Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 *** |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. > |
|
|||
|
|||
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. > |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Rose Marie Holt > wrote:
> (David DeLaney) wrote: >> shelly > wrote: >> >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! > >Where to download FAT ASS font? And will it work on my Mac? Google, after with trepidation I pressed the "Search" key, turned out to be no help, though entry six did direct me to a "big-ass font page". Alas, poor Babylon. Dave "dream a little dream of twee" DeLaney -- \/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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TJ sucks, imo. | General Cooking | |||
Ok this sucks | General Cooking | |||
ATT sucks | Barbecue | |||
Rice still sucks | General Cooking | |||
Ignorance Sucks! | General Cooking |