nex
:
:Indeed; the only drawback, you half-witted sack of shit, is that that is
:not what the word means. Now suck this
:John Lynch
:
:Beam me up, Spotty
As I said: benign, and certainly not inflammatory. Probably not inflamed or
inflated either, old boy. Nex
Alan Pollock
John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88643776...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
:>In other words: hellbent, ardent, inflammatory invective aimed at causing
:>grief in the mind and heart of the recipient, turns out to have been benign,
:>since it was weak ineffective, and worse: insipid. Comprehension, my boy,
:>comprehension. Nex
:
:Indeed; the only drawback, you half-witted sack of shit, is that that is
:not what the word means. Now suck this
:--
:John Lynch
:
:Beam me up, Spotty
Upon reading your complex post again (I had more pressing and interesting
business - darning an old sock - but I hit the wrong key), I realized that you
still haven't understood what I wrote, so I will patiently explain:
The posts responding to the 'Hi' from someone somewhere in the Mid-West of the
US, were obviously intended to demonstrate a superiority that doesn't exist.
My point in saying they were benign (considerate, good-hearted) was intended
to reveal the weak, ineffective, insipid nature of those rather poseurish
posts, as rather than inflicting pain, they inflicted bouts of commisseration
for their pathetic outcome. A touch of sarcasm.
The fact that you rapidly offered me the second most vulnerable (read
minuscule) part of your anatomy bears this out. (That smooth little organ
inside your cranium with the large brow-ridges comes in first) You try to act
the warrior, but end-up looking the buffoon.
That certain compatriots of yours have attempted to come to your aid is
touching, because you need it.
I've made my point, and wish you all a good inbred hummer of a chat. Nex
Dick Jackson
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:29:21 +0000, David John
<da...@concern.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <88640252...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
><ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>>Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
>>
>I've always had this rule that I never comment on people's names. I could
>make an exception in your case.
I must admit I'm puzzled by the ever present "Nex" as a sort of EOT.
Perhaps I'm dim -- could you explain it please Alan?
Dick J.
Alan Pollock
Dick Jackson (di...@thegrid.net) wrote:
:On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:29:21 +0000, David John
A holdover from the early 80's when at 300 baud, long sigs were frowned upon,
as they could take forever to scroll down one's screen. Coupled with the 40
column screens many used in those days, one could easily forget who was
posting the message one was reading, even if it wasn't very long, for one
screen displayed few characters (40 times 24 or so - sometimes less, depending
on the system used). It stuck. Nexus became Nex at parties and
get-togethers. We used to meet in the flesh quite often back then, as boards
were local (before Fido and the other bbs-based nets sprang-up in the
mid-80's).
Just like you use Dick J, I use Nex. Adds a handle to a post, so folks like
many in this thread can more easily identify the one they wish to trample.
Gawd knows, they need every bit of help they can get. :) Nex
David John
In article <34D62F...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
<s...@pennine.com> writes
>David John wrote:
>>
>> In article <88640252...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>> <ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>> >:In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>> >:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>> >:>John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> >:>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>> >:>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>> >:>:>
>> >:>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
>> >:>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised
>that
>> >the
>> >:>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
>> >:>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
>> >:>:>personas. Nex
>> >:>:>
>> >:>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
>> >:>:John Lynch
>> >:>:
>> >:>:Beam me up, Spotty
>> >:>
>> >:>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
>> >:>little sentence above.
>> >:>
>> >:>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
>> >:Hey, I'd resent that if I wasn't so ineffective and weak.
>> >:>
>> >:
>> >:--
>> >:David John
>> >:
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I've always had this rule that I never comment on people's names. I could
>> make an exception in your case.
>
>
>You don't need to as I've already done it.
Thank you for saving me from my basic instincts, Sue. I think this Mr Pi
^H^H ollock is enjoying his foray into scb. I feel the time has now come
for us to ignore the man.
--
David John
John Lynch
In article <88646793...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>I realized that you
>still haven't understood what I wrote, so I will patiently explain:
Thank you for explaining what you no doubt think of as your 'thought
processes'. It was clear that you had drifted into error; what is now
clear is the nature of the error. You made it right at the outset--here,
in fact:
>
>The posts responding to the 'Hi' from someone somewhere in the Mid-West of the
>US, were obviously intended to demonstrate a superiority that doesn't exist.
No. Wrong. The response was mine, and it represented no feeling of
superiority. I wouldn't know how superiority might be measured in a case
like that--or even what it would amount to. 'Fuck off' was merely a
straightforward response to someone with nothing to say breezing in to
say it--I would have responded in exactly the same way if she had come
through my sitting room door. It's an invitation to go and bother
someone else.
>My point in saying they were benign (considerate, good-hearted) was intended
>to reveal the weak, ineffective, insipid nature
And how exactly does it do that, little snot-streamer? How does
describing something as considerate and good-hearted reveal it as weak,
ineffective and insipid? Hmm? Hmm?
--
John Lynch
Louise Woodward will never be asked to babysit again.
But I bet O J Simpson is dating. Jo Brand
Jeff Drabble
On 3 Feb 1998 00:33:38 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>Sue Spence (s...@pennine.com) wrote:
>:David John wrote:
>:>
>:> In article <88640252...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>:> <ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>:> >David John (da...@concern.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:> >:In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>:> >:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>:> >:>John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:> >:>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>:> >:>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>:> >:>:>
>:> >:>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
>:> >:>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised that
>:> >the
>:> >:>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
>:> >:>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
>:> >:>:>personas. Nex
>:> >:>:>
>:> >:>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
>:> >:>:--
>:> >:>:John Lynch
>:> >:>:
>:> >:>:Beam me up, Spotty
>:> >:>
>:> >:>
>:> >:>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
>:> >:>little sentence above.
>:> >:>
>:> >:>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
>:> >:Hey, I'd resent that if I wasn't so ineffective and weak.
>:> >:>
>:> >:
>:> >:--
>:> >:David John
>:> >:
>:> >
>:> >Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
>:> >
>:>
>:> I've always had this rule that I never comment on people's names. I could
>:> make an exception in your case.
>:> --
>:
>:
>:You don't need to as I've already done it.
>
>
>And I was so very devastated. Nex
Bravo, Allan! It's wonderful to see somebody standing up to these
chummy bastards for a change. I'm with you on this one. That Lynch
character is just a damned pervert and I'd ignore him were I you.
Spence is just a disgusting distortion of womanhood and David John
could do with getting out a bit more. Glad to see you use nice
friendly emoticons as well. I think that's the sort of thing that's
needed to brighten things up around here. Jolly well done, and may
there be plenty more of it. Let me know if you need a hand. If you
send me your mail address I'd like to send 5 pounds as an
encouragement to you.
