On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:23:43 -0500, "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote:

>(Cross posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.food.cooking-sissy)
>
>
>
>"G.T." > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>
> > > If Blair said that poverty causes terrorism, he was wrong. He was
>prolly
>> > pandering to his socialist base--and it was a silly silly statement.
>You
>> > are equally silly for mouthing it here on the newsgroup. I was born in
>> the
>> > middle of the Great American depression. My dad made $.17 an hour when
>he
>> > could get work. My parents were so poor they ate beans and bread for
>> > months. It took them years to recover from their plight. In the
>interim,
>> > they never killed anyone, and neither did their equally destitute
>> neighbors.
>> >
>> > Sensible people don't kill because they are in lack. Evil people kill
>> > because they know they can.
>> >
>> > As for Fundamental(ist) Christianity being as wrong as Fundemental(ist)
>> > Islam, I also disagree. You are hideously misinformed. There are no
>> > accepted Christian churches preaching terrorism or indiscriminate
>killing
>> of
>> > peoples of other religions.
>> >
>>
>> There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
>> Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron.
>That's
>> terrorism.
>>
>> Greg
>
>
>You are not a very good reader, are you? I wrote: "There are no accepted
>Christian churches preaching terrorism or indiscriminate killing of peoples
>of other religions."
>
>Homosexuality and abortion are repugnant examples of immorality, but there
>are no accepted Christian churches preaching the killing of those who
>practice those acts.

Seems a rather self-serving statement: if a Christian sect teaches
these things, it isn't "accepted," but if a Moslem sect does the same
it presumably is.

--
Josh

bomba > wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:45:36 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>>Where does this impression come from? DYOR, but it's patently not true.
>>
>> The impression comes from my own personal observations (or more
>> accurately, lack of observations...), and from similar opinions by
>> many in the mainstream media (seemingly pretty even across any
>> ideological divides).
>>
>> I have seen individual clerics making statements condemning the
>> violence, but too few, too seldom.
>>
>> If you've got information to the contrary, I'd really love to see it
>> (that's not a sarcastic comment - but a genuine request).
>
>There are loads of articles - just Google. This is a pretty good summation
>of the Muslim countries that have condemned the atrocity:
>http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=9140

That's an interesting link - thanks... but it's talking about
polititians condemning the violence, not Muslim clerics. Imagine for
a minute if Timothy McVeigh had claimed that he blew up the Federal
Building in Oklahoma City as part of an action on behalf of the
Baptist Church. Can you imagine how vocal the Baptist leadership
would get? That's what I'd like to see out of the Muslim clerics.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"G.T." > wrote:

>There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
>Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron. That's
>terrorism.

The difference being that a) the killers are not "fundamentalists"
(unless you can show me where Jesus suggested killing doctors and ***
people...), and b) that the Christian leadership is extremely vocal in
their opposition to the killings. But I agree, it's terrorism.

There are whackos of every political persuasion - I'm going to rise
above listing some that were on the left side of the spectrum because
that would be equally irrelevant.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
news
> "G.T." > wrote:
>
> >There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
> >Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron.
That's
> >terrorism.
>
> The difference being that a) the killers are not "fundamentalists"
> (unless you can show me where Jesus suggested killing doctors and ***
> people...),

Call them what you will, they're still killing and terrorizing in the name
of Christ. When someone is dead does it really matter if the killer can be
labelled a "fundamentalist"?

> and b) that the Christian leadership is extremely vocal in
> their opposition to the killings.

BS. I see plenty of conservative Christians dismissing the killings as
God's work.

> But I agree, it's terrorism.
>
> There are whackos of every political persuasion - I'm going to rise
> above listing some that were on the left side of the spectrum because
> that would be equally irrelevant.
>

I don't see any atheists killing in the name of no-God.

Greg

In article >, "G.T."
> wrote:

>Call them what you will, they're still killing and terrorizing in the name
>of Christ. When someone is dead does it really matter if the killer can be
>labelled a "fundamentalist"?
>

Apparently it does to you...


--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the
ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

>
> Call them what you will, they're still killing and terrorizing in the name
> of Christ. When someone is dead does it really matter if the killer can
> be
> labelled a "fundamentalist"?

Sure. You can't libel the dead. You can libel the killers!!

>
>> and b) that the Christian leadership is extremely vocal in
>> their opposition to the killings.

many examples via google...

>
> BS. I see plenty of conservative Christians dismissing the killings as
> God's work.

