OT: Hillary
JRStern
article, I found this a most remarkable analysis.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gq1fEUuhFJV4rivRGDrhQY1DKAmQD9BOVA102
Analysis: For Clinton, tough talk but few results
By ROBERT BURNS (AP) � 1 day ago
CAIRO � Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's tense exchanges
with Pakistani civilians and Arab diplomats over a harrowing week of
foreign stops exposed the confining limits of her office.
On her most ambitious and contentious overseas trip as secretary of
state, Clinton had to resort to damage control after she appeared to
mangle the Obama administration's message on frozen Mideast peace
talks.
And while she scored points back home by standing up to angry
Pakistanis who confronted her about drone-launched U.S. missile
strikes, her blunt questioning of the resolve of Pakistan's government
exposed American impatience with the country's incremental steps
against terrorists.
In each case her extraordinarily public approach to diplomacy � for
better or worse � reflected not only her personal style but also
President Barack Obama's promise to reach out openly to friend as well
as foe.
What remains less clear is whether Clinton's hot-button politician's
persona works any better at producing international results � let
alone clarity � than a more classic diplomat's cooler tact.
...
@gmail.com zob
wrote:
>At the risk of overloading the circuits with yet another political
>article, I found this a most remarkable analysis.
>
>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gq1fEUuhFJV4rivRGDrhQY1DKAmQD9BOVA102
>
>Analysis: For Clinton, tough talk but few results
>By ROBERT BURNS (AP) � 1 day ago
What is "remarkable" about this analysis? It's merely more whining by
another dime-a-dozen neocon crybaby still unable to accept the fact
that America rejected him and his fellow losers.
Hillary has done an absolutely remarkable job in dramatically
improving America's image around the world and in renewing our global
friendships that were destroyed by George Bush and his house negro
Condoleeza Rice. (Colin Powell was too uppity as Secretary of State
and was actually liked and respected around the world so he had to be
replaced).
---
Zob
JRStern
wrote:
>Hillary has done an absolutely remarkable job in dramatically
>improving America's image around the world and in renewing our global
>friendships that were destroyed by George Bush and his house negro
>Condoleeza Rice.
zob, have you actually read this article, or any verbatim reports of
what Hillary has said on this trip, and how it was received by all
those great nations around the world like Pakistan and Palestine?
the funny thing is, I sort of like what she said, no matter how
impolitic and undiplomatic it was. I cannot see Obama liking it much,
however. and even liking it, I suppose I would have recommended she
temper her language - a lot - to make the same points. not that it
would have mattered, but you should at least try to play the game, I
think.
in your righteous indignation you're missing the whole story, z.
J.
Sanna
> Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
> local community college.
Maybe he can enroll at the college you supposedly taught at last
spring.....you know, the one where you claimed that you were a professor.
--
Lesmond
>
>Your ignorance, IMHO, is actually increasing and shows that you really
>are not capable, or unwilling, to attempt to grasp the complexities of
>various political, economic or business situations.
>
>Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
>local community college.
How's that niceness pledge going, Bob?
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Callen
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:33:21 -0800, JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >At the risk of overloading the circuits with yet another political
> >article, I found this a most remarkable analysis.
>
>
> >Analysis: For Clinton, tough talk but few results
> >By ROBERT BURNS (AP) – 1 day ago
>
> What is "remarkable" about this analysis? It's merely more whining by
> another dime-a-dozen neocon crybaby still unable to accept the fact
> that America rejected him and his fellow losers.
>
> Hillary has done an absolutely remarkable job in dramatically
> improving America's image around the world and in renewing our global
> friendships that were destroyed by George Bush and his house negro
> Condoleeza Rice. (Colin Powell was too uppity as Secretary of State
> and was actually liked and respected around the world so he had to be
> replaced).
> ---
> Zob
Lord knows I hate to agree with Bob on anything political, but that
was an extremely offensive statement you just made, zob.
Callen in VA
Micki
wrote:
>In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-
>september.org>, les...@verizon.net says...
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:14:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Your ignorance, IMHO, is actually increasing and shows that you really
>> >are not capable, or unwilling, to attempt to grasp the complexities of
>> >various political, economic or business situations.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
>> >local community college.
>>
>> How's that niceness pledge going, Bob?
>>
>>
>
>Speaking of which, for the third time now, will you join Moni, Vandar
>and myself as the fourth person to take it, Lesmond?
>
>At least we've tried, although it's more and more apparent that few
>really care to make a serious effort.
You're joking, right??? You have to be joking!
Micki
" We know when we know, and if we knew then what we know now, we would have."
Cheri
news:6429f55kanh1m0u6r...@4ax.com...
> Hillary has done an absolutely remarkable job in dramatically
> improving America's image around the world and in renewing our global
> friendships that were destroyed by George Bush and his house negro
> Condoleeza Rice. (Colin Powell was too uppity as Secretary of State
> and was actually liked and respected around the world so he had to be
> replaced).
> ---
> Zob
"House negro?" C'mon zob, that is totally beneath you. You might not like
her politics, but she's a very well educated, polished, self-assured black
woman, and your term for her is downright nasty IMO.
Cheri
Sanna
Nope, he's not............well....you know, that's always in question.
--
Lesmond
>In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-
>september.org>, les...@verizon.net says...
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:14:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Your ignorance, IMHO, is actually increasing and shows that you really
>> >are not capable, or unwilling, to attempt to grasp the complexities of
>> >various political, economic or business situations.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
>> >local community college.
>>
>> How's that niceness pledge going, Bob?
>>
>>
>
>Speaking of which, for the third time now, will you join Moni, Vandar
>and myself as the fourth person to take it, Lesmond?
>
>At least we've tried, although it's more and more apparent that few
>really care to make a serious effort.
So, as long as I say I do, I can be as vicious as I want and that excuses me?
Bob Rudd
mos...@verizon.net says...
> You're joking, right??? You have to be joking!
>
Not at all, Micki. I respect your right, however to defend "poor zob."
--
Orrin Knox would make a great President.
Bob Rudd
september.org>, les...@verizon.net says...
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:19:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
>
> >In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-
> >september.org>, les...@verizon.net says...
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:14:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Your ignorance, IMHO, is actually increasing and shows that you really
> >> >are not capable, or unwilling, to attempt to grasp the complexities of
> >> >various political, economic or business situations.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
> >> >local community college.
> >>
> >> How's that niceness pledge going, Bob?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Speaking of which, for the third time now, will you join Moni, Vandar
> >and myself as the fourth person to take it, Lesmond?
> >
> >At least we've tried, although it's more and more apparent that few
> >really care to make a serious effort.
>
> So, as long as I say I do, I can be as vicious as I want and that excuses me?
>
>
Finally, a reply on the third attempt.
