on 2004-12-08 at 13:18 > wrote:

>Both you dipshits need to realize neither one is correct.

setting aside the issue of identifying who the dipshit(s)
is/are, neither of them *needs* to realize anything.

>The Reply-to/Follow-up are the headers anyhow.

there is no Anyhow header, dumbass.

>Obviously neither of you can discuss subjects at hand

it must not be too terribly obvious, because i've seen both
of them discussing all sorts of subjects at hand. (or foot,
as we don't want to be discriminatory here over on teh ARK
Usernet group.) did you have any particular subject in mind?

>so you decide to also fail at attacking my semantics.

i hate to break it to you, but you probably shouldn't be in
charge of judging that.

HTH helps, HAND day, LOL loud, kiss kiss and God Bless. WTF
****?

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

shelly wrote:
>
>
> it must not be too terribly obvious, because i've seen both
> of them discussing all sorts of subjects at hand. (or foot,
> as we don't want to be discriminatory here over on teh ARK
> Usernet group.) did you have any particular subject in mind?
>
> >so you decide to also fail at attacking my semantics.
>
> i hate to break it to you, but you probably shouldn't be in
> charge of judging that.
>
> HTH helps, HAND day, LOL loud, kiss kiss and God Bless. WTF
> ****?
>
> --
> shelly
> http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

It is funny that I instantly got a mental image of you being one of
those fat ass women couped up with a bunch of cats. Was I right?

-CAL

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:18:51 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:02:26 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>> wrote:
>> >PS: Stop trolling me. It's a FOLLOW-UP header, not a REPLY-TO header.
>> >Goober doesn't know the difference, but I'm guessing you do.
>>
>> Of course, I understand. I'm trying to speak to him in his language,
>> since he doesn't understand regular English. In the real world, of
>> course, Follow-Up is used when the e-mail is going to just one person,
>> and Reply-To is used when it's going to the whole mailing list.
>
>Both you dipshits need to realize neither one is correct. The
>Reply-to/Follow-up are the headers anyhow. It is "Followup-To"

Well, which is it? Is the header "Reply-to/Follow-up" or is it
"Followup-To." You seem to be confused.
>
>Obviously neither of you can discuss subjects at hand

Is the following direct enough for you?

Why did you crosspost a thread that had nothing to do with BBQ from
ARK into AFB? What exactly were you hoping to accomplish?

> so you decide to
>also fail at attacking my semantics. I suggest you two stop talking out
>of your ignorant asses and look at RFC 1036 section 2.2.3

And I suggest you look at the date on that document. 1987! You need to
find some fresher material.

Also, "RFC" stands for "Request for Consideration," meaning that the
document you cited is merely a PROPOSED standard. That fact kind of
renders your point mute, doesn't it?

>Have a nice day!

I believe that's Barbara's line, CAL. Part of it, anyway.

--
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 Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:36:45 GMT, cl > wrote:

>It is funny that I instantly got a mental image of you being one of

It is funny, if by "funny" you mean "disturbing."

>those fat ass women couped up with a bunch of cats.

Your insult of choice seems to be to call people fat, so I'm guessing
you're a slim guy or at least that your weight is proportionate to
your height. You can put up a pic on the web to verify this, right?
Otherwise, we might conclude that you are being hypocritical.

> Was I right?

Once, maybe, but that was a long time ago, and it had to do with
figuring out which Grranimals underwear went with which Grranimals
T-shirt.

--
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

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:

> Why did you crosspost a thread that had nothing to do with BBQ from
> ARK into AFB? What exactly were you hoping to accomplish?

Sure it did, you referenced AFB in the thread asswipe.


Here you go tiny for the original xposted including your afb reference:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source



>
> > so you decide to
> >also fail at attacking my semantics. I suggest you two stop talking out
> >of your ignorant asses and look at RFC 1036 section 2.2.3
>
> And I suggest you look at the date on that document. 1987! You need to
> find some fresher material.
>
> Also, "RFC" stands for "Request for Consideration," meaning that the
> document you cited is merely a PROPOSED standard. That fact kind of
> renders your point mute, doesn't it?

You are a dumbass Kevin.

First off, RFC means "Request for Comments"

Second Kevin, RFC1036 is the usenet STANDARD(it replaced RFC850).
RFCs are cited as a standard when approved.


-CAL

on 2004-12-08 at 13:36 > wrote:

>It is funny that I instantly got a mental image of you being
>one of those fat ass women couped up with a bunch of cats.

the MPoD is a hatchback, not a coupe. HTH!

>Was I right?

i think KevinS has adequately addressed this point.

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:33:30 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I finally put a filter on Kevvie this AM, so I won't see any of his
>> posts
>> > in the future. I tolerated his ranting and trolling for quite a while
>> > because of his occasional worthwhile posts, but I find his snaring
>> someone
>> > into cross-posting,
>>
>> Would someone please explain to Nick the difference between
>> crossposting and setting the FOLLOW-UPS header to a single group? He
>> seems confused.
>>
>> I trolled CAL into posting to ARK in a thread with the subject line of
>> "Texas Brisket." CAL's reply went to ARK and ARK alone. That thread was
>> NEVER crossposted. It lived a brief SEPARATE existence in both groups,
>> then died of natural causes.
>>
>> On the other hand, CAL crossposted this thread from ARK to AFB. The
>> thread originated in ARK and never had anything to do with BBQ. All of
>> this is easily verified through google, if one can be bothered to get
>> off one's lazy ass and check one's facts before posting nonsense to
>> Usenet.
>>
>> Hmmm . . . I wonder if Nick will now plonk CAL, now that he's been
>> informed of the facts.
>
>Two different Nicks there slick. I believe n_cramer killfiled me long
>ago.

Since when is it my job to keep track of who has you killfiled?

>Now it begs the question

Um, no. No, it doesn't "beg the question." It might raise the
question, but begging the question is something altogether different.
It is also a concept that should be familiar to anyone who has even
walked past a classroom in which logic was being taught.

> of WHY THE **** ARE YOU MORPHING TO BEAT
>PEOPLE'S FILTERS, troll boy?

I think the question is "Why did I post from google?" The answer is,
"Because Nick's post no longer exists in my newsreader, so I had to go
to google to find the post and to verify that he is deeply, deeply
confused about the difference between crossposting and setting
follow-ups to a single group."

My posting address remains unchanged; anyone wishing to killfile me
can do so quite easily. You're not so clue-deprived that you think
anyone is killfiling me based on the Path or Organization headers, are
you?

--
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 2004-12-08 at 06:41 > wrote:

>That fact kind of renders your point mute, doesn't it?

i'm afraid that's wishful thinking.

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

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:36:45 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
> >It is funny that I instantly got a mental image of you being one of
>
> It is funny, if by "funny" you mean "disturbing."

Your right, it wasn't a pleasant mental image.


>
> >those fat ass women couped up with a bunch of cats.
>
> Your insult of choice seems to be to call people fat, so I'm guessing
> you're a slim guy or at least that your weight is proportionate to
> your height. You can put up a pic on the web to verify this, right?
> Otherwise, we might conclude that you are being hypocritical.


Actually that was truly the tone that I picked up from her post, so
maybe her writing style somehow represents her character.


> > Was I right?
>
> Once, maybe, but that was a long time ago, and it had to do with
> figuring out which Grranimals underwear went with which Grranimals
> T-shirt.

Please explain "Grranimals" for those of us that don't wear what sound
like something that i sa pedo's wet dream

-CAL

on 2004-12-08 at 09:08 > wrote:

>He's got an obsession with coupes. First he thought Kevin
>had one, now he thinks you have one.

when it involves inanimate objects, i think it's called a
fetish.

>It remains to be seen whether he also has an obssession with
>ass women. I'm guessing he does.

there's a troll in the dog newsgroups who has an unhealthy
obsession with fat chyx. maybe we should introduce CAL to
him?

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

on 2004-12-08 at 14:01 > wrote:

>Your right, it wasn't a pleasant mental image.

no, it's his left, but that's okay. it's a common mistake.

