Interesting read n Apple, Tim cook, and Taxes...

[Flint]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57584914-37/tim-cook-to-propose-tax-overhaul-before-congress/

Alan, don't say I have a bias against Apple any longer... :)
--
MFB

[Alan Baker]

In article <kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me>,
Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57584914-37/tim-cook-to-propose-tax-overhaul

> -before-congress/
>
> Alan, don't say I have a bias against Apple any longer... :)

Even without reading your link, I can ask: how can posting something
"interesting" refute an allegation of bias?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Flint]

On 5/18/2013 2:15 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57584914-37/tim-cook-to-propose-tax-overhaul
>> -before-congress/
>>
>> Alan, don't say I have a bias against Apple any longer... :)
>
> Even without reading your link, I can ask: how can posting something
> "interesting" refute an allegation of bias?
>

Yes, you can indeed ask, but had you read the brief article at the
link I posted, you wouldn't have needed to ask that question.

--
MFB

[Alan Baker]

In article <kn7bgn$k3n$1...@dont-email.me>,

Really? Why is that?

Cook is proposing some revisions to corporate taxation and you declare
the article an "interesting read".

I repeat: how does that impinge on your bias or lack of it?

[jay birdsong]

"Flint" wrote in message news:kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me...

>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57584914-37/tim-cook-to-propose-tax-overhaul-before-congress/

Very interesting! Surprising! Thanks

>Alan, don't say I have a bias against Apple any longer... :)

Fuck what Alwin thinks. You threw him a bone and now he's playing
games. He's a worthless loser, suffering from Masochistic Narcissism.


From "The Baker Defect List:

Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others

[Flint]

On 5/18/2013 4:57 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <kn7bgn$k3n$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 2:15 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article <kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57584914-37/tim-cook-to-propose-tax-overh
>>>> aul
>>>> -before-congress/
>>>>
>>>> Alan, don't say I have a bias against Apple any longer... :)
>>>
>>> Even without reading your link, I can ask: how can posting something
>>> "interesting" refute an allegation of bias?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you can indeed ask, but had you read the brief article at the
>> link I posted, you wouldn't have needed to ask that question.
>
> Really? Why is that?
>
> Cook is proposing some revisions to corporate taxation and you declare
> the article an "interesting read".
>
> I repeat: how does that impinge on your bias or lack of it?
>

The mere fact that I reported on Apple/Cook attempting something
*positive* (ie: tax code revision) should clearly show that I'm not
totally biased against everything Apple does. Like I said, the
plainly obvious shouldn't have needed to be explained.

--
MFB

[Flint]

Here's another 'bone' for him:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/05/apple-ceo-to-testify-to-congress-on-100-billion-cash-stash-taxes-jobs/

Now that's TWICE I defended Apple by fairly reporting on them. How
long do you think it will take Alan to acknowledge that instead of
responding with a nit-picky question? :)

--
MFB

[Alan Baker]

In article <kn9k9s$fev$1...@dont-email.me>,

Reporting a fact is not "defending" anything, "Flint".

[Sandman]

In article <kn9k9s$fev$1...@dont-email.me>,
Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
>
> Here's another 'bone' for him:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/05/apple-ceo-to-testify-to-congress-on-100-b
> illion-cash-stash-taxes-jobs/
>
> Now that's TWICE I defended Apple by fairly reporting on them. How
> long do you think it will take Alan to acknowledge that instead of
> responding with a nit-picky question? :)

Where is the attack and where is your defense?


--
Sandman[.net]

[jay birdsong]

"Flint" wrote in message news:kn9k9s$fev$1...@dont-email.me...

It doesn't matter what you show him. He is suffering from Masochistic
Narcissism.

Also, he requires constant attention and positive reinforcement from
others to feed into insecurities.

If I were crossing a desert and came across him dying of thirst, I
wouldn't shit in his mouth for fear that he would be able to suck a
drop of moisture from it. He is a worthless Loser.