Jeff Drabble
David John
In article <34d8dc23...@snews.zippo.com>, Jeff Drabble
<jef...@super.zippo.com> writes
--
David John
Alan Pollock
Jeff Drabble (jef...@super.zippo.com) wrote:
:Bravo, Allan! It's wonderful to see somebody standing up to these
:chummy bastards for a change. I'm with you on this one. That Lynch
:character is just a damned pervert and I'd ignore him were I you.
:Spence is just a disgusting distortion of womanhood and David John
:could do with getting out a bit more. Glad to see you use nice
:friendly emoticons as well. I think that's the sort of thing that's
:needed to brighten things up around here. Jolly well done, and may
:there be plenty more of it. Let me know if you need a hand. If you
:send me your mail address I'd like to send 5 pounds as an
:encouragement to you.
:
:Jeff Drabble
:
:
Finally an intelligent post. I haven't seen such a fine display of sarcasm
in, oh, 3 or 4 days? Elsewhere, I'm sure I've no need to stipulate. The 5
pounds was a bit of a heavy ending though - completely unnecessary - and it
upset the fine balance of the rest of it.
But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
Alan Pollock
John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88646793...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
:>I realized that you
:>still haven't understood what I wrote, so I will patiently explain:
:
:Thank you for explaining what you no doubt think of as your 'thought
:processes'. It was clear that you had drifted into error; what is now
:clear is the nature of the error. You made it right at the outset--here,
:in fact:
:
:>
:>The posts responding to the 'Hi' from someone somewhere in the Mid-West of the
:>US, were obviously intended to demonstrate a superiority that doesn't exist.
:
:No. Wrong. The response was mine, and it represented no feeling of
:superiority. I wouldn't know how superiority might be measured in a case
:like that--or even what it would amount to. 'Fuck off' was merely a
:straightforward response to someone with nothing to say breezing in to
:say it--I would have responded in exactly the same way if she had come
:through my sitting room door. It's an invitation to go and bother
:someone else.
Nice try. Well, let's just say I'm being kind. As long as you recognise
your inferiority, as you apparently do now, I'm content, as I've made a
contribution, you see. It's what matters.
:>My point in saying they were benign (considerate, good-hearted) was intended
:>to reveal the weak, ineffective, insipid nature
:
:And how exactly does it do that, little snot-streamer? How does
:describing something as considerate and good-hearted reveal it as weak,
:ineffective and insipid? Hmm? Hmm?
:
Right on the mark again, John. My point about comprehension? You've homed
right in. Now the rest is up to you. I suggest you go back and read
everything (yet again) until it all clicks. Wonderful feeling, that click.
Once you've experienced it you thirst for it. Comprehension is surely divine.
Sue Spence
> >>
> >> In article <88640252...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
> >> <ne...@king.cts.com> writes
> >> >David John (da...@concern.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >> >:In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
> >> >:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
> >> >:>John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >> >:>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
> >> >:>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
> >> >:>:>
> >> >:>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
> >> >:>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised
> >that
> >> >the
> >> >:>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
> >> >:>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
> >> >:>:>personas. Nex
> >> >:>:>
> >> >:>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
> >> >:>:--
> >> >:>:John Lynch
> >> >:>:
> >> >:>:Beam me up, Spotty
> >> >:>
> >> >:>
> >> >:>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
> >> >:>little sentence above.
> >> >:>
> >> >:>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
> >> >:Hey, I'd resent that if I wasn't so ineffective and weak.
> >> >:>
> >> >:
> >> >:--
> >> >:David John
> >> >:
> >> >
> >> >Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've always had this rule that I never comment on people's names. I could
> >> make an exception in your case.
> >> --
> >
> >
> >You don't need to as I've already done it.
>
> ^H^H ollock is enjoying his foray into scb. I feel the time has now come
> for us to ignore the man.
>
Perhaps. I think there may be a little more fun to be had, but not
much.
Dick Jackson
On 3 Feb 1998 03:04:11 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>Dick Jackson (di...@thegrid.net) wrote:
>:I must admit I'm puzzled by the ever present "Nex" as a sort of EOT.
>:Perhaps I'm dim -- could you explain it please Alan?
>
>A holdover from the early 80's when at 300 baud, long sigs were frowned upon,
>as they could take forever to scroll down one's screen. Coupled with the 40
>column screens many used in those days, one could easily forget who was
>posting the message one was reading, even if it wasn't very long, for one
>screen displayed few characters (40 times 24 or so - sometimes less, depending
>on the system used). It stuck. Nexus became Nex at parties and
>get-togethers. We used to meet in the flesh quite often back then, as boards
>were local (before Fido and the other bbs-based nets sprang-up in the
>mid-80's).
>
>Just like you use Dick J, I use Nex. Adds a handle to a post, so folks like
>many in this thread can more easily identify the one they wish to trample.
>Gawd knows, they need every bit of help they can get. :) Nex
My best shot was that "Nex" was short for "Next" -- i.e. a sort of
challenge saying that you were ready for allcomers.
Most of the rest of us put our sign-offs on a separate line, had you
done this I might have cottoned on.
Dick J.
Sue Spence
Really? That certainly wasn't the aim. I was looking for an answer to
my question. Who's "we", "Nex"? You aren't the Queen, so unless you
suffer from MPD I was wondering who else you were invoking with your
plural pronoun.
Sue Spence
Jeff Drabble wrote:
>
> On 3 Feb 1998 00:33:38 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>
> >Sue Spence (s...@pennine.com) wrote:
> >:David John wrote:
> >:>
> chummy bastards for a change. I'm with you on this one. That Lynch
> character is just a damned pervert and I'd ignore him were I you.
> Spence is just a disgusting distortion of womanhood and David John
> could do with getting out a bit more. Glad to see you use nice
> friendly emoticons as well. I think that's the sort of thing that's
> needed to brighten things up around here. Jolly well done, and may
> there be plenty more of it. Let me know if you need a hand. If you
> send me your mail address I'd like to send 5 pounds as an
> encouragement to you.
No, don't! He'll tell us more stories about life in the Early Days,
back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and he only had a 300 baud acoustic
couple modem. ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH
John Lynch
In article <88652652...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Bollocks
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>Wonderful feeling, that click.
Yes--I saw you'd experienced it. You went and looked up the word benign,
didn't you? And realised you'd what a godawful fool you'd made of
yourself. Well, don't feel too bad about it. God did the job first for
you
Alan Pollock
Sue Spence (s...@pennine.com) wrote:
18 thousand lines mercifully cut
:> :> And I was so very devastated. Nex
:Really? That certainly wasn't the aim. I was looking for an answer to
:my question. Who's "we", "Nex"? You aren't the Queen, so unless you
:suffer from MPD I was wondering who else you were invoking with your
:plural pronoun.
I don't *like* people who quote 18 thousand lines only to add 4, so I won't
answer your question. Now ...