Where are you? in So Cal....I find this hard to believe....(insert sarcasm
here)


>
>> But I agree, it's terrorism.
>>
>> There are whackos of every political persuasion - I'm going to rise
>> above listing some that were on the left side of the spectrum because
>> that would be equally irrelevant.
>>
>
> I don't see any atheists killing in the name of no-God.
>
> Greg

you're serious aren't you??
>
>

"0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> 0ld Yank wrote:
>> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Mark Hickey > wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> > >>I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.
>> > >
>> > > ... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
>> > > "dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
>> > > literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when
>> > > attempting to craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel
>> > > across the big pond?
>> > >
>> > > Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?
>> > >
>> > > Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?
>> >
>> > I'm not in the UK, so the short answer is...no. You can do what you
>> > want but if you quote Webster's as an authority on language, I will
>> > not accept that. You are free to do so, but you may from time to
>> > time encounter opprobrium for your jejune use of local resources.
>> > Personally, I only recognize the Oxford and you, as a websterite,
>> > have the option of consulting the New Oxford American [sic]
>> > Dictionary. So don't tell me you weren't warned.
>> >
>> > http://www.oup.com/us/brochure/noad/?view=usa
>>
>>
>> Lordy lordy®. All this time I thought I was speaking English, and I was
>> really speaking Websterese. Of course, that's better than those
>> snooty-tooty people on the big island who speak *Oxfordian*.
>>
>> But whatever they speak, they need to get their idiotic heads buckled on
>> right and see this terrorist thing for what it is: A war against
>> everyone
>> who doesn't Islamibabble.
>
> Terrorism in the name of religion is just that. Terrorism.
> Nothing more, nothing less.
> To suggest otherwise shows your complete ignorance of the situation and
> indeed the facts.
>
> Mike
>
>
> You can't read, can you?
> You guys need to spend more time in school and less time on those silly
> wire-wheelers.
>
> Bicycles are for girls.
>
> --Yankee Viejo

bbbzzzzzttt.Sorry, you're automatically disqualified from being considered
credible.

They're some nice parting gifts backstage. Thanks for playing.
>
>

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Mark Hickey wrote:

> bomba > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:45:36 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>> Where does this impression come from? DYOR, but it's patently not true.
>>>
>>> The impression comes from my own personal observations (or more
>>> accurately, lack of observations...), and from similar opinions by
>>> many in the mainstream media (seemingly pretty even across any
>>> ideological divides).
>>>
>>> I have seen individual clerics making statements condemning the
>>> violence, but too few, too seldom.
>>>
>>> If you've got information to the contrary, I'd really love to see it
>>> (that's not a sarcastic comment - but a genuine request).
>>
>> There are loads of articles - just Google. This is a pretty good summation
>> of the Muslim countries that have condemned the atrocity:
>> http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=9140
>
> That's an interesting link - thanks... but it's talking about
> polititians condemning the violence, not Muslim clerics. Imagine for
> a minute if Timothy McVeigh had claimed that he blew up the Federal
> Building in Oklahoma City as part of an action on behalf of the
> Baptist Church. Can you imagine how vocal the Baptist leadership
> would get? That's what I'd like to see out of the Muslim clerics.

I'm guessing people in London were hearing a lot of sermons about how
suicide is a sin in Islam that day.

but, I'm guessing that the Baptist leadership would probably do something
similar, and try to communicate to their flock and not to the ignorant
gaijin. I mean, really... why bother? I guess maybe I don't see a
cleric's job as being "representative of religion" as much as other people
do.

Lena

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Mark Hickey wrote:

> "G.T." > wrote:
>
>> There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
>> Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron. That's
>> terrorism.
>
> The difference being that a) the killers are not "fundamentalists"
> (unless you can show me where Jesus suggested killing doctors and ***
> people...),

I think these are the same people who insist that Pi==3 simply because the
bible says so.

The bible also says much about stoning homosexuals. (_not_ Jesus.
certainly not him. But the Torah says a lot on the subject.)

> and b) that the Christian leadership is extremely vocal in
> their opposition to the killings. But I agree, it's terrorism.

mrr? I haven't heard anything about this "extrememly vocal" opposition.
Post sources?

Lena

"alsandor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
Hairy a écrit :

> > >> I am very much afeared that our irrational reactions are causing
> > >> everyone to reach the wrong conclusions.
> > >
> > > Everyone but you, I assume....
> >
> > What is this? Juvenile questions time? I believe I said "our" which
> > unless I am mistaken, includes me, although I have never been one to
> > accept official explanations that are a. too pat, and b. self-
> > serving.
>
> Usually, a spade is just a spade.

Who are you, really? Donald Trump?

How did you know??