At the very least, I, Moni and Vandar have said we will try. Your
comment does not commit you to even that, as yet. So, will you
Vicious? I was not vicious in my response to zob. There have been some
vicious things said to zob in here, in the past, for which I've defended
him....although as I've said the other day, I no longer will.
He is simply not, IMHO, capable of a high level discussion of
significance on a number of subjects. His understanding of facts as
well as his means of self expression ("WTF, STFU, house Negro etc.), I
think, bare that out.
Callen
> In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaarg.ksrfxqa.pmin...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, lesm...@verizon.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:19:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
>
> > >september.org>, lesm...@verizon.net says...
> > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:14:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
>
> > >> >Your ignorance, IMHO, is actually increasing and shows that you really
> > >> >are not capable, or unwilling, to attempt to grasp the complexities of
> > >> >various political, economic or business situations.
>
> > >> >Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
> > >> >local community college.
>
> > >> How's that niceness pledge going, Bob?
>
> > >Speaking of which, for the third time now, will you join Moni, Vandar
> > >and myself as the fourth person to take it, Lesmond?
>
> > >At least we've tried, although it's more and more apparent that few
> > >really care to make a serious effort.
>
> > So, as long as I say I do, I can be as vicious as I want and that excuses me?
>
> Finally, a reply on the third attempt.
>
> At the very least, I, Moni and Vandar have said we will try. Your
> comment does not commit you to even that, as yet. So, will you
Why should she reply? It's not a serious question. You're not
serious; if you were, you would've kept one of the umpteen million
similar "pledges" you've made over the years. Instead, we get more of
the "Rudd's Rules for Newsgroup Etiquette" which mean that you can say
whatever you want as long as there's a smiley somewhere in the text.
Sorry, not buying it, and I'm pretty sure Vandar and Moni don't
either.
Callen in VA
Lesmond
>On Nov 8, 6:51ÿpm, Bob Rudd <bobr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaarg.ksrfxqa.pmin...@news.eternal-
>> september.org>, lesm...@verizon.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:19:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
>>
>> > >In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaarg.ksqw9q3.pmin...@news.eternal-
>> > >september.org>, lesm...@verizon.net says...
>> > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:14:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
>>
>> > >> >Your ignorance, IMHO, is actually increasing and shows that you really
>> > >> >are not capable, or unwilling, to attempt to grasp the complexities of
>> > >> >various political, economic or business situations. ÿ
>>
>> > >> >Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
>> > >> >local community college.
>>
>> > >> How's that niceness pledge going, Bob?
>>
>> > >Speaking of which, for the third time now, will you join Moni, Vandar
>> > >and myself as the fourth person to take it, Lesmond?
>>
>> > >At least we've tried, although it's more and more apparent that few
>> > >really care to make a serious effort.
>>
>> > So, as long as I say I do, I can be as vicious as I want and that excuses me?
>>
>> Finally, a reply on the third attempt.
>>
>> At the very least, I, Moni and Vandar have said we will try. ÿYour
>> comment does not commit you to even that, as yet. ÿSo, will you
>
>Why should she reply? It's not a serious question. You're not
>serious; if you were, you would've kept one of the umpteen million
>similar "pledges" you've made over the years. Instead, we get more of
>the "Rudd's Rules for Newsgroup Etiquette" which mean that you can say
>whatever you want as long as there's a smiley somewhere in the text.
>Sorry, not buying it, and I'm pretty sure Vandar and Moni don't
>either.
Thank you, Callen.
Scarlett
news:4b0c4ee2-e1c2-4f62...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Callen in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with you, Callen.
--
Scarlett
When I want your opinion, I'll remove the duct tape.
Bob Rudd
54a533...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, callen...@yahoo.com
says...
At the very least, the three of us have tried. That's more than a lot
of other people here, Callen. What have you done, btw?
The way this place has gone, it really doesn't matter because not enough
care enough to even try to make a difference for the better. So, in all
likelihood, this place will keep going downhill with almost all of us,
excepting maybe less than a handful, contributing to it.
Now, if your lecture is over, you can go make another insulting comment
to anyone else you choose.
Bob Rudd
>
> >> In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaarg.ksrfxqa.pmin...@news.eternal-
> >> september.org>, lesm...@verizon.net says...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:19:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
> >>
> >> > >In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaarg.ksqw9q3.pmin...@news.eternal-
> >> > >september.org>, lesm...@verizon.net says...
> >> > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:14:47 -0500, Bob Rudd wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> >Your ignorance, IMHO, is actually increasing and shows that you really
> >> > >> >are not capable, or unwilling, to attempt to grasp the complexities of
> >>
> >> > >> >Perhaps, now that you have some time, you might consider enrolling in a
> >> > >> >local community college.
> >>
> >> > >> How's that niceness pledge going, Bob?
> >>
> >> > >Speaking of which, for the third time now, will you join Moni, Vandar
> >> > >and myself as the fourth person to take it, Lesmond?
> >>
> >> > >At least we've tried, although it's more and more apparent that few
> >> > >really care to make a serious effort.
> >>
> >> > So, as long as I say I do, I can be as vicious as I want and that excuses me?
> >>
> >> Finally, a reply on the third attempt.
> >>
> >> comment does not commit you to even that, as yet. =3FSo, will you
> >
> >Why should she reply? It's not a serious question. You're not
> >serious; if you were, you would've kept one of the umpteen million
> >similar "pledges" you've made over the years. Instead, we get more of
> >the "Rudd's Rules for Newsgroup Etiquette" which mean that you can say
> >whatever you want as long as there's a smiley somewhere in the text.
> >Sorry, not buying it, and I'm pretty sure Vandar and Moni don't
> >either.
>
> Thank you, Callen.
>
Two peas in a pod. Funny how several people will criticize others here
but draw the line at criticizing their own friends when one of them
causes a problem or two or several, huh?
Micki
wrote:
Wow. Someone curses here. What a shock. And if you can't see that
he was not using these terms because he believed in them but because
he believed that Bush, Cheney, et al. felt this way (incidentally, I
agree with him) than your reading comprehension and/or irony meter is
seriously challenged.
Bob Rudd
mmmi...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net says...
Of course you would be. Nothing less would be expected of you.
Bob Rudd
mos...@verizon.net says...
No Micki, an educated and/or knowledgeable person doesn't have to resort
to the numerous levels of gutterisms and lack of decorum. That has
nothing to do with irony and everything to do with ignorance.
Callen
> In article <4b0c4ee2-e1c2-4f62-a9d2-
> 54a533c96...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, callenmole...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob, you kill me, you really do. You have no self-awareness
whatsoever.
Callen in VA
Callen
> In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaarg.ksun050.pmin...@news.eternal-
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh dear, I'm absolutely crushed to be considered as one half of "two
peas in a pod" with Lesmond. Whatever will I do?