Bonk! AlterNex here. Sue, is it? Sue, the essence of true wisdom is to
accumulate as much knowledge as humanly possible. I'm afraid Nex overloaded
quite a while ago, so in order to aid the classification process, I was born.
Occasionally Nex slips and says 'we'. I suspect he doesn't even know he's
doing it. Bye.
... Now I'm sure many here would appreciate your snipping the posts you reply
to, so please refrain from this annoying habit. Nex
(why does my head hurt so?)
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <NkfE$CA+P3...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk "John Lynch" writes:
> In article <88652652...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Bollocks
> <ne...@king.cts.com> writes
> >Wonderful feeling, that click.
>
> Yes--I saw you'd experienced it. You went and looked up the word benign,
> didn't you? And realised you'd what a godawful fool you'd made of
> yourself. Well, don't feel too bad about it. God did the job first for
> you
>
Bullshit. He did it all on his own, aided, of course, by millenia of
evolution.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Sue Spence
Alan Pollock wrote:
>
> Sue Spence (s...@pennine.com) wrote:
>
> 18 thousand lines mercifully cut
>
> :> :> And I was so very devastated. Nex
>
> :Really? That certainly wasn't the aim. I was looking for an answer to
> :my question. Who's "we", "Nex"? You aren't the Queen, so unless you
> :suffer from MPD I was wondering who else you were invoking with your
> :plural pronoun.
>
> I don't *like* people who quote 18 thousand lines only to add 4, so I won't
> answer your question. Now ...
>
> Bonk! AlterNex here. Sue, is it? Sue, the essence of true wisdom is to
> accumulate as much knowledge as humanly possible. I'm afraid Nex overloaded
> quite a while ago, so in order to aid the classification process, I was born.
> Occasionally Nex slips and says 'we'. I suspect he doesn't even know he's
> doing it. Bye.
>
> ... Now I'm sure many here would appreciate your snipping the posts you reply
> to, so please refrain from this annoying habit. Nex
That's an interesting comment, considering you posted 17998 lines of
included material to add your *one* line. The very next time I need a
fuckwit's advice on posting to usenet, I'll give you a call. Until
then, your services are not required. Please see yourself out.
>
> (why does my head hurt so?)
Seek help. Perhaps the aliens inside your head are attempting to escape
(you've probably bored the living hell out of them).
David John
In article <34D758...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
<s...@pennine.com> writes
>
>No, don't! He'll tell us more stories about life in the Early Days,
>back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and he only had a 300 baud acoustic
>couple modem.
Hey, I used to use one of them. This Alan's not such a bad type after all.
A very discerning fellow.
--
David John
Alan Pollock
John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <88652652...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Bollocks
:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
:>Wonderful feeling, that click.
:
:Yes--I saw you'd experienced it. You went and looked up the word benign,
:didn't you? And realised you'd what a godawful fool you'd made of
:yourself. Well, don't feel too bad about it. God did the job first for
:you
Blaming others for your own lack of comprehension is acceptable, if
believable. I'm afraid that once again, you've botched it.
I believe I've said 'nice try' to you at least once before. Can't say it
again, sorry - you've reached your limit. Any encouragement I may give you
now would be a complete waste of time. Nex
Alan Pollock
Sue Spence (s...@pennine.com) wrote:
:Alan Pollock wrote:
:> ... Now I'm sure many here would appreciate your snipping the posts you reply
:> to, so please refrain from this annoying habit. Nex
:
:That's an interesting comment, considering you posted 17998 lines of
:included material to add your *one* line. The very next time I need a
:fuckwit's advice on posting to usenet, I'll give you a call. Until
:then, your services are not required. Please see yourself out.
:
More whining from the ill? Thought I'd heard the last from you. I suggest
exercise, as it might help you write something of interest once in a while.
Blood needs to travel in the direction of the brain you know, no matter how
small the destination.
:> (why does my head hurt so?)
:
:Seek help. Perhaps the aliens inside your head are attempting to escape
:(you've probably bored the living hell out of them).
Do I detect a spark of creativity here? A mere suggestion of wit? No.
At one point I thought that with just a little luck, post tenebras lux. But
no, there's no hope for this little club of yours. You've taken the easy way
out, that of being boringly sullen most of the time (with the exception of
Drabble's fine piece of sarcasm). Anyone, even the dullest moron can do that.
To persevere in such lowly persuits can only mean one's accepted one's ignoble
place. If you and your cohorts weren't so morbidly pathetic, I'd play along -
let you feel you were really on to something, give encouragement. Couldn't be
bothered anymore. Creeping, colorless mold only holds my interest for so long.
David John
In article <88656279...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
> Creeping, colorless mold only holds my interest for so long.
I'll have you know, Sir, that Mold is not colorless, nor colourless for that
matter. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, does it creep.
--
David John
Mold
North Wales
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <88656279...@wagasa.cts.com>
ne...@king.cts.com "Alan Pollock" writes:
> bothered anymore. Creeping, colorless mold only holds my interest for so long.
> Nex
>
I am not familiar with 'mold' myself, maybe you are grasping for 'mould'. I
am impressed to meet, even in this loose sense, somebody who finds mould
fascinating, particularly 'colorless' mould (actually, I thought that all
mould lacked a colon, so would be colonless, the term you were no doubt
attempting). Presumably it is the creeping quality of the substance that
holds your attention so long - though you may, of course, be using this
in a metaphorical sense, which is damn impressive.
Tell me, Nex, just how long does drying paint hold your attention? A week? A
month? While you are at it, where do you imagine to have seen a mould with
a colon - it would be quite a remarkable find?
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
John Lynch
In article <886543...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>> Yes--I saw you'd experienced it. You went and looked up the word benign,
>> didn't you? And realised you'd what a godawful fool you'd made of
>> yourself. Well, don't feel too bad about it. God did the job first for
>> you
>>
>evolution.
>
Actually, I'm not convinced that 'he' exists. Consider the facts.
Someone breezes in here from out of nowhere, trumps and breezes out
again. She gets an irritable response. Then a white knight rides to her
rescue, castigating those who have been rude to the stranger. WK goes on
to change his/her ground, refuse to engage with the issues she/he has
her/himself started and dismiss anyone who comments as members of a
club. Now, I ask you--where have we seen this behaviour before?
John Lynch
In article <88656045...@wagasa.cts.com>, "Alan Pollock"
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>sorry
Thank you. It's time you apologised. Off you go, now--back into the
playground with the other little dribblers. And don't stamp your feet.
Jeff Drabble
On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>Jeff Drabble (jef...@super.zippo.com) wrote:
>
>:Bravo, Allan! It's wonderful to see somebody standing up to these
>:chummy bastards for a change. I'm with you on this one. That Lynch
>:character is just a damned pervert and I'd ignore him were I you.
>:Spence is just a disgusting distortion of womanhood and David John
>:could do with getting out a bit more. Glad to see you use nice
>:friendly emoticons as well. I think that's the sort of thing that's
>:needed to brighten things up around here. Jolly well done, and may
>:there be plenty more of it. Let me know if you need a hand. If you
>:send me your mail address I'd like to send 5 pounds as an
>:encouragement to you.
>:
>:Jeff Drabble
>:
>:
>
>Finally an intelligent post. I haven't seen such a fine display of sarcasm
>in, oh, 3 or 4 days? Elsewhere, I'm sure I've no need to stipulate. The 5
>pounds was a bit of a heavy ending though - completely unnecessary - and it
>upset the fine balance of the rest of it.
Then you know little of things British, Allan. It is a well accepted
custom to proffer token fiscal support in favour of right thinking
chaps. I really am quite stung by your reading of my kindly thoughts
as sarcasm. A chap likes to think that such offerings will be
graciously accepted. Am I to infer that rat-baggery is the true
nature of your business here and that you, like those others I've
mentioned above, are intent only on causing disruption and occasioning
unnecessary distress? That would be most unseemly.
>
>But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
Jeff Drabble
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <2giKuFAF...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk "John Lynch" writes:
> In article <886543...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> Yes--I saw you'd experienced it. You went and looked up the word benign,
> >> didn't you? And realised you'd what a godawful fool you'd made of
> >> yourself. Well, don't feel too bad about it. God did the job first for
> >> you
> >>
> >Bullshit. He did it all on his own, aided, of course, by millenia of
> >evolution.
> >
> Sorry, Peter--didn't mean to offend your militant brand of atheism.
>
Thank you for soothing my ruffled feathers, however, I use the unbranded
variety of atheism, you don't have to pay the marketing costs that way.
>
> Actually, I'm not convinced that 'he' exists. Consider the facts.
> Someone breezes in here from out of nowhere, trumps and breezes out
> again. She gets an irritable response. Then a white knight rides to her
> rescue, castigating those who have been rude to the stranger. WK goes on
> to change his/her ground, refuse to engage with the issues she/he has
> her/himself started and dismiss anyone who comments as members of a
> club. Now, I ask you--where have we seen this behaviour before?
>
I agree that the fingerprints look familiar, maybe even the DNA looks
much the same, but do you really think that, after all this time, Gladys
could find a new e-mail address? We also have to be aware that the finger
printing question is, even at the best of times, a probabalistic one,
and a proper consideration involves the application of Bayers theorem -
I am no statistician [if I had wanted to be that boring, I would have
become an actuary and at least enjoyed milking cash out of people] but
that is what I hear.
It is also possible that the psychiatric condition that finds its florid
exhuberance in the 'personality' of Gladys may not be unique. Certainly
each of the particular ills that s/he suffers from is shared by some other
unfortunates. This particular, suspect, manifestation has, for example,
yet to indicate the symptoms of vegetarianism, socialism, infantilism or
scientophobia. Let us bide our time and see what further evidence appears.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <34dc3b00...@snews.zippo.com>
jef...@super.zippo.com "Jeff Drabble" writes:
>
> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
>
A likely story, I am sorry Jeff, but the packet enclosing a word processing
package that I used some years ago claimed exactly that and all the word
processing packeges that I have used since, has left me entirely sceptical
about the possibility of 'wysiyg' having any more reality than angels.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
David John
In article <34D757...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
<s...@pennine.com> writes
>David John wrote:
> I think this Mr Pi
>> ^H^H ollock is enjoying his foray into scb. I feel the time has now come
>> for us to ignore the man.
>>
>
>Perhaps. I think there may be a little more fun to be had, but not
>much.
I'm beginning to change my mind on this gentleman. There is more to him
that first appeared. All is not what it seems, I suspect.
--
David John
David John
In article <2giKuFAF...@ldta.demon.co.uk>, John Lynch
<jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> writes, re Mr Pollock:
>Actually, I'm not convinced that 'he' exists. Consider the facts.
>Someone breezes in here from out of nowhere, trumps and breezes out
>again. She gets an irritable response. Then a white knight rides to her
>rescue, castigating those who have been rude to the stranger. WK goes on
>to change his/her ground, refuse to engage with the issues she/he has
>her/himself started and dismiss anyone who comments as members of a
>club. Now, I ask you--where have we seen this behaviour before?
Aha, someone else with doubts. Plese refer to my reply to Sue.
--
David John
David John
In article <886589...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>> Someone breezes in here from out of nowhere, trumps and breezes out
>> again. She gets an irritable response. Then a white knight rides to her
>> rescue, castigating those who have been rude to the stranger. WK goes on
>> to change his/her ground, refuse to engage with the issues she/he has
>> her/himself started and dismiss anyone who comments as members of a
>> club. Now, I ask you--where have we seen this behaviour before?
>>
>much the same, but do you really think that, after all this time, Gladys
>could find a new e-mail address?
really is.
--
David John
John Lynch
In article <34D758...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
writes
>I was looking for an answer to
>my question.
I've asked 'him' for one or two of those. I fear we are to be
disappointed
John Lynch
>much the same, but do you really think that, after all this time, Gladys
>could find a new e-mail address?
It isn't actually Dougie I have in the frame for this
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <72P7uJAa...@concern.demon.co.uk>
da...@concern.demon.co.uk "David John" writes:
> In article <886589...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <2giKuFAF...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
> > jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk "John Lynch" writes:
> >
> >> Actually, I'm not convinced that 'he' exists. Consider the facts.
> >> Someone breezes in here from out of nowhere, trumps and breezes out
> >> again. She gets an irritable response. Then a white knight rides to her
> >> rescue, castigating those who have been rude to the stranger. WK goes on
> >> to change his/her ground, refuse to engage with the issues she/he has
> >> her/himself started and dismiss anyone who comments as members of a
> >> club. Now, I ask you--where have we seen this behaviour before?
> >>
> >I agree that the fingerprints look familiar, maybe even the DNA looks
> >much the same, but do you really think that, after all this time, Gladys
> >could find a new e-mail address?
> Not Gladys's alter ego, I think. I have my own theoriy on who the person
> really is.
>
You are probably right, but a few false trails don't do any harm to get the
old sleuths onto the chase.
Maybe we can get a list of which of the usual suspects are in this particular
frame.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Sue Spence
David John wrote:
>
> In article <34D757...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
> <s...@pennine.com> writes
> >David John wrote:
> > I think this Mr Pi
> >> ^H^H ollock is enjoying his foray into scb. I feel the time has now come
> >> for us to ignore the man.
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps. I think there may be a little more fun to be had, but not
> >much.
>
> I'm beginning to change my mind on this gentleman. There is more to him
> that first appeared. All is not what it seems, I suspect.
>
I doubt that. It's not as though Alan "Nex" Pollock hasn't been here
for months. You just hadn't noticed him before.
Sue Spence
David John wrote:
>
> In article <34D758...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
> <s...@pennine.com> writes
> >
> >No, don't! He'll tell us more stories about life in the Early Days,
> >back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and he only had a 300 baud acoustic
> >couple modem.
>
> Hey, I used to use one of them. This Alan's not such a bad type after all.
Me too, so that proves nothing.
> A very discerning fellow.
>
Don't be silly.
Sue Spence
Jeff Drabble wrote:
>
> On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>
> >
> >But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
>
>
I haven't seen you yet. When are you going to post the picture?
Sue Spence
> >my question.
>
> I've asked 'him' for one or two of those. I fear we are to be
> disappointed
>
True, but I don't think we were expecting much anyway.
David John
In article <886598...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
Not me, M'Lud. The name of my suspect is written on a piece of paper
[remember paper?], dated, sealed in an envelope and signed across the
flap by my next door neighbour's tabby. It will be opened only when the
dastardly person who has perpretrated this peurile fraud has revealed
himself. [I admit my suspect is male].
--
David John
Doug
In article <8I$ahBAXC...@concern.demon.co.uk>,
David John <da...@concern.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>;In article <34D62F...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
>;<s...@pennine.com> writes
>;>David John wrote:
>;>>
>;>> In article <88640252...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>;>> <ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>;>> >David John (da...@concern.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>;>> >:In article <88634813...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>;>> >:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>;>> >:>John Lynch (jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>;>> >:>:In article <88626204...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>;>> >:>:<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>;>> >:>:>
>;>> >:>:>Which says it all. I was worried there for a moment that a mere 'hi' could
>;>> >:>:>provoke such a venemous outburst. However, looking again, I realised
>;>that
>;>> >the
>;>> >:>:>posters in this thread were posing like high fashion models, in their vain
>;>> >:>:>attempts to give value to their benign, insipid, and ultimately boring
>;>> >:>:>personas. Nex
>;>> >:>:>
>;>> >:>:Benign? Who the fuck are you calling benign, you fucking shitheap?
>;>> >:>:--
>;>> >:>:John Lynch
>;>> >:>:
>;>> >:>:Beam me up, Spotty
>;>> >:>
>;>> >:>
>;>> >:>'Benign', as in inneffective, nothing to worry about, weak. Just like your
>;>> >:>little sentence above.
>;>> >:>
>;>> >:>As to whom I'm calling benign: most of the posters in this thread.
>;>> >:Hey, I'd resent that if I wasn't so ineffective and weak.
>;>> >:>
>;>> >:
>;>> >:--
>;>> >:David John
>;>> >:
>;>> >
>;>> >Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
>;>> >
>;>>
>;>> I've always had this rule that I never comment on people's names. I could
>;>> make an exception in your case.
>;>> --
>;>
>;>
>;>You don't need to as I've already done it.
>;
>;Thank you for saving me from my basic instincts, Sue. I think this Mr Pi
>;^H^H ollock is enjoying his foray into scb. I feel the time has now come
>;for us to ignore the man.
>;
>;--
>;David John
>;
Actual proof that an scb cabal does exist.
--
Doug, London, England, UK, EU?
UK Radical Campaigns Jump Page - http://www.noid.demon.co.uk/
Updated 28.01.98. 92 entries and still growing.
E-mail - smiley@noid[dot]demon[dot]co[dot]uk
Jeff Drabble
>In article <34dc3b00...@snews.zippo.com>
> jef...@super.zippo.com "Jeff Drabble" writes:
>
>>
>> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
>>
>A likely story, I am sorry Jeff, but the packet enclosing a word processing
>package that I used some years ago claimed exactly that and all the word
>processing packeges that I have used since, has left me entirely sceptical
>about the possibility of 'wysiyg' having any more reality than angels.
Are you questioning the truth of the existence of angels? Are you
likening me to a word processing software package. I can't say I find
this amusing.
Jeff Drabble
Jeff Drabble
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:52:19 -0800, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
wrote:
>Jeff Drabble wrote:
>>
>> On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
>>
>> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
>>
>
>I haven't seen you yet. When are you going to post the picture?
I don't know where your attention wanders to, really. The pictures
have travelled through cyberspace and been viewed by participants of
this ng. You were possibly telling some Irishman that he was a liar
instead of paying attention. Now do try to keep up.
Jeff Drabble
Alan Pollock
Doug (trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars) wrote:
So and so wrote:
and so on
Much snipped, for Sue's benefit mostly.
:
:Actual proof that an scb cabal does exist.
:
Knew I was on to something.
It would have been difficult to ignore the slurred nasal quality to so many of
the comments in this thread. Like the way long-time couples speak to each
other - as if they already know what the other's going to say, but are
terminally bored by the prospect of actually having to hear them say it.
Stuck. Snotty but lacking vital essence. No, not dry in the good sense, rather
more in the sense of dried-up, crusty.
Yawn.
I was fairly confident this thread had died and gone when I came back just
now. Had it been a glorious death?
No. But I did find Lynch's sibilant whispers of conspiracy amusing for a
moment. Weeeoooo. Do not adjust your set. Sublimating one's frustration is
serious business I'm told, and now I believe it. Thank you.
Cheers, all - Nex
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <34dc48fe...@snews.zippo.com>
jef...@super.zippo.com "Jeff Drabble" writes:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 98 11:03:24 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> Brooks") wrote:
>
> >In article <34dc3b00...@snews.zippo.com>
> > jef...@super.zippo.com "Jeff Drabble" writes:
> >
> >>
> >> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
> >>
> >A likely story, I am sorry Jeff, but the packet enclosing a word processing
> >package that I used some years ago claimed exactly that and all the word
> >processing packeges that I have used since, has left me entirely sceptical
> >about the possibility of 'wysiyg' having any more reality than angels.
>
> Are you questioning the truth of the existence of angels? Are you
> likening me to a word processing software package. I can't say I find
> this amusing.
>
I understand your concern, Jeff, but it was you that compared yourself
to a software package, not me. I am not 'questioning the truth' of the
existence of angels, I am just pointing out that it isn't true - no
questions.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
David John
In article <34dc48fe...@snews.zippo.com>, Jeff Drabble
<jef...@super.zippo.com> writes
>On Wed, 04 Feb 98 11:03:24 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
>Brooks") wrote:
>
>>In article <34dc3b00...@snews.zippo.com>
>> jef...@super.zippo.com "Jeff Drabble" writes:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
>>>
>>A likely story, I am sorry Jeff, but the packet enclosing a word processing
>>package that I used some years ago claimed exactly that and all the word
>>processing packeges that I have used since, has left me entirely sceptical
>>about the possibility of 'wysiyg' having any more reality than angels.
>
>Are you questioning the truth of the existence of angels? Are you
>likening me to a word processing software package. I can't say I find
>this amusing.
