Hi Everybody!
Jackson Pillock
--Dr. Nick Riviera
I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
vs Christianity these days.
I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
Bye Everybody!
PS, God is imaginary.
Alan Hope
>'Hi Everybody!'
>--Dr. Nick Riviera
>I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
>vs Christianity these days.
Why bother? They lost. Have you noticed how all the fight has gone out
of them lately? Whipped, that's the word for them.
>I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
>Bye Everybody!
>
>PS, God is imaginary.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
>'Hi Everybody!'
>--Dr. Nick Riviera
>
>I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
>vs Christianity these days.
What, is Christianity the only available set of theistic beliefs
nowadays?
>I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
Please do, multi-issue nutters are far more interesting.
>Bye Everybody!
>
>PS, God is imaginary.
Man is imaginary; if you want something that isn't imaginary, find
something you can't imagine.
--
just write it
Bill Penrose
wrote:
> 'Hi Everybody!'
> --Dr. Nick Riviera
>
> I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
> vs Christianity these days.
>
> I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
After all, how many arguments are there for God vs. Nogod, and who
cares what the arguments are anyway? Belief comes first, arguments
after.
DB
boots
No sir, arguments come first, then arguments come after!
--
just write it
Ultraviolet
<>
> Belief comes first, arguments after.
That's true for most issues, especially chili-related ones.
Sylvia
> Bill Penrose left the cake out in the rain:
>
> <>
>
> > Belief comes first, arguments after.
.
> That's true for most issues, especially chili-related ones.
It's when bean chili-related relief comes that arguments follow.
--
Sylvia
boots
What does that mean?
You missin' a comma, or do you have some rilly strange meanin'?
Sounds flatulent to me. That one's bean done.
--
just write it
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
> >Miz Ultraviolet wrote:
> >> Bill Penrose left the cake out in the rain:
.
> >> <>
> >> > Belief comes first, arguments after.
.
> >> That's true for most issues, especially chili-related ones.
.
> >It's when bean chili-related relief comes that arguments follow.
.
> What does that mean?
<turning up petite nose>
It ain't my fault that you ain't socio-economic-intellecshual-esque
enough to follow my Real Writer(ly) treatise on man's inhumanity to man
and the strugglin' of the masses.
> You missin' a comma,
Hello? I *own* the MW Alphabet and Hat Emporium, Inc. I've, cornered,
the, market, on, commas.
<flipping Mr. boots an exclamation point>
Subordinate *this*.
> or do you have some rilly strange meanin'?
You say that like it's a BAD thing.
> Sounds flatulent to me.
<deeply offended>
Sir! I can't believe that you'd be so RUDE as to imply that I, a *most*
Lady-esque Peep "of quite a bit of privilege", would stoop to basin' a
play on words on Unmentionable Emissions.
> That one's bean done.
<striking dramatic pose>
The *real* Unmentionable Emission Evil came from inside *your* mind.
"You all pretend that what I wrote was evil when
the real evil came from inside your minds (I use
the term loosely). My conscience is triggered by
events that I actually do not those you create in
a fictional accounting of what you thought I wrote."
-- Ray Haddad in MW
Sylvia <---- Supreme Ruler of MW & A Respectable Person of Bidness
Visit the MW Alphabet & Hat Emporium, Inc.
Conveniently located in downtown MW, near the Bridge of <Sigh>s
serenebabe
> Jackson Pillock goes:
<...>
>> I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
>> vs Christianity these days.
>
> Why bother? They lost. Have you noticed how all the fight has gone out
> of them lately? Whipped, that's the word for them.
How timely. Not that I was ever in the argue-it camp, I was thinking
this morning that I missed the hot debate going on in the newsgroup a
little bit ago.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/
serenebabe
> After all, how many arguments are there for God vs. Nogod, and who
> cares what the arguments are anyway? Belief comes first, arguments
> after.
Yeah, but the arguments are fun to read.
serenebabe
> Bill Penrose <pen...@iit.edu> left the cake out in the rain:
>
> <>
>
>> Belief comes first, arguments after.
>
>
> That's true for most issues, especially chili-related ones.
Chile?
Beamer
Grooan
Beamer
boots
Jackson Pillock
> Jackson Pillock goes:
>
> >'Hi Everybody!'
> >--Dr. Nick Riviera
> >I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
> >vs Christianity these days.
>
> Why bother? They lost. Have you noticed how all the fight has gone out
> of them lately? Whipped, that's the word for them.
Scourged.
Jackson Pillock
> Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >'Hi Everybody!'
> >--Dr. Nick Riviera
>
> >I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
> >vs Christianity these days.
>
> What, is Christianity the only available set of theistic beliefs
> nowadays?
No, just the one I'm most familiar with.
>
> >I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
>
> Please do, multi-issue nutters are far more interesting.
'Issues? Have a tissue.'
--Dr. Evil.
>
> >Bye Everybody!
>
> >PS, God is imaginary.
>
> Man is imaginary; if you want something that isn't imaginary, find
> something you can't imagine.
How about a light year? I can't imagine that.
>
> --
> just write it
Jackson Pillock
> On Feb 16, 5:26 am, Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 'Hi Everybody!'
> > --Dr. Nick Riviera
>
> > I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
> > vs Christianity these days.
>
> > I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
>
> After all, how many arguments are there for God vs. Nogod, and who
> cares what the arguments are anyway?
My personal favourite of the moment:
1. Quantum stuff is weird.
2. Therefore, God exists.
Jackson Pillock
> Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> left the cake out in the rain:
>
> <>
>
> > Belief comes first, arguments after.
>
> That's true for most issues, especially chili-related ones.
Are you suggesting we have access to future chilis?
>
> --
> UVhttp://paula-light.blogspot.com
Jackson Pillock
news:d7a5fdd9-9d89-468d...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Why won't God heal amputees?
boots
>On 16 Feb, 16:39, Ultraviolet <viole...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> left the cake out in the rain:
>>
>> <>
>>
>> > Belief comes first, arguments after.
>>
>> That's true for most issues, especially chili-related ones.
>
>Are you suggesting we have access to future chilis?
I certainly hope so, the past ones are quite unappetizing.
--
just write it
boots
>On 16 Feb, 15:35, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >'Hi Everybody!'
>> >--Dr. Nick Riviera
>>
>> >I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
>> >vs Christianity these days.
>>
>> What, is Christianity the only available set of theistic beliefs
>> nowadays?
>
>
>No, just the one I'm most familiar with.
Good grief man,the bleeding Christians get bonus-points for having
their asses kicked, educate yourself a bit and spread the pain to
those preferring not to have it.
>> >I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
>>
>> Please do, multi-issue nutters are far more interesting.
>
>
>'Issues? Have a tissue.'
>--Dr. Evil.
One carton of Kleenex is now winging its way to you FOIA-express!
>> >Bye Everybody!
>>
>> >PS, God is imaginary.
>>
>> Man is imaginary; if you want something that isn't imaginary, find
>> something you can't imagine.
>
>How about a light year? I can't imagine that.
Of course you can, at least sufficiently to remember the term and use
it in context. Nope, you have to not think about a pink elephant
here, to come up with something truly unimaginable.
--
just write it
boots
boots
Fucksake, I'd expect even you to realize what a waste of time that
would be since He'd have to cause more accidents that require
amputation or the word "amputee" would be... well, unimaginable!
--
just write it
Jackson Pillock
news:m6ker39e90qq5vu99...@4ax.com:
> Jackson Pillock <jackson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 16 Feb, 15:35, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>> Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >'Hi Everybody!'
>>> >--Dr. Nick Riviera
>>>
>>> >I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to
>>> >Atheism vs Christianity these days.
>>>
>>> What, is Christianity the only available set of theistic beliefs
>>> nowadays?
>>
>>
>>No, just the one I'm most familiar with.
>
> Good grief man,the bleeding Christians get bonus-points for having
> their asses kicked, educate yourself a bit and spread the pain to
> those preferring not to have it.
I don't want to hurt anyone. Mine is a healing ministry. Anway, I figure
I'm hitting all the Abrahamic religions by analogy.
>
>>> >I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
>>>
>>> Please do, multi-issue nutters are far more interesting.
>>
>>
>>'Issues? Have a tissue.'
>>--Dr. Evil.
>
> One carton of Kleenex is now winging its way to you FOIA-express!