[Nashton]

Now bakr is a specialist in...logic.

This is truly the stuff of high comedy!

[KDT]

Now bakr is a specialist in...logic.

This is truly the stuff of high comedy!

-----
And this from someone whose technical claim to fame is being able to edit a text file.....

[Flint]

On 5/19/2013 4:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <kn9k9s$fev$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 10:30 AM, jay birdsong wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Flint" wrote in message news:kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57584914-37/tim-cook-to-propose-tax-overh
>>>> aul-before-congress/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very interesting! Surprising! Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>> Alan, don't say I have a bias against Apple any longer... :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Fuck what Alwin thinks. You threw him a bone and now he's playing
>>> games. He's a worthless loser, suffering from Masochistic Narcissism.
>>>
>>>
>>> From "The Baker Defect List:
>>>
>>> Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
>>
>> Here's another 'bone' for him:
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/05/apple-ceo-to-testify-to-congress-on-100-b
>> illion-cash-stash-taxes-jobs/
>>
>> Now that's TWICE I defended Apple by fairly reporting on them. How
>> long do you think it will take Alan to acknowledge that instead of
>> responding with a nit-picky question? :)
>
> Reporting a fact is not "defending" anything, "Flint".
>

1> Considering that I specifically defended Apple's tax strategy
before on this ng, I'd say I was indeed defending them.

2> Funny how you accuse me of anti-Apple bias for failing to report
select news stories on Apple which suit your particular tastea/bias,
yet fail to recognize/acknowledge when I do just that.


Does the word 'hypocrisy' mean anything to you?


--
MFB

[Nashton]

On 05-20-13 5:15 PM, Flint wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 4:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> In article <kn9k9s$fev$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2013 10:30 AM, jay birdsong wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Flint" wrote in message news:kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57584914-37/tim-cook-to-propose-tax-overh
>>>>>
>>>>> aul-before-congress/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting! Surprising! Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Alan, don't say I have a bias against Apple any longer... :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fuck what Alwin thinks. You threw him a bone and now he's playing
>>>> games. He's a worthless loser, suffering from Masochistic Narcissism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From "The Baker Defect List:
>>>>
>>>> Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
>>>
>>> Here's another 'bone' for him:
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/05/apple-ceo-to-testify-to-congress-on-100-b
>>>
>>> illion-cash-stash-taxes-jobs/
>>>
>>> Now that's TWICE I defended Apple by fairly reporting on them. How
>>> long do you think it will take Alan to acknowledge that instead of
>>> responding with a nit-picky question? :)
>>
>> Reporting a fact is not "defending" anything, "Flint".

So I'll remember that next time I post something that puts Apple under a
negative light, even though it may be factual. I won't be dissing Apple,
by the same token Flint is not "defending" Apple by posting an article
that is positive about your Cult Central.

>>
>
> 1> Considering that I specifically defended Apple's tax strategy before
> on this ng, I'd say I was indeed defending them.
>
> 2> Funny how you accuse me of anti-Apple bias for failing to report
> select news stories on Apple which suit your particular tastea/bias, yet
> fail to recognize/acknowledge when I do just that.
>
>
> Does the word 'hypocrisy' mean anything to you?

bakr is a negligible quantity. Who gives a $hit what he thinks?
>
>

[-hh]

On May 20, 4:59 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> bakr is a negligible quantity. Who gives a $hit what he thinks?

Losers who are jealous because their lives are an even more
negligible...quantity?


-hh

[Nashton]

Well, you should have PMed me. And what does that diagram depict
, poser?

[Sandman]

In article <kne024$obd$1...@dont-email.me>,

Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > Reporting a fact is not "defending" anything, "Flint".
>
> 1> Considering that I specifically defended Apple's tax strategy
> before on this ng, I'd say I was indeed defending them.

Where? What attack were you defending against? Why aren't there any
links here?