>
would you choose?
For me, I feel TASword would be appropriate - plodding, reliable and way
behind the times.
--
David John
John Lynch
In article <88666626...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Bollocks
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>nothing worth quoting
Again
Simon Patience
In article <34dc48fe...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
|> On Wed, 04 Feb 98 11:03:24 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
|> Brooks") wrote:
|>
|> >In article <34dc3b00...@snews.zippo.com>
|> > jef...@super.zippo.com "Jeff Drabble" writes:
|> >
|> >>
|> >> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
|> >>
|> >A likely story, I am sorry Jeff, but the packet enclosing a word processing
|> >package that I used some years ago claimed exactly that and all the word
|> >processing packeges that I have used since, has left me entirely sceptical
|> >about the possibility of 'wysiyg' having any more reality than angels.
|>
|> Are you questioning the truth of the existence of angels? Are you
|> likening me to a word processing software package. I can't say I find
|> this amusing.
I have some sympathy with you Jeff. Most word processors are "what you see is
what you get" whereas you are more of a "you didn't ask for this and you probably
don't want it" kind of a guy.
Simon.
--
Simon Patience Phone: (650) 933-4644
Silicon Graphics, Inc FAX: (650) 962-8404
2011 N. Shoreline Boulevard Email: s...@sgi.com
Mountain View, CA 94043
Simon Patience
In article <34dd4963...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
|> On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:52:19 -0800, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
|> wrote:
|> >Jeff Drabble wrote:
|> >> On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
|> >> >But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
|> >>
|> >
|>
|> I don't know where your attention wanders to, really. The pictures
|> have travelled through cyberspace and been viewed by participants of
|> this ng. You were possibly telling some Irishman that he was a liar
|> instead of paying attention. Now do try to keep up.
I've seen a picture of a farm, a cow and a waterfall but I haven't seen any
pictures of Jeff. Can anyone back Jeff's claim up?
Sue Spence
Alan Pollock wrote:
>
> Doug (trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars) wrote:
>
> So and so wrote:
> and so on
>
> Much snipped, for Sue's benefit mostly.
If you'd just done the snip and left off the rest of the boring guff, it
would have been perfect. Still, you did try.
Sue Spence
Simon Patience wrote:
>
> In article <34dc48fe...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
> |> On Wed, 04 Feb 98 11:03:24 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> |> Brooks") wrote:
> |>
> |> >In article <34dc3b00...@snews.zippo.com>
> |> > jef...@super.zippo.com "Jeff Drabble" writes:
> |> >
> |> >>
> |> >>
> |> >package that I used some years ago claimed exactly that and all the word
> |> >processing packeges that I have used since, has left me entirely sceptical
> |> >about the possibility of 'wysiyg' having any more reality than angels.
> |>
> |> Are you questioning the truth of the existence of angels? Are you
> |> likening me to a word processing software package. I can't say I find
> |> this amusing.
>
> I have some sympathy with you Jeff. Most word processors are "what you see is
> what you get" whereas you are more of a "you didn't ask for this and you probably
> don't want it" kind of a guy.
>
To be fair, a lot of word processors are actually like that as well.
Sue Spence
Simon Patience wrote:
>
> In article <34dd4963...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
> |> On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:52:19 -0800, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
> |> wrote:
> |> >Jeff Drabble wrote:
> |> >> On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
> |> >> >But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
> |> >>
> |> >
> |>
> |> I don't know where your attention wanders to, really. The pictures
> |> have travelled through cyberspace and been viewed by participants of
> |> this ng. You were possibly telling some Irishman that he was a liar
> |> instead of paying attention. Now do try to keep up.
>
> I've seen a picture of a farm, a cow and a waterfall but I haven't seen any
> pictures of Jeff. Can anyone back Jeff's claim up?
>
>
Don't forget, we've also seen Henry's placenta. No Jeff to be seen,
however.
Dick Jackson
On 5 Feb 1998 23:51:32 GMT, s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience)
wrote:
Yes, I can. He is absolutely correct, atheist's honour.
Dick J.
(I must say I preferred the snaps of his wife and daughters though)
Simon Patience
The fact that Dick backs him up strengthens our case against Jeff I feel.
|> (I must say I preferred the snaps of his wife and daughters though)
Now that I can believe, dirty old man.
Dick Jackson
On 6 Feb 1998 16:45:03 GMT, s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience)
wrote:
>In article <34e66a22....@snews.zippo.com>, di...@thegrid.net (Dick Jackson) writes:
>|> On 5 Feb 1998 23:51:32 GMT, s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience)
>|> wrote:
>|> (I must say I preferred the snaps of his wife and daughters though)
>
>Now that I can believe, dirty old man.
Honi swa qui mali ponce.
Dick J.
Ian Lowery
Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com> wrote:
>Jeff Drabble wrote:
>> If you send me your mail address I'd like to send 5 pounds as an
>> encouragement to you.
>No, don't! He'll tell us more stories about life in the Early Days,
>back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and he only had a 300 baud acoustic
>couple modem. ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Reminds me of way back when, when Adam said to Eve: "Not tonight
honey, I've got a modem".
Ian
------------------------------------------------
To reply, remove "nospam" from my e-mail address.
Jeff Drabble
>In article <34e66a22....@snews.zippo.com>, di...@thegrid.net (Dick Jackson) writes:
>|> On 5 Feb 1998 23:51:32 GMT, s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience)
>|> wrote:
>|>
>|> >In article <34dd4963...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
>|> >|> On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:52:19 -0800, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
>|> >|> wrote:
>|> >|> >Jeff Drabble wrote:
>|> >|> >> On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>|> >|> >> >But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
>|> >|> >>
>|> >|> >> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >I haven't seen you yet. When are you going to post the picture?
>|> >|>
>|> >|> I don't know where your attention wanders to, really. The pictures
>|> >|> have travelled through cyberspace and been viewed by participants of
>|> >|> this ng. You were possibly telling some Irishman that he was a liar
>|> >|> instead of paying attention. Now do try to keep up.
>|> >
>|> >I've seen a picture of a farm, a cow and a waterfall but I haven't seen any
>|> >pictures of Jeff. Can anyone back Jeff's claim up?
>|>
>|> Yes, I can. He is absolutely correct, atheist's honour.
>
>The fact that Dick backs him up strengthens our case against Jeff I feel.
>
>|> (I must say I preferred the snaps of his wife and daughters though)
>
>Now that I can believe, dirty old man.
I believe Dick meant that in a truly gentlemanly way and feel that it
is most unseemly to have declared his interest to be otherwise.
Jeff Drabble
Jeff Drabble
On Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:16:59 -0800, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
wrote:
>Simon Patience wrote:
>>
>> In article <34dd4963...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
>> |> On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:52:19 -0800, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
>> |> wrote:
>> |> >Jeff Drabble wrote:
>> |> >> On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>> |> >> >But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
>> |> >>
>> |> >> I don't understand this: with me, what you see is what you get.
>> |> >
>> |> >I haven't seen you yet. When are you going to post the picture?
>> |>
>> |> I don't know where your attention wanders to, really. The pictures
>> |> have travelled through cyberspace and been viewed by participants of
>> |> this ng. You were possibly telling some Irishman that he was a liar
>> |> instead of paying attention. Now do try to keep up.
>>
>> I've seen a picture of a farm, a cow and a waterfall but I haven't seen any
>> pictures of Jeff. Can anyone back Jeff's claim up?
>>
>>
>
>Don't forget, we've also seen Henry's placenta. No Jeff to be seen,
>however.
Henry's placenta? That was me, you insulting bastard.
Jeff Drabble
Sue Spence
It was? In that case, please PLEASE don't send any more pics.
Simon Patience
In article <34f74709...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
|> On 6 Feb 1998 16:45:03 GMT, s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience)
|> wrote:
|> >In article <34e66a22....@snews.zippo.com>, di...@thegrid.net (Dick Jackson) writes:
|> >|> On 5 Feb 1998 23:51:32 GMT, s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience)
|> >|>
|> >|> >In article <34dd4963...@snews.zippo.com>, jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) writes:
|> >|> >|> wrote:
|> >|> >|> >Jeff Drabble wrote:
|> >|> >|> >> On 3 Feb 1998 17:14:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
|> >|> >|> >> >But at least you're trying, and I'm all for that. Nex
|> >|> >|> >>
|> >|> >|> >
|> >|> >|> >I haven't seen you yet. When are you going to post the picture?
|> >|> >|>
|> >|> >|> I don't know where your attention wanders to, really. The pictures
|> >|> >|> have travelled through cyberspace and been viewed by participants of
|> >|> >|> this ng. You were possibly telling some Irishman that he was a liar
|> >|> >|> instead of paying attention. Now do try to keep up.
|> >|> >
|> >|> >I've seen a picture of a farm, a cow and a waterfall but I haven't seen any
|> >|> >pictures of Jeff. Can anyone back Jeff's claim up?
|> >|>
|> >
|> >The fact that Dick backs him up strengthens our case against Jeff I feel.
|> >
|> >|> (I must say I preferred the snaps of his wife and daughters though)
|> >
|> >Now that I can believe, dirty old man.
|>
|> I believe Dick meant that in a truly gentlemanly way and feel that it
|> is most unseemly to have declared his interest to be otherwise.
I'm sorry, you must have confused me for someone who cares about being considered
unseemly.
Jeff Drabble
On 9 Feb 1998 20:41:25 GMT, s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience)
wrote:
Please, don't be sorry. I have looked into the matter and you're
correct: I was confusing you with somebody else.
There are ever fewer of us gentlemen, are there not, Dick.
Jeff Drabble
Simon Patience
You have once again misinterpreted what I said. There is a significant difference
between being unseemly and being considered unseemly. For example, I endeavour
not to be unseemly whereas I couldn't give a fig to be considered unseemly,
especially by an oik, for example. Now some might conclude from that that I have
just called you an oik, but once again that would be infering things that I had
not actually written.
Regards
Doug
In article <88646793...@wagasa.cts.com>,
ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>;The fact that you rapidly offered me the second most vulnerable (read
>;minuscule) part of your anatomy bears this out. (That smooth little organ
>;inside your cranium with the large brow-ridges comes in first) You try to act
>;the warrior, but end-up looking the buffoon.
>;
>;That certain compatriots of yours have attempted to come to your aid is
>;touching, because you need it.
That would be the scb cabal.
Doug
In article <88647505...@wagasa.cts.com>,
ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>;Dick Jackson (di...@thegrid.net) wrote:
>;:On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:29:21 +0000, David John
>;:<da...@concern.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>;:
>;:>In article <88640252...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
>;:><ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>;:
>;:>>Well, we make exceptions for folks in the retirement home. :) Nex
>;:>>
>;:>I've always had this rule that I never comment on people's names. I could
>;:>make an exception in your case.
>;:
>;:I must admit I'm puzzled by the ever present "Nex" as a sort of EOT.
>;:Perhaps I'm dim -- could you explain it please Alan?
>;:
>;:Dick J.
>;
>;A holdover from the early 80's when at 300 baud, long sigs were frowned upon,
They still are in the demon.local newsgroup would you believe. They
probably haven't heard of fast modems yet.
Doug
In article <$mC66CAv...@concern.demon.co.uk>,
David John <da...@concern.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>;In article <34D757...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
>;<s...@pennine.com> writes
>;>David John wrote:
>;> I think this Mr Pi
>;>> ^H^H ollock is enjoying his foray into scb. I feel the time has now come
>;>> for us to ignore the man.
>;>>
>;>
>;>Perhaps. I think there may be a little more fun to be had, but not
>;>much.
>;
>;I'm beginning to change my mind on this gentleman.
By 'gentlemen' I take it you are referring to that little clique I often
refer to as the 'cabal'.
Doug
In article <34d8dc23...@snews.zippo.com>,
jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) wrote:
>;Bravo, Allan! It's wonderful to see somebody standing up to these
>;chummy bastards for a change. I'm with you on this one. That Lynch
>;character is just a damned pervert and I'd ignore him were I you.
>;Spence is just a disgusting distortion of womanhood and David John
>;could do with getting out a bit more. Glad to see you use nice
>;friendly emoticons as well. I think that's the sort of thing that's
>;needed to brighten things up around here. Jolly well done, and may
>;there be plenty more of it. Let me know if you need a hand. If you
>;send me your mail address I'd like to send 5 pounds as an
>;encouragement to you.
>;
>;Jeff Drabble
>;
What is this Jeff? Siding against the cabal? Have they cast you out
recently?
Doug
In article <72P7uJAa...@concern.demon.co.uk>,
David John <da...@concern.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>;In article <886589...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>;<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>;>In article <2giKuFAF...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
>;> jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk "John Lynch" writes:
>;>
>;>> Actually, I'm not convinced that 'he' exists. Consider the facts.
>;>> Someone breezes in here from out of nowhere, trumps and breezes out
>;>> again. She gets an irritable response. Then a white knight rides to her
>;>> rescue, castigating those who have been rude to the stranger. WK goes on
>;>> to change his/her ground, refuse to engage with the issues she/he has
>;>> her/himself started and dismiss anyone who comments as members of a
>;>> club. Now, I ask you--where have we seen this behaviour before?
>;>>
>;>I agree that the fingerprints look familiar, maybe even the DNA looks
>;>much the same, but do you really think that, after all this time, Gladys
>;>could find a new e-mail address?
>;Not Gladys's alter ego, I think. I have my own theoriy on who the person
>;really is.
Do I detect the tangy whiff of paranoia here?
Jeff Drabble
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:01:43 +0000,
trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:
>In article <34d8dc23...@snews.zippo.com>,
>jef...@super.zippo.com (Jeff Drabble) wrote:
>
>
>>;Bravo, Allan! It's wonderful to see somebody standing up to these
>>;chummy bastards for a change. I'm with you on this one. That Lynch
>>;character is just a damned pervert and I'd ignore him were I you.
>>;Spence is just a disgusting distortion of womanhood and David John
>>;could do with getting out a bit more. Glad to see you use nice
>>;friendly emoticons as well. I think that's the sort of thing that's
>>;needed to brighten things up around here. Jolly well done, and may
>>;there be plenty more of it. Let me know if you need a hand. If you
>>;send me your mail address I'd like to send 5 pounds as an
>>;encouragement to you.
>>;
>>;Jeff Drabble
>>;
>
>What is this Jeff? Siding against the cabal? Have they cast you out
>recently?
Oh, they never accepted me in, Doug. My credentials were
disappointingly inadequate. The above was a futile effort to
encourage this Allan Pollock person to chat. He failed to do this and
even declined my 5 pounds.
What's wrong with your newsfeed? That message is two weeks old.
I thought this sort of thing was your business: you should be able to
arrange something a little more towards the pointy end.
Jeff Drabble
Alan Pollock
Doug (trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars) wrote:
:In article <88646793...@wagasa.cts.com>,
:ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
:
:
:>;The fact that you rapidly offered me the second most vulnerable (read
:>;minuscule) part of your anatomy bears this out. (That smooth little organ
:>;inside your cranium with the large brow-ridges comes in first) You try to act
:>;the warrior, but end-up looking the buffoon.
:>;
:>;That certain compatriots of yours have attempted to come to your aid is
:>;touching, because you need it.
:
:That would be the scb cabal.
Thread still alive then? I'm amazed and utterly surprised.
Doug, cabal or no cabal, the result is the same. No need for club
memberships, team sweaters or even little caps with stripes on.
They've hidden their informal association under a thick fog of mediocrity *in
their posts*, you see. That's how one identifies them. Brilliant, if
unintended. Right under our very noses, too. Who would have thought of it?
Well, they didn't have to really - it was no doubt a simple matter of mutual
recognition.
But then, there's something to be said for a bit of stability in this world of
ephemerae. When all is said and done, I'm thankful. And so should you be.
Nex
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms,
perhaps then in spring time our hearts would be at peace."
Ariwara no Narihira
------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug
In article <34f45a09...@enews.newsguy.com>,
jef...@newsguy.com (Jeff Drabble) wrote:
>;On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:01:43 +0000,
I sometimes go back and dredge for more trivial posts when the mood takes
me.
David John
In article <8876131...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>Doug (trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars) wrote:
>:In article <88646793...@wagasa.cts.com>,
>:ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>:
>:
>:>;The fact that you rapidly offered me the second most vulnerable (read
>:>;minuscule) part of your anatomy bears this out. (That smooth little organ
>:>;inside your cranium with the large brow-ridges comes in first) You try to act
>:>;the warrior, but end-up looking the buffoon.
>:>;
>:>;That certain compatriots of yours have attempted to come to your aid is
>:>;touching, because you need it.
>:
>:That would be the scb cabal.
>:
>
>
>Thread still alive then? I'm amazed and utterly surprised.
>
day.
--
David John
Jeff Drabble
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:05:11 +0000,
trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:
>>;
>>;What's wrong with your newsfeed? That message is two weeks old.
>>;I thought this sort of thing was your business: you should be able to
>>;arrange something a little more towards the pointy end.
>
>I sometimes go back and dredge for more trivial posts when the mood takes
>me.
Oh, well, I'm so pleased to have been trivial enough to fit the bill.
Jeff Drabble
Sue Spence
He really is a low-down complete and utter shit, isn't he?
Simon Patience
I'm sorry, I haven't really been paying attention to this thread. Who exactly
were you referring to just then?
Jeff Drabble
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:08:55 -0800, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com>
wrote:
>Jeff Drabble wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:05:11 +0000,
>> trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:
>> >>;
>> >>;What's wrong with your newsfeed? That message is two weeks old.
>> >>;I thought this sort of thing was your business: you should be able to
>> >>;arrange something a little more towards the pointy end.
>> >
>> >I sometimes go back and dredge for more trivial posts when the mood takes
>> >me.
>>
>> Oh, well, I'm so pleased to have been trivial enough to fit the bill.
>>
>
>
>He really is a low-down complete and utter shit, isn't he?
In this, Sue, he may not be alone.
Jeff Drabble
Sue Spence
> |> > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:05:11 +0000,
> |> > trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:
> |> > >>;
> |> > >>;What's wrong with your newsfeed? That message is two weeks old.
> |> > >>;I thought this sort of thing was your business: you should be able to
> |> > >>;arrange something a little more towards the pointy end.
> |> > >
> |> > >I sometimes go back and dredge for more trivial posts when the mood takes
> |> > >me.
> |> >
> |> > Oh, well, I'm so pleased to have been trivial enough to fit the bill.
> |>
> |> He really is a low-down complete and utter shit, isn't he?
>
> were you referring to just then?
>
Why do you want to know?
Sue Spence
> >>
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:05:11 +0000,
> >> trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:
> >> >>;
> >> >>;What's wrong with your newsfeed? That message is two weeks old.
> >> >>;I thought this sort of thing was your business: you should be able to
> >> >>;arrange something a little more towards the pointy end.
> >> >
> >> >I sometimes go back and dredge for more trivial posts when the mood takes
> >> >me.
> >>
> >> Oh, well, I'm so pleased to have been trivial enough to fit the bill.
> >>
> >
> >
> >He really is a low-down complete and utter shit, isn't he?
>
>
Indeed, Jeff. He is an inspiration to you all.
Simon Patience
In article <34EB18...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com> writes:
|> Simon Patience wrote:
|> >
|> > In article <34E9C4...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com> writes:
|> > |> > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:05:11 +0000,
|> > |> > trashyou...@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:
|> > |> > >>;
|> > |> > >>;What's wrong with your newsfeed? That message is two weeks old.
|> > |> > >>;I thought this sort of thing was your business: you should be able to
|> > |> > >>;arrange something a little more towards the pointy end.
|> > |> > >
|> > |> > >I sometimes go back and dredge for more trivial posts when the mood takes
|> > |> > >me.
|> > |> >
|> > |> > Oh, well, I'm so pleased to have been trivial enough to fit the bill.
|> > |>
|> > |> He really is a low-down complete and utter shit, isn't he?
|> >
|> > were you referring to just then?
|> >
|>
|> Why do you want to know?
I don't. I'm just being polite and trying to look interested in what you are
saying.