Callen in VA (oops, hope that wasn't too much of a lecture)
Bob Rudd
@r3g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, callen...@yahoo.com says...
Actually, you're just two peas in a pod of about four or five. Pretty
much all alike, as well, I think.
Lesmond
>
>At the very least, the three of us have tried. That's more than a lot
>of other people here, Callen. What have you done, btw?
>
>The way this place has gone, it really doesn't matter because not enough
>care enough to even try to make a difference for the better. So, in all
>likelihood, this place will keep going downhill with almost all of us,
>excepting maybe less than a handful, contributing to it.
You honestly consider yourself a thoughtful and reasonable poster? At least
TC admits he's an asshole.
>
>Now, if your lecture is over, you can go make another insulting comment
>to anyone else you choose.
Okay, Bob. I'll make the pledge more seriously than anyone ever has. I
promise to never say a word against anyone nor even their beliefs (something
you can't handle).
As soon as you do one tiny little thing:
Explain how you so frequently talked about having only one child (a son), but
then were planning your "daughter's" wedding. You can add in how you managed
to have a bunch of grandkids while your only child was still in high school.
I'll be waiting.
Lesmond
>
>Oh dear, I'm absolutely crushed to be considered as one half of "two
>peas in a pod" with Lesmond. Whatever will I do?
Howza bout a smooch?
Anyway, I just made sure Bob will never reply to me again.
Micki
It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.
Micki
wrote:
>In article <2bjbf5t312rnft3gs...@4ax.com>,
>mos...@verizon.net says...
>> You're joking, right??? You have to be joking!
>>
>
>Not at all, Micki. I respect your right, however to defend "poor zob."
Yet another slap at him
Sorry Bob, from some other threads I'd say that your reading
comprehension is the one that is challanged almost as much as your
veracity.
Micki
wrote:
Emily Post rides again! I'd plonk you but you are too funny to miss.
topcat
"SLGreg" <SLG...@madeitup.com> wrote in message
news:r9pgf51eojrd4lpt7...@4ax.com...
> his other like-minded cronies here.
>
This whole concept of "everyone should just get along" is silly and needs to
be tabled. In real life, your personality is going to clash with 3 out of
every 4 people you meet. No difference here.
TC
Bob Rudd
mos...@verizon.net says...
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:51:38 -0500, Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <2bjbf5t312rnft3gs...@4ax.com>,
> >mos...@verizon.net says...
> >> You're joking, right??? You have to be joking!
> >>
> >
> >Not at all, Micki. I respect your right, however to defend "poor zob."
>
> Yet another slap at him
>
> Sorry Bob, from some other threads I'd say that your reading
> comprehension is the one that is challanged almost as much as your
> veracity.
Sorry Micki, because I do not accept the same POV from an article you
posted and agreed with Brian instead, has nothing to do with reading
comprehension.
OTOH, defending crudity as a acceptable form of polite response, when if
someone addressed you in that same manner...would elicit a very strong
response from you, if it were directed at you. You've never been one to
show that kind of personal ignorance of behavior and you know that.
Bob Rudd
You know, I've come around to your way of thinking on this, tc.
Bob Rudd
SLG...@madeitup.com says...
> I'm down wid dat, homey.
>
> g-reg
>
I actually like the "g-reg" touch. It's more of a West Coast take than
an East Coast one.
Micki
wrote:
>In article <62pgf55vf42oeo8b0...@4ax.com>,
>mos...@verizon.net says...
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:51:38 -0500, Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2bjbf5t312rnft3gs...@4ax.com>,
>> >mos...@verizon.net says...
>> >> You're joking, right??? You have to be joking!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not at all, Micki. I respect your right, however to defend "poor zob."
>>
>> Yet another slap at him
>>
>> Sorry Bob, from some other threads I'd say that your reading
>> comprehension is the one that is challanged almost as much as your
>> veracity.
>
>Sorry Micki, because I do not accept the same POV from an article you
>posted and agreed with Brian instead, has nothing to do with reading
>comprehension.
Now, read carefully, Brian's article that he briefly quoted from was
in the Trumbull County Conservative Examiner and was based on that
liberal(yeah right) James Corsi's (you know of Swiftboat fame) article
from WorldNetDaily, another Conservative site. Brian gave bits and
pieces that had been pulled from Corsi's exclusive. I gave the entire
article.
But that was not what I was referring to when I questioned your
veracity. I was referring to the lies you have promulgated in this
group as to your real life.
>
>OTOH, defending crudity as a acceptable form of polite response, when if
>someone addressed you in that same manner...would elicit a very strong
>response from you, if it were directed at you. You've never been one to
>show that kind of personal ignorance of behavior and you know that.
I'd answer in the same way the person spoke so yes it would be in a
strong manner. If it happens I suggest you cover your very delicate
ears. I would not insult the person's intelligence for no reason over
many, many threads. I would try to show the person, as I have been
trying to show you, where they have gone wrong. However, even I grow
bored from hitting my head on a brass wall so think what you like
about Hasan and Homeland Security. I'll just grin.
Micki
wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:38:12 -0500, Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <96e4dede-37b7-4f17-ab1e-720ffc1b9233
>>@r3g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, callen...@yahoo.com says...
>>> > > >Why should she reply? 锟絀t's not a serious question. 锟結ou're not
>>> > > >serious; if you were, you would've kept one of the umpteen million
>>> > > >similar "pledges" you've made over the years. 锟絀nstead, we get more of
>>> > > >the "Rudd's Rules for Newsgroup Etiquette" which mean that you can say
>>> > > >whatever you want as long as there's a smiley somewhere in the text.
>>> > > >Sorry, not buying it, and I'm pretty sure Vandar and Moni don't
>>> > > >either.
>>> >
>>> > > Thank you, Callen.
>>> >
>>> > Two peas in a pod. 锟紽unny how several people will criticize others here
>>> > but draw the line at criticizing their own friends when one of them
>>> > causes a problem or two or several, huh?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Orrin Knox would make a great President.- Hide quoted text -
>>> >
>>> > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Oh dear, I'm absolutely crushed to be considered as one half of "two
>>> peas in a pod" with Lesmond. Whatever will I do?
>>>
>>> Callen in VA (oops, hope that wasn't too much of a lecture)
>>>
>>
>>Actually, you're just two peas in a pod of about four or five. Pretty
>>much all alike, as well, I think.
>
>Coming from someone who bumps boners all day long with four or five of
>his other like-minded cronies here.
>
>greg
>
"Bump boners". Hmm, I think I like it better than the "circle jerk"
allusion I made. I'm going to co opt it if you don't mind.
Bob Rudd
How much, and/or how little, I have chosen to reveal at any time over
the years as to my personal life, is my: private, business and legal
right. They were/are for my own personal reasons, not yours or anyone
elses: then, now or in the future. I'm pretty much done saying anything
more about my real life. I'll comment on others if they chose to share
aspects of theirs, need prayers, encouragement, etc. but anything about
ours, if shared, will be done privately with those I truly consider my
closest friends. BTW, we do not have a bunch of grandkids either, just
one.
Now, as to that pledge of yours, please forget about it. The fact is I
apologize for drilling you about it and ask your forgiveness. I think
TC and g-reg are right. It's ridiculous to think that all, or even
most, of us will get along and I've finally come to realize it. That's
what Usenet has become and I/we either have to accept it or leave it.
That's why tools such as plonks and/or ignoring those who disturb us are
available to be used.
Cheri
news:hd9khi$oaa$7...@news.albasani.net...
At the very least, the three of us have tried. That's more than a lot
of other people here, Callen. What have you done, btw?
The way this place has gone, it really doesn't matter because not enough
care enough to even try to make a difference for the better. So, in all
likelihood, this place will keep going downhill with almost all of us,
excepting maybe less than a handful, contributing to it.
Now, if your lecture is over, you can go make another insulting comment
to anyone else you choose.
==========
Surely you see the irony in your post as far as lectures go? :-)
Cheri
Cheri
>>Actually, you're just two peas in a pod of about four or five. Pretty
>>much all alike, as well, I think.
>
> Coming from someone who bumps boners all day long with four or five of
> his other like-minded cronies here.
>
> greg
I am LMAO, I have never heard that expression.
Cheri
Cheri
news:hd9or...@news4.newsguy.com...
> This whole concept of "everyone should just get along" is silly and needs
> to be tabled. In real life, your personality is going to clash with 3 out
> of every 4 people you meet. No difference here.
>
> TC
High Fives TC!
Cheri
topcat
"Cheri" <che...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hd9rs...@news4.newsguy.com...
See, right there, I prefer a *LOW* five....we just aren't going to get
along. ;-)
TC
Scarlett
We all know you use "bad words" Bob. Just another one of your pretenses.
Like your kids, your job, your house, your guard dogs. I'm thinking you are
the typical 300 pound 50 year old bald guy living in your mother's basement
and posting to this ng all day.
Btw, penalty on your last post for only using one comma! Say hi to yer mom!
--
Scarlett
When I want your opinion, I'll remove the duct tape.
Scarlett
Glad you understand that. I'll stand by someone as high caliber as Callen
any day.
topcat
> In article <hd9s7...@news2.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
>
> I picture you more of a fist bump kind of guy though. <grin>
> --
>
Not "fist", according to Greg. ;-)
TC
Suzanne D.
> Two peas in a pod. Funny how several people will criticize others here
> but draw the line at criticizing their own friends when one of them
> causes a problem or two or several, huh?
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't most of the people currently
criticizing you consider you a friend once?
--S.
Cheri
> In article <hd9su...@news2.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
> a local, highly rated and respected, black news anchor has referred to
> it as "gimme dat."
Did you miss "bump boners?" I loved that.
Cheri
topcat
> In article <hd9su...@news2.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
>>
> a local, highly rated and respected, black news anchor has referred to
> it as "gimme dat."
>
Oh yeah, that. More nonsense beneath the dignity of the Presidency.
TC
Suzanne D.
>> Okay, Bob. I'll make the pledge more seriously than anyone ever has. I
>> promise to never say a word against anyone nor even their beliefs
>> (something
>> you can't handle).
>> As soon as you do one tiny little thing:
>> Explain how you so frequently talked about having only one child (a son),
>> but
>> then were planning your "daughter's" wedding. You can add in how you
>> managed
>> to have a bunch of grandkids while your only child was still in high
>> school.
>>
>
>
>
> How much, and/or how little, I have chosen to reveal at any time over
> the years as to my personal life, is my: private, business and legal
> right. They were/are for my own personal reasons, not yours or anyone
> elses: then, now or in the future.
Most people can understand the guarding of information. People use a
different last name (although YOU don't), they don't say their kids' names,
they keep their locations secret, etc. This makes sense. What doesn't make
sense is why you would openly declare that you only have one child, a son,
and then add three more kids to that in a later post. This isn't guarding
information; this is flat-out lying. Either you have one child or four.
One of these isn't true. There is nothing in the sensible act of guarding
information that would cause someone to say on one have that he has one
child, and on the other hand that he has four. You cannot use the guarding
information excuse to justify why you did this to your friends.
Many people here believed the things you said. When they learned that much
of what you had told them was simply not true, they got hurt. It's one
thing to not talk about your job or your kids or your home in the interest
of safety. It's another to talk about them ALL THE TIME, completely
fabricating these things and fooling the people who had considered
themselves friends.
There was a brief discussion here a while back about how nice it is to have
a little community where we get to know each other. We share pictures and
stories of our families and our work and hobbies, and this all makes us feel
a little more real to each other. How do you think all the people who
congratulated you on the birth of your granddaughter feel now knowing that
your previous claim makes the granddaughter an impossibility?
I think Lesmond's idea is a good one. Come clean. Telling us whether you
have one son or four children will not compromise anyone's safety. Saying
that you lied about the daughters and granddaughter won't make you any more
disliked than you already are. Bob, people already KNOW what you've said.
They already don't like you. Wouldn't coming clean at least earn you a
little respect and the possibility of building new friendships where the old
ones had been torn down?
--S.
topcat
I bet you did.... ;-)
TC
topcat
"Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hda10h$hrd$1...@news.albasani.net...
This from the person who won't "come clean" about calling Tin@.
TC
Suzanne D.
> This from the person who won't "come clean" about calling Tin@.
I did come clean. I said I didn't call her. My bill will arrive in a few
days, and if you want proof, then I'll post it. Remember, posting a picture
of my husband's name and phone number on a caller ID phone that allows you
to program such names and numbers into it doesn't prove that someone called
you. However, a phone bill lacking said call will prove that the call
didn't happen. Frankly, I am more interested in seeing her bill.
--S.
topcat
Your "proof" will only lead to more speculation. I could post a picture of
the Mona Lisa and say it's an original and it's sitting in my living room.
People will just have to believe who they want to believe. And, as I've said
in the past, Tin@ may be many things, but she's not a liar. If you and your
husband didn't call her, then I'd sure be wondering who is going to the
trouble of impersonating you. Or you could just be lying. That's what I'd
put odds on.
End of conversation.
TC
Ryan
It is ironic that arguably one of the most pathologic liars is
confronting another pathologic liar about lying.
Suzanne also has not come clean about her posting Tina's telephone
number, announcing that it was her phone number and asking people to
call it after midnight. I am sure Suzanne's "friends" feel even better
about her integrity and are glad to call her a friend.
I think that Suzanne should come clean and admit that she posted
Tina's telephone number in this newsgroup. Wouldn't coming clean at
least earn her a little respect and the possibility of building new
friendships where old ones had been compromised.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
ATAI Bragging Rights Champion, 2006
Everything that is ever going to happen,
has already happened.
Tin@
Lesmond
Remember, we only have Tina's word on this. Let us wait until the evidence
comes in.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Lesmond
>
>End of conversation.
We can only hope.
Vandar
Mine is as big as a fist. Just in case you were wondering. :)
Lesmond
>In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-
>september.org>, les...@verizon.net says...
>>
>> Okay, Bob. I'll make the pledge more seriously than anyone ever has. I
>> promise to never say a word against anyone nor even their beliefs (something
>> you can't handle).
>>
>> As soon as you do one tiny little thing:
>>
>> Explain how you so frequently talked about having only one child (a son), but
>> then were planning your "daughter's" wedding. You can add in how you managed
>> to have a bunch of grandkids while your only child was still in high school.
>>
>> I'll be waiting.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>How much, and/or how little, I have chosen to reveal at any time over
>the years as to my personal life, is my: private, business and legal
>right. They were/are for my own personal reasons, not yours or anyone
>elses: then, now or in the future. I'm pretty much done saying anything
>more about my real life. I'll comment on others if they chose to share
>aspects of theirs, need prayers, encouragement, etc. but anything about
>ours, if shared, will be done privately with those I truly consider my
>closest friends. BTW, we do not have a bunch of grandkids either, just
>one.
Oh. I see. When you want to have folks lick you all over, then you'll have
a daughter planning a wedding. And a bunch of other kids. And grandkids,
Except when you only have one child. Now, suddenly, it's none of our
business even we're simply commenting on stuff you've already posted?
If you post something it's fair game. I notice you have stopped mentioning
your family at all and now just sit around posting ad hominems to anyone who
disagrees with you politically.
>
>Now, as to that pledge of yours, please forget about it.
*My* pledge?!? You're the one who started it.
The fact is I
>apologize for drilling you about it and ask your forgiveness.
I cannot forgive you until I know for which I am conferring absolution. Give
me a hint.
I think
>TC and g-reg are right. It's ridiculous to think that all, or even
>most, of us will get along and I've finally come to realize it. That's
>what Usenet has become and I/we either have to accept it or leave it.
And, if you leave, do you think anyone will actually miss you?
Nathan Sanders
"topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hda10h$hrd$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >
> > I think Lesmond's idea is a good one. Come clean. Telling us whether you
> > have one son or four children will not compromise anyone's safety. Saying
> > that you lied about the daughters and granddaughter won't make you any
> > more disliked than you already are. Bob, people already KNOW what you've
> > said. They already don't like you. Wouldn't coming clean at least earn
> > you a little respect and the possibility of building new friendships where
> > the old ones had been torn down?
>
> This from the person who won't "come clean" about calling Tin@.
There's a big difference between the two situations. In the
Suzanne/Tin@ case, it's one person contradicting a completely
different other person. *One* of them is lying, but we have no way of
knowing which (if either one is... perhaps one or both are just
misinformed about the full reality of the situation).
In the other case, however, there's absolutely no question who the
liar is, because one single person alone made the completely
contradictory claims about their family.
Nathan
@gmail.com zob
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:17:47 -0500, Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>>> >He is simply not, IMHO, capable of a high level discussion of
>>> >significance on a number of subjects. His understanding of facts as
>>> >well as his means of self expression ("WTF, STFU, house Negro etc.), I
>>> >think, bare that out.
>>> Wow. Someone curses here. What a shock. And if you can't see that
>>> he was not using these terms because he believed in them but because
>>> he believed that Bush, Cheney, et al. felt this way (incidentally, I
>>> agree with him) than your reading comprehension and/or irony meter is
>>> seriously challenged.
>>>
>>> Micki
Thank you, Micki. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Unfortunately, Bob Rudd is blinder than him.
---
Zob
Scarlett
>>
>> >
>> >At the very least, the three of us have tried. That's more than a lot
>> >of other people here, Callen. What have you done, btw?
>> >
>> >The way this place has gone, it really doesn't matter because not enough
>> >care enough to even try to make a difference for the better. So, in all
>> >likelihood, this place will keep going downhill with almost all of us,
>> >excepting maybe less than a handful, contributing to it.
>>
>> You honestly consider yourself a thoughtful and reasonable poster? At
>> least
>> TC admits he's an asshole.
>>
>> >
>> >Now, if your lecture is over, you can go make another insulting comment
>> >to anyone else you choose.
>>
>> Okay, Bob. I'll make the pledge more seriously than anyone ever has. I
>> promise to never say a word against anyone nor even their beliefs
>> (something
>> you can't handle).
>>
>> As soon as you do one tiny little thing:
>>
>> Explain how you so frequently talked about having only one child (a son),
>> but
>> then were planning your "daughter's" wedding. You can add in how you
>> managed
>> to have a bunch of grandkids while your only child was still in high
>> school.
>>
>> I'll be waiting.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> How much, and/or how little, I have chosen to reveal at any time over
> the years as to my personal life, is my: private, business and legal
> right. They were/are for my own personal reasons, not yours or anyone
> elses: then, now or in the future. I'm pretty much done saying anything
> more about my real life. I'll comment on others if they chose to share
> aspects of theirs, need prayers, encouragement, etc. but anything about
> ours, if shared, will be done privately with those I truly consider my
> closest friends. BTW, we do not have a bunch of grandkids either, just
> one.
>
> apologize for drilling you about it and ask your forgiveness. I think
> TC and g-reg are right. It's ridiculous to think that all, or even
> most, of us will get along and I've finally come to realize it. That's
> what Usenet has become and I/we either have to accept it or leave it.
> available to be used.
>
>
> --
> Orrin Knox would make a great President.
You know what Bob? You are right, your real life is your personal business.
You may reveal as little or as much as you see fit. Here is the problem
many of us have with you. You have chosen, from time to time, to speak of
your personal life with us. Again, that's all well and good. But you have
told conflicting stories about yourself at different times, both on and off
the ng. This has hurt a great many people's feelings who thought you were
their friend. You don't lie about things of such importance to friends.
Honestly, all they want is an apology.
topcat
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-september.org...
I would. Even if the accusations against Bob are true, they don't effect my
life outside this newsgroup. It really doesn't make a difference to me if
Bob has 1 kid or 10, or if they're going to college or just got out of
prison. I can choose to ignore the posts I think aren't true or don't effect
me one way or the other.
Right now, I think Suzy-anne is lying about either she or someone at her
home calling Tin@. We all know she posted Tin@'s number then came up with
some lame "I own the number" nonsense. Should she stop posting too? On the
contrary, some people seem to be defending her because they don't like Tin@.
This is usenet folks. People can be purposely obtuse. I will say, Bob comes
across as almost paranoid to me at times. I could see him telling multiple
stories at multiple times to throw off whoever he thought was beginning to
pick up his scent. And like any lie, you have to keep telling them to cover
for the first one.
TC
Ryan
<mmmi...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>You know what Bob? You are right, your real life is your personal business.
>You may reveal as little or as much as you see fit. Here is the problem
>many of us have with you. You have chosen, from time to time, to speak of
>your personal life with us. Again, that's all well and good. But you have
>told conflicting stories about yourself at different times, both on and off
>the ng. This has hurt a great many people's feelings who thought you were
>their friend.
If someone's feelings were hurt because Bob claimed that he had
children that he does not have, that is THEIR problem. Why the fuck
should anyone feel hurt about that?
If I knew Bob and I found out that he lied to me about his children. I
would not feel hurt at all. I would feel sorry for someone who is so
insecure that he must make up a fantasy life in order to gain
acceptance and approval. But it certainly would not reflect negatively
on me. If OTOH he lied about something substantive that would effect
me, then I might feel hurt. But claiming that he has children and
grandchildren is no skin off my back.
Jesus H Christ. Our economy is in the shitter, some whacko terrorist
murdered over a dozen soldiers and you seem more worried that some
anonymous Usenet poster apologize for lying about how many children he
has. Get your priorities straight honey. Take a chill pill. Maybe that
will help with your pain.
> You don't lie about things of such importance to friends.
Bob has no real friends. Anyone who likes Bob is liking someone that
Bob has created out of whole cloth.
>
>Honestly, all they want is an apology.
Why the fuck you care so much that he apologize? What is it to you?
topcat
"Ryan" <ry...@idol.com> wrote in message
news:mbbhf5hbsdm19ptnu...@4ax.com...
Everything in the world of liberals is based on emotion. An apology would
make her "feel better". Wouldn't mean anything in the grand scheme of
things, but she'd "feel better".
TC
Suzanne D.
> Your "proof" will only lead to more speculation.
For you, because you have already chosen to believe it will be a doctored
picture. For everyone else, it will just confirm what they already
suspect--that Tina programmed my number into her phone. Of course, I will
encourage you to have the scan of the bill checked out thoroughly by a
professional in the Photoshop field, and then give us the name and contact
info of said professional so that we can all verify the results.
> And, as I've said in the past, Tin@ may be many things, but she's not a
> liar.
Let's see how eager she will be to show her phone bill.
--S.
Suzanne D.
> It is ironic that arguably one of the most pathologic liars is
> confronting another pathologic liar about lying.
>
> Suzanne also has not come clean about her posting Tina's telephone
> number,
Nobody asked me if I posted Tina's number, so I haven't had the opportunity
to answer. No lie.
>announcing that it was her phone number
I legally own that ten-digit number, so yes, it is "my number." No lie.
>and asking people to
> call it after midnight.
That was a request, not a statement of fact. No lie.
Of course, there ARE certain people here who think things like "Constantine
is my Baby Daddy" and "Here's a picture of Sanna with her new blonde hair"
are lies rather than jokes.
--S.
topcat
>
> "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote in message
> news:hda2f...@news5.newsguy.com...
>> Your "proof" will only lead to more speculation.
>
> For you, because you have already chosen to believe it will be a doctored
> picture. For everyone else, it will just confirm what they already
> suspect--that Tina programmed my number into her phone. Of course, I will
> encourage you to have the scan of the bill checked out thoroughly by a
> professional in the Photoshop field, and then give us the name and contact
> info of said professional so that we can all verify the results.
>
Like I'd go to all that trouble?
Unless something has changed, I believe it was Brian who pointed out that
the device Tina showed us could not have had the number programmed into it.
The most logical scenario is either you or someone in your home called Tin@.
We all know how you like to play games, so you may have had your mother, or
your son or some friend call from your home so you'd have plausible
deniability.
>> And, as I've said in the past, Tin@ may be many things, but she's not a
>> liar.
>
> Let's see how eager she will be to show her phone bill.
Doesn't matter, would just be another useless piece of paper proving
nothing.
TC
Ryan
<bbb_bus_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Ryan" <ry...@idol.com> wrote in message
>news:2f3hf5h68639uq7u0...@4ax.com...
>> Suzanne also has not come clean about her posting Tina's telephone
>> number,
>
>Nobody asked me if I posted Tina's number, so I haven't had the opportunity
>to answer. No lie.
>
>>announcing that it was her phone number
>
>I legally own that ten-digit number, so yes, it is "my number." No lie.
>
>>and asking people to
>> call it after midnight.
>
>That was a request, not a statement of fact. No lie.
For those of you who do not remember the original statement that
Suzanne made here it is (with the phone number redacted):
>I have never given my phone number, but here it is:
>
>(909) XXX-XXXX
>
>I welcome anyone to call me, any time of day. (I am particularly willing to
>chat after midnight.)
>--S.
Suzanne says she was not asked the question so she did not lie. Well
here is her chance to come clean.
Suzanne, did you post Tina's telephone number claiming it was YOUR
telephone number?
Suzanne, was it wrong for you to post Tina's telephone number in a
public newsgroup?
Suzanne, would you like to apologize to Tina for posting her telephone
number here?
Watch how Suzanne dodges and evades directly answering these very
simple questions. She is quick to ask Bob Rudd to apologize for his
transgression but does not take responsibility for her own. This is
called hypocrisy.
Judy Haffner
>I would. Even if the accusations against
> Bob are true, they don't effect my life
> outside this newsgroup. It really doesn't
> make a difference to me if Bob has 1 kid
> or 10, or if they're going to college or
> just got out of prison. I can choose to
> ignore the posts I think aren't true or
> don't effect me one way or the other.
I would too, TC. I consider Bob a friend, just as I do you, Vandar,
Moni, Azurespirit, Zob and Tin@ to name just a few. I have no idea if
what they have said within the newsgroup about themselves, or their
family is true, because on the Net a person can be anybody they want to
be, any sex, any age, any weight, etc. They could be unemployed, or a
doctor, and they could have 4 wives, and 15 children, be gay when they
say they are straight, etc., but we don't REALLY know that. I like to
take everyone at face value, and all my life I have tried to see the
good in everybody, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes I
am probably too gullible, but I would hate to go through life not
trusting anybody. I have always been "out in the open" about myself in
here, and would like to think what I know about everyone else, is the
gospel truth. I will say I have my doubts about several, due to their
ever-changing behavior in here, and the switching of nics by some. For
all I know they could be on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List!
