| Re: Davey, a question |
PANIX -- Public Access N .. |
| Allisson (allisson@panix.com) |
2003/07/30 16:10 |
In article <bg9cj1$h6f$1@news.onet.pl>,
Piorokrat <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
>
>news:bg8jm3$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.
Like I said, I misunderstood what you meant by leaving.
>
>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.
And how does he dream of making money out of people's expressions
in this medium? Jeem might put it on a tee shirt but that's just
old fashioned capitalism like you embrace.
>> 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.
<boggle>
Wow.
</boggle>
I saw a blue whale, last week when John and I were in Monterey,
and it was an amazingly large creature [Blue Whales are the
largest creature currently living on the Earth] but not as
large as the error in your perception and thought; you
could probably fit all 200 blue whales in the gap between reality
and that thought.
>That's what I think.
You're welcome to your thoughts of imaginary relationships.
I'll stick with my real one with the person to whom I can
say and have said, "And we shall be one, and one another's
all."
>And I think I'm entitled to my opinion.
Certainly, despite it having as much truth as Saddam's sons have
functioning hearts and it being as attached to reality as the idea
that you have fathered no children by any woman. [BTW, did you
hear about the new studies on autism? It adds more weight to the
lack of impact of the MMR shot:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3067149.stm]
>
>> >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.
You're not commenting on the fact that I admit that I may have
misunderstood something because I failed to read all 2+k posts
when I returned from being away? Oh wait, you want me to have
taken umbrage at the fact that you're posting.
>>
>>
>> >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.
Seems to be like your perceptions above/
>>
>> >
>> >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.
Most monkeys with typewriters are better than the choader-bot,
that was my point, as you well knew.
[snip]
>> >> > 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.
Sorry, the message was from George and measured posting by
the standard set by Aaron.
>> 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
See above for cite.
[snip]
Alli
--
- "Relata refero. Ne Iupeter quidem omibus placet"
(I only tell you what I heard. Even Jove himself
cannot please everyone) -- Anon.
|
| 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 |
|
|