Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Liars on UseNet and H2O exposed! --- 1

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Apokrisis1

unread,
Nov 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/8/99
to
As you can, there ae folks here posting under their fake names, who do the same
on H2O, and who are lying to others here and there about recent events.

I hope the following two posts clear things up. It wont for them, of course,
because they are so spiritually bankrupt they cannot even pay attention.

Here you go:
_____________________

Let me explain two things first: I have agreed to limit my participation on
discussion boards and in chat rooms for the benefit of my brothers and sisters.
I do not agree entirely with the reasoning behind it, but I will go along with
the wishes of others whom I respect, to a degree. I am not in "danger" as Alan
and others suggested. I will have more to say about their imaginings below. But
when I see out and out dishonest vilification taking place when those
performing such devilish acts of slander are totally unaware of what REALLY
happened, then I believe it is necessary for me to offer some additional
comments.

Do any of you, except Adam Covington, AF, and possibly a few others, realize
that there were TWO Travis posts? Did you not realize that the second post was
where I made it as clear as I could what was going on, under the circumstances,
and even requested that those who did not understand what I said email me? BOTH
posts were deleted for some unknown reason.

Now, if you did not see the second post, then when AF MISLEADINGLY reposted my
deleted POST (note the use of the singular) below, then of course you would
have been and likely were utterly confused. Don't get me wrong, I should never
have attempted to post under another name to get around the attempt to limit my
online activities, but I did. However, what has happened here over the past two
or three days is far more ludicrous than anything I tried to do. Let me share
some FACTS with you that you just might have overlooked. In what follows I will
comment primarily on posts by AF, JH, Gedanken, RW, and a couple other matters.
If this does not make it clear that folks like these are fooling you, nothing
will. Please, consider:


AF
Stafford's Deleted Post
Posted by AF [AF] on November 04, 1999 at 07:53:14
{yxewwqp4aADjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

END OF QUOTE

Here is the misleading repost of my deleted material, with only ONE of the
posts! What happened to the other one, AF? Of course, even though you misled
people here, you at least admitted certain things that were completely ignored
by others, which I will discuss below, and for that I give you some credit. But
since there were TWO deleted posts, your new thread is without question
misleading and irresponsible, and has led to the false conclusions, such as the
following post, made in response to Adam Covington:


Posted by Julie [Julie] on November 06, 1999 at 14:12:35
{p8g/8h8r5QT.q0qzQJj2RyqclwWKXQ}:
Af is just too gracious about the whole thing, IMO. As for you, I'm sure Greg
is a personal hero of yours so you can't possibly be expected to be objective.
Julie


END OF QUOTE

It has nothing to do with that, Julie. AF KNOWS what happened and he is,
indeed, at least admitting as much in certain replies on certain threads (see
below). But you are not aware of what truly happened since BOTH posts were
deleted, and therefore, to use your own words, you "can't possibly be expected
to be objective."

On the one hand, it is hard to imagine how so many people could present a
one-sided view of my mistake. But on the other hand I am speaking partly in
reference to persons like Gedanken and JH, both of whom specialize in
misinformation (supporting facts to follow). Gedanken does not offer any
scholarly reply to the material and instead proceeds based on a
misunderstanding of the issues, and he defamed me publicly. Consider, please,
his reply to barJonah:


Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999
at 02:20:20:
bJ
:If nothing else, I hope this message from Greg will give pause to some of
those who were so quick to jump all over him in the last few days.
I don't see why it would. He deserves all he has received and more. The man has
shown himself to be (a) deceitful, (b) an arrogant and boastful liar and (c) an
idiot by doing what he did. He could make some amends by apologizing but he is,
evidently, too arrogant even to do that. Let's put things in perspective; an
author of a book tries to pose as an independent and unbiased onlooker on a
noticeboard and then proceeds to label his critics liars while declaring
himself the "winner." At the same time he indulges in a level of self-praise
that can only be described as nauseating.