>Actually that was truly the tone that I picked up from her
>post, so maybe her writing style somehow represents her
>character.

i write like a fat chyk? please, do tell me more.

>pedo's wet dream

lordy. inanimate objects, children, *and* fatsos. you really
have a lot to talk over with your therapist.

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:47:50 GMT, Marc Goodman wrote:
>and if you wanna be me, be me!"
>We LOVE YOU CLTUNA!!11!!

KEEP your Lovecraftian religious fervor OUT OF SCI.HCEM, FOOL!

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:01:37 GMT, cl > wrote:

>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:36:45 GMT, cl > wrote:
>>
>> Your insult of choice seems to be to call people fat, so I'm guessing
>> you're a slim guy or at least that your weight is proportionate to
>> your height. You can put up a pic on the web to verify this, right?
>> Otherwise, we might conclude that you are being hypocritical.
>
>
>Actually that was truly the tone that I picked up from her post, so
>maybe her writing style somehow represents her character.

You have a funny way of simpling ignoring questions you don't wish to
answer. I didn't ask for an explanation of your . . . ahem, thinking
process. I asked if I might see a picture of you that verifies that
your weight is proportionate to your height.
>
>> > Was I right?
>>
>> Once, maybe, but that was a long time ago, and it had to do with
>> figuring out which Grranimals underwear went with which Grranimals
>> T-shirt.
>
>Please explain "Grranimals"

What makes you think we're your personal search engine?

--
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

cl > writes:

> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:02:26 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
> > wrote:
> > >PS: Stop trolling me. It's a FOLLOW-UP header, not a REPLY-TO header.
> > >Goober doesn't know the difference, but I'm guessing you do.
> >
> > Of course, I understand. I'm trying to speak to him in his language,
> > since he doesn't understand regular English. In the real world, of
> > course, Follow-Up is used when the e-mail is going to just one person,
> > and Reply-To is used when it's going to the whole mailing list.
>
> Both you dipshits need to realize neither one is correct. The
> Reply-to/Follow-up are the headers anyhow. It is "Followup-To"
>
> Obviously neither of you can discuss subjects at hand so you decide to
> also fail at attacking my semantics. I suggest you two stop talking out
> of your ignorant asses and look at RFC 1036 section 2.2.3

But RFC 1036 was obsoleted by YHBT K180 years ago.

> Have a nice day!

I can't, it's night here. Maybe you can have my nice day for me?

Phil
--
God was my co-pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

cl > writes:

>Actually that was truly the tone that I picked up from her post, so
>maybe her writing style somehow represents her character.

"Fat" is not "character", it's "physical appaarance". That said, I'm
impressed that you can apparently determine what pets someone owns, as
well as the poster's weight, just by reading their Usenet posts. And all
without looking ridiculous! You should be proud.

>Please explain "Grranimals" for those of us that don't wear what sound
>like something that i sa pedo's wet dream

So he's accusing people of pederasty (look it up, cl). Can Hitler be
far behind?

Stacia

on 2004-12-08 at 14:52 > wrote:

> "Fat" is not "character", it's "physical appaarance".
>That said, I'm impressed that you can apparently determine
>what pets someone owns, as well as the poster's weight, just
>by reading their Usenet posts.

i suspect he used his s00per s33krit l33t powers to find my
website. really, you should bow down in awe of his hummense
brane.

>And all without looking ridiculous! You should be proud.

careful, or he'll start casting asparagus at your coupe.

> So he's accusing people of pederasty (look it up, cl).

i believe it was more in the vein of a confession than an
accusation.

>Can Hitler be far behind?

well, this *is* being xpsotted to AFB. (i'd like mine extra
crispy, please.)

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

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:01:37 GMT, cl > wrote:

> You have a funny way of simpling ignoring questions you don't wish to
> answer. I didn't ask for an explanation of your . . . ahem, thinking
> process. I asked if I might see a picture of you that verifies that
> your weight is proportionate to your height.

Obviously the ommision is an answer of NO.