> 2> Funny how you accuse me of anti-Apple bias for failing to report
> select news stories on Apple which suit your particular tastea/bias,
> yet fail to recognize/acknowledge when I do just that.

When did you post a "select news story" that suit his particular taste
and alleged bias?



--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <kne2rr$d64$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.ca>
wrote:

> >> Reporting a fact is not "defending" anything, "Flint".
>
> So I'll remember that next time I post something that puts Apple under a
> negative light, even though it may be factual.

Uh, you've never posted anything factual, Nicolas.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Flint]

On 5/21/2013 1:09 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <kne024$obd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>
>>> Reporting a fact is not "defending" anything, "Flint".
>>
>> 1> Considering that I specifically defended Apple's tax strategy
>> before on this ng, I'd say I was indeed defending them.
>
> Where? What attack were you defending against? Why aren't there any
> links here?

Attacks that were made against Apple for it's corporate tax strategy
here in this newsgroup months ago.

>
>> 2> Funny how you accuse me of anti-Apple bias for failing to report
>> select news stories on Apple which suit your particular tastea/bias,
>> yet fail to recognize/acknowledge when I do just that.
>
> When did you post a "select news story" that suit his particular taste
> and alleged bias?
>
>
>

I don't feel like playing "Usenet server" for every request of an old
post of mine. I posted an article of interest to me, and possibly
others, which was pertinent to the attack on previously discussed
Apple's tax strategy. Alan decided to get all pedantic again, so fuck
the canuck...

--
MFB

[Sandman]

In article <knfj49$p6d$1...@dont-email.me>,

Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> >> 1> Considering that I specifically defended Apple's tax strategy
> >> before on this ng, I'd say I was indeed defending them.
> >
> > Where? What attack were you defending against? Why aren't there any
> > links here?
>
> Attacks that were made against Apple for it's corporate tax strategy
> here in this newsgroup months ago.

Still no links? Wtf? Stop making claims you can't substantiate, Flint!
If you say you have "defended" something, please document the attack and
your defense. Then we can start to see if we can take it seriously.

> >> 2> Funny how you accuse me of anti-Apple bias for failing to report
> >> select news stories on Apple which suit your particular tastea/bias,
> >> yet fail to recognize/acknowledge when I do just that.
> >
> > When did you post a "select news story" that suit his particular taste
> > and alleged bias?
>
> I don't feel like playing "Usenet server" for every request of an old
> post of mine.

Then don't make claims you can't prove to be correct. You will be asked
for substantiation every time.

> I posted an article of interest to me

Yet, above you explicitly stated that you posted an article that suited
Alans particular taste and alleged bias. Will you be retracting that
statement or just ignore that you made it and move on?

> and possibly others, which was pertinent to the attack on previously
> discussed Apple's tax strategy.

What previous attack? Still no links?

> Alan decided to get all pedantic again, so fuck the canuck...

Pedantic? You said you were "defending" Apple with your "interesting"
link. In other words, you claimed that this post:

<kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me>

Contained a defense from you - in spite of it just containing a link to
an external source and a non-related comment from you. Where in that
post is *your* defense? After all - you have told us numerous times that
just because you post a link doesn't mean you agree with it, right?

So we're still looking for YOUR defense of Apple, related to WHAT attack?




--
Sandman[.net]

[Nashton]

So many iPads, so little time;)

[Justin]

Awww..... widdle fishie is having a tanty. Are you crying? You better
get back to Brazzers and chill.

[jay birdsong]

"Justin" wrote in message
news:pan.2013.05...@hatespam.edu...

>get back to Brazzers and chill. That’s the place I go to suck dicks.

Awwww....widdle fishie just isn't too creative. Swim away, widdle
fishie, swim into the tall weeds.

[Flint]

Yes, Alan's particular 'taste' for fair and balanced reporting on
Apple which is exactly what I did. I don't feel particularly
compelled to go digging up a months old post of my own to backup what
>I< said before. You'll just have to accept what I claimed and deal
with it.