Huh?
>
>>> >Bye Everybody!
>>>
>>> >PS, God is imaginary.
>>>
>>> Man is imaginary; if you want something that isn't imaginary, find
>>> something you can't imagine.
>>
>>How about a light year? I can't imagine that.
>
> Of course you can, at least sufficiently to remember the term and use
> it in context. Nope, you have to not think about a pink elephant
> here, to come up with something truly unimaginable.
A light year is literally beyond my imagination, and yours, and
everyone's. Anyway, this is beside the point. I meant 'imaginary' in the
sense of make-believe.
>
Boggles The Brain
> Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> left the cake out in the rain:
Chili is my god.
--Boggles the Brain
boots
>boots <n...@no.no> wrote in
>news:m6ker39e90qq5vu99...@4ax.com:
>
>> Jackson Pillock <jackson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Feb, 15:35, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>> Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >'Hi Everybody!'
>>>> >--Dr. Nick Riviera
>>>>
>>>> >I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to
>>>> >Atheism vs Christianity these days.
>>>>
>>>> What, is Christianity the only available set of theistic beliefs
>>>> nowadays?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, just the one I'm most familiar with.
>>
>> Good grief man,the bleeding Christians get bonus-points for having
>> their asses kicked, educate yourself a bit and spread the pain to
>> those preferring not to have it.
>
>
>I don't want to hurt anyone. Mine is a healing ministry. Anway, I figure
>I'm hitting all the Abrahamic religions by analogy.
As if Thor gives a flying fuck about that Abrahamic lot, eh?
>>>> >I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
>>>>
>>>> Please do, multi-issue nutters are far more interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>>'Issues? Have a tissue.'
>>>--Dr. Evil.
>>
>> One carton of Kleenex is now winging its way to you FOIA-express!
>
>
>
>Huh?
FOIA-express is the fastest possible means of sending something that
never arrives, ask Ray for details.
>>>> >Bye Everybody!
>>>>
>>>> >PS, God is imaginary.
>>>>
>>>> Man is imaginary; if you want something that isn't imaginary, find
>>>> something you can't imagine.
>>>
>>>How about a light year? I can't imagine that.
>>
>> Of course you can, at least sufficiently to remember the term and use
>> it in context. Nope, you have to not think about a pink elephant
>> here, to come up with something truly unimaginable.
>
>A light year is literally beyond my imagination, and yours, and
>everyone's. Anyway, this is beside the point. I meant 'imaginary' in the
>sense of make-believe.
Well that's as silly as tugging God's beard.
--
just write it
Boggles The Brain
wrote:
> boots <n...@no.no> wrote innews:m6ker39e90qq5vu99...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 16 Feb, 15:35, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >>> Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >'Hi Everybody!'
>
>
> I'm hitting all the Abrahamic religions by analogy.
>
> A light year is literally beyond my imagination, and yours, and
> everyone's. Anyway, this is beside the point. I meant 'imaginary' in the
> sense of make-believe.
The idea of God is way, way beyond my imagination. I cannot perceive
a Being of such power and scope.
But I'm the same way about Bill Gates.
--Boggles
Jackson Pillock
boots
Gates is easy, I imagine him as Peewee Herman with lots of money.
--
just write it
Jackson Pillock
news:721676fb-28a7-4e0b...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com:
I like the bit where he incarnates himself so he can kill himself to
save us all from himself. 'Power and scope'? Sound and fury more like.
Do you believe in talking snakes?
>
> But I'm the same way about Bill Gates.
Nice take-back! Do I detect an incipient connection with reality?
>
> --Boggles
>
Boggles The Brain
wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
>
Sure, we can talk snakes if you want to. I don't know much about
them, but anything for conversation is okay with me. I'll go first:
Hey, what about that big asp that bit the African Queen (and I don't
mean Johnny Mathis)?
Your turn.
--Boggles
Jackson Pillock
8a5d-44c...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Johnny Mathis is African?
>
> Your turn.
>
> --Boggles
>
>
>
>
Boggles The Brain
wrote:
> Boggles The Brain <royer...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:0f077888-9131-4978-
> 8a5d-44cc69504...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:53 pm, Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Do you believe in talking snakes?
>
> > Sure, we can talk snakes if you want to. I don't know much about
> > them, but anything for conversation is okay with me. I'll go first:
> > Hey, what about that big asp that bit the African Queen (and I don't
> > mean Johnny Mathis)?
>
> Johnny Mathis is African?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Your turn.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought you wanted to talk snakes. plunk
Jackson Pillock
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought you wanted inane banter.
What does 'plunk' mean?
Bill Penrose
wrote:
> 1. Quantum stuff is weird.
> 2. Therefore, God exists.
That's a silly argument.
Quantum stuff is weird.
Therefore God wants us to put guns in our classrooms (1).
See? Now it makes sense.
Or,
Sunsets are really cool.
Therefore God doesn't exist.
Dangerous Bill
Note 1: We're talking Arizona Neocon politicians here.
Bill Penrose
wrote:
>
> Why won't God heal amputees?
He likes to watch them trying to cross the street in heavy traffic.
Nobody said he was a *nice* God.
DB
Jackson Pillock
> On Feb 16, 2:00 pm, Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 1. Quantum stuff is weird.
> > 2. Therefore, God exists.
>
> That's a silly argument.
>
> Quantum stuff is weird.
> Therefore God wants us to put guns in our classrooms (1).
I feel a repost coming on.
Hang on a tick, I'll go and fish it out.
Here we are: 'A Gun Nut Sings'
Scene: Boracho Liquor and Gun Shop
An INTERVIEWER prepares to make her report.
DWIGHT HANDCOCK smiles proudly.
INTERVIEWER
In the United Kingdom, we've had supermarket promotions such as
Computers
for Schools from Tesco, Active Kids from Sainsbury's and Free Nappy
Sacks
from Mothercare, all aimed at benefiting young people. But in
Boracho,
Texas, a shop owner has started a very different scheme. Dwight
Handcock,
welcome.
DWIGHT
It's an honour and a privilege, ma'am.
INTERVIEWER
Mr. Handcock, what can you tell us about your voucher scheme?
DWIGHT
Well, Guns for Schools is a new initiative.
INTERVIEWER
I'll just stop you there, if I may. Did you say 'Guns for Schools'?
DWIGHT
That's right, darlin'. For every six-pack of American beer my
customers buy,
I donate a percentage of the take to help students gain access to
firearms.
My good wife likes to call it 'six guns for six packs.'
INTERVIEWER
Aren't people dismayed to hear of you helping to arm students,
particularly
in light of recent tragic events?
DWIGHT
Oh, we get the occasional lefty-loon kicking up a fuss, but mostly
folks are
supportive. They understand that there's a price to pay for freedom.
Have
you seen what a Glock costs? And that's before ammunition.
INTERVIEWER
Forgive me, but are you mad?
DWIGHT
Tarnation! If I had a dime for every time I get that question.Has it
escaped
your notice that there has not been a single suicide bombing on
American
soil since 9/11? It's no coincidence. A well-armed populace is the
best
weapon we have in the War on Terror.
INTERVIEWER
It seems to me that the massacre at Virginia Tech was an American
suicide
bombing. Different means, but the result was the same.
DWIGHT
See, that's the trouble with you foreign liberals. You just don't
understand
freedom. (BEAT) If I may.
Dwight produces a guitar.
DWIGHT's SONG
(Tune: Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2, by Pink Floyd)
DWIGHT
We just need some ammunition,
We don't need no gun control,
No unarmed libruls in the classroom,
Teachers let them kids reload,
Hey! Teachers! Let them kids reload!
All in all we need another Glock in the hall.
All in all we need another Glock in the hall.
(Repeat SONG, with choir.)
Spoken ending:
DWIGHT
If you don't clean your guns, you can't have any ammo!
How can you have any ammo if you won't clean your guns?
DWIGHT
So, can I get you a six-pack?
INTERVIEWER
No thanks. I'll just take a couple of Uzi submachine guns and an RPG.
Oh,
and a 2 litre bottle of gin, please.
Jackson Pillock
e37e09...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Exactly. And while we're on the subject, I've never had a good
explanation for why Satan is the bad guy. God drowns everyone except his
favourite kiss-ass, but Satan is the bad guy. God destroys whole cities,
just because someone in them is talking bad about him, but Satan is the
bad guy. God tests a man in the following manner: He tells the man to
take his son up a mountain, tie him to an alter and prepare wood for a
fire under him. The son knows what's happening as his father binds him.
He's seen this before: this is how animals are prepared to be
slaughtered and burned as a sacrifice to God. But this time it is he,
the son, who will be sacrificed. The son is fully aware that his own
father is about to kill him with a knife and then burn his body. God
waits until the man raises his knife, ready to kill the poor boy, who by
this time must be out of his mind with terror, before he stops it. The
man has passed the test. His behaviour, in tying up his own son, fully
ready and prepared to kill him with a knife and burn his body, proves
that he's God's kind of guy. So God lets him keep his son. Note that the
son was spared as a reward to the father for his willingness to murder.
That's the reason given, not mercy towards the son. Yet Satan is the bad
guy.
What did Satan ever do?
Ray Haddad
and Jackson Pillock <jackson...@hotmail.com> instead replied:
How do you know I never got a response? I've given up on dishing out
works in progress here. Pays no dividends at all. Haven't you
noticed that yourself?
--
Ray
Sylvia
> Boggles The Brain <roye...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:721676fb-28a7-4e0b...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com:
<...>
> > The idea of God is way, way beyond my imagination. I cannot perceive
> > a Being of such power and scope.
.
> I like the bit where he incarnates himself so he can kill himself to
> save us all from himself. 'Power and scope'? Sound and fury more like.
<blink!>
<re-reading preceding part of post>
oh. I was skimming through and when I saw that I thought I had found
the thread where peeps were playin' "What's yer favorite of all Ray
Haddad's Incredibly Stupid Lies?"
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
<...>
I have proof of a Lyin' Scorpion.
--
Sylvia
Eric H.: "[...] Ray seems to think he's some form
of god here and everywhere and knows everything
about everything. It's time he learn he's mortal."
Ray Haddad: "Eric, Compared to you, I am a god."
Sylvia
> Boggles The Brain <roye...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Jackson Pillock wrote:
.
> >> Do you believe in talking snakes?
.
> > Sure, we can talk snakes if you want to. I don't know much about
> > them, but anything for conversation is okay with me. I'll go first:
> > Hey, what about that big asp that bit the African Queen (and I don't
> > mean Johnny Mathis)?
.
> Johnny Mathis is African?
Royer's confused. He's thinking of Humphrey Bogart. And, Bogart didn't
bite the African Queen, she was destroyed when the torpedo he
constructed out of an oxygen tank exploded after the boat collided with
the German ship.
And, just in time, I might say.
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> lied:
> Jackson Pillock instead replied:
> >boots wrote
> >> Jackson Pillock wrote:
> >>>boots wrote in
<...>
> >>>> One carton of Kleenex is now winging its way to you FOIA-express!
.
> >>>Huh?
.
> >> FOIA-express is the fastest possible means of sending something that
> >> never arrives, ask Ray for details.
"I also have, to my surprise, found no reference to it on the
Internet. I have registered and paid for a FOIA (Freedom of
Information Act) request to the US Navy historical archives
for information on that."
-- Ray Haddad discovers there is NO EVIDENCE
of his having bombed Hanoi in 1974
http://tinyurl.com/28hny7 APRIL 8 2007
.
> >Oh yeah, I remember now. Thanks.
.
> How do you know I never got a response?
Because, Haddad, we know that you never requested the information since
you lied about everything. You weren't there, it never happened.
> I've given up on dishing out works in progress here. Pays no
> dividends at all. Haven't you noticed that yourself?
I've noticed that it has reaped you HUGE amounts of ridicule, Haddad.
"Did you ever hear of us going back to bomb Vietnam
in 1974? Probably not. You were too nitwitted to even
pick up a paper back then. I was in the Vietnam area in
1974 with USS Ranger which bombed Hanoi after Nixon
resigned. Look it up. Learn something for a change. "
-- Ray Haddad disparages Miz Sylvia for pointing
out that his "22 year military career" is a LIE
http://tinyurl.com/25r5jx
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved." -- Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
"USS RANGER Command History Report for 1974: Port Visits "
"Deployment Dates: 7 May 1974- 18 October 1974
"[...]
In-port, Subic Bay 23 Jul 1974 - 5 Aug 1974
In-port, Hong Kong 12 Aug 1974 - 18 Aug 1974
In-port, Subic Bay 21 Aug 1974 - 30 Aug 1974
In-port, Subic Bay 17 Sep 1974 - 28 Sep 1974
In port, Pearl Harbor 11-12 Oct 1974 " [1]
NOTE: Subic Bay Naval Repair Facility is in the Philippines, near
Manila, and combat pay is *not* required to be there.
Distance from Manila to Hanoi: 1,751 kilometers/1,088 miles
Distance from Hong Kong to Hanoi: 865 kilometers/538 miles
Ray Haddad, Stolen Valor Thief, it's disgusting that you think nothing
of smearing the reputation of the USS Ranger, her crew, the US Navy, and
the entire United States... just so you and Joshua P. Hill,
Steve/"fundoc", and yer other toadies and enablers can bolster your
stupid, pathetic fantasy life.
"Just because you can't find evidence on the web doesn't mean
you are correct and I am not. [...] If what I remember is wrong,
I will admit it. For now, all I have to go on is that memory and
the positive link to Nixon's date of resignation."
-- Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/3dw72t
I *am* correct, Haddad. I was *always* correct. You were *never* there.
The USS Ranger never participated in bombing Hanoi. You LIED. I suspect
we'll be waitin' a looooong time for you to admit that, huh?
--
Sylvia (NEENER!)
[1] Carrier Port Visits during Deployments to Vietnam, 1964-1975
Naval Aviation History Office, Naval Warfare Division
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-6.htm
Recommended Reading:
The Rise and Fall of Another "Heroic" Adventure:
Part I - Baby Poop to Body Parts http://tinyurl.com/2o3s8l
HISTORY vs. RAY HADDAD, the Lying, Malicious, Slimy, Snipping VALOR
THIEF : Part I -- Bombing Hanoi in 1974
http://tinyurl.com/38h66e
"RAY HADDAD: A Busy Little (US Navy) Bee"
http://tinyurl.com/39lzt6
Sylvia
<not a malicious SNIP!, but I didn't use a sharp blade>
> After all, how many arguments are there for God vs. Nogod, and
> who cares what the arguments are anyway?
<...>
Hello? Wendy would.
Oh, wait... heh. Read this as "God vs. NetGhod".
Never mind.
--
Sylvia
Pies de Arcilla
boots wrote:
> Jackson Pillock <jackson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >'Hi Everybody!'
> >--Dr. Nick Riviera
> >
> >I have become a singe-issue nutter, which I why I tend to post to Atheism
> >vs Christianity these days.
>
> What, is Christianity the only available set of theistic beliefs
> nowadays?
>
> >I'm thinking of returning to being a multi-issue nutter.
>
> Please do, multi-issue nutters are far more interesting.
>
> >Bye Everybody!
> >
> >PS, God is imaginary.
>
> Man is imaginary; if you want something that isn't imaginary, find
> something you can't imagine.
i^2 is imaginary, because i is imaginary.
However, it is not imaginary, because i^2=-1 which is real.
Therefore i^2 is both imaginary and not imaginary at the same time.
Thus, I can imagine something that is both imaginary and not at the
same time.
Pies de Arcilla
> What did Satan ever do?
It seems to me, that you can never be sure if God is talking to you or
Satan. At least not until you die and hopefully everything is
explained.
Maybe the Bible is really the word of Satan and everything in it is
intended to mislead.
I think though, that the real point of the story about Abraham was
that while he was a nitwit for going along with the idea of
sacrificing his son, he _did_ love God, and God loved him, and even if
God seems insane and cruel, he does sometimes have mercy on a fool.
Abraham wasn't being rewarded for anything.
boots
> I've given up on dishing out
>works in progress here. Pays no dividends at all.
Those tools are under development.
--
just write it
boots
Answer 1:
Sloppy handwriting. When he was filling out the employment
application and he came to the box marked "Position Desired", he
scribbled "Big Guy". Always print clearly or they'll see you in Hell.
Answer 2:
The head of Quality Assurance is universally scorned and hated.
--
just write it
Jackson Pillock
> Jackson Pillock wrote:
> > What did Satan ever do?
>
> It seems to me, that you can never be sure if God is talking to you or
> Satan. At least not until you die and hopefully everything is
> explained.
In fact, you can always be sure it's neither, assuming you are not
suffering a mental illness, or willingly deluding yourself, because
they are both imaginary.
>
> Maybe the Bible is really the word of Satan and everything in it is
> intended to mislead.
>
> I think though, that the real point of the story about Abraham was
> that while he was a nitwit for going along with the idea of
> sacrificing his son, he _did_ love God, and God loved him, and even if
> God seems insane and cruel, he does sometimes have mercy on a fool.
> Abraham wasn't being rewarded for anything.
I like the King James version best:
12": And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any
thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast
not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
"13": And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind
him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took
the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his
son.
"14": And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it
is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
"15": And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the
second time,
"16": And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because
thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only
son:
"17": That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is
upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies;
"18": And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Jackson Pillock
> >e37e09db0...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ha.
Stan (the Man)
news:a6bfr3dt0q9amljhk...@4ax.com:
Because you said that when you got it you would post it here, whatever
it said. You wouldn't lie, now, would you, lying scum? Oops! Seems I
answered that one myself.
<...>
Stan
boots
>On 17 Feb, 05:37, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jackson Pillock wrote:
>> > What did Satan ever do?
>>
>> It seems to me, that you can never be sure if God is talking to you or
>> Satan. At least not until you die and hopefully everything is
>> explained.
>
>In fact, you can always be sure it's neither, assuming you are not
>suffering a mental illness, or willingly deluding yourself, because
>they are both imaginary.
Do you have a firstborn son to bet?
--
just write it
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
Back to your ugly implications, eh, lying scum?. You are, without
question, the biggest, steamiest pile of shit ever to stink up a ng,
Ray. Is there any level you won't stoop to in your attempts to get even
with people who out your lies? Is there *anything* about you that isn't
ridiculous, contemptible or repulsive?
--
Stan
boots
>Ray Haddad wrote:
<snipped>
> Is there *anything* about you that isn't ridiculous, contemptible or repulsive?
So you're saying that everything about Ray and his entire life is
ridiculous, contemptible, and repulsive?
--
just write it
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> instead
replied:
Why, Stanley, what's wrong with you? You were the one who pointed
out that she was busy unpacking when someone noted her absence from
MW. Are you denying it now?
It's all right though. This is a different incident from the one I
promised not to bring up again. You haven't changed a bit. Still
bragging. Still doing the same old Stan thing, whatever that is.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
Nor have you, Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive, lying,
steaming, pile of shit.
--
Stan
boots
Ray Haddad
Forgot this message then?
Message-ID: <Xns99E8E38029D7Dne...@130.81.64.196>
From that message:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:21:52 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>"Cleverly done" <V...@Extnet.net> wrote in
>news:hqM_i.8029$3Z2....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> BTW, I haven't seen Sylvia online in a while. innybody know if she's
>> okay?
>
>She's fine. Busy unpacking.
No innuendo, Stan. Your own words. Lie your way out of that one.
--
Ray
Jackson Pillock
> Jackson Pillock <jackson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>>In fact, you can always be sure it's neither, assuming you are not
>>suffering a mental illness, or willingly deluding yourself, because
>>they are both imaginary.
>
> Do you have a firstborn son to bet?
>
I would never bet my son on anything, no matter how sure I was of winning.
The concept is disgusting.
Stan (the Man)
I'm not aware of anything about Ray that isn't ridiculous, contemptible
or repulsive. I'll add that I'm not aware of anyone normal who sees him
in any other way.
--
Stan
Jackson Pillock
That's odd. Earlier you wrote to me:
> How do you know I never got a response? I've given up on dishing out
> works in progress here. Pays no dividends at all. Haven't you
> noticed that yourself?
And now you say:
> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
Here's what I think. You're lying about the whole thing. That explains
the discrepancies perfectly and simply. Other explanations are difficult
and unlikely. If you weren't lying, it would be easy, and very
satisfying to you, to prove me wrong. You can't, because you are.
Simple.
Start with where you 'did post them.' I think even that is a flat-out
lie.
Ray Haddad
>That's odd. Earlier you wrote to me:
>
>> How do you know I never got a response? I've given up on dishing out
>> works in progress here. Pays no dividends at all. Haven't you
>> noticed that yourself?
It's a work in progress. Nothing to show you at the moment. Good
reasons for that but you're probably not interested in them.
>And now you say:
>
>> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
>> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
I posted the results of my request, not the actual documents. Again,
there are good reasons for that.
>Here's what I think. You're lying about the whole thing. That explains
>the discrepancies perfectly and simply. Other explanations are difficult
>and unlikely. If you weren't lying, it would be easy, and very
>satisfying to you, to prove me wrong. You can't, because you are.
>Simple.
Fair enough. Your thoughts are not invalid but they are wrong.
>Start with where you 'did post them.' I think even that is a flat-out
>lie.
Jackson, since you've been missing from here for a while, I'll give
you time to look it up. However, you misinterpreted my statement
above. I got a reply to my FOIA request and posted a paraphrasing of
that reply but have not posted any documents yet. When I'm ready, I
will. You may not like the results but they'll be posted eventually.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
I'll ask you again, Ray: Is there *anything* about you that isn't,
Ray Haddad
Your own words, Stan. Isn't that the apology you make for Sylvia?
Your own words, Stan.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
It's ok, Ray. No one expected you to answer. I'll answer for you: There
is *nothing* about you that isn't ridiculous, contemptible or repulsive.
--
Stan
Sylvia
> Jackson Pillock wrote:
.
> > What did Satan ever do?
.
> It seems to me, that you can never be sure if God is talking to you or
> Satan.
<staring>
Screen The Voices with Caller ID, Pies.
> At least not until you die and hopefully everything is
> explained.
What if it isn't? Can you get a refund?
> Maybe the Bible is really the word of Satan and everything in it is
> intended to mislead.
If yer god is omnipotent, then why is there a Satan?
> I think though, that the real point of the story about Abraham was
> that while he was a nitwit for going along with the idea of
> sacrificing his son, he _did_ love God,
The court wouldn't buy this defense today.
> and God loved him,
'Cause you always torture the one ya love, right?
> and even if God seems insane and cruel, he does sometimes have mercy
> on a fool.
This is soooo "Mantra of Rationalization of the Battered Wife/Child".
> Abraham wasn't being rewarded for anything.
Child Protection Services would have seen to that today.
--
Sylvia.
Sylvia
> Bill Penrose wrote
<...>
> > Nobody said he was a *nice* God.
<shrug>
So, he's got issues...
"(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the
anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and
destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
-- King James Bible
"For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."
-- Deuteronomy 4:24
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD
your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth
generations of those who hate Me,"
-- Deuteronomy 5:9
> Exactly. And while we're on the subject, I've never had a good
> explanation for why Satan is the bad guy.
That's 'cause ya never read my book, "Irrational Gods and the Angels Wot
Love 'Em Too Much". $74.99, Emporium Publishin', Inc. 2008
See, first the Christian god (C.G.) created the Angels with his Mattel
ThingMaker. And, havin' self-esteem problems, C.G. told them Angels that
they HAD to love ONLY him, that they could put no otter before him.
Well, the Angels thought, "Hello? Who else *is* there?" But, seein'
which side their harps were buttered, they agreed and they did. But
Lucifer, now *he* really took this to heart--way too much. I mean, we're
talkin' very poor boundaries, full-tilt boogie Co-Dependence, yaddad,
yadda.
Still, things went along OK until C.G. got some New & Improved
PlastiGoop with which he made Peeps, and, bein' new toys and all, he
liked them better than his old ones. Here's where it went bad: bein'
too shallow to see beyond his own needs and feelings, C.G. TELLS the
Angels exactly how he feels.
In fact, he also tells them that *now* their job is to serve Peeps first
and foremost ('cause he doesn't want to take 'em on walkies and all
hisself). So, the Angels, who were kinda tired of dealin' with "I, the
LORD your God, am a jealous God" all day long anyway, were all, "Yeah,
wotever."
Except for poor Lucifer, who lurves him too much. He is just
absofuckin'lutley <stunned>. Shirley, he thinks, there must be SOME
MISTAKE. C.G. was *most* clear about the whole servin' thing upfront,
right? Put no otter before me, and all, yes? So, he ignores the new
little bastids and they complain and C.G. hauls Lucifer out on the
carpet.
"How dare you disobey ME!" yaddad, yadda."
"I didn't. I lurve you! You said to serve you and to put no
otter--"
"Never mind wot I said, I said to serve them Peeps, and YOU
disobeyed me! Now you've kindled the anger of the LORD thy God against
thee, so I'm gonna destroy thine ungrateful butt off the face of Heaven."
"Noooo! You don't understand! I lurve you! Just you! That's how ya
made me, so I *can't* put otter--"
"You, Go to straight to HELL!"
" <tiny tears> "
And, loyal to the end, Lucifer packed a sammich, his Blankie, and that
photo of him and C.G. at the Grand Canyon and he took the next Express
Handbasket to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks, where he cried his eyes out. I
mean, here he had dedicated his whole life to servin' C.G., as directed,
and now all of a sudden he gets swept aside aside for some... some...
some *trophy* Beings! And Lucifer's petite Angel heart broke right in
two (2).
Later, C.G. sends down a copy of some stupid (Official) Memo about how
HELL is where you can never be near the LOVE of the LORD thy God, and
Lucifer is all, "No Shit, Sherlock! Thanks for rubbin' it in!" 'cause by
now he's had time to do a *lot* of thinkin' and to read a couple of
self-help books.
Well, pretty soon he's startin' to feel EMPOWERED for the first time in
his life, and he tells the Demons of Hell in his Wednesday night therapy
group to call him "Satan" from now on 'cause "Lucifer" was his slave
name and them days are GONE. They cheer. He checks out his new property
and thinks, "This ain't so bad, I can do a *lot* with it, especially
with all them Minions aound. I mean, *who* really did all the work of
runnin' everything in Heaven? Me, that's who! In fact, this is *great*!
Lookit that ocean view! It's Primo Real Estate! and it's ALL MINE!"
Then he faxes C.G. a return memo:
"From the Very Gates of Hell,
"Greetings. Just thought I'd send you this petite note
of thanks. See, now that I finally have had time to think
about and actually take care of *myself*, I've realized
something VERY important. For the first time in my life,
I'm doin' the HAPPY Dance! I lurve ME! I'm a *good* Being
and I don't need to slave over YOU to prove that I am.
"In fact, one might say that it's a Hell of a lot better to
rule here than to serve in yer twisted, cazy-makin' 'Heaven'.
geddit?! A *HELL* of a lot better?! I crack me up!
"See ya later. NOT!
" Satan, the Angel Formally known as 'Lucifer'
"PS- I lost 45 pounds and I look KILLER BEE! Neener!"
> God drowns everyone except his favourite kiss-ass, but Satan is the
> bad guy. God destroys whole cities, just because someone in them is
> talking bad about him, but Satan is the bad guy.
<...>
Smear campaign, innit.
"For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."
-- Deuteronomy 4:24
"And this is the danger of a smear. It becomes on one hand a
convenient mode of attack, and on the other hand it becomes
part of a feedback loop -- when people believe something about
somebody, they start to interpret the evidence in accordance
with their beliefs." -- Joshua P. Hill (no, really)
Wot do I win?
--
Sylvia
PJ
news:83ggr3le772fjldut...@4ax.com...
> Forgot this message then?
> Message-ID: <Xns99E8E38029D7Dne...@130.81.64.196>
>
> From that message:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:21:52 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>
>>"Cleverly done" <V...@Extnet.net> wrote in
>>news:hqM_i.8029$3Z2....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> BTW, I haven't seen Sylvia online in a while. innybody know if she's
>>> okay?
>>
>>She's fine. Busy unpacking.
>
> No innuendo, Stan. Your own words. Lie your way out of that one.
So following that *logic* ... I go on a business trip, I email Alan and say
"Hey Alan, I won't be in touch for a while, going away on business," and a
week or so later someone posts to the newsgroup "BTW, I haven't seen PJ
online in a while. innybody know if she's okay?" and Alan responds with
"She's fine. Busy unpacking," you'll assume that the reason he knows I'm
unpacking is because we're together and he's helping me? And then you'll do
something really slimy like post to Alan: "Sorry you missed them. You were
probably helping [PJ] unpack" and then crank up the degree of sliminess by
posting "Why, [Alan], what's wrong with you? You were the one who pointed
out that she was busy unpacking when someone noted her absence from MW. Are
you denying it now?"?
Why oh why do you do this shit?
~ ~ ~
PJ
Sylvia
Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> >Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote i
> >> and Jackson Pillock wrote:
> >>>boots wrote in
<...>
> >>>> FOIA-express is the fastest possible means of sending something that
> >>>> never arrives, ask Ray for details.
> >>>
> >>>Oh yeah, I remember now. Thanks.
> >>
> >> How do you know I never got a response?
> >
> >Because you said that when you got it you would post it here, whatever
> >it said. You wouldn't lie, now, would you, lying scum? Oops! Seems I
> >answered that one myself.
> >
> ><...>
> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here.
<laughing!
gawd! Wot a deluded, sorry-assed fool Haddad is! he just posted that he
was goin' back on his word (no big surprise there, huh?)
" How do you know I never got a response? I've given up on
dishing out works in progress here. Pays no dividends at all.
Haven't you noticed that yourself?" -- The Idiot Haddad
> Sorry you missed them.
" works in progress"
> You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
<blink!>
"Unpack"? Unpack *what*?
<perk!>
Mr. Stan! Did everyone in MW finally send me PRESENTS!?
TRULY EXCELLENT PRESENTS? Finally!
<bouncing off ceiling with Present Joy>
Where? Gimme!
--
Sylvia <--- *most* pleased
Ultraviolet
<>
[to Ray Haddad]
> Why oh why do you do this shit?
Because he's an asshole. It isn't that complicated.
Bill Penrose
> So, he's got issues...
Migod, you're a warped, twisted John Milton!
Have you written "Paradise Found. Reward Wanted." yet?
DB
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
> > So, he's got issues...
.
> Migod, you're a warped, twisted John Milton!
<beaming!>
Why, thenk yew, Mr. Penrose.
> Have you written "Paradise Found. Reward Wanted." yet?
<tickled>
My workin' title started with "Paradise Found", of course. Then I
decided a title like "Irrational Gods and the Angels Wot Love 'Em Too
Much" more likely to $ell, not to mention get primo window space.
<picking up (Official) $ales pad>
So, how many copies can I put ya down for?
--
Sylvia (there's a reward? how much?)
Jackson Pillock
news:sylvia-4C84DA....@news.lga.highwinds-media.com:
> Jackson Pillock wrote:
>
>> Bill Penrose wrote
> <...>
>> > Nobody said he was a *nice* God.
>
> <shrug>
>
> So, he's got issues...
>
> "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the
> anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and
> destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
>
> -- King James Bible
>
> "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."
>
> -- Deuteronomy 4:24
>
> "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD
> your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
> fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth
> generations of those who hate Me,"
>
> -- Deuteronomy
> 5:9
>
>> Exactly. And while we're on the subject, I've never had a good
>> explanation for why Satan is the bad guy.
>
> That's 'cause ya never read my book, "Irrational Gods and the Angels
> Wot Love 'Em Too Much". $74.99, Emporium Publishin', Inc. 2008
That's jolly steep. Bookshops now have a 'Tragic Lives' section of the
biographies. 'Boy Called "It"' and all those ones. Maybe you can kick
off a new trend and get a 'tragic eternities' or 'tragic immortalities'
section going. Could be the next big thing.
>
> See, first the Christian god (C.G.) created the Angels with his Mattel
> ThingMaker. And, havin' self-esteem problems, C.G. told them Angels
> that they HAD to love ONLY him, that they could put no otter before
> him.
Hmm. 'Pay no attention to that man behind the alter-curtain...'
At least God was honest about how things stood. No 'It's not you
Lucifer, it's ME.'
>
> And, loyal to the end, Lucifer packed a sammich, his Blankie, and that
> photo of him and C.G. at the Grand Canyon and he took the next Express
> Handbasket to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks, where he cried his eyes out. I
> mean, here he had dedicated his whole life to servin' C.G., as
> directed, and now all of a sudden he gets swept aside aside for
> some... some... some *trophy* Beings! And Lucifer's petite Angel heart
> broke right in two (2).
Wow. That's some Act I climax. I'm hooked. How much did you say that
tome of yours costs?
>
> Later, C.G. sends down a copy of some stupid (Official) Memo about how
> HELL is where you can never be near the LOVE of the LORD thy God, and
> Lucifer is all, "No Shit, Sherlock! Thanks for rubbin' it in!" 'cause
> by now he's had time to do a *lot* of thinkin' and to read a couple of
> self-help books.
>
> Well, pretty soon he's startin' to feel EMPOWERED for the first time
> in his life, and he tells the Demons of Hell in his Wednesday night
> therapy group to call him "Satan" from now on 'cause "Lucifer" was
> his slave name and them days are GONE. They cheer.
Yes! Our hero crosses the rubicon. No going back!
He checks out his new property
> and thinks, "This ain't so bad, I can do a *lot* with it, especially
> with all them Minions aound. I mean, *who* really did all the work of
> runnin' everything in Heaven? Me, that's who! In fact, this is
> *great*! Lookit that ocean view!
The Lake of Fire is nice this time of year.
It's Primo Real Estate! and it's ALL MINE!"
>
> Then he faxes C.G. a return memo:
>
> "From the Very Gates of Hell,
>
> "Greetings. Just thought I'd send you this petite note
> of thanks. See, now that I finally have had time to think
> about and actually take care of *myself*, I've realized
> something VERY important. For the first time in my life,
> I'm doin' the HAPPY Dance! I lurve ME! I'm a *good* Being
> and I don't need to slave over YOU to prove that I am.
>
> "In fact, one might say that it's a Hell of a lot better to
> rule here than to serve in yer twisted, cazy-makin' 'Heaven'.
> geddit?! A *HELL* of a lot better?! I crack me up!
>
> "See ya later. NOT!
>
> " Satan, the Angel Formally known as 'Lucifer'
>
> "PS- I lost 45 pounds and I look KILLER BEE! Neener!"
Hmm. That's a little unsatisfying. I think there should be another act
or two, raise the stakes. Let's find out what Satan is really made of.
Think you can put in some kind of final conflict? What if Satan started
dating the new beings, and at least some of them dug him? That would
really piss CG off, maybe make him put on some kind of tear-jerking
martyredom act or something. Satan would see right through it of course.
God's dying on the cross, going, 'Forgive them Father...' And Satan
would be all, 'Gawd, break out the tiny violins. I mean, self-harm is so
last age...'
>
>
>> God drowns everyone except his favourite kiss-ass, but Satan is the
>> bad guy. God destroys whole cities, just because someone in them is
>> talking bad about him, but Satan is the bad guy.
> <...>
>
> Smear campaign, innit.
>
> "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."
>
> -- Deuteronomy 4:24
>
> "And this is the danger of a smear. It becomes on one hand a
> convenient mode of attack, and on the other hand it becomes
> part of a feedback loop -- when people believe something about
> somebody, they start to interpret the evidence in accordance
> with their beliefs." -- Joshua P. Hill (no, really)
>
> Wot do I win?
>
A rewrite! Come on, let's have the second act.
Alan Hope
>How do you know I never got a response?
Yeah right.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
You need to put in spolier space for peeps who don't know how the
sentence is going to end.
Oh. Right.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>>Ray Haddad wrote:
><snipped>
Nobody said anything about "his entire life" whatever that means. I'm
sure Mrs Haddituptahere is perfectly nice, poor dear.
Everything about Ray is ridiculous, contemptible and repulsive,
though, for sure. Not to mention despicable and repellent. I'm amazed
you had to ask.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Forgot this message then?
>Message-ID: <Xns99E8E38029D7Dne...@130.81.64.196>
>
>From that message:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:21:52 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>
>>"Cleverly done" <V...@Extnet.net> wrote in
>>news:hqM_i.8029$3Z2....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> BTW, I haven't seen Sylvia online in a while. innybody know if she's
>>> okay?
>>
>>She's fine. Busy unpacking.
>
>No innuendo, Stan. Your own words. Lie your way out of that one.
The message says she's unpacking.
I knew she was probably unpacking, as did others.
The innuendo comes when you suggest he's "helping her unpack".
That's something quite different. But then you know that, don't you,
weasel-breath?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Jackson Pillock
>>>><...>
>>>
>>> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
>>> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
>>
>>That's odd. Earlier you wrote to me:
>>
>>> How do you know I never got a response? I've given up on dishing out
>>> works in progress here. Pays no dividends at all. Haven't you
>>> noticed that yourself?
>
> It's a work in progress. Nothing to show you at the moment. Good
> reasons for that but you're probably not interested in them.
Feel free to explain if you want.
>
>>And now you say:
>>
>>> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
>>> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
>
> I posted the results of my request, not the actual documents. Again,
> there are good reasons for that.
The US Navy isn't allowed to keep them secret, but for some secret
reason, you must. Yeah, that makes sense.
>
>>Here's what I think. You're lying about the whole thing. That explains
>>the discrepancies perfectly and simply. Other explanations are
>>difficult and unlikely. If you weren't lying, it would be easy, and
>>very satisfying to you, to prove me wrong. You can't, because you are.
>>Simple.
>
> Fair enough. Your thoughts are not invalid but they are wrong.
La-di-da.
>
>>Start with where you 'did post them.' I think even that is a flat-out
>>lie.
>
> Jackson, since you've been missing from here for a while, I'll give
> you time to look it up.
CBA. If you have anything you want to rub in my face, feel free.
Sylvia
see just how stupid Ray Haddad can prove himself to be!", as he gets
backed into corners his responses get WAY too boring (even considering
it's Haddad). BUT, kickin' Haddad's butt is a time-hono(u)red
tradition, so what's a poster to do?
The Solution:
New "AnswerWare (tm) ", from Postin'Ware (r), Inc.
(a petite division of the MW Alphabet & Hat Emporium, Inc.)
Just load it, set it to "Ray Hadad - Ooogie", "Ray Haddad - Stupid", Ray
Haddad - Pathological RL Stalker/Blackmailer", "Ray Haddad - LIAR!",
etc. to fine tune the response, or leave it at the default: "The Idiot
Haddad", and click once on the Haddadian post in question! Then, go take
a nap, make a tasty snack, or play outside 'cause it's like spring out
there!
<click>
<scampering outside with Sir Harvey in tow>
In article <s6hgr397b4rt8kkov...@4ax.com>,
Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> Jackson Pillock wrote:
> >Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote
> >> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> >>>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote
> >>>> Jackson Pillock wrote:
> >>>>>boots wrote:
<...>
> >>>>>> FOIA-express is the fastest possible means of sending something
> >>>>>> that never arrives, ask Ray for details.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Oh yeah, I remember now. Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you know I never got a response?
> >>>
> >>>Because you said that when you got it you would post it here, whatever
> >>>it said. You wouldn't lie, now, would you, lying scum? Oops! Seems I
> >>>answered that one myself.
> >>>
> >>><...>
> >>
> >> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
> >> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
> >
> >That's odd. Earlier you wrote to me:
> >
> >> How do you know I never got a response? I've given up on dishing out
> >> works in progress here. Pays no dividends at all. Haven't you
> >> noticed that yourself?
.
> It's a work in progress.
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
> Nothing to show you at the moment. Good
> reasons for that but you're probably not interested in them.
It's cause there ain't no proof since yer a LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
> >And now you say:
> >
> >> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
> >> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
>
> I posted the results of my request,
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
> not the actual documents. Again, there are good reasons for that.
It's cause there ain't no proof since yer a LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
> >Here's what I think. You're lying about the whole thing. That explains
> >the discrepancies perfectly and simply. Other explanations are difficult
> >and unlikely. If you weren't lying, it would be easy, and very
> >satisfying to you, to prove me wrong. You can't, because you are.
> >Simple.
>
> Fair enough. Your thoughts are not invalid but they are wrong.
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
> >Start with where you 'did post them.' I think even that is a flat-out
> >lie.
