|
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check it out. I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they both tell me Bobs in trouble. If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable. To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card. Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger. What's it to you, sockpuppet? -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments > to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check > it out. > > I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they > both tell me Bobs in trouble. > If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity > is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on > the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable. > To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card. > > Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about: Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper. Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.* <http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1> take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional distress or something. blake |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
blake murphy > wrote:
>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet >does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional >distress or something. Isn't there also something about needing to mitigate damages, i.e. whoever is posting as Stu cannot decide to act so as to maximize the damage, and then claim to be injured by this then larger amount? Steve |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
> Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: > > 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another; > 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that > is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); > 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at > least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and > 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.* I was going to give Stu $10,000 for all the hard work he's done on his website. That was, until I read on Usenet that he was a child molester. Now I'll never use that site again. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: > >> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments >> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check >> it out. >> >> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they >> both tell me Bobs in trouble. >> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity >> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on >> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable. >> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card. >> >> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? > >your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about: > > Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about >another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves >the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) >representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the >making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a >magazine or newspaper. > >Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: > > 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another; > 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that >is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); > 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at >least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and > 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.* > ><http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1> > >take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet >does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional >distress or something. > >blake > But Blake, Bob would be charged with criminal harassment, and the legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is: "A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person." I'm sure libel would come into play as well. |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:44:53 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote: >The message > >from WTF > contains these words: > > >> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, > > that's that game for sweaty little grunters with small balls, isn't it? > > Janet Well dear, you've never complained before. |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:42:26 -0500, Stu wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:21:49 -0500, Sqwertz > > wrote: > >>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: >> >>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? >> >>Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger. > > I believe in live and let live, if I get a public apology here in this > newsgroup before noon and an apology sent to my email address I'll let > this go because that's all I really want from Bob. How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person (specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used since you started posting here? > I proceed at > 12:01PM CST, I may win or not, but Bob will watch his mouth next time. That must be one nasty case of constipation. I'm rooting for the turd. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:02:18 -0500, Stu wrote:
> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May8, > 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence > of harassment. Be sure to give us updates every step of the way. And don't cop out in 2 weeks saying you don't have time to follow through with it, or some other lame excuse. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:42:26 -0500, Stu wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:21:49 -0500, Sqwertz >> > wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: >>> >>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? >>> >>>Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger. >> >> I believe in live and let live, if I get a public apology here in this >> newsgroup before noon and an apology sent to my email address I'll let >> this go because that's all I really want from Bob. > >How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? > >Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person >(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used >since you started posting here? I'm only watching a few random posts in these stu-gee ****ing matches but I gotta say he's as goofy at the imaginary jerry sauk. Actually worse. I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but assembling a jury of people who actually know what usenet is would be a pretty hard project. Then a judge would have to educate him/herself. Even a dumbass lawyer would be able to point out that most people post with a fake name and usenet is not facebook and can at times become a game of wit. Far from reality when flame-wars occur. It's amazing that one sockpuppet can think it's going to prosecute another sockpuppet. Usenet is full of nutjobs and some are fun to **** with at times but this one is out of control and wasting so much time people could be spending talking about food. I'm not trying to control anything as I know I can't. I'm just saying I miss the time you and other quality food posters are wasting on the slimeball. The OM crap is just as bad. Most of the responses I see to people I don't read are negative. Sorry if I'm on a soapbox but I find this the most useful group I read and I felt the need to voice my opinion. Lou |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
Stu wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz > > wrote: >>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? >> >>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person >>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used >>since you started posting here? > > Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8, > 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence > of harassment. Time for this one again, methinks: http://xkcd.com/386/ -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
"blake murphy" > wrote in message .. . > On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: > >> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments >> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check >> it out. >> >> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they >> both tell me Bobs in trouble. >> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity >> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on >> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable. >> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card. >> >> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? > > your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about: > > Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about > another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves > the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) > representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves > the > making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a > magazine or newspaper. > > Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: > > 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another; > 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that > is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); > 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at > least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and > 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.* > > <http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1> > > take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on > usenet > does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional > distress or something. Proving defamation in court is a huge challenge for the best of lawyers. Just finding one willing to try is hard enough and paying them is even harder. Paul > > blake > |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote: >Stu wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz >> > wrote: > >>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? >>> >>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person >>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used >>>since you started posting here? >> >> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8, >> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence >> of harassment. > >Time for this one again, methinks: > >http://xkcd.com/386/ Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped cream... you'll never resist my charms: http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message ... > Stu wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz >> > wrote: > >>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? >>> >>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person >>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used >>>since you started posting here? >> >> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8, >> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence >> of harassment. > > Time for this one again, methinks: > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > But Mr. Pid will not get it. |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
brooklyn1 wrote:
> > Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real > quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French > vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped > cream... you'll never resist my charms: > http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-) Looks really delicious Sheldon. -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:04:22 -0500, Lou Decruss
> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz > wrote: > >>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:42:26 -0500, Stu wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:21:49 -0500, Sqwertz >>> > wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: >>>> >>>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? >>>> >>>>Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger. >>> >>> I believe in live and let live, if I get a public apology here in this >>> newsgroup before noon and an apology sent to my email address I'll let >>> this go because that's all I really want from Bob. >> >>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? >> >>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person >>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used >>since you started posting here? > >I'm only watching a few random posts in these stu-gee ****ing matches >but I gotta say he's as goofy at the imaginary jerry sauk. Actually >worse. I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but assembling a >jury of people who actually know what usenet is would be a pretty hard >project. Then a judge would have to educate him/herself. Even a >dumbass lawyer would be able to point out that most people post with a >fake name and usenet is not facebook and can at times become a game of >wit. Far from reality when flame-wars occur. It's amazing that one >sockpuppet can think it's going to prosecute another sockpuppet. > >Usenet is full of nutjobs and some are fun to **** with at times but >this one is out of control and wasting so much time people could be >spending talking about food. I'm not trying to control anything as I >know I can't. I'm just saying I miss the time you and other quality >food posters are wasting on the slimeball. The OM crap is just as >bad. Most of the responses I see to people I don't read are negative. > >Sorry if I'm on a soapbox but I find this the most useful group I read >and I felt the need to voice my opinion. Okay, my ribs are marinating in the fridge, gotta flip em a couple times each day, will cook em on Sunday. I managed to fit both pork and the beef in two 1 gallon zip bags. I think I may have used too much garlic, time will tell (is there such a thing as too much garlic). I don't really have a rib marinade recipe, it's whatever seems right but I follow a general plan so I end up with a pretty good example of what's served at a good Chinese restaurant... I detest goopy bbq sauce. http://i50.tinypic.com/290rbqa.jpg Got some rib steaks too, they were cheap, but how bad could they be: http://i47.tinypic.com/21amf10.jpg |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
cybercat wrote:
> > "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message > ... >> Time for this one again, methinks: >> >> http://xkcd.com/386/ >> > > But Mr. Pid will not get it. Prolly not, but at least the rest of group should ;-) -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: > >> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments >> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check >> it out. >> >> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they >> both tell me Bobs in trouble. >> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity >> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on >> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable. >> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card. >> >> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? > >your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about: > > Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about >another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves >the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) >representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the >making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a >magazine or newspaper. > >Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: > > 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another; > 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that >is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); > 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at >least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and > 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.* > ><http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1> > >take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet >does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional >distress or something. I have lotsa trees and I have lotsa Stupid rope. |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On May 28, 10:11*am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> Stu wrote: > > On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz > > > wrote: > >>How many words does it have to be... 300? *500? > > >>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person > >>(specifically, one named "stu"). *How many names have you used > >>since you started posting here? > > > Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8, > > 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence > > of harassment. > > Time for this one again, methinks: > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > > -- > Cheers > Chatty Cathy Perfect!! |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:44:53 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote: >The message > >from WTF > contains these words: > > >> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, > > that's that game for sweaty little grunters with small balls, isn't it? > > Janet Small black balls. |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:53 -0500, Stu wrote:
> btw...I'm leaving that up to Garry, he's going after the logs first. For his Memorial Day cookout, no doubt. After all, he would have to be American and licensed to practice law in the state and county in which Bob resides. Since they would have very little bearing on your case. Bob is not denying he made the posts, and the "logs" are right there on every major news server and Google. This imaginary lawyer of yours is as dumb as you are. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
> Time for this one again, methinks: > > http://xkcd.com/386/ I've never posted any links to youtube, and have watched less than 10 of them, but this is one of the 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxiqp...eature=related -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:32 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
> brooklyn1 wrote: >> >> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real >> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French >> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped >> cream... you'll never resist my charms: >> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg > > Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-) That didn't make you sick at all? I just dry heaved at the though of Sheldon being romantic. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote: > >> Time for this one again, methinks: >> >> http://xkcd.com/386/ > > I've never posted any links to youtube, and have watched less than > 10 of them, but this is one of the 10: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxiqp...eature=related <snork> Quite appropriate in this case, methinks? -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:10:14 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:
> http://i50.tinypic.com/290rbqa.jpg The marinade would be more effective if you pull the excess air out of the bag allowing the meat to make more contact. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
Sqwertz wrote:
> > Be sure to give us updates every step of the way. And don't cop > out in 2 weeks saying you don't have time to follow through with > it, or some other lame excuse. If he doesn't win this case, doesn't that mean the allegations are true? |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
"Dan Abel" > wrote in message ... | In article >, | Sqwertz > wrote: | | > On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:53 -0500, Stu wrote: | > | > > btw...I'm leaving that up to Garry, he's going after the logs first. | > | > For his Memorial Day cookout, no doubt. After all, he would have | > to be American and licensed to practice law in the state and | > county in which Bob resides. | | Not sure about all that. Lawyers in the US are licensed by state, but | who is Garry? Could be a private investigator. | | Although Stu is Canadian, he has stated before that he is a transplant | from the US. He probably has many contacts in the US. Both of whom doubtless are rooting for him forthwith and nonstop. pavane |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:51:28 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, > Sqwertz > wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:53 -0500, Stu wrote: >> >>> btw...I'm leaving that up to Garry, he's going after the logs first. >> >> For his Memorial Day cookout, no doubt. After all, he would have >> to be American and licensed to practice law in the state and >> county in which Bob resides. > > Not sure about all that. Lawyers in the US are licensed by state, but > who is Garry? Could be a private investigator. A PI couldn't do dick about getting a subpoena for logs from the NSP. He did blather something about a $500 retainer. It ultimately depends on what the charge is - civil or criminal - what kind of lawyer he hires and their required credentials. > Although Stu is Canadian, he has stated before that he is a transplant > from the US. He probably has many contacts in the US. You say that like he may be of some importance to somebody other than his wife (who needs a new pair of shoes, BTW). -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
Stu wrote:
> I figure that I've been a nice enough guy by giving Bob 72 hrs. to > decide which way he wants to go, in 10min. I'll know. No. You're just acting like a suck. Get over it. |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? Speaking of identities, you can drop this sockpuppet WTYF/Stu duo of yours. You are clearly the same person. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:38:13 -0500, Stu wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:27:54 -0500, Sqwertz > > wrote: > >>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: >> >>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? >> >>Speaking of identities, you can drop this sockpuppet WTYF/Stu duo >>of yours. You are clearly the same person. > > actually I'm clearly not Bullshit. You post to the exact same groups (including the local Canada and forsale groups), use the same newsreader (different versions), hate the same people, are both hung up on "The Logs". Who else is supporting you other than WTF? Dude, we've seen plenty of sock puppets and plenty of threats of lawsuits over the years (they often go hand in hand). You'd have to be stupid to think we're that stupid. -sw |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
In article >,
brooklyn1 > wrote: > Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real > quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French > vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped > cream... you'll never resist my charms: > http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg Premium French Vanilla? <cough> Looks more like Old Country Buffet's soft serve "ice cream" dessert. Looks good, too. -- Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ http://web.me.com/barbschaller Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures |
2 Both tell me Bobs in trouble
In article >,
brooklyn1 > wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy > > wrote: > > >Stu wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz > >> > wrote: > > > >>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? > >>> > >>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person > >>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used > >>>since you started posting here? > >> > >> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8, > >> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence > >> of harassment. > > > >Time for this one again, methinks: > > > >http://xkcd.com/386/ > > Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real > quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French > vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped > cream... you'll never resist my charms: > http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg On closer examination, maybe it is premium French Vanilla and the whipped cream is Reddi-Wip. I was mistaking the Reddi Wip for the ice cream. Sorry, Sheldon. :-) -- Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ http://web.me.com/barbschaller Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures |
2 Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 17:24:08 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote: >In article >, > brooklyn1 > wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy >> > wrote: >> >> >Stu wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz >> >> > wrote: >> > >> >>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500? >> >>> >> >>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person >> >>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used >> >>>since you started posting here? >> >> >> >> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8, >> >> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence >> >> of harassment. >> > >> >Time for this one again, methinks: >> > >> >http://xkcd.com/386/ >> >> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real >> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French >> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped >> cream... you'll never resist my charms: >> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg > >On closer examination, maybe it is premium French Vanilla and the >whipped cream is Reddi-Wip. I was mistaking the Reddi Wip for the ice >cream. Sorry, Sheldon. :-) It's Stewart's ice cream, I think as good as any commercial premium. Was just gonna be a bowl of icecream until I remembered the berries and redi-wip. The icecream was already in the bowl so by the time I rinsed, dried, hulled, and sliced the strawberries the ice cream was melting... was still luscious aplenty to gets yoose gals to join me for a boudior snackipoo. hehe |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:32 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote: >brooklyn1 wrote: >> >> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real >> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French >> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped >> cream... you'll never resist my charms: >> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg > >Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-) > >Looks really delicious Sheldon. That's just a sample... wait'll I prepare you with the full monty for a rollabout on my rubber sheet! LOL |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:44:25 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:32 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote: > >> brooklyn1 wrote: >>> >>> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real >>> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French >>> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped >>> cream... you'll never resist my charms: >>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg >> >> Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-) > >That didn't make you sick at all? I just dry heaved at the though >of Sheldon being romantic. > >-sw That's the best compliment you could ever give me. hehe |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:54:29 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:10:14 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote: > >> http://i50.tinypic.com/290rbqa.jpg > >The marinade would be more effective if you pull the excess air >out of the bag allowing the meat to make more contact. I agree, but I over stuffed those bags and they both got pinholes in the same corner.... didn't feel like going through the messiness of changing bags... after flipping and marinating three days I doubt it will matter. I only hope I didn't use too much garlic, and I forgot the ginger. I prepped so much food yesterday that this is the first time in a long time I ran out of room in my kitchen fridge that I had to run that wartymelon down to my basement fridge. |
Both tell me Bobs in trouble
"Sqwertz" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:38:13 -0500, Stu wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:27:54 -0500, Sqwertz >> > wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote: >>> >>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net? >>> >>>Speaking of identities, you can drop this sockpuppet WTYF/Stu duo >>>of yours. You are clearly the same person. >> >> actually I'm clearly not > > Bullshit. You post to the exact same groups (including the local > Canada and forsale groups), use the same newsreader (different > versions), hate the same people, are both hung up on "The Logs". > Who else is supporting you other than WTF? Not even different versions, in the messages I see: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 5.00/32.1171 Also identical injection-info, and pretty much everything except the ID and the account at eternal-september. Brian |
2 Both tell me Bobs in trouble
In article >,
brooklyn1 > wrote: > It's Stewart's ice cream, I think as good as any commercial premium. > Was just gonna be a bowl of icecream until I remembered the berries > and redi-wip. The icecream was already in the bowl so by the time I > rinsed, dried, hulled, and sliced the strawberries the ice cream was > melting... was still luscious aplenty to gets yoose gals to join me > for a boudior snackipoo. hehe Now if you'd've had raspberries. . . . -- Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ http://web.me.com/barbschaller Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter