Barbecue (alt.food.barbecue) Discuss barbecue and grilling--southern style "low and slow" smoking of ribs, shoulders and briskets, as well as direct heat grilling of everything from burgers to salmon to vegetables.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #481 (permalink)   Report Post  
cl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"TMG" > wrote in message
...

> But, do you think he'll pick up on the actual point that he doesn't know
> the difference between the words "your" and "you're"?


I doubt he will no the difference.

-CAL


  #482 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #483 (permalink)   Report Post  
shelly
 
Posts: n/a
Default

on 2004-12-27 at 22:51 > wrote:

>She acted that way


how, exactly, do fat people act?

>but after she posted the url I realized I was wrong about the
>cats. She seems to have more dogs.


on my planet, 2 = 2 and cannot be either greater than or less
than 2. you have some crazy assed math on your planet.

>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.


no, i) that wasn't nurturing and B) "it" comes from having
three eeevil little brothers. you need to get out more,
little man.

>So the only attack you seem to be able to create is of a
>persons haphazard writing style on usenet?


possessives seem to confuse you, too/to/two/tutu.

>That is funny considering the fact that abbreviations,
>emoticons and acronyms are generally accepted in a medium
>that appreciates minimized bandwidth.


yes, well, i saw nary an abbreviation, emoticon, or acronym in
your post.

>You see, I have telegraphed my attacks yet you still haven't
>picked up on it.


-.. ..- -- -... .- ... ...

..... - .... / .... .- -. -.. / .-.. --- .-.. / --. --- -..
/ -... .-.. . ... ... / .-- - ..-. ..--..

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
  #484 (permalink)   Report Post  
shelly
 
Posts: n/a
Default

on 2004-12-27 at 22:51 > wrote:

>She acted that way


how, exactly, do fat people act?

>but after she posted the url I realized I was wrong about the
>cats. She seems to have more dogs.


on my planet, 2 = 2 and cannot be either greater than or less
than 2. you have some crazy assed math on your planet.

>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.


no, i) that wasn't nurturing and B) "it" comes from having
three eeevil little brothers. you need to get out more,
little man.

>So the only attack you seem to be able to create is of a
>persons haphazard writing style on usenet?


possessives seem to confuse you, too/to/two/tutu.

>That is funny considering the fact that abbreviations,
>emoticons and acronyms are generally accepted in a medium
>that appreciates minimized bandwidth.


yes, well, i saw nary an abbreviation, emoticon, or acronym in
your post.

>You see, I have telegraphed my attacks yet you still haven't
>picked up on it.


-.. ..- -- -... .- ... ...

..... - .... / .... .- -. -.. / .-.. --- .-.. / --. --- -..
/ -... .-.. . ... ... / .-- - ..-. ..--..

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
  #485 (permalink)   Report Post  
shelly
 
Posts: n/a
Default

on 2004-12-28 at 05:19 > wrote:

>I'm wondering because all I see on my screen are words.


if you look really closely, i'm sure you'll see that they're
fat-assed words.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette


  #486 (permalink)   Report Post  
Phil Carmody
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"cl" > writes:
> "TMG" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > But, do you think he'll pick up on the actual point that he doesn't know
> > the difference between the words "your" and "you're"?

>
> I doubt he will no the difference.


*** IMPORTANT NOTICE ***

All regular a.r.k. readers are warned that the above message
contains a highly devious, exceptionally subtle, and almost-
certainly highly confusing literary device - the deliberate
mis-spelling of a common word.

Readers are also warned that replying to the above post may cause
short-term insanity, or long-term inanity.

Researchers are presently unaware of how the author could have
learnt of this exceptionally dangerous literary device, and are
attempting to devine the author's motive. They have not ruled
out the possibility of it being an attempt at a troll.
Professor Digger of the Acadamy of Rhetoric Studies and
Education added "if it were to be a troll we rate the risk of
damage at between 50-70% (20% MoE), but the damage itself to
be only mild, perhaps grazing the side of ones left knee".

*** IMPORTANT NOTICE ENDS ***
  #487 (permalink)   Report Post  
Phil Carmody
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
> >> 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?


Only contractions lead almost immediately to screaming, rending,
bleeding, wailing, and eventually the pitter-patter of little feet.

Phil
--
The gun is good. The penis is evil... Go forth and kill.
  #488 (permalink)   Report Post  
David DeLaney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

cl > wrote:
>> Let me be sure I understand. You appear to be saying, "Please troll me
>> again, only this time with new material. I eagerly await another
>> opportunity to do unnecessary research to prove the falsity of what
>> anyone of average literacy and intelligence would straightaway
>> recognize as utter nonsense."

>
>If it is so obvious to the layman why not just admit you were wrong rather
>than trying to pass it off as your attempt to troll. See, I didn't have to
>research it, I deal with that subject daily.


....but you went and researched it -anyway-. Voluntarily? Okaythenfine.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
  #489 (permalink)   Report Post  
David DeLaney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

shelly > wrote:
>on 2004-12-28 at 05:19 > wrote:
>>I'm wondering because all I see on my screen are words.

>
>if you look really closely, i'm sure you'll see that they're
>fat-assed words.


And shelly SCORES by leading the thread back to fonts! That's five rounds down
and a hundred points. Next round starts in 40 minutes, guys!

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
  #490 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:49:29 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>So people don't see you as the fat white guy?


That the best you can do, Dank? BTW, where's your picture?

> Pathetic trolling from somewhere in Idaho of all places.


Provincialism demonstrated. CHECK!

That's one, Dank. Two more to go. I suggest you start by saying
something snarky about academia.

--
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


  #491 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dan Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I didn't post this here so, thanks for the crosspost. I'm sure your last few
friends in AFB will appreciate your efforts.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:49:29 GMT, Dan Krueger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>So people don't see you as the fat white guy?

>
>
> That the best you can do, Dank? BTW, where's your picture?
>

Since you quoted me out of context, I won't bother with a response. Stupid
question anyway.
>
>>Pathetic trolling from somewhere in Idaho of all places.

>
>
> Provincialism demonstrated. CHECK!


Correct. And the point, of course, was that your behavior is unusual (at least
to me) of those hailing from that state but you already knew that, right Skippy?
My guess is that you are a transplant anyway...
>
> That's one, Dank. Two more to go. I suggest you start by saying
> something snarky about academia.


Two? I guess you missed math class. Maybe you can sit in on one and learn to
count.

Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. Is that what you wanted, troller?
I'm not sure how it lands on the "snarky" scale.
>


  #492 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dan Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Response posted in ORIGINAL newsgroup. Numbnuts can point you there. This is a
Kevin S. Wilson crosspost.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:49:29 GMT, Dan Krueger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>So people don't see you as the fat white guy?

>
>
> That the best you can do, Dank? BTW, where's your picture?
>
>
>>Pathetic trolling from somewhere in Idaho of all places.

>
>
> Provincialism demonstrated. CHECK!
>
> That's one, Dank. Two more to go. I suggest you start by saying
> something snarky about academia.
>


  #493 (permalink)   Report Post  
Brian Eable
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin S. Wilson > writes:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:00:38 GMT, Dan Krueger
> > wrote:
> >>

> >Since you quoted me out of context, I won't bother with a response. Stupid
> >question anyway.

>
> Which one? The answer to the first question is obvious; that is the
> best you can do, calling people fat. The answer to the second
> question . . . well, you ducked it. Where's your picture, anyway? I
> just want to make sure you're qualified to call people fat. Wouldn't
> want any hypocrisy here, after all.



Are you INFERRING that only non-fat people are qualified to call
people fat??? Because it seems to me that this is UNFAIRLY
DISCRIMINATING against FAT people, who have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to call
somebody fat as does a SKINNY person! And also, under the "TAKES ONE
TO KNOW ONE" rule, a FAT person is in fact BETTER qualified to call
somebody FAT than a SKINNY person.

So stop being so bloody FATTIST, you FATTIST *******.

> >Two? I guess you missed math class. Maybe you can sit in on one
> >and learn to count.

>
> You have to say something snarky about each element of my .sig
> before I consider you well and truly trolled by it. Count 'em.


I consider that if you have to spend WEEKS arguing about how WITTY and
FUNNY your "TROLL" was, and how BRILLIANTLY you EXECUTED it, then it
SUCKS. Because where's the FUN in THAT? You claim to have put an
effort in to convince people that you are a moron, and then once
people indicated that they think that you are a moron, you tell them
THOUSANDS of times that you are not REALLY a moron, you were just
pretending, and it's actually FUNNY! Moron.

> >Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. Is that what you
> >wanted, troller? I'm not sure how it lands on the "snarky" scale.

>
> How original. Now, for those scoring at home, what makes you think I
> teach?



__ ___ _ ___ _____ _ _ _ ____ _ ____ _____ ____ ___
\ \ / / | | |/ _ \ | ___( ) \ | | / ___| / \ | _ \| ____/ ___|__ \
\ \ /\ / /| |_| | | | | | |_ |/| \| | | | / _ \ | |_) | _| \___ \ / /
\ V V / | _ | |_| | | _| | |\ | | |___ / ___ \| _ <| |___ ___) |_|
\_/\_/ |_| |_|\___/ |_| |_| \_| \____/_/ \_\_| \_\_____|____/(_)


____ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _
| _ \| | / _ \| \ | | |/ / | | / | |
| |_) | | | | | | \| | ' /| | | | | |
| __/| |__| |_| | |\ | . \|_|_|_| |_|
|_| |_____\___/|_| \_|_|\_(_|_|_)_(_)


--
a house-blowing wolfen sneezer / might be a porcine tortfeasor. -- plorkwort
http://beable.com
  #494 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:36:43 -0600, Nick >
wrote:

>You are a crossposting prick, fat boy.


This attempt at an insult might be more effective if you hadn't
crossposted it, Chuckles.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

--
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
  #495 (permalink)   Report Post  
Matthew L. Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nick wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:16:14 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:36:43 -0600, Nick >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are a crossposting prick, fat boy.

>>
>>This attempt at an insult might be more effective if you hadn't
>>crossposted it, Chuckles.

>
>
> I just responded to your crosspost, poppin' fresh.


The headers say otherwise.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game


  #496 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:53:51 -0600, Nick >
wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:16:14 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:36:43 -0600, Nick >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You are a crossposting prick, fat boy.

>>
>>This attempt at an insult might be more effective if you hadn't
>>crossposted it, Chuckles.

>
>I just responded to your crosspost, poppin' fresh.
>

<snicker> "I wasn't crossposting. I was just following up to a
crossposted message." I haven't heard that newbie excuse in years.

BTW, do try to keep up. This thread was x-posted out of ARK and into
AFB by your pal and intellectual equal, CAL.

>>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

>
>Perfectly logical, Fatboy.


"I wasn't crossposting. I was just following up to a crossposted
message." Oh, yes. Perfectly logical.

>It was a request fro the good folks in ARK. Oh, lessee... it's right
>here in my outbox... HERE!
>
>--
>
>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:00:30 GMT, Rose Marie Holt
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Nick > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am sure your "friends" in a.r.k. appreciate you crossposting, dippy.
>>>

>>
>>You have stumbled onto one of our saccraments. Of course we appreciate
>>it.
>>
>>Sheesh.

>
>Ok. Great! I be sure to crosspost into this group as mush as possible.


Do try to be more entertaining than CAL. He became a broken record
within a dozen posts.

>Thanks for setting me straight on this "saccrament."


No problem. Fresh meat is always welcome.

Here we are now. Entertain us. <--- You won't get this allusion, old
man. Don't let that fact trouble you unduly; CAL won't get it, either.

--
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
  #497 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:29:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

>Nick wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:16:14 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:36:43 -0600, Nick >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You are a crossposting prick, fat boy.
>>>
>>>This attempt at an insult might be more effective if you hadn't
>>>crossposted it, Chuckles.

>>
>>
>> I just responded to your crosspost, poppin' fresh.

>
>The headers say otherwise.
>

Don't bother him with facts. I expect he'll just ignore your post.

--
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
  #498 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rose Marie Holt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Nick > wrote:



On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:00:30 GMT, Rose Marie Holt
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Nick > wrote:
>
>>
>> I am sure your "friends" in a.r.k. appreciate you crossposting, dippy.
>>

>
>You have stumbled onto one of our saccraments. Of course we appreciate
>it.
>
>Sheesh.


Ok. Great! I be sure to crosspost into this group as mush as possible.

Thanks for setting me straight on this "saccrament."

--

Your welcome
  #499 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rose Marie Holt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Kevin S. Wilson > wrote:


>
> How original. Now, for those scoring at home, what makes you think I
> teach?


Are your students eligible for this contest?
  #502 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0600, Nick >
wrote:

<nothing of consequence>

Say, I've been meaning to ask you something. Well, actually, I already
HAVE asked you, but you must not have seen the question.

How come you post with the X-No Archive header set to yes? Is there
some reason you don't want your words archived?

Also, when did you start morphing to avoid killfiles?

  #503 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0600, Nick >
wrote:

<nothing of consequence>

Say, I've been meaning to ask you something. Well, actually, I already
HAVE asked you, but you must not have seen the question.

How come you post with the X-No Archive header set to yes? Is there
some reason you don't want your words archived?

Also, when did you start morphing to avoid killfiles?

  #504 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:47:59 -0600, Nick >
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:42:33 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0600, Nick >
>>wrote:
>>
>><nothing of consequence>
>>
>>Say, I've been meaning to ask you something. Well, actually, I already
>>HAVE asked you, but you must not have seen the question.
>>
>>How come you post with the X-No Archive header set to yes? Is there
>>some reason you don't want your words archived?
>>
>>Also, when did you start morphing to avoid killfiles?

>
>Somebody call whine-one-one! Kevvie needs a whaaaaaaaambulance!


Archived, morph-boi.

  #505 (permalink)   Report Post  
Phil Carmody
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0600, Nick >
> wrote:
>
> <nothing of consequence>
>
> Say, I've been meaning to ask you something. Well, actually, I already
> HAVE asked you, but you must not have seen the question.
>
> How come you post with the X-No Archive header set to yes? Is there
> some reason you don't want your words archived?


Because he's to stupid to realise that there are a dozen publically
accessible, google-searchable, usenet archives that completely ignore
that particular quasi-header, I'd guess.

Phil
--
The gun is good. The penis is evil... Go forth and kill.


  #506 (permalink)   Report Post  
Phil Carmody
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0600, Nick >
> wrote:
>
> <nothing of consequence>
>
> Say, I've been meaning to ask you something. Well, actually, I already
> HAVE asked you, but you must not have seen the question.
>
> How come you post with the X-No Archive header set to yes? Is there
> some reason you don't want your words archived?


Because he's to stupid to realise that there are a dozen publically
accessible, google-searchable, usenet archives that completely ignore
that particular quasi-header, I'd guess.

Phil
--
The gun is good. The penis is evil... Go forth and kill.
  #507 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 05 Jan 2005 09:34:30 +0200, Phil Carmody
> wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0600, Nick >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <nothing of consequence>
>>
>> Say, I've been meaning to ask you something. Well, actually, I already
>> HAVE asked you, but you must not have seen the question.
>>
>> How come you post with the X-No Archive header set to yes? Is there
>> some reason you don't want your words archived?

>
>Because he's to stupid to realise that there are a dozen publically
>accessible, google-searchable, usenet archives that completely ignore
>that particular quasi-header, I'd guess.
>


I suspect that's one reason. I certainly wouldn't want to attribute to
malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

But I suspect the real reason is that he's a coward who doesn't want
to take responsibility for his words or be held accountable for what
he says. You know, kind of like the loudmouth drunk in the bar who
brags about how he's going to kick So-and-So's ass, but when So-and-So
shows up, the loudmouth drunk denies he ever said any such thing.

Pathetic, really. Why post to Usenet if you're not going to take
responsibility for your words?

  #508 (permalink)   Report Post  
Kevin S. Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:09:31 -0600, Nick
> wrote:

>On 05 Jan 2005 09:34:30 +0200, Phil Carmody
> wrote:
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0600, Nick >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <nothing of consequence>
>>>
>>> Say, I've been meaning to ask you something. Well, actually, I already
>>> HAVE asked you, but you must not have seen the question.
>>>
>>> How come you post with the X-No Archive header set to yes? Is there
>>> some reason you don't want your words archived?

>>
>>Because he's to stupid to realise that there are a dozen publically
>>accessible, google-searchable, usenet archives that completely ignore
>>that particular quasi-header, I'd guess.
>>
>>Phil

>
>If I were to give a **** that might mean something, I'd guess.
>
>But, you know... I don't give a shit one way or the other. Why it
>bothers some fatassed troll potato from Idaho or wherever he is from
>is beyond me.


You just keep on ducking the question there, Chuckles.

We know why you do it. You do it because you're too much of a coward
to take responsibility for your words. What other possible reason
could there be?

  #509 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rose Marie Holt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Nick > wrote:

>
> But, you know... I don't give a shit one way or the other. Why it
> bothers me
> is beyond some fatassed troll potato from Idaho or wherever he is from.


IFYPFY
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TJ sucks, imo. Gary General Cooking 243 20-09-2012 04:52 AM
Ok this sucks Cheryl[_3_] General Cooking 24 26-12-2010 10:01 PM
ATT sucks Ed Pawlowski Barbecue 11 18-07-2009 01:43 PM
Rice still sucks notbob General Cooking 28 11-11-2006 05:42 PM
Ignorance Sucks! [email protected] General Cooking 2 31-07-2006 06:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"