>
> Jackson, since you've been missing from here for a while, I'll give
> you time to look it up. However, you misinterpreted my statement
> above. I got a reply to my FOIA request and posted a paraphrasing of
> that reply
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
> but have not posted any documents yet. When I'm ready, I
> will. You may not like the results but they'll be posted eventually.
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
--
Sylvia via AnswerWare (tm)
Alan Hope
>Jackson Pillock wrote:
>> Boggles The Brain <roye...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > Jackson Pillock wrote:
>.
>> >> Do you believe in talking snakes?
>.
>> > Sure, we can talk snakes if you want to. I don't know much about
>> > them, but anything for conversation is okay with me. I'll go first:
>> > Hey, what about that big asp that bit the African Queen (and I don't
>> > mean Johnny Mathis)?
>.
>> Johnny Mathis is African?
>Royer's confused. He's thinking of Humphrey Bogart. And, Bogart didn't
>bite the African Queen, she was destroyed when the torpedo he
>constructed out of an oxygen tank exploded after the boat collided with
>the German ship.
>And, just in time, I might say.
I thought it was the Great White that exploded when the oxygen tank
went off. And it was the late Roy Scheider, not Humphrey Bogart.
Farewell an adieu, you fair Spanish ladies
Farewell an adieu you ladies of Spain etc.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Sylvia
> On 17 Feb, 05:37, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jackson Pillock wrote:
> > > What did Satan ever do?
> >
> > It seems to me, that you can never be sure if God is talking to you or
> > Satan. At least not until you die and hopefully everything is
> > explained.
>
> In fact, you can always be sure it's neither, assuming you are not
> suffering a mental illness, or willingly deluding yourself, because
> they are both imaginary.
<...>
> "18": And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
> because thou hast obeyed my voice.
"Now drink yer Kool-Aid and we'll all go aboard the Mother Ship".
--
Sylvia
Jackson Pillock
dnVRPV5gbHyXan...@bt.com:
>
> CBA. If you have anything you want to rub in my face, feel free.
Erm. I would like to rephrase that...
Jackson Pillock
Jonestown Massacre would make a good film. Tommy Lee Jones as J.J. He's
even called Jones!
Jackson Pillock
news:3h0hr3lghshd04b6f...@4ax.com:
I'll never put on another life-jacket, chief.
Stan (the Man)
I was gonna say.
--
Stan
Sylvia
Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> lied:
> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> >Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> lied:
> >>"Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> >>>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> lied:
<...>
> >>>> How do you know I never got a response?
.
> >>> Because you said that when you got it you would post it here, whatever
> >>> it said. You wouldn't lie, now, would you, lying scum? Oops! Seems I
> >>> answered that one myself.
.
> >>> <...>
> >> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
> >> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
.
> >Back to your ugly implications, eh, lying scum?.
"Back"? Was Haddad ever away from Ugly Implications?
> >You are, without question, the biggest, steamiest pile of shit ever
> >to stink up a ng, Ray. Is there any level you won't stoop to in your
> >attempts to get even with people who out your lies? Is there
> >*anything* about you that isn't ridiculous, contemptible or
> >repulsive?
<hopping up and down>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Ray Haddad is Usenet scum, that's a given. Now, Wot's
this about unpackin' my TRULY EXCELLENT PRESENTS? Had everyone send them
to a Central Location, right? So, why wasn't *I* informed?
OH! I know! MW Peeps are gonna throw me a TRULY EXCELLENT PRESENTS
SURPRISE PARTY!
<tiny tears of joy>
Neat! Gimme!
> Why, Stanley, what's wrong with you?
shaddap, Haddad!
Mr. Stan, wot's wrong? Wot's the hold up on my TRULY EXCELLENT PRESENTS?
> You were the one who pointed out that she was busy unpacking when
> someone noted her absence from MW.
[WHAP!] [WHAP!] [WHAP!]
Shut the fuck up, Haddad! Yer an idiot! It was mean of you to ruin the
surprise part of my SURPRISE PARTY just because you weren't invited (a
given--yer nasty, stalking, lying, blackmailing Usenet scum)!
> Are you denying it now?
[WHAP!]
It's too late, Mr. Stan, the Idiot Haddad told me about the PARTY the MW
MIGS planned for me while I was on my Bidness Fact Finding Tour Trip
Thingy...
<checking tax documents>
Yeah, that's wot I called it. Now, Where are my TRULY EXCELLENT
PRESENTS? Huh? Where are they? Where's everyone hidin' so they can pop
up and holler "SURPRISE!"? Behind the couch?
<peeking>
Nope. Wait--don't tell me... behind the refrigerator?
<peeking>
> It's all right though.
Yeah, 'cause I'm still havin' fun, no thanks to *you*, Haddad. Go crawl
under yer rock, we're all about to have a party here.
Mr. Stan! I got it! I know where the rest of the MW MIGS are hidin'!
<scampering upstairs, opening closet, and peeking behind
hanging skirts>
summabitch.
> This is a different incident from the one I promised not to bring up again.
[KICK!]
Are you still here? Still tellin' yer stupid lies? No wonder the Party
Peeps won't pop up and holler! Don't you have more RL blackmailing of
newsgroup peeps to brag about elsewhere?
SECURITY! Toss out this garbage, it's stinkin' up the place.
<going to Castle Control Panel and keying in
DECONTAMINATION SEQUENCE>
<Boodles grabs the babbling Haddad with long forceps
and drags him out>
> You haven't changed a bit. Still bragging. Still doing the same old Stan thing, whatever that is.
<snapping fingers>
Of course! The Stan Thing!
<DECONTAMINATION SEQUENCE In Progress lights flash>
<performing 1960's, Twist-esque kinda dance and singing>
"Do the Stan Thing! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Baby, Baby, everyone's doin' the Stan Thing!
I am Stan as you are Stan as they are Stan
And we are all together Stan (the) Man
When we're doin' the Stan Thing!
Bay-ay-bee! Do the Stan Thing!
Koo-koo-kachoo! Do the Stan Thing!
Hey, hey, hey! I'm doin' the Stan Thing!"
</dancing and singing>
Neat, huh? WHERE'S MY PARTY?
WHERE ARE MY PRESENTS?!
--
Sylvia <--- thrilled!
(did I mention that my BIRTHDAY is on April 23rd?)
Sylvia
Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
<snip>
> >Nor have you, Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive, lying,
> >steaming, pile of shit.
.
> Forgot this message then?
> Message-ID: <Xns99E8E38029D7Dne...@130.81.64.196>
>
> From that message:
[separating message because the Idiot Haddad, who does not understand
Usenet, messed up the current attributions the way he did it]
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:21:52 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM>
> instead replied:
> >"Cleverly done" <V...@Extnet.net> wrote in
> >news:hqM_i.8029$3Z2....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
> >
> >> BTW, I haven't seen Sylvia online in a while. innybody know
> >> if she's okay?
> >
> >She's fine. Busy unpacking.
.
Huh. Wot an odd post... why the hell would Gene Royer give a damn about
one of my absences from MW? I mean, we've never bothered with each other
in Houston, and all of a sudden he was worried about me in MW? Bizzaro...
And, wot's that got to do with Mr. Stan's factual statement of:
"[...] Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive,
lying, steaming, pile of shit" ?
> No innuendo, Stan. Your own words.
<staring>
Of course there ain't no "innuendo". Look up the word, Haddad. Mr. Stan
clearly wrote:
"[...] Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive,
lying, steaming, pile of shit"
Then you posted that old post about "Is the Supreme Ruler Doin' OK?"
"Yeah, she's busy".
WOt's that got to do with:
"[...] Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive,
lying, steaming, pile of shit" ?
> Lie your way out of that one.
How is an old post of Mr. Stan sayin' that I was fine but busy
contradict his statement of:
"[...] Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive,
lying, steaming, pile of shit"
Are you suggestin' that Mr. Stan would ever deny :
"[...] Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive,
lying, steaming, pile of shit" ?
<shrug>
Mr. Stan, please assure The Idiot Haddad that you ain't denying wot you
said to him. You, know, this:
"[...] Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive,
lying, steaming, pile of shit"
Mebbe he'll shut up and I can find out what happened to my PARTY.
--
Sylvia
"[...] Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive,
lying, steaming, pile of shit"
-- Mr. Stan to Ray Haddad
PJ
news:sylvia-16B12E....@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
[pugnacious snippage]
> (did I mention that my BIRTHDAY is on April 23rd?)