> Burying your head in the sand only
> accomplishes one thing. It gives your enemies the opportunity to come
along
> and kick you in the ass.

So your response is to attack the first target your brain recalls from
past (possibly fabricated) news reports, without the slightest
confirmation of their involvement? You'll probably tell me the loss of
thousands, or even millions, of innocent civilians is worth it to save
your skinny ass (metaphorically speaking). And with that attitude, you
wonder why 93% of the world's population see the current US actions as
dangerous to the overall security of the world? Is this statement
anti-American? Only if you think all you can do is to cause pain to
others it is. You have the potential to solve the problems but instead
you choose to compound them.

Jeez...for someone who decries jumping to conclusions, you sure do a lot of
it.

> Do I believe everything my government tells me? No,
> but they are unquestionably in a better position to know, than I am.

To know what? Which are the desperately impoverished nations that are
clamouring for pointless invasions based up on trumped up charges to
find so-called perpetrators that may or may not be there? Yeah, my
guess is you're right there. It's not likely that a single individual,
possessing obviously the same gormless parameters (me good them bad),
could come up with such a scenario on their own. For a job like this,
you need the brain power of the dumbass squad (aka, the bush league)
and their coterie of corrupt capitalists comrads to concoct that sort
of canular.

With this, I agree, wholeheartedly.

At this point, I would distrust anything I hear or read (including
this), if I were you. Just resist the urge to jump to conclusions.
That in itself would be a victory for truth and justice.

Or stupidity. Since I cannot personally verify every piece of information
that is thrown my way, I can only process what I see and hear, from all
sides, and draw my conclusions from that.

Or perhaps you prefer to ignore that altogether. That would be your
choice, of course, but it comes at a price...your self-respect.

Considering the mandate of the terrorists, which seems to be to kill as many
people in the free world as possible, I would be hard pressed to have
respect for people that advocate doing nothing.
You are, however, entitled to your opinion, as am I.
H

"G.T." > wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
>news
>> "G.T." > wrote:
>>
>> >There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
>> >Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron.
>That's
>> >terrorism.
>>
>> The difference being that a) the killers are not "fundamentalists"
>> (unless you can show me where Jesus suggested killing doctors and ***
>> people...),
>
>Call them what you will, they're still killing and terrorizing in the name
>of Christ. When someone is dead does it really matter if the killer can be
>labelled a "fundamentalist"?

Only if the label is being applied inaccurately.

>> and b) that the Christian leadership is extremely vocal in
>> their opposition to the killings.
>
>BS. I see plenty of conservative Christians dismissing the killings as
>God's work.

Name some. I don't know one, and I know quite a few conservative
Christians.

>> But I agree, it's terrorism.
>>
>> There are whackos of every political persuasion - I'm going to rise
>> above listing some that were on the left side of the spectrum because
>> that would be equally irrelevant.
>>
>
>I don't see any atheists killing in the name of no-God.

Greg, Lenin. Lenin, Greg. Glad you two could finally meet.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Dave W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > 0ld Yank wrote:
> >> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Mark Hickey > wrote in
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> > >>I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.
> >> > >
> >> > > ... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
> >> > > "dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
> >> > > literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when
> >> > > attempting to craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel
> >> > > across the big pond?
> >> > >
> >> > > Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?
> >> > >
> >> > > Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not in the UK, so the short answer is...no. You can do what you
> >> > want but if you quote Webster's as an authority on language, I will
> >> > not accept that. You are free to do so, but you may from time to
> >> > time encounter opprobrium for your jejune use of local resources.
> >> > Personally, I only recognize the Oxford and you, as a websterite,
> >> > have the option of consulting the New Oxford American [sic]
> >> > Dictionary. So don't tell me you weren't warned.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.oup.com/us/brochure/noad/?view=usa
> >>
> >>
> >> Lordy lordy®. All this time I thought I was speaking English, and I
was
> >> really speaking Websterese. Of course, that's better than those
> >> snooty-tooty people on the big island who speak *Oxfordian*.
> >>
> >> But whatever they speak, they need to get their idiotic heads buckled
on
> >> right and see this terrorist thing for what it is: A war against
> >> everyone
> >> who doesn't Islamibabble.
> >
> > Terrorism in the name of religion is just that. Terrorism.
> > Nothing more, nothing less.
> > To suggest otherwise shows your complete ignorance of the situation and
> > indeed the facts.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > You can't read, can you?
> > You guys need to spend more time in school and less time on those silly
> > wire-wheelers.
> >
> > Bicycles are for girls.
> >
> > --Yankee Viejo
>
> bbbzzzzzttt.Sorry, you're automatically disqualified from being considered
> credible.
>
> They're some nice parting gifts backstage. Thanks for playing.