>> and possibly others, which was pertinent to the attack on previously
>> discussed Apple's tax strategy.
>
> What previous attack? Still no links?

Nope. But it should only take an internet whiz such as yourself less
time to google it up than it did to post response with petulant
demands for links, no?

>> Alan decided to get all pedantic again, so fuck the canuck...
>
> Pedantic? You said you were "defending" Apple with your "interesting"
> link. In other words, you claimed that this post:

> <kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me>

OK, don't get yer panties in a bunch over one word. Perhaps 'defend'
wasn't quite the right word. 'Fair reporting' would have been a
better phrase. Happy now? :) (Even though I did actually >defend<
Apple's tax strategy in response to jay birdsong a few months back)

> Contained a defense from you - in spite of it just containing a link to
> an external source and a non-related comment from you. Where in that
> post is *your* defense? After all - you have told us numerous times that
> just because you post a link doesn't mean you agree with it, right?
>
> So we're still looking for YOUR defense of Apple, related to WHAT attack?

Apparently 'we'(you) aren't looking too hard. BTW, you *do* know
referring to yourself in the 3rd person associative is a sign of
mental illness, do you not?


--
MFB

[Sandman]

In article <kniueg$a3i$1...@dont-email.me>,

Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > Yet, above you explicitly stated that you posted an article that suited
> > Alans particular taste and alleged bias. Will you be retracting that
> > statement or just ignore that you made it and move on?
>
> Yes, Alan's particular 'taste' for fair and balanced reporting on
> Apple which is exactly what I did.

When?

> I don't feel particularly
> compelled to go digging up a months old post of my own to backup what
> >I< said before.

Which is why you have no credibility in this group.

> You'll just have to accept what I claimed and deal with it.

Hahahahaha! yeah, that's how it works. :-D

> >> and possibly others, which was pertinent to the attack on previously
> >> discussed Apple's tax strategy.
> >
> > What previous attack? Still no links?
>
> Nope.

So no attacks and thus no defense. I suppose it was just a lie then.

> But it should only take an internet whiz such as yourself less
> time to google it up than it did to post response with petulant
> demands for links, no?

Like... it did for you? No? Haha. The fanboy thinks its my work to
support his claims.

> >> Alan decided to get all pedantic again, so fuck the canuck...
> >
> > Pedantic? You said you were "defending" Apple with your "interesting"
> > link. In other words, you claimed that this post:
>
> > <kn75te$ud4$1...@dont-email.me>
>
> OK, don't get yer panties in a bunch over one word. Perhaps 'defend'
> wasn't quite the right word.

Stop using wrong words and repeating them.

> 'Fair reporting' would have been a
> better phrase. Happy now? :)

Not really. What was the "fair reporting"?

> (Even though I did actually >defend< Apple's tax strategy in
> response to jay birdsong a few months back)

But since you can't find it, you probably didn't.

> > So we're still looking for YOUR defense of Apple, related to WHAT attack?
>
> Apparently 'we'(you) aren't looking too hard.

I am looking in your responses to my requests for proof of your claims
- a futile effort since you never support anything you claim. Which is
the entire fun part of this.

> BTW, you *do* know referring to yourself in the 3rd person
> associative is a sign of mental illness, do you not?

I wouldn't know.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Nashton]

Oh dear, the web page boy cum professor of logic and critical reasoning
is under the erroneous impression that he's speaking for everybody. The
same individual whom can't even conjugate the verb do.

>
> Apparently 'we'(you) aren't looking too hard. BTW, you *do* know
> referring to yourself in the 3rd person associative is a sign of mental
> illness, do you not?
>
>

I noticed that too. Have they gone completely bonkers, the whole lot of
the fanguuurls?

[KDT]

So many text files to modify,so little time.....