> >
> >> > Was I right?
> >>
> >> Once, maybe, but that was a long time ago, and it had to do with
> >> figuring out which Grranimals underwear went with which Grranimals
> >> T-shirt.
> >
> >Please explain "Grranimals"
>
> What makes you think we're your personal search engine?

well maybe because you are so fond of doing searchs for me in the past.


-CAL

shelly wrote:
>
> on 2004-12-08 at 14:52 > wrote:
>
> > "Fat" is not "character", it's "physical appaarance".
> >That said, I'm impressed that you can apparently determine
> >what pets someone owns, as well as the poster's weight, just
> >by reading their Usenet posts.
>
> i suspect he used his s00per s33krit l33t powers to find my
> website. really, you should bow down in awe of his hummense
> brane.

If I went to your website before posting that I would have learned you
have a bunch of dogs and a cat or two. As for your physi-q, you have to
answer I don't.

Seriously, your tone actually was the source of the image. Sorry but you
might need a bit of time for reflection.

-CAL

shelly > writes:

>i suspect he used his s00per s33krit l33t powers to find my
>website. really, you should bow down in awe of his hummense
>brane.

Then he could have used Google and figured out that *I* was the fat chyk
in this thread. I'm also the bearded lady and the snake charmer.

>>And all without looking ridiculous! You should be proud.

>careful, or he'll start casting asparagus at your coupe.

What is with him and the coupe thing? It's not a coupe, it's a sedan.

Stacia

Kevin S. Wilson > wrote:

>Goober got trolled into ARK, where he said he would never post, when I
>set the followups on a thread called "Texas Brisket." That thread has
>never been crossposted. Later, Goober crossposted Jim
>Vandenwalkerfurgerberger's post called "This Sucks."
>
>Then, Goober got confused (surprised?), on account of there already
>being a thread in AFB called "This Sucks." He continues to maintain
>the fiction that he merely brought Jim's "This Sucks" thread back into
>AFB--though of course it originated in ARK and had nothing to do with
>BBQ.
>
>I've posted the google links numerous times. Goober snips them from
>his followups. Dumb ass won't even play fair.

Is this the right time to admit that I am your ex-wife, Kevins?

Okaythen.

-=D=-

--
"On Election Night the voice of the people was heard.
I will refrain from imitating it out of respect for the
mentally retarded." ---Louis Black

on 2004-12-08 at 15:16 > wrote:

> Then he could have used Google and figured out that *I* was
>the fat chyk in this thread. I'm also the bearded lady and
>the snake charmer.

http://www.aveleyman.com/Gallery2/Ac...7041-17920.GIF

that should give CAL something to think about, IYKWIMAITYD do.

> What is with him and the coupe thing?

lord only knows, but i'm not gonna ask because i'm afraid i
wouldn't be able to parse the answer.

>It's not a coupe, it's a sedan.

ITYM mean Saloon.

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

cl > writes:
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> I asked if [ ... ] your weight is proportionate to your height.

>Obviously the ommision is an answer of NO.

So, why are you calling people fat when you're fat, too? If you think
fat is so bad, then you must have a hell of an inferiority complex. You
are completely messed up.

>well maybe because you are so fond of doing searchs for me in the past.

Verb tenses are HARD.

Stacia

cl > writes:

>As for your physi-q, you have to answer I don't.

She has to answer... what, exactly? She has to tell us about her
physical appearance? No she ****ing doesn't, you wormy little man. You
called her "fat" because you were trying to insult her; it had nothing to
do with her "physi-q" at all. Oh, and it was all made up, too. But most
of what you post is fiction. The scary part is that you believe it.

>Seriously, your tone actually was the source of the image.
>Sorry but you might need a bit of time for reflection.

Then you must look like a pile of what the Hunchback of Notre Dame shat
out after a week-long lutefisk bender. Sorry if that was harsh, but your
tone on Usenet just screams "shitpile". You might need a little time to
reflect on your actions. Do you really want to look like a shitpile? I
bet if you posted nice things about fluffy bunnies on Usenet, it would
affect your personal appearance.

Stacia

on 2004-12-08 at 16:13 > wrote:

> She has to answer... what, exactly?

i'm amused at the "has to" bit. does he think he can make me
answer him? he's welcome to try, but i guarantee him that my
fat ass can beat the crap out of his skinny ass any day of the
week.

>She has to tell us about her physical appearance? No she
>****ing doesn't, you wormy little man. You called her "fat"
>because you were trying to insult her; it had nothing to do
>with her "physi-q" at all. Oh, and it was all made up, too.
>But most of what you post is fiction. The scary part is that
>you believe it.

here, just for CAL:

http://snipurl.com/b7in

> Then you must look like a pile of what the Hunchback of
>Notre Dame shat out after a week-long lutefisk bender.
>Sorry if that was harsh, but your tone on Usenet just screams
>"shitpile". You might need a little time to reflect on your
>actions. Do you really want to look like a shitpile? I bet
>if you posted nice things about fluffy bunnies on Usenet, it
>would affect your personal appearance.

i could be wrong, but i suspect you're feeding into yet
another of CAL's kinks. CAL, get help now, before it's too
late!1!!!

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

shelly > writes:
> on 2004-12-08 at 13:18 > wrote:
>
> >Both you dipshits need to realize neither one is correct.
>
> setting aside the issue of identifying who the dipshit(s)
> is/are, neither of them *needs* to realize anything.
>
> >The Reply-to/Follow-up are the headers anyhow.
>
> there is no Anyhow header, dumbass.

Get a better newsreader. They're available in several
sizes, I need a large one, obviously.

Phil
--
God was my co-pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

Glitter Ninja wrote:
>
> cl > writes:
>
> >As for your physi-q, you have to answer I don't.
>
> She has to answer... what, exactly? She has to tell us about her
> physical appearance? No she ****ing doesn't, you wormy little man. You
> called her "fat" because you were trying to insult her;

I never called her fat (I haven't seen her that I know), she just sounds
like a grumpy fat lady with a bunch of cats in her attempts to protect
the weak(Kevin).

> >Seriously, your tone actually was the source of the image.
> >Sorry but you might need a bit of time for reflection.
>
> Then you must look like a pile of what the Hunchback of Notre Dame shat
> out after a week-long lutefisk bender. Sorry if that was harsh, but your
> tone on Usenet just screams "shitpile".

You forgot "NeeNeer NeeNeerr" <- for Keviee boy 6yrold persona.
I bet if you could provide a picture of that you would a hit on all the
scat groups.

> You might need a little time to
> reflect on your actions. Do you really want to look like a shitpile? I
> bet if you posted nice things about fluffy bunnies on Usenet, it would
> affect your personal appearance.

Bwwwwwhaaaaaaa. Seems that ARK has no sense of humor either Keviee boy.

-CAL

on 2004-12-08 at 18:31 > wrote:

>Get a better newsreader.

not to be casting asparagus upon Pine, mister smartypants!

>They're available in several sizes, I need a large one,
>obviously.

http://www.dangliebits.com/warmers.html

HTH!

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

shelly wrote:
>
> on 2004-12-08 at 16:13 > wrote:
>
> > She has to answer... what, exactly?
>
> i'm amused at the "has to" bit. does he think he can make me
> answer him? he's welcome to try, but i guarantee him that my
> fat ass can beat the crap out of his skinny ass any day of the
> week.
>
> >She has to tell us about her physical appearance? No she
> >****ing doesn't, you wormy little man. You called her "fat"
> >because you were trying to insult her; it had nothing to do
> >with her "physi-q" at all. Oh, and it was all made up, too.
> >But most of what you post is fiction. The scary part is that
> >you believe it.


For a bunch of superior intellect types that Kevie has painted you up to
be, it is funny that you can't realize the difference between a
rethorical question and a regular direct one.

> here, just for CAL:
>
> http://snipurl.com/b7in

Ok, so you are a cute kid. You still sound like a fat lady with a bunch
of cats in the way that you chimed in. Sorry.

