news:bg8jm3$a11$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <bg864g$dt3$1@news.onet.pl>,
> Piorokrat <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
> >
> >Uzytkownik "Canader Canader" <canaduher@beer.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> >news:d8119f70.0307291032.5abb1813@posting.google.com...
> >> allisson@panix.com (Allisson) wrote in message
> >news:<bg60ap$md8$1@panix5.panix.com>...
> >> > In article <b9b3de8.0307290321.18c5e802@posting.google.com>,
> >> > David writes as Jerzy Jakubowski <branchofjesse@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > Davey on Mike:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >> Naah. Don't call it. Just chase it. You're a lawyer, don't
forget.
> >> >
> >> > And you were going to leave and *never* post again, or was that
> >> > only under your real name and prexisting socs?
> >
> >Your boyfriend lawyer axed me a question.
>
> And you were going to *never* post again -- which pretty much
> read as a great big grandstanding statement, but I digress --
> actually, I though you were going to leave Usenet all together,
> or so you implied.
I said I might use my group, and I did use it because it seemed ungracious
to those who were so kind as to feel I deserved to have one, just to ignore
it.
Had Mickey not written a question, I would not have put in an appearance.
Maybe I should not have allowed myself to be provoked, especially by such a
pathetic excuse for a Usenet participant as he is. Someone who only drives
other people off and dreams of making money in his vile profession out of
people's expressions in this medium.
> Hey Mike, Davey thinks you're my boyfriend or is he talking about
> something more than three years old and over with, again?
>
I think you two are lovers, on and off, even now.
That's what I think.
And I think I'm entitled to my opinion.
> >If you ask someone a question, how can you then take offence if they
answer
> >it?
>
> Since no umbrage was taken, the putative offence against you was all
> in your mind. I asked you a question because of what I understood and,
> more likely, I misunderstood something because I didn't read every single
> post that happened over the past few weeks.
>
>
> >That's fairly typical of the weasly, manipulative behaviour of you and
your
> >friends.
>
> There's no need to get snarky. You misunderstood, I misunderstood, it
> happens.
>
Aha. It was all just one big misunderstanding.
>
> >
> >It's not like I came back and reposted the Book of Samson and Dallillah
over
> >again, although I admit I am tempted.
>
> It's better reading than the choader-bot; though, that is saying little
> about your writing and more about the choader.
>
If you don't like my writing you can always do better.
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > >Yeah. He, thanks to you, is now the wittiest man left on the group.
> >> >
> >> > Which "he" are you talking about: Mike, this little soc of yours,
> >> > or Chaney and the DarthChumleyChoadBot?
> >> >
> >
> >Chaney, of course.
>
> Poor Matt, considered less witty than Chaney.
>
>
> >
> >I am telling you that it is blindingly obvious to the casual visitor that
> >Steve Chaney now owns this newsgroup.
>
> Owns, nah. Perpetual kicktoy, yes.
In marrowmind, you can call him kicktoy.
>
> Of couse, because kooks have little life -- despite his alleged
> impending fatherhood, in Chaney's case -- their noise volume is
> signifiantly greater than the signal volume of the real members.
> An old-timer did a drive-by a month or so ago and commented that
> Chaney has shown no change in a decade, which is pretty sad.
>
Yeah, Steve's gonna have a kid?
Congratulations, Steve, that's great news.
> >> > I'm surprised at your lack of clarity and your lack of perspective.
> >> > This newsgroup has gone through several incarnations and personnel
> >> > changes over the years. If we lack witty men, it's only because
> >> > CB and Matt K have lives that deminish their volumn as compared to
> >> > the eternal fount of kookitude that is Chaney.
> >
> >Aaah, so you _did_ know I was talking about Chaney.
>
> No. However, if you add the DarthChumleyBot, the Chaney
> froggeries, and real Chaney posts, he's easily is in
> the 1-2 ku (Kulkis) range or major kook.
Aaron Kulkis is a friend of mine. You leave him outta this.
> The old article by George with the ppm (post-per-month)
> calculations for what constitutes a ku:
> <w0jk4.757$F55.12470@nnrp1-w.snfc21.pbi.net>#1/1
>
> Interestingly enough the orgins of the kulkis come
> from the Chaney standard of 330 ppm.
>
> >
> >Does he stammer when he talks on the telephone?
> >
> >Well?
>
> Since I have never talked directly with him on
> the phone, I am unable to answer the question
> as you have asked it. And, since I did post
> an appology for the voicemail comment, I
> have no desire to open that up again. If
> you want to stir something up, do your own
> dirty work.
Okay, if you appologised, then I appologise for dragging it up.
>
> [snip what Davey has missed]
>
> >Well, I'm not back.
>
> Your loss.
>
> [snip the snarky comment]
>
> Allisson
>
> --
> - "Relata refero. Ne Iupeter quidem omibus placet"
> (I only tell you what I heard. Even Jove himself
> cannot please everyone) -- Anon.
Uncle Davey
"Caveat canem" - some ex Usenet poster right now.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 |
|