[Alan Baker]

In article <kniueg$a3i$1...@dont-email.me>,
Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > Contained a defense from you - in spite of it just containing a link to
> > an external source and a non-related comment from you. Where in that
> > post is *your* defense? After all - you have told us numerous times that
> > just because you post a link doesn't mean you agree with it, right?
> >
> > So we're still looking for YOUR defense of Apple, related to WHAT attack?
>
> Apparently 'we'(you) aren't looking too hard. BTW, you *do* know
> referring to yourself in the 3rd person associative is a sign of
> mental illness, do you not?

BTW, you *do* know what:

1. "We" is NOT third person. It's first person plural

2. The term '"3rd person associative"' only generates five hits on
Google (even if you ask for it to show omitted results)...

...and none of them suggest that English even has a 3rd person
associative form.

[jay birdsong]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-71519...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <kniueg$a3i$1...@dont-email.me>,
Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > Contained a defense from you - in spite of it just containing a
> > link to
> > an external source and a non-related comment from you. Where in
> > that
> > post is *your* defense? After all - you have told us numerous
> > times that
> > just because you post a link doesn't mean you agree with it,
> > right?
> >
> > So we're still looking for YOUR defense of Apple, related to WHAT
> > attack?
>
> Apparently 'we'(you) aren't looking too hard. BTW, you *do* know
> referring to yourself in the 3rd person associative is a sign of
> mental illness, do you not?

>BTW, you *do* know what:

>1. "We" is NOT third person. It's first person plural

>2. The term '"3rd person associative"' only generates five hits on
>Google (even if you ask for it to show omitted results)...

>...and none of them suggest that English even has a 3rd person
>associative form.

WOW!!! And now an English tutor in addition to all your other
non-talents!

Can you clarify once again you claim that stock market "points" are
really "basis points". I need a good laugh again, today.

snip creepy dumb cunt sig.

[Sandman]

In article <knlf0g$juo$1...@dont-email.me>,

"jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> >1. "We" is NOT third person. It's first person plural
>
> >2. The term '"3rd person associative"' only generates five hits on
> >Google (even if you ask for it to show omitted results)...
>
> >...and none of them suggest that English even has a 3rd person
> >associative form.
>
> WOW!!! And now an English tutor in addition to all your other
> non-talents!

Michael is as usual impressed by people that know... stuff. Any stuff.
Wow, they must be geniuses, he thinks :)



--
Sandman[.net]

[Nashton]

On 5/23/2013 1:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
>
>
> "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-71519...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> In article <kniueg$a3i$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>
>> > Contained a defense from you - in spite of it just containing a >
>> link to
>> > an external source and a non-related comment from you. Where in > that
>> > post is *your* defense? After all - you have told us numerous >
>> times that
>> > just because you post a link doesn't mean you agree with it, > right?
>> >
>> > So we're still looking for YOUR defense of Apple, related to WHAT >
>> attack?
>>
>> Apparently 'we'(you) aren't looking too hard. BTW, you *do* know
>> referring to yourself in the 3rd person associative is a sign of
>> mental illness, do you not?
>
>> BTW, you *do* know what:
>
>> 1. "We" is NOT third person. It's first person plural
>
>> 2. The term '"3rd person associative"' only generates five hits on
>> Google (even if you ask for it to show omitted results)...
>
>> ...and none of them suggest that English even has a 3rd person
>> associative form.

Oh boys, bakr posing as an intellectual and a linguistics specialist.
You didn't look hard enough.

ubc.ca

It's never too late, academic failure.

>
> WOW!!! And now an English tutor in addition to all your other non-talents!
>
> Can you clarify once again you claim that stock market "points" are
> really "basis points". I need a good laugh again, today.
>
> snip creepy dumb cunt sig.

With all his "talents", one would think that he'd be a lot more than an
iPad repairman.

