Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if he's
posted any excuses that you can spot?
--
Fosco Gamgee Whitfurrows
and his 6" boner

On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if he's
posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts. It's particularly helpful if you are in the habit
of arguing on Usenet but don't want to have to back up the claims
you make in those arguments. If your detractors can't look up
what you said, you can claim that you never said what you did, or
that your detractors have misconstrued what you said. For obvious
reasons, 'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

-sw

"Steve Wertz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if
he's
posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts.

So...you're saying that Nick may have and probably did make excuses in the
past for some reason but there's no way we can prove it. Verrrrrrrrrrrrrry
interes-tink!

--
Fosco Gamgee Whitfurrows
and his 6" boner

"Steve Wertz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 21:24:12 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

"Steve Wertz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if
he's
posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts.

So...you're saying that Nick may have and probably did make excuses in
the
past for some reason but there's no way we can prove it.
Verrrrrrrrrrrrrry
interes-tink!

Actually that was Kevin who said that :-)

Funny, I was wonderin' if maybe you were bein' spoofed for a minute. I
remember you guys goin' around about that.

But... I did look in my personal archives (3 years worth) :-)
There's plenty of examples of him saying "excuse this or that",
but not in a way that could be construed as him making any sort of
"excuses". It's kind of hard to search on "Find Nick making an
excuse". I sent off my database and query to the Supercomputing
Center at MIT and maybe they devise a search for it. If they can't
find it....

Wow they're good - I got a response back already. They said that
Nick Cramer made an excuse that he was taking antibiotics for the
reason he couldn't drink alcohol.

That'll be $5, please.

Your checks in the mail, Steve. I will Xpost this to abf. For evidential
purposes only, of course.
Nick...you're busted!
--
Fosco Gamgee Whitfurrows
and his 6" boner

On Wed, 5 May 2004 21:24:12 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

"Steve Wertz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if
he's
posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts.

So...you're saying that Nick may have and probably did make excuses in the
past for some reason but there's no way we can prove it. Verrrrrrrrrrrrrry
interes-tink!

Actually that was Kevin who said that :-)

But... I did look in my personal archives (3 years worth) :-)
There's plenty of examples of him saying "excuse this or that",
but not in a way that could be construed as him making any sort of
"excuses". It's kind of hard to search on "Find Nick making an
excuse". I sent off my database and query to the Supercomputing
Center at MIT and maybe they devise a search for it. If they can't
find it....

Wow they're good - I got a response back already. They said that
Nick Cramer made an excuse that he was taking antibiotics for the
reason he couldn't drink alcohol.

That'll be $5, please.

-sw

On Wed, 05 May 2004 23:21:19 -0500, Steve Wertz
wrote:

On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if he's
posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts. It's particularly helpful if you are in the habit
of arguing on Usenet but don't want to have to back up the claims
you make in those arguments. If your detractors can't look up
what you said, you can claim that you never said what you did, or
that your detractors have misconstrued what you said. For obvious
reasons, 'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

Your writing has improved remarkably, as has your insight into the use
of the X-N0-ARCHIVE header.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Steve Wertz wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if
he's posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts. It's particularly helpful if you are in the habit
of arguing on Usenet but don't want to have to back up the claims
you make in those arguments. If your detractors can't look up
what you said, you can claim that you never said what you did, or
that your detractors have misconstrued what you said. For obvious
reasons, 'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

Guilty as charged. I went to 'X-No-Archive header' because when I would
supercede an article with a typo that I wanted to correct, many people
continued to see the original post as well. However, since it appears that
I'm in a Catch-22 on this, I will, effective immediately tells Usenet
archive services to save this and all future articles.

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!

Steve Wertz wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if
he's posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts. It's particularly helpful if you are in the habit
of arguing on Usenet but don't want to have to back up the claims
you make in those arguments. If your detractors can't look up
what you said, you can claim that you never said what you did, or
that your detractors have misconstrued what you said. For obvious
reasons, 'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

Guilty as charged. I went to 'X-No-Archive header' because when I would
supersede an article with a typo that I wanted to correct, many people
continued to see the original post as well. However, since it appears that
I'm in a Catch-22 on this, I will, effective immediately tells Usenet
archive services to save this and all future articles.

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!

"F.G. Whitfurrows" wrote:
"Steve Wertz" wrote in message
[ . . . ]Wow they're good - I got a response back already. They said
that
Nick Cramer made an excuse that he was taking antibiotics for the
reason he couldn't drink alcohol.

That'll be $5, please.

Your checks in the mail, Steve. I will Xpost this to abf. For evidential
purposes only, of course.
Nick...you're busted!

Ah, the shame of it. Two weeks of no alcohol, where I was forced to live on
food and water, will haunt me forever.

Wertz & Whitfurrows, a Formidable Team, albeit a right strange mixture of
mighty blood with mean. The checque is in the mail!

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Hanging his head
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2004 23:21:19 -0500, Steve Wertz
wrote:
[]
Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!
[]'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

Your writing has improved remarkably, as has your insight into the use
of the X-N0-ARCHIVE header.

A shaynem dank im der pupik, Kevin.

So now it's Wilson, Wertz & Whitfurrows vs. Old1Eye. Bring 'em on!

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!

Steve Wertz wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if
he's posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts. It's particularly helpful if you are in the habit
of arguing on Usenet but don't want to have to back up the claims
you make in those arguments. If your detractors can't look up
what you said, you can claim that you never said what you did, or
that your detractors have misconstrued what you said. For obvious
reasons, 'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

Guilty as charged. I went to 'X-No-Archive header' because when I would
supersede an article with a typo that I wanted to correct, many people
continued to see the original post as well. However, since it appears that
I'm in a Catch-22 on this, I will, effective immediately tell Usenet
archive services to save this and all future articles.

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!

Steve Wertz wrote:
On 06 May 2004 17:16:34 GMT, wrote:

Steve Wertz wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know
if he's posted any excuses that you can spot?
[]
Keep your X-No-Archive, please. I thought everyone would
recognize that as a Kevin-rant, as I picked that paragraph from
the archives of a one Mr. Wilson.

No! No! No! The Fuggy Footed One needs attributions. Besides, Kevie thought
your reiteration of his rant was right on!

You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of
the people some of the time, but you damn well better please yerself!

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Sin verguenza in the San Fernando Valley
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!

In article ,
wrote:

Intuitive insights from Nick, Sin verguenza in the San Fernando Valley

"Sin verguenza"? Man that's sad. We got virgins out the ass here-I
oughta send some of the extras your way....

monroe(glad to help)

"Monroe, of course..." wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Intuitive insights from Nick, Sin verguenza in the San Fernando Valley

"Sin verguenza"? Man that's sad. We got virgins up the ass here-I
oughta send some of the extras your way....

monroe(glad to muddy the waters)

Not sin virgen, pendejo! As long as they pay their own way, tho . . .

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Sin lambastaquera in the San Fernando Valley
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!

On 06 May 2004 17:40:20 GMT, wrote:

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2004 23:21:19 -0500, Steve Wertz
wrote:
[]
Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!
[]'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

Your writing has improved remarkably, as has your insight into the use
of the X-N0-ARCHIVE header.

A shaynem dank im der pupik, Kevin.

So now it's Wilson, Wertz & Whitfurrows vs. Old1Eye. Bring 'em on!

A subsidiary of Art, Bart and Fargo, eh, Nick ;0)

Harry
Sitting here hurting and oozing from every orifice above the pupik.
[GD aeroplane air]. Sterilization by alcohol at work and at this rate
all the Duty Free will be used up shortly.