END OF QUOTE

JH added his own highly unusual (!) personal attack, in response to Cygnus:

Posted by J.H. [JH] on November 05, 1999 at 16:41:22
{6xiCHW3gJ2wxcT1WLj/AHR5JhS9/hc}:
In Reply to: **AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Cygnus on November 05, 1999
at 15:27:09:
: Greg's maneuver was one of desperation, and I think you can grant him that,
can't you?
Not at all. There was nothing in his situation
Remember: We can talk with authority on the matter, because we were where Greg
is now, and we did not practice intellectual dishonesty, deceit and most
recently, outright intentional fraud with the petty motive of
self-congratulation.
What he did is more pathetic, ridiculous and dishonest than anything people
like YK or ABK has ever done here. Stafford deserves to be taken less seriously
than them.

END OF QUOTE


So even though barJonah and Cygnus, while they themselves were concerned about
the nature of my use of a different name, which I will explain, again, in just
one moment, could see the poor nature of what Gedanken and JH has said. I
appreciate the fact that, while they do not agree with my course of action,
they were at least understanding enough to realize that these two fellows were
at least partially out of line. The truth is, they stepped out of bounds a long
time ago.

Indeed, I would have to argue that JH and Gedanken revealed just how ignorant
they truly are, given the FACTS surrounding my situation. Both of these
good-natured fellows, with only the best of intentions, of course, chose to
attack me based on their false understanding of what happened, after I decided
to depart. Of course, this is the same JH who was caught hiding in the corner
with his tail between his legs after getting utterly humiliated (by his doing)
on issues involving the pronunciation of the divine name several months back.
His act was one of the more memorable an unfortunate displays of
pseudo-scholarship I have ever seen. No doubt that is why he is all too happy
to jump the gun in attacking me now. More recently I offered him another
opportunity to defend his indefensible and contradictory claims about the
divine name, but he did not want any part of that unsalvageable operation. If
you think I am being hard on JH, let me introduce you to a quintessential JH
argument:

JH (Posted by [JH] on November 05, 1999 at 16:48:08
{6xiCHW3gJ2wxcT1WLj/AHR5JhS9/hc}:
I did, already then, consider Stafford to be a total joke in every acedemic
regard. He had learned a lot of fancy words to pull the wool over your eyes
(and, even more, the rank & file JWs eyes!), and you didn't believe me when I
told you he was a 100% bluff and a fraud, so intellectually dishonest he's way
beyond debate.
Well, I think I got that one right :-)

END OF QUOTE

Those familiar with this joker know that the above is quite representative of
his "acedemic" prowess. Actually, he was a bit toned down in his above remarks,
from his usual demeanor. As for being a "bluff" and a "fraud," if JH has the
gumption to reenter the debate over the divine name, I will gladly bring
everyone up to speed by showing you what a fraud he truly is, and then proceed
to address whatever else he has to say. If anyone is interested in the posts we
exchanged, I will gladly supply them. Just send me an email.

But here he is, on the bandwagon of misunderstanding and deceit being driven
into the ground by Gedanken.

Let me further explain why these two are as about as low as you can go on the
honesty meter:

I have already said that it was not a good decision on my end, to try and stay
involved in the discussion by assuming a different name, but that was not meant
to fool any of YOU! How is it that my follow-up message to my first one is
being so conveniently ignored? Why was it deleted AND NOT REPOSTED along with
the first message? I there made it clear, or at least tried to make it clear,
that I was now posting under a new name. I created a character for myself who
stood up for the issues that I wanted to continue to discuss, namely, those
issues expressed in my debate with AF, and essentially TOLD YOU that that is
what I was going to do, from now on. I even asked you to email me if there were
any questions about it. I did not even know that my name was still there, until
after posting the SECOND message, the one many of you are ignoring, for obvious
reasons.

In the first message I was, of course, highlighting my response in a positive
light, but I purposely limited my negative remarks about AF and his material. I
said he had lost to this point, and that is quite true, and I said it so
"Travis" could then defend these claims by assuming the debate! I also said
that AF was A BIT arrogant, and that is demonstrably true in view of his
repeated attempts to prove things about the INTENTIONS of persons who wrote for
the Society, which he cannot prove, and his purposefully limiting the options
to incompetence and deception, when other possibilities exist. Indeed, he
BARELY allowed for the incompetence option. But I am sure we will hear his
reasoning on this in his forthcoming reply, which I eagerly await.

But, again, how else could I have masked my presence, with the intentions I
previously stated, and still have drawn the fire of the discussion? Could I
have said, "I am now going to take Greg's place in the debate, I am ..."? Yes,
maybe I could have, and should have. But would that not have sounded a LITTLE
bit suspicious? Would you not have found yourself wondering, "WHO is this guy?"
The events that happened early that morning no doubt distorted my better
judgment. But these claims of dishonesty, of being a charlatan, etc., are a
joke. They are the meaningless and insupportable cries of victory from those of
Gedanken's ilk (see below, please). I mean, think about, what I did was so I
could CONTINUE talking with you folks at H2O! Actually, I guess that probably
should give me cause for pause, and serious reevaluation. It has.

I will, however, continue the debate with AF. Why was that ever in doubt? Why
would I let him go, now? I look forward to his reply. As I have said several
times already, if you think there is a portion of the debate that I have not
adequately handled, EMAIL ME! I have only received a couple of emails, neither
of which contained any direct reference to anything in the debate, but only a
summary of the person's opinion. So, instead of taking cheap shots at me, tell
me something worthwhile. Show me something other than your ability to dismantle
and mishandle my TWO posts, which, when taken together, are quite clear, or
should have been.

HOWEVER, while JH's and Gedanken's utter failure to perceive the clear meaning
of the second Travis post (again, why has that been lost by everyone?) is one
thing, how could they not have picked up on the two people who seemed to have
understood my intent rather clearly, namely, AC and AF. Consider:

Posted by Adam Covington [AdamCovington] on November 05, 1999 at 01:36:08
{6xiCHW3gJ2/CPYT8orz2qRFwJ6xIkI}:
In Reply to: Stafford's Deleted Post posted by AF on November 04, 1999 at
07:53:14:
AF,
I have been away from this board for a few days, and could not understand what
had transpired. After reading the TravisJ45 post, I now see what the fuss was
all about.
I did find a post from Greg stating the following:
:Since I am involved in this discussion with AF, I decided to use another name
for a JW participant, with which I could continue my discussion with AF, having
stood up for "Greg's" material, and thus drawing his attention to the "new kid"
on the block. In using a friend's email address I had hoped to be able to
continue in this manner, but without stumbling my brothers.:
From what I gather, Greg purposely posted the TravisJ45 so as to continue the
discussion under an assumed name, in hopes of concealing his identity. I now
believe he felt it best not to do so. I do not believe that the TravisJ45 post
was made for any other reason, than what he stated above.
AC


END OF QUOTE


AF responded with the following:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 05, 1999 at 06:00:52
{6xiCHW3gJ2DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: *Stafford's Deleted Post posted by Adam Covington on November 05,
1999 at 01:36:08:
: I do not believe that the TravisJ45 post was made for any other reason, than
what he stated above.

I think you're right. However, it's pretty obvious that he went off the deep
end under the stress of threats from the Society. Had he been thinking clearly,
he would have seen that a simple "I agree with Greg and disagree with AF, and
will state my reasons in subsequent posts" would have been sufficient. That
would have been appropriate even when he messed up on hiding his identity.
As for the stress, I suspect you're still a JW, so you have no idea how
shocking it is when Mommie takes off the velvet glove and bashes you upside the
head. People have been known to do far worse than merely embarrass themselves
by exposing their arrogance for the world to laugh at.
AF


END OF QUOTE:

So while AF accepts what AC says, he then adds his own perspective on the
matter, in relation to the action taken by the Society, which I will further
explain below. As for the "arrogance for the world to laugh at," please, get
real. If you think that using a different name, and telling those on the board,
or at least hoping to, selectively, that this is what I have chosen to do in
order to remain involved in the debate, in the cyberworld OF different names
and aliases, is 'embarrassing,' then you should think again.

The only thing that is embarrassing is how a number of people on this board
have twisted the facts about the situation, and the glee with which they have
launched personal attack after personal attack. I mean, these guys have not
just said, "Well, that was stupid," or "C'mon, Greg, use what little brains
you've got," no, they have gone far beyond even their previously known
abilities for substituting legitimate argumentation with character
assassination.