"Bicycles are for girls".

It stung you, didn't it?

--Yankee Viejo

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:05:28 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:

>Lena B Katz > wrote in
:
>
>>> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
>>
>> a little description, please? i do so hate trying to copy from
>> unix to mac....
>

>Pan is trying to foist his "Krusades gud Islam bad" message on you.
>He only chooses articles that demonstrate that the godless Islamee
>were in error in opposing Christianisation, notwiuthstanding the fact
>that Islam accepts Christianity, and the message of Christ, at par
>with other religions of the book (Judaism and Zoroastrianism); they
>just don't make a big hairy deal about it.
>

Hi Michel, glad to see your still here to uphold the far left wing.
In no way did I foist this url on Lena. I did offer another view ( at
odds with the far left view) of the Crusades. By the was your spelling
("Krusades gud Islam bad") has slipped noticeably

Islamic fanatics do not accept Christianity, in that they have said
that Christians are non believers and must be killed.

>Of course, the author need not substantiate his assertions with
>supporting evidence as long as it meets the anti-Islamic needs of the
>reader, as it were. Nowhere is a source cited, and that's ok with
>Pan-bo.

Once again Your are showing your arrogance, in that only your sources
are believable.
>
>I've tried to engage Pan in a reversal of roles but he is adamant in
>the righteousness of his view and the leftiousness of mine :-)

I'm sorry Michel, I could never reverse my role to be that much left
wing. No matter how interesting the argument would be.

Pan Ohco

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:05:28 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> Lena B Katz > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
>>>
>>> a little description, please? i do so hate trying to copy from
>>> unix to mac....
>>
>
>> Pan is trying to foist his "Krusades gud Islam bad" message on you.
>> He only chooses articles that demonstrate that the godless Islamee
>> were in error in opposing Christianisation, notwiuthstanding the fact
>> that Islam accepts Christianity, and the message of Christ, at par
>> with other religions of the book (Judaism and Zoroastrianism); they
>> just don't make a big hairy deal about it.
>>
>
> Hi Michel, glad to see your still here to uphold the far left wing.
> In no way did I foist this url on Lena. I did offer another view ( at
> odds with the far left view) of the Crusades. By the was your spelling
> ("Krusades gud Islam bad") has slipped noticeably

I've got to say, the Christian slant on the entire article was a bit
disturbing (to me). I don't understand what the Christians thought they
were losing by being under Muslim rule (the muslims, by and large, treated
Jews better than the Christians did... but, by the same token, the Jews
were probably better behaved there, as well.)

>> Of course, the author need not substantiate his assertions with
>> supporting evidence as long as it meets the anti-Islamic needs of the
>> reader, as it were. Nowhere is a source cited, and that's ok with
>> Pan-bo.
>
> Once again Your are showing your arrogance, in that only your sources
> are believable.

am I anti-islamic? I should hope not! am i anti-idiot? absolutely!

lena

"Hairy" > wrote in
:

> Jeez...for someone who decries jumping to conclusions, you sure do
> a lot of it.

There's a difference between jumping to conclusions and observing
behaviour.

> Considering the mandate of the terrorists, which seems to be to
> kill as many people in the free world as possible, I would be hard
> pressed to have respect for people that advocate doing nothing.
> You are, however, entitled to your opinion, as am I.

I don't advocate doing nothing, nor did I suggest that was an
appropriate line of action, but I do advocate being careful in
pointing fingers. For one thing, it now turns out the perpetrators
were from Yorkshire in the UK and not from the "Al-Qaeda secret
underground training bases and WMD repositories in Upper Volta" (tm
applied for).

At least the British government had the common sense to not accuse
anyone without at least some sherd of evidence.

I'm fairly certain that George and the Brain Truss (sounds like a
60's rock group) accused Al-Qaeda without any evidence beyond a few
travel documents which may or may not have been falsified. In fact,
Bin Laden took two months to "admit" that he did it.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Michel Boucher" > wrote
>
> > Jeez...for someone who decries jumping to conclusions, you sure do
> > a lot of it.
>
> There's a difference between jumping to conclusions and observing
> behaviour.

Of course there is. What's your point?
Snipping relevant text just to make your comment look pertinent seems a bit
dishonest to me. Is that the way you live your life?