Did I mention that my birthday WAS on September 1st?
<sticking tongue out>
~ ~ ~
PJ
Jackson Pillock
No one tells me how to sacrifice my child!
Sylvia
> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
>
> >Ray Haddad wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> > Is there *anything* about you that isn't ridiculous, contemptible or
> > repulsive?
.
> So you're saying that everything about Ray and his entire life is
> ridiculous, contemptible, and repulsive?
That's called a "rhetorical question". That means that, although phrased
as a question, wot Mr. Stan actually wrote was a statement. It gets
tricksy sometimes, but that's the way this English language thingy
works, boots. You have to pick up on the nuances.
Consdering the oogie Haddadian subject matter, you should have figured
that out right away.
Yer not getting back to that
So-not-fun-cranky-old-man-snapping-at-everyone place again are you?
You want that on yer Permanent Record? How would you explain that on MW
Parent/Teachers Night?
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
> boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> >"Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> >
> >>Ray Haddad wrote:
> ><snipped>
> >
> >> Is there *anything* about you that isn't ridiculous, contemptible or
> >> repulsive?
.
> >So you're saying that everything about Ray and his entire life is
> >ridiculous, contemptible, and repulsive?
About an hour later:
> Aintcha gonna ATFQ, Stan?
Guess he didn't hear the Posting Time Limit warning buzzer sound.
gawd. S'matter, boots, you plannin' on buyin' the farm today or are you
just hangin' out waiting for certain peeps to post like Haddad does?
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
> boots wrote:
> > boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >
> >> "Stan (the Man)" <srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ray Haddad wrote:
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >>> Is there *anything* about you that isn't ridiculous, contemptible or
> >>> repulsive?
> >> So you're saying that everything about Ray and his entire life is
> >> ridiculous, contemptible, and repulsive?
> >
> > Aintcha gonna ATFQ, Stan?
>
> I'm not aware of anything about Ray that isn't ridiculous, contemptible
> or repulsive. I'll add that I'm not aware of anyone normal who sees him
> in any other way.
"there are two types of mwers. those who continue
to defend and enable Ray Haddad, and those with
self-respect (and a sense of decency)."
-- Mr. $Zero
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
Ultraviolet <viol...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "PJ" <autho...@gmail.com> left the cake out in the rain:
>
> <>
>
> [to Ray Haddad]
> > Why oh why do you do this shit?
>
>
> Because he's an asshole. It isn't that complicated.
Sig! DIBS!
--
Sylvia
Miz PJ [to Ray Haddad]: "Why oh why do you do this shit?"
Miz Ultraviolet: "Because he's an asshole. It isn't that complicated."
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> instead
replied:
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:35:12 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Stan (the Man)" <srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> instead
>> replied:
>>
>>> Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:05:03 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>> and "Stan (the Man)" <srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> instead
>>>> replied:
>>>>
>>>>> Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:34:08 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>>>> and "Stan (the Man)" <srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> instead
>>>>>> replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:06:44 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>>>>>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> FOIA-express is the fastest possible means of sending something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> never arrives, ask Ray for details.
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, I remember now. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know I never got a response?
>>>>>>>>> Because you said that when you got it you would post it here, whatever
>>>>>>>>> it said. You wouldn't lie, now, would you, lying scum? Oops! Seems I
>>>>>>>>> answered that one myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>> Actually, if you were paying attention, I did post them here. Sorry
>>>>>>>> you missed them. You were probably helping Sylvia unpack.
>>>>>>> Back to your ugly implications, eh, lying scum?. You are, without
>>>>>>> question, the biggest, steamiest pile of shit ever to stink up a ng,
>>>>>>> Ray. Is there any level you won't stoop to in your attempts to get even
>>>>>>> with people who out your lies? Is there *anything* about you that isn't
>>>>>>> ridiculous, contemptible or repulsive?
>>>>>> Why, Stanley, what's wrong with you? You were the one who pointed
>>>>>> out that she was busy unpacking when someone noted her absence from
>>>>>> MW. Are you denying it now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's all right though. This is a different incident from the one I
>>>>>> promised not to bring up again. You haven't changed a bit. Still
>>>>>> bragging. Still doing the same old Stan thing, whatever that is.
>>>>> Nor have you, Ray. You're still and will always be a repulsive, lying,
>>>>> steaming, pile of shit.
>>>> Forgot this message then?
>>>> Message-ID: <Xns99E8E38029D7Dne...@130.81.64.196>
>>>>
>>>> From that message:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:21:52 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>>>
>>>>> "Cleverly done" <V...@Extnet.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:hqM_i.8029$3Z2....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I haven't seen Sylvia online in a while. innybody know if she's
>>>>>> okay?
>>>>> She's fine. Busy unpacking.
>>>> No innuendo, Stan. Your own words. Lie your way out of that one.
>>> I'll ask you again, Ray: Is there *anything* about you that isn't,
>>> ridiculous, contemptible or repulsive?
>>
>> Your own words, Stan. Isn't that the apology you make for Sylvia?
>>
>> Your own words, Stan.
>
>It's ok, Ray. No one expected you to answer. I'll answer for you: There
>is *nothing* about you that isn't ridiculous, contemptible or repulsive.
They're your own words, Stan.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and "PJ" <autho...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
>news:83ggr3le772fjldut...@4ax.com...
>
>> Forgot this message then?
>> Message-ID: <Xns99E8E38029D7Dne...@130.81.64.196>
>>
>> From that message:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:21:52 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>
>>>"Cleverly done" <V...@Extnet.net> wrote in
>>>news:hqM_i.8029$3Z2....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>>
>>>> BTW, I haven't seen Sylvia online in a while. innybody know if she's
>>>> okay?
>>>
>>>She's fine. Busy unpacking.
>>
>> No innuendo, Stan. Your own words. Lie your way out of that one.
>
>So following that *logic* ... I go on a business trip, I email Alan and say
>"Hey Alan, I won't be in touch for a while, going away on business," and a
>week or so later someone posts to the newsgroup "BTW, I haven't seen PJ
>online in a while. innybody know if she's okay?" and Alan responds with
>"She's fine. Busy unpacking," you'll assume that the reason he knows I'm
>unpacking is because we're together and he's helping me? And then you'll do
>something really slimy like post to Alan: "Sorry you missed them. You were
>probably helping [PJ] unpack" and then crank up the degree of sliminess by
>posting "Why, [Alan], what's wrong with you? You were the one who pointed
>out that she was busy unpacking when someone noted her absence from MW. Are
>you denying it now?"?
Try it and see what happens. That's the only way to know for
certain, PJ. Think about it. Would you be happy if anyone you were
visiting mentioned that you were busy unpacking? Believe me, someone
would be right along to comment on it. Regarding Stan's words,
perhaps you should be addressing him. He wrote them. Not me.
>Why oh why do you do this shit?
Let's see. How about a year of constant haranguing from those two?
Just giving back as good as I get. Don't take it personal. It's not.
--
Ray
Ultraviolet
<>
> They're your own words, Stan.
It's amusing to picture Haddad lying on the floor kicking his feets and
crying these words over and over again.
Ultraviolet
<>
> Just giving back as good as I get. Don't take it personal.
You wish.
Stan (the Man)
> Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> left the cake out in the rain:
>
> <>
>
>> They're your own words, Stan.
>
>
> It's amusing to picture Haddad lying on the floor kicking his feets and
> crying these words over and over again.
Poor scum says he's being "harangued." He's turning into as big a whiner
as his little suck pump, Joshie. Yet, he thinks he gives as good as he
gets. Gotta admit, that's funny.
--
Stan
Ray Haddad
Ultraviolet <viol...@newsguy.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> left the cake out in the rain:
>
><>
>
>> They're your own words, Stan.
>
>It's amusing to picture Haddad lying on the floor kicking his feets and
>crying these words over and over again.
Oh, you mean like Stan's words and Sylvia's words? Their repetition
must have you gasping for air, Paula.
So, tell me. Whose words were they? You seem to have a better story
in there somewhere. Let it out.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
Ultraviolet <viol...@newsguy.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> left the cake out in the rain:
>
><>
>
>> Just giving back as good as I get. Don't take it personal.
>
>You wish.
Judging by their response and yours, I'd say I'm well ahead.
--
Ray