What is even more revealing is that AC posted the essence of what he told AF,
to Gedanken:

Posted by Adam Covington [AdamCovington] on November 05, 1999 at 19:57:16
{6xiCHW3gJ2/CPYT8orz2qRFwJ6xIkI}:
In Reply to: *AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Gedanken on November 05, 1999
at 12:06:54:
Gedanken,
I dont agree with your handling of Greg Stafford's posting under the name
"TravisJ45". It is rather obvious was his intentions were as he himself said:
:Since I am involved in this discussion with AF, I decided to use another name
for a JW participant, with which I could continue my discussion with AF, having
stood up for "Greg's" material, and thus drawing his attention to the "new kid"
on the block. In using a friend's email address I had hoped to be able to
continue in this manner, but without stumbling my brothers.:
As I stated to Alan, from what I gather, Greg purposely posted the TravisJ45 so
as to continue the discussion under an assumed name, in hopes of concealing his
identity. I now believe he felt it best not to do so. I do not believe that the
TravisJ45 post was made for any other reason, than what he stated above.
Alan himself agreed to the above, and would hope that others would stop the
whining and screaming and notice the real intent of that post.
AC

END OF QUOTE

Gedanken has yet to reply to this post from AC, even though he has replied to
several others. Indeed, Gedanken makes a very interesting admission. I am sure
you will find it interesting, too:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 15:50:57
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: **AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Cygnus on November 05, 1999
at 15:27:09:
Cygnus,
My problem is not with him trying to post under a different identity but with
his using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising himself.


END OF QUOTE

Well, that is sure a switch (see below)! From the above we see that Gedanken's
"problem" is "with [my] using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising
himself." Of course, while my statement about Alan being arrogant may have been
new, in terms of my opinion, if anyone here thinks I do not believe Alan has
lost and continues to lose in this debate, what did you think I thought? Not
only that, but I TOLD YOU that **I** was the one who thought it!

The only embarrassing part about this whole thing is that I regret my brothers
and sisters may have been confused about why I did what I did, namely, to keep
the knowledge of my posting to this board from them. For that, I am truly
sorry, but please be assured that I did what I THOUGHT was best, and erred in
my judgment, under the circumstances (see below), in order to defend the truth.
But Gedanken is either lying or trying to get out of the embarrassing situation
of having totally overshot his mark, by failing to accept or by ignoring my
intent, as stated above by AC, and confirmed by AF. Gedanken wrote in response
to barJonah:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999
at 02:20:20:
bJ
:If nothing else, I hope this message from Greg will give pause to some of
those who were so quick to jump all over him in the last few days.

I don't see why it would. He deserves all he has received and more. The man has
shown himself to be (a) deceitful, (b) an arrogant and boastful liar and (c) an
idiot by doing what he did.

END OF QUOTE

Well, where would the deceit have been if not in using a different name? So,
when he says, "My problem is not with him trying to post under a different
identity but with his using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising
himself," he is lying to try and cover over the fact that he completely
mishandled the Travis posts. Of course, his vilification continued, in spite
of his misguided attack:

Gedanken (Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 17:13:07
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:

Jan,
That was my opinion too after reading his book. Every single thing he has said
on this board has only served to confirm that opinion. I sometimes think that
too many people on this board view academic integrity and intellectual honesty
as being optional. It is beyond me how anyone could have anything at all
positive to say about such a pompous fraud. If the guy were a physician he
would be selling snake oil.
Gedanken


END OF QUOTE

Also, according to Gedanken:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 18:15:04
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: ****AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Rick on November 05, 1999
at 17:55:57:
Rick,
Is it true or is it not? He is a published author and he is propagating many
things that the Society teaches which we know to be lies, plain and simple.
Further, and by necessity, he uses lying and deceit to do this under the guise
of being a "scholar." How else can one say it?
Gedanken


END OF QUOTE

Funny, I do not recall proclaiming myself to be anything special. Why the
quotes around "scholar," Gedanken? Is that "scholar" in a quasi sense? Or are
you quoting something I said? Of course, you know where this is going to lead,
do you not (see below)? My books stands on its own, and you have certainly done
nothing to argue effectively against it, as I will show momentarily, after
further exposing your double-talk.

If you ask Gedanken about what he thinks concerning the debate and how he views
himself, he will tell you:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999
at 02:20:20:

However, I have no interest whatsoever in debating someone as intellectually
dishonest as is Stafford. In any case, only a half-wit could conclude that AF
did not only win the debate but did so by several miles. As an academic myself
I cannot begin to describe how appalled I am by the way that Stafford has
misused and sullied the mantle of scholarship. He is a disgrace and a
charlatan.