>
> > Considering the mandate of the terrorists, which seems to be to
> > kill as many people in the free world as possible, I would be hard
> > pressed to have respect for people that advocate doing nothing.
> > You are, however, entitled to your opinion, as am I.
>
> I don't advocate doing nothing, nor did I suggest that was an
> appropriate line of action,

I didn't say you did, unless you are also "alsandor".

but I do advocate being careful in
> pointing fingers. For one thing, it now turns out the perpetrators
> were from Yorkshire in the UK and not from the "Al-Qaeda secret
> underground training bases and WMD repositories in Upper Volta" (tm
> applied for).

Please prove the above . If it came from a government or the press, it can't
be trusted. Seems like I've heard that, somewhere.

>
> At least the British government had the common sense to not accuse
> anyone without at least some sherd of evidence.
>
> I'm fairly certain that George and the Brain Truss (sounds like a
> 60's rock group) accused Al-Qaeda without any evidence beyond a few
> travel documents which may or may not have been falsified. In fact,
> Bin Laden took two months to "admit" that he did it.
>

When a group has shown a propensity for committing certain types of acts,
and then admits to same, conclusions of guilt can be drawn, IMO. I'm not
sure what it would take to convince you since you seem to think that
information from official or non-official sources can't be trusted.
H

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> Shaun aRe wrote:
> > "Bob W" <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net> wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> I have a mental
> >> picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
> >> sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
> >> because he can't come up with the deductible.
> >
> > I am afraid that in this at least, you are wrong. I don't care for
> > the guy's attitudes - mark that mind you, but he is not as you
> > describe.
>
> You know "Old Yank"?

Gene Royer from alt.skunks - he has a thing for silly pseudonyms, and messed
up ideologies. I think he's also the worlds oldest troll or something.

BTW - you should see the huge number of Acroprops it takes to hold up his
vast ego.


Shaun aRe

WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Carmen wrote:

> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???

Even though you won't be reading this...

It has to do with Candied Corpses and Carmelized Carnage!

(it's what happens whenever a powdered sugar factory blows up).

Lena

see, you can make anything relevant if you think long enough!

(Carmen) wrote in news:15221-42D65ECA-398
@storefull-3118.bay.webtv.net:

> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???

Obviously you are unde the mistaken impression that we only discuss
cooking here.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Carmen" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???

I asked me the same thing: every day I kill a lot of person, and the more I
kill, the more rise again.???????????????
Pandora

"Carmen" > wrote

> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???

Webtv, whoda thought?

What exactly about the subject line made you think it was a cooking thread?
While I'm at it, what does your post have to do with cooking?

nancy

"Pandora" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Carmen" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???
>
> I asked me the same thing: every day I kill a lot of person, and the
> more I kill, the more rise again.???????????????
> Pandora

<G> You need to practice

"Ophelia" > ha scritto nel messaggio
o.uk...
>
> "Pandora" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Carmen" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> ...
>>> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???
>>
>> I asked me the same thing: every day I kill a lot of person, and the more
>> I kill, the more rise again.???????????????
>> Pandora
>
> <G> You need to practice

Why? What can I do, seriously?
Pandora
>
>

"Pandora" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> o.uk...
>>
>> "Pandora" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Carmen" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> ...
>>>> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???
>>>
>>> I asked me the same thing: every day I kill a lot of person, and the
>>> more I kill, the more rise again.???????????????
>>> Pandora
>>
>> <G> You need to practice
>
> Why? What can I do, seriously?

Awww I was joking

"Pandora" > wrote in
:

> "Ophelia" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> o.uk...
>>
>> "Pandora" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Carmen" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> ...
>>>> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH
>>>> COOKING???
>>>
>>> I asked me the same thing: every day I kill a lot of person, and
>>> the more I kill, the more rise again.???????????????
>>> Pandora
>>
>> <G> You need to practice
>
> Why? What can I do, seriously?
> Pandora

You can get a reader that allows you to killfile properly using well-
defined strings. I recommend Xnews unless you're unfortunate enough
to compute with fruit.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Ophelia" > ha scritto nel messaggio
o.uk...
>
> "Pandora" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ophelia" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> o.uk...
>>>
>>> "Pandora" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Carmen" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>> ...
>>>>> WHAT IN THE HECK HAS ALL THIS CHATTER HAVE TO DO WITH COOKING???
>>>>
>>>> I asked me the same thing: every day I kill a lot of person, and the
>>>> more I kill, the more rise again.???????????????
>>>> Pandora
>>>
>>> <G> You need to practice
>>
>> Why? What can I do, seriously?
>
> Awww I was joking

I'm not joking. In fact I would like to know if is possible to kill the
thread!
Thanks )
Pandora
>
>