>Right now, I think Suzy-anne is lying
> about either she or someone at her
> home calling Tin@. We all know she
> posted Tin@'s number then came up
> with some lame "I own the number"
> nonsense. Should she stop posting too?
> On the contrary, some people seem to
> be defending her because they don't like
> Tin@.
I have good reason to think that Tin@ is a truthful person also, and I
would back her completely, against anyone that claims otherwise.
>This is usenet folks. People can be
> purposely obtuse. I will say, Bob comes
> across as almost paranoid to me at
> times. I could see him telling multiple
> stories at multiple times to throw off
> whoever he thought was beginning to
> pick up his scent. And like any lie, you
> have to keep telling them to cover for
> the first one.
There are several in here that lean towards being paranoid, but I never
once have thought Bob did, either here, or in personal E-mail messages.
However, the "jury is still out" on a few others, but as you said, this
is Usenet, and we may even be posting with another Jack The Ripper on a
daily basis, and not have a clue. As I have always said, there are many
more 'good folks' in here, and that's what keeps me coming back for
more! <:))
Judy
Scarlett
Read more carefully, TC. I said "they". Me, I don't give a flying fuck.
Just trying to explain to the old fart why he has no friends :-)
Lesmond
>
>"Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hdac25$2fb$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote in message
>> news:hda2f...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>> Your "proof" will only lead to more speculation.
>>
>> For you, because you have already chosen to believe it will be a doctored
>> picture. For everyone else, it will just confirm what they already
>> suspect--that Tina programmed my number into her phone. Of course, I will
>> encourage you to have the scan of the bill checked out thoroughly by a
>> professional in the Photoshop field, and then give us the name and contact
>> info of said professional so that we can all verify the results.
Tina needs to stand up right now and admit some things she knows.
I'm disappointed that she hasn't.
Vandar
>>I would. Even if the accusations against
>>Bob are true, they don't effect my life
>>outside this newsgroup. It really doesn't
>>make a difference to me if Bob has 1 kid
>>or 10, or if they're going to college or
>>just got out of prison. I can choose to
>>ignore the posts I think aren't true or
>>don't effect me one way or the other.
>
>
> I would too, TC. I consider Bob a friend, just as I do you, Vandar,
> Moni, Azurespirit, Zob and Tin@ to name just a few. I have no idea if
> what they have said within the newsgroup about themselves, or their
> family is true, because on the Net a person can be anybody they want to
> be, any sex, any age, any weight, etc. They could be unemployed, or a
> doctor, and they could have 4 wives, and 15 children, be gay when they
> say they are straight, etc., but we don't REALLY know that. I like to
> take everyone at face value, and all my life I have tried to see the
> good in everybody, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes I
> am probably too gullible, but I would hate to go through life not
> trusting anybody. I have always been "out in the open" about myself in
> here, and would like to think what I know about everyone else, is the
> gospel truth. I will say I have my doubts about several, due to their
> ever-changing behavior in here, and the switching of nics by some. For
> all I know they could be on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List!
STOP GOOGLING ME! :)
Judy Haffner
Ryan wrote:
>Jesus H Christ. Our economy is in the
> shitter, some whacko terrorist murdered
> over a dozen soldiers and you seem
> more worried that some anonymous
> Usenet poster apologize for lying about
> how many children he has. Get your
> priorities straight honey. Take a chill pill.
> Maybe that will help with your pain.
Exactly! Good post here, Ryan! You hit the nail on the head with this
one, and I am in agreement with you. I don't really give two shakes of a
lamb's tail how many kids someone has, as long as I didn't have to give
birth to them! ;-) I had 4, and over-populated the world by 2 back in my
prime, so now I can sit back and just enjoy the grandchildren.
As you said, there are so many more really important issues going on at
this time. People need to get their priorities straight, and nobody here
owes anybody an explanation for anything, as long as they didn't do
anything personal to them.
I want to take this opportunity to say at one time you were one of my
least liked posters, but as time as gone by, I've come to rather enjoy
your posts, agree with many of your ideas, and respect much of what you
have to say. I even surprised myself when I came to that realization!
Now....PLEASE don't tell me you are a female fugitive on the run and
"hiding" here in the NG! <G>
Judy
Lesmond
>
>This whole concept of "everyone should just get along" is silly and needs to
>be tabled. In real life, your personality is going to clash with 3 out of
>every 4 people you meet. No difference here.
Wow. Really? I find that the vast majority of folks just want to get along.
If your personality is clashing with 75% of people you meet, well, you just
might be the guy shooting up Ft. Hood, huh?
Lesmond
>>
>
>You know, I've come around to your way of thinking on this, tc.
So why not go meet him?
Lesmond
I like you, Nathan.
Ryan
wrote:
>
>Ryan wrote:
>
>>Jesus H Christ. Our economy is in the
>> shitter, some whacko terrorist murdered
>> over a dozen soldiers and you seem
>> more worried that some anonymous
>> Usenet poster apologize for lying about
>> how many children he has. Get your
>> priorities straight honey. Take a chill pill.
>> Maybe that will help with your pain.
>
>Exactly! Good post here, Ryan! You hit the nail on the head with this
>one, and I am in agreement with you. I don't really give two shakes of a
>lamb's tail how many kids someone has, as long as I didn't have to give
>birth to them! ;-)
Two shakes of a lamb's tail. I like that expression. I am not sure it
fits with what you were saying but it does bring a smile to my face:-)
> I had 4, and over-populated the world by 2 back in my
>prime, so now I can sit back and just enjoy the grandchildren.
Speaking of children, how is your DD RavenLord? I missed my movie
discussions with her.
>I want to take this opportunity to say at one time you were one of my
>least liked posters, but as time as gone by, I've come to rather enjoy
>your posts, agree with many of your ideas, and respect much of what you
>have to say. I even surprised myself when I came to that realization!
Well Judy, you aint so bad yourself. I know I have given you a hard
time in the past and it is big of you to be able to give me kudos when
you agree with my posts.
You know I never really understood why we got off on the wrong foot
but it seemed like it happened from the get go. I especially did not
understand since I was one of Kellie Pickler's biggest defenders
against those vicious attacks and I know you really liked her. Maybe
it was all because of my not being a big Daughtry fan. In any case let
bygones be bygones.
>
>Now....PLEASE don't tell me you are a female fugitive on the run and
>"hiding" here in the NG! <G>
Shit, Judy. You just blew my cover:-))
Judy Haffner
Vandar wrote:
>STOP GOOGLING ME! :)
Sorry 'bout that! Golly, though I had no idea you were actually a 15
year old Asian girl being home schooled by a over-protective mother, who
keeps you in the house under her watchful eye, and the only contact you
have with the outside world, is sitting in the dark at your computer,
after you are to have "gone to bed" for the night! ;-)
Glad you found this group though...we enjoy your sense of humor,
Vandori!
Judy
Judy Haffner
Ryan wrote:
>Speaking of children, how is your DD
> RavenLord? I missed my movie
> discussions with her.
She's doing fine. I was sorry to see her leave the group too, but she
really got so tired of getting on here and seeing thread after thread on
politics, and all the flame-wars here between the parties.
She has said she isn't going to watch A. I. anymore, so didn't feel she
would have anything to add to the discussions even on that subject.
>Well Judy, you aint so bad yourself. I
> know I have given you a hard time in the
> past and it is big of you to be able to
> give me kudos when you agree with my
> posts.
Likewise, as know I got on your case a lot too, and probably we won't
see eye to eye on some things, but heck, that's the way it is in
anyone's personal life also
>You know I never really understood why
> we got off on the wrong foot but it
> seemed like it happened from the get
> go. I especially did not understand since
> I was one of Kellie Pickler's biggest
> defenders against those vicious attacks
> and I know you really liked her. Maybe it
> was all because of my not being a big
> Daughtry fan. In any case let bygones
> be bygones.
Sounds good to me! Yes, I always liked Kellie so well, back when she was
on A. I. and I still do. I am so happy that she is doing as well as she
is with her music career, and hope her success continues.
>Shit, Judy. You just blew my cover:-))
Whoops! so sorry about that, but at least now you don't have to wear
those dang panty hose and heels any longer! ;-)
Judy
Nathan Sanders
<yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
Me too.
Nathan
Suzanne D.
> Unless something has changed, I believe it was Brian who pointed out that
> the device Tina showed us could not have had the number programmed into
> it.
Something has changed. You must have missed the thread entitled "OT
Important Development Regarding Tina's Caller ID" posted by that very same
Brian. He realized that he was mistaken in thinking her CID was an
independent box; that it was actually in her phone, and he posted the new
instruction manual. The manual showed that this model indeed allows you to
program names and numbers into your phone. If you merely missed this post,
then I hope you will go back to look at it, and then come back here to
acknowledge that the likeliest scenario is that she called me.
>>> And, as I've said in the past, Tin@ may be many things, but she's not a
>>> liar.
>>
>> Let's see how eager she will be to show her phone bill.
>
> Doesn't matter, would just be another useless piece of paper proving
> nothing.
Actually, it could very well prove that she called me.
--S.
Suzanne D.
>>news:hdac25$2fb$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>> "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hda2f...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>>> Your "proof" will only lead to more speculation.
>>>
>>> For you, because you have already chosen to believe it will be a
>>> doctored
>>> picture. For everyone else, it will just confirm what they already
>>> suspect--that Tina programmed my number into her phone. Of course, I
>>> will
>>> encourage you to have the scan of the bill checked out thoroughly by a
>>> professional in the Photoshop field, and then give us the name and
>>> contact
>>> info of said professional so that we can all verify the results.
>
> Tina needs to stand up right now and admit some things she knows.
> I'm disappointed that she hasn't.
Uh-oh. I am sensing that the honeymoon is about to be over.
--S.
Suzanne D.
> Suzanne, did you post Tina's telephone number claiming it was YOUR
> telephone number?
Well duh, yes. Doesn't everyone know this already? And let the record show
that this amazingly is the first time anyone has ever asked me this
question. Even when I hinted that the wrong question was being asked ("Is
that your number?"), nobody ever thought to ask me this.
> Suzanne, was it wrong for you to post Tina's telephone number in a
> public newsgroup?
Considering that I got it online where anyone can find it, no. It would be
sort of like my posting my Baby Daddy's number, which is (646) 505-1335.
> Suzanne, would you like to apologize to Tina for posting her telephone
> number here?
Nope.
--S.
fmomoon
> Considering that I got it online where anyone can find it, no. It would
> be sort of like my posting my Baby Daddy's number, which is (646)
> 505-1335.
That's his mom's number, Suzanne, not his. Is he skipping out on his
responsibility again? :)
--
Moni
I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.
Suzanne D.
"fmomoon" <fmo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:G_WdnRXQm8ComGTX...@giganews.com...
>
> "Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hdatou$r1g$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Considering that I got it online where anyone can find it, no. It would
>> be sort of like my posting my Baby Daddy's number, which is (646)
>> 505-1335.
>
> That's his mom's number, Suzanne, not his. Is he skipping out on his
> responsibility again? :)
I've found that Zabasearch is often several numbers behind!
--S.
topcat
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:00:25 -0500, topcat wrote:
>
>>
>>This whole concept of "everyone should just get along" is silly and needs
>>to
>>be tabled. In real life, your personality is going to clash with 3 out of
>>every 4 people you meet. No difference here.
>
> Wow. Really? I find that the vast majority of folks just want to get
> along.
> If your personality is clashing with 75% of people you meet, well, you
> just
> might be the guy shooting up Ft. Hood, huh?
>
Not really. In general, people can be placed into one of four personality
types. You'll get along best with the people in your personality type.
Everyone else, you need to adjust your personality, as well as them
adjusting theirs in order to co-exist. For instance, there are always people
you can't stand at work, but you don't tell them that, you pretend to be a
team player in order to keep your job. It's "are you done with copy machine
Steve?", not "you spend all your time at the copy machine to avoid real
work, right Steve, you lazy bastard?".
TC
topcat
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-september.org...
Of course you do, you like a lack of logic. In case Nathan hasn't noticed,
NO ONE has produced a shred of evidence against Bob either. It's all been
talk, not one link has been posted that I'm aware of.
So, Nathan likes Suzy-anne and pretends the situation isn't the same, when
it fact, it is, except in Bob's case we have a *group* of people making the
accusations, not just one. Oh, and for the record, Tin@ at least produced
something that can be seen as proof.
TC
Lesmond
Oh, you're just talking about general contempt for the population at large?
Then I'm with you. You wouldn't believe the idiocy of cub scout parents.
But they don't know I hate them.
But still, we all "get along", just like your example at work. I'm only a
bitch online.
Sanna
> In case Nathan hasn't noticed, NO ONE has produced a shred of evidence
> against Bob either. It's all been talk, not one link has been posted that
> I'm aware of.
Yes there has. There were links (with quotes from Bob) provided here on
ATAI.
> Oh, and for the record, Tin@ at least produced something that can be seen
> as proof.
But see, proof of what? All we see is some Caller ID thing. When the
phone bills are produced then *that* would be real evidence.
--
Sanna
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:43:30 -0500, topcat wrote:
>
>>
>> End of conversation.
>
> We can only hope.
Ain't that the truth.
--