[Alan Baker]

In article <knnklh$q92$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
wrote:

> On 5/23/2013 1:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-71519...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> > In article <kniueg$a3i$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Contained a defense from you - in spite of it just containing a >
> >> link to
> >> > an external source and a non-related comment from you. Where in > that
> >> > post is *your* defense? After all - you have told us numerous >
> >> times that
> >> > just because you post a link doesn't mean you agree with it, > right?
> >> >
> >> > So we're still looking for YOUR defense of Apple, related to WHAT >
> >> attack?
> >>
> >> Apparently 'we'(you) aren't looking too hard. BTW, you *do* know
> >> referring to yourself in the 3rd person associative is a sign of
> >> mental illness, do you not?
> >
> >> BTW, you *do* know what:
> >
> >> 1. "We" is NOT third person. It's first person plural
> >
> >> 2. The term '"3rd person associative"' only generates five hits on
> >> Google (even if you ask for it to show omitted results)...
> >
> >> ...and none of them suggest that English even has a 3rd person
> >> associative form.
>
> Oh boys, bakr posing as an intellectual and a linguistics specialist.
> You didn't look hard enough.

Really?

So you can post a germane link supporting that, can you?

>
> ubc.ca

I guess the answer is "No".

:-)

[jay birdsong]

"Nashton" wrote in message news:knnklh$q92$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

The "deathwatch" he's on seems to be taking it's toll. One day closer
to payday.

[Alan Baker]

In article <knqh8q$tkv$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not on "deathwatch" today.

I was too busy racing.

:-)

[jay birdsong]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-004C4...@news.shawcable.net...

So you admit being on one. What a crud.

>I was too busy racing.

You mean, creeping around the track like my grandmother. There's a
good chance she can outdrive you.

What did you crash into this time?

One day closer to "payday".

snip dumb cunt sig.

[Alan Baker]

In article <knt8fl$e5t$1...@dont-email.me>,

Nope.

I wasn't on a deathwatch then, because I'm never on one.

:-)

>
> >I was too busy racing.
>
> You mean, creeping around the track like my grandmother. There's a
> good chance she can outdrive you.

Come and show me how, Michael!

>
> What did you crash into this time?

Not a thing.

[jay birdsong]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-CD681...@news.shawcable.net...

You are waiting on mommy, like the turd you are.

>:-)

oIo

>
> >I was too busy racing.
>
> You mean, creeping around the track like my grandmother. There's a
> good chance she can outdrive you.

>Come and show me how, Michael!

OH!! Another bet!!!!

>
> What did you crash into this time?

>Not a thing.

Then you didn't race.

Yeah - those matchbox cars are easier to push around than the real
thing.

>:-)

oIo

snip dumb cunt sig.

[Alan Baker]

In article <ko0hat$d86$1...@dont-email.me>,

Enjoy your fantasies, Michael. They are all you have.

:-)

>
> >:-)
>
> oIo
>
> >
> > >I was too busy racing.
> >
> > You mean, creeping around the track like my grandmother. There's a
> > good chance she can outdrive you.
>
> >Come and show me how, Michael!
>
> OH!! Another bet!!!!

Really? Where?

>
> >
> > What did you crash into this time?
>
> >Not a thing.
>
> Then you didn't race.

Incorrect. And I have the video to prove it.

:-)

>
> Yeah - those matchbox cars are easier to push around than the real
> thing.

LOL

[jay birdsong]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-9AD63...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <ko0hat$d86$1...@dont-email.me>,
"jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-CD681...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> In article <knt8fl$e5t$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-004C4...@news.shawcable.net...

Whoa!!! A response in two minutes!!!! Get a life turd. Stalking me
doesn't pay money.

But - one day closer to payday, eh?

Maybe if you use a pillow..................

[Alan Baker]

In article <ko0icn$iqr$1...@dont-email.me>,

"jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> Whoa!!! A response in two minutes!!!! Get a life turd. Stalking me
> doesn't pay money.

So because I happen to see your post shortly after you posted it, I'm
"stalking" YOU?

LOL

> But - one day closer to payday, eh?
>
> Maybe if you use a pillow..................

But, hey: nice work snipping the parts you envy.

;-)