-CAL

Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> shelly > writes:
> > on 2004-12-08 at 13:18 > wrote:
> >
> > >Both you dipshits need to realize neither one is correct.
> >
> > setting aside the issue of identifying who the dipshit(s)
> > is/are, neither of them *needs* to realize anything.
> >
> > >The Reply-to/Follow-up are the headers anyhow.
> >
> > there is no Anyhow header, dumbass.
>
> Get a better newsreader. They're available in several
> sizes, I need a large one, obviously.

When did Massengill and Forte merge?

_CAL

on 2004-12-08 at 16:54 > wrote:

>a regular direct one.

you have an unfair advantage over me. please to be explaining
what a "regular direct" question is.

>Ok, so you are a cute kid. You still sound like a fat lady
>with a bunch of cats in the way that you chimed in. Sorry.

well, that was taken a few years ago. i'm 5yo now.

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

on 2004-12-08 at 16:49 > wrote:

>I never called her fat (I haven't seen her that I know), she
>just sounds like a grumpy fat lady with a bunch of cats in
>her attempts to protect the weak(Kevin).

haw! why the **** would i want to protect KevinS? after all,
he's a whole year older than i am, you silly git.

(the grumpy part is a fair cop. i have hate and loathing in
places you haven't even dreamt of.)

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

writes:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:54:32 GMT, cl > wrote:

>>For a bunch of superior intellect types that Kevie has painted you up to
>>be, it is funny that you can't realize the difference between a
>>rethorical question and a regular direct one.

>Which question was the rhetorical one? Stacia's?

Mine was rhetorical. cl's was rethorical.
Hey, who left their McRib wrappers in the Obvious Bag?

Stacia

wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:49:50 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
> >I never called her fat (I haven't seen her that I know), she just sounds
> >like a grumpy fat lady with a bunch of cats in her attempts to protect
> >the weak(Kevin).
>
> You don't know many actual human beings, do you?

Not really but quite a few fake one!

on 2004-12-08 at 18:21 > wrote:

>Not really but quite a few fake one!

do you think it's wise to use teh Usernet as your own personal
therapist?

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

shelly wrote:
>
> on 2004-12-08 at 18:21 > wrote:
>
> >Not really but quite a few fake one!
>
> do you think it's wise to use teh Usernet as your own personal
> therapist?

If you got out into the world a bit (and dealt with humans) you might
understand what is meant by a fake person. I know you assumed I was
talking about kevin's blow up doll Betsy but I was not!


-CAL

cl wrote:
>
> wrote:
>>You don't know many actual human beings, do you?
>
>
> Not really but quite a few fake one!

HAW HAW! See, you made a joke and I laughed. I'm
laughing because even though the joke wasn't really that
funny, I believe you should be rewarded for the effort.
You should be rewarded for the effort because, A). humor
obviously doesn't come easily for you, and B). you
applied yourself to posting something amusing instead
of more homophobic ranting about how tiny Kevin SWilson's
penis is. Good boy, have a bar-b-que flavored candy fish
><}}}'>

We STILL LOVE YOU, CLTUNA, EVEN IF GLENNN SAYS OUR LOVE
IS FORBIDDEN!!1!1!

wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:21:03 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:49:50 GMT, cl > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I never called her fat (I haven't seen her that I know), she just sounds
> >> >like a grumpy fat lady with a bunch of cats in her attempts to protect
> >> >the weak(Kevin).
> >>
> >> You don't know many actual human beings, do you?
> >
> >Not really but quite a few fake one!
>
> You can't tell the difference between a real question and a rhetorical
> one, can you?
>
> BW


When I'm confused, I just blame it all on a singularity.

-CAL

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:11:19 GMT, cl > wrote:

> Sorry but you
>might need a bit of time for reflection.

My Irony Meter goes up to 11, but even it couldn't handle the strain.

--
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 Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:49:50 GMT, cl > wrote:

>Seems that ARK has no sense of humor either Keviee boy.

This isn't like a tree falling in the forest with no one around to
hear it fall. If you don't get the joke, Mr. Jones, that doesn't mean
there isn't a joke.

--
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 Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:05:53 -0500, shelly >
wrote:

>haw! why the **** would i want to protect KevinS?

And from what, exactly?

--
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