END OF QUOTE

There are a number of problems with the above: 1) He claims to have "no
interest" in debating with me because I am "intellectually dishonest." But from
his own mouth he convicts himself of asininity, saying:

Gedanken (Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 17:13:07
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:

Jan,
That was my opinion too after reading his book. Every single thing he has said
on this board has only served to confirm that opinion. I sometimes think that
too many people on this board view academic integrity and intellectual honesty
as being optional.

END OF QUOTE


So Gedanken knew after reading my first edition, and from everything I have
said on this board since I have been here, that I am "intellectually
dishonest"! If that is the case, and if he is being truthful when stating that
he has "no interest whatsoever in debating someone as intellectually dishonest
as is Stafford," then why did he write a response to my Chapter 9 back on
October 11: Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on October 11, 1999 at 18:12:51
{mEtmxYJNyoHdgEG/iekYGxDfY}?

Gedanken does not know which way is up, and that is why he merely shows himself
capable only of insulting remarks over an issue he has horribly misunderstood
and miscommunicated to others. Below I will consider a part of his October 11
reply, a full consideration of which will follow my discussion with AF, as I
previously stated. But we also learn from Gedanken's above remarks that "only a
half-wit could conclude that AF did not only win the debate but did so by
several miles." Of course, Gedanken does not even give ONE example from my
rather lengthy discussion with AF thus far, to support his claim. I doubt he
even read them.


SEE NEXT MESSAGE

Mean Mister Mustard

unread,
Nov 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/8/99
to
On 08 Nov 1999 14:54:56 GMT, Apokrisis1 <apokr...@aol.com> wrote:

>As you can, there ae folks here posting under their fake names, who do the same
>on H2O, and who are lying to others here and there about recent events.

Oh my God! What's happening here?!? Is H2O trying to swallow
a.r.j-w ?!?!?!?!? Help!!! Help!!! Hel....

<gurgling sounds and much foamy blood rising to the water's surface>


--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
~
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 1 line, 40 characters

Sherwood

unread,
Nov 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/8/99
to

Tinky wrote:

> On 08 Nov 1999 14:54:56 GMT, apokr...@aol.com (Apokrisis1) wrote:
>
> >As you can, there ae folks here posting under their fake names, who do the same
> >on H2O, and who are lying to others here and there about recent events.
>

> Well Greg? Since you're not using the name Travis anymore, can I
> borrow it???? ;o)
>
> You're perception is askew if you think this makes you look "better".

Your FLUFFY hypocrisy knows no bounds. You don't know him "for sure" I take it?
What a crock!

Later


Sherwood

unread,
Nov 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/9/99
to

Tinky wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 23:47:30 -0700, Sherwood <skto...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tinky wrote:
> >
> >> On 08 Nov 1999 14:54:56 GMT, apokr...@aol.com (Apokrisis1) wrote:
> >>

> >> >As you can, there ae folks here posting under their fake names, who do the same
> on H2O, and who are lying to others here and there about recent events.
> >>

> >> Well Greg? Since you're not using the name Travis anymore, can I borrow it????
> ;o)
> >>
> >> You're perception is askew if you think this makes you look "better".
> >
> >Your FLUFFY hypocrisy knows no bounds. You don't know him "for sure" I take it?
> >What a crock!
>

> Sher....you keep on strokin Greg....he might even let YOU use the name Travis!!!

FLUFFY ,,, what do you care as you know his name. I believe they call people that have
your mentality "airheads" :-0) with big mouths. ,, hehe

Later


> (look at me copy sherwood's lines shamelessly)C'est la vie!
>
> Tinks


Clipper

unread,
Nov 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/10/99
to

Sherwood <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3829139C...@ix.netcom.com>...


> FLUFFY ,,, what do you care as you know his name. I believe they call
people that have
> your mentality "airheads" :-0) with big mouths. ,, hehe

> ===============

See how they think.... *GAG*.... keep those doors shut people. Don't
let them in.
--
Carol......
---<---<---({@ ---<---<---({@ ---<---<---({@ ---<---<---({@

Mean Mister Mustard

unread,
Nov 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/10/99
to
On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:54:29 GMT, Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The amoeba effect..........argh!!! I gotta get over there and see
>what fake names everybody is using!!!

Maybe that's a contest we could periodically have in
a.r.j-w. Instead of guessing the number of jellybeans in a
jar, we could guess the number of fake names being used in
H2O! The winners get a boxed set of zip disks containing
all the posts Carol has ever written! I mean, that way
it's a guarantee that everyone will want to play....

Mean Mister Mustard

unread,
Nov 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/10/99
to
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:41:39 GMT, Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>C'est la Vie (does it bother you that i use this Shermie? I thought
>we were getting tight, it's kinda like wearing your letterjacket)

Hey! It's starting to feel like Home Coming around here!
Strike up the band! Nothing like a John Philip Sherwood
march to warm the virtual heart!

"The drones go marching one by one
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching two by two
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching three by three
the little one stopped to work for free

(doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo)

And they all go marching down
to the hall
to get out
of this systum tum tum
dumb dumb dumb dumb

The drones go marching four by four
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching five by five
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching six by six
the little one stopped to shun his sis

(doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo)

And they all go marching down
to the hall
to get out
of this systum tum tum
dumb dumb dumb dumb

The drones go marching seven by seven
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching eight by eight
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching nine by nine
the little one stopped to report his time

(doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo)

And they all go marching down
to the hall
to get out
of this systum tum tum
dumb dumb dumb dumb

the drones go marching ten by ten
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching ten by ten
hurrah, hurrah
the drones go marching ten by ten
the little one stopped to say, 'The End!'
(of this system of things)

(doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo-DEE-doo)

And they all go marching down
to the hall
to get out
of this systum tum tum
dumb dumb dumb dumb....."

Sherwood

unread,
Nov 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/10/99
to
Sounded monotone.

Later

Sherwood

unread,
Nov 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/12/99
to

Tinky wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:54:33 -0700, Sherwood <skto...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sounded monotone.
>
> Shermie......you're slipping. I actually understood this post!

FLUFFY,,, I meant , I couldn't get into the rhythm of the song,,,, not
that I didn't understand it. sheeesh

Later


Mean Mister Mustard

unread,
Nov 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/15/99
to
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:57:20 GMT, Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Maybe that's a contest we could periodically have in
>>a.r.j-w. Instead of guessing the number of jellybeans in a
>>jar, we could guess the number of fake names being used in
>>H2O! The winners get a boxed set of zip disks containing
>>all the posts Carol has ever written! I mean, that way
>>it's a guarantee that everyone will want to play....
>

>I never win those!! But i'm pretty good at "boxers or briefs?"... ;o)

Well, that's well and good until you meet a guy who prefers
wearing undergear usually more closely associated with the
opposite gender, or the occasional guy willing to play
Russian roulette with a zipper.... <ouch!>

Mean Mister Mustard

unread,
Nov 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/15/99
to
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 05:31:29 GMT, Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Well, that's well and good until you meet a guy who prefers
>>wearing undergear usually more closely associated with the
>>opposite gender, or the occasional guy willing to play
>>Russian roulette with a zipper.... <ouch!>
>

>Oh i have!!! Remind me to tell you the story about the theiving cross
>dresser and the pug poo that exposed him for the perp that he
>was...(whew say THAT 5 times fast!) :o)

Sorry! My tongue's too syrupy!

>And the Russian roulette? hmmmm all's i got ta say about that is:
>God Bless Russia.......

All I can say is that I prefer Fruit of the Loom to Tooth
of the Zipper....

Mean Mister Mustard

unread,
Nov 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/17/99
to
In article <38324648...@news.zebra.net>,
spydr...@yahoo.com (Tinky) wrote:

> >Sorry! My tongue's too syrupy!
>

> Heeeey! That's just a sugar-coated excuse for not wanting to hear my
> freaky story! *laffing*

Any recommendations on a good syrup substitute? I don't care whether
or not the FDA approves, mind you....

> >All I can say is that I prefer Fruit of the Loom to Tooth
> >of the Zipper....
>

> Sounds like a "stealth" model to me.......;o}

It wouldn't be the first time someone had difficulty picking it up
on their radar.... :-( ;-)


--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
~
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 1 line, 40 characters


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

0 new messages