Charles Demas wrote:

In article ,
Dan Logcher wrote:

Charles Demas wrote:


In article ,
Michael wrote:


Scawny Dog Johnson wrote in message
anews.com...


On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:02:44 GMT, Dan Logcher
wrote:



Well, I was returning from some Christmas shopping at
a distance mall, driving down the high not far from my
favorite sushi bar and decided to have lunch.


Dan, This newsgroup is not titled, alt.whatdan.hadforlunch.
What makes you think we are even slightly interested in what you had


Snipping of bozo's mind fart.

Keep it up Dan, about as on topic as possible.


I'm surprised that you rose to the bait Michael.

Look at who you're responding to.

Dan hardly needs encouragement to keep posting and I suspect that that
ole fry cook just love seeing Dan rise to his bait *EACH* *AND* *EVERY*
time he throws out a hook.

It annoys me that Dan can't restrain himself from responding, and
reresponding again, but I expected better from you, Michael.

Why does it annoy you? He doesn't get a rise out of me, just a
response. A rise would be if I were ****ed off or something, and
I know he's just a nobody Frycook (all of his multiple personalities).


OK, but just remember, you asked for an explanation.

He's generally disruptive in this newsgroup, and would go away if
he weren't getting responses. I'd prefer that he went away unfulfilled.

As long as you keep responding to him, he'll stick around,

WHICH IS'NT WHAT I WANT!

DON'T YOU GET IT DAN?

YOU'RE GIVING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS!

As I see it, there are two explanations:

1. You're really that f**king stupid.

2. You're really the fry cook and you're playing a very clever game.

Whichever it is, I find it annoying, and FWIW, I don't think it's
explanation number 2.

3. Maybe I do it expressly to annoy you.

4. I don't see it as giving him anything.

He's not going away, and neither am I. You should lighten up, Chuck.
It's not good for ones health to be all annoyed at such trivial things.

--
Dan