On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:51:39 GMT, "cl" > wrote:

>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> BTW, what exactly were you "alluding" to when you said that Shelley
>> sounded like "one of those fat ass women" with a bunch of cats?
>
>She acted that way but after she posted the url I realized I was wrong about
>the cats. She seems to have more dogs. I can't help it that my far reaching
>attempt was correct. It was a hell of a guess based on here very
>'protective' almost nuturing ways of reprimanding me.

She acted that way, huh? Tell me, CAL, exactly how does a "fat-ass
woman" act on Usenet? Is there some kind of defining characteristic
that enables you to conclude that a message was posted by a "fat-ass
woman"? Or are you using some kind of cutting-edge video-enhanced
newsreader? I'm wondering because all I see on my screen are words.

>> > Sorry slick your barking up the wrong tree.
>>
>> Still having trouble with forming contractions, eh? What is your first
>> language, anyway?
>
>So the only attack you seem to be able to create is of a persons haphazard
>writing style on usenet? That is funny considering the fact that
>abbreviations, emoticons and acronyms are generally accepted in a medium
>that appreciates minimized bandwidth.

Contractions, abbreviations, emoticons, acronyms. Which of these
things is not like the others?
>
>> How many people have to tell you that you were trolled before you
>> finally stop being a humorless twit about it? What's the magic number?
>...cut
>
>You don't seem to get it yourself. No number will suffice. Why? Well because
>of the real life people that sit there knowing what I am doing and laughing
>at my constant ****ing with you(pl).

"Real life people"? As opposed to what? Sims characters?

I must've missed all those posts by these real-life people saying how
amused they are by your "constant ****ing with" us. Or are you saying
that the lurkers support you in e-mail?

> You see, I have telegraphed my attacks
>yet you still haven't picked up on it. Now you try to pass off RFC (request
>for consideration) as being a misnomer known by all.

Obviously, RFC doesn't stand for "Request for Consideration." A simple
search on google would instantly reveal that it stands for "Request
for Comments." To suggest that it stands for anything else would be
nonsensical.

Now, CAL, here's the part you seem to be having trouble with: Why
would someone knowingly post nonsense to Usenet? What motive could
such a person possibly have?

> That is a very weak
>argument on your part just like your lame attempt at fraudulently passing
>yourself off as someone else.

Why in the world would I do something like that?

That's a serious question, CAL. Think hard. Why would I pretend to be
a black guy?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr