Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't reply to
>> you, again -- at least in this subthread.
>
> You've said that umpteen times already and it has rarely if ever
> been true.

Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't reply to
> >> you, again -- at least in this subthread.
> >
> > You've said that umpteen times already and it has rarely if ever
> > been true.
>
> Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?

F___ you too.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>>
>>>"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't reply to
>>>>you, again -- at least in this subthread.
>>>
>>>You've said that umpteen times already and it has rarely if ever
>>>been true.
>>
>>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
>
>
> F___ you too.
>

A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-old can say as
much. And probably more eloquently.


jim
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> >>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
> > F___ you too.
> >
>
> A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-old can say
> as much. And probably more eloquently.

Personally, I think the lot of you are bunch of idiots, including you,
Jim.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> >>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
>> >
>> > F___ you too.
>> >
>>
>> A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-old can
>> say as much. And probably more eloquently.
>
> Personally, I think the lot of you are bunch of idiots, including
> you, Jim.

But at least you're humble about it, Z.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
>>>
>>>F___ you too.
>>>
>>
>>A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-old can say
>>as much. And probably more eloquently.
>
>
> Personally, I think the lot of you are bunch of idiots, including you,
> Jim.
>

Whose brain did your borrow? You've proven more than once that you
haven't one. Must have been some braindead patient from a mental ward.


jim
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
>>>
>>>F___ you too.
>>>
>>
>>A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-old can say
>>as much. And probably more eloquently.
>
>
> Personally, I think the lot of you are bunch of idiots, including you,
> Jim.
>

BTW, if we're all idiots, why don't you go where you are welcome? Or was
that something about birds of a feather?


jim
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Whose brain did your borrow? You've proven more than once that you
> haven't one. Must have been some braindead patient from a mental ward.

What you've proven is that you have the emotional maturity of a little
child who is not capable of a rational discussion without resorting
to continual, unprovoked, infantile name calling.

Bill

-
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Whose brain did your borrow? You've proven more than once that you
>>haven't one. Must have been some braindead patient from a mental ward.
>
>
> What you've proven is that you have the emotional maturity of a little
> child who is not capable of a rational discussion without resorting
> to continual, unprovoked, infantile name calling.
>
> Bill
>
> -
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

And all you've proven is that you haven't a real clue. And that is
bankable. You're wrong. everyone but you knows it. But you can't face
the truth of it. Who would you rather be?


jim
 
>Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>> Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:03:35 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>F___ you too.

Well, no answer to the question, but he's certainly a very well
accomplished, practiced doofus.
--
Rick Onanian
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> And all you've proven is that you haven't a real clue. And that is
> bankable. You're wrong. everyone but you knows it. But you can't face
> the truth of it. Who would you rather be?

What we have is Jim Lane and a few other idiots whose intelligence
is so limited that they cannot disambiguate quoting conventions that
even my newsreader can handle automatically and reliably in only a
few lines of code.

Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>And all you've proven is that you haven't a real clue. And that is
>>bankable. You're wrong. everyone but you knows it. But you can't face
>>the truth of it. Who would you rather be?
>
>
> What we have is Jim Lane and a few other idiots whose intelligence
> is so limited that they cannot disambiguate quoting conventions that
> even my newsreader can handle automatically and reliably in only a
> few lines of code.
>
> Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
> of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.
>
> Bill
>

Wrong, loser. Your format was wrong. You know it but are in a state of
denial. See your shrink before you get put back in a rubber room.

You should have deleted Sorni or acknowledged you were jumping in at the
wrong level. You lack of manners and protocol cannot be excused by
color-coded readers.

You are plain WRONG, clown. As a grown-up man you should be able to
admit your mistake. But we're not holding our collective breath.


jim
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> > Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
> > of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.
> > Bill
> >
>
> Wrong, loser. Your format was wrong. You know it but are in a state of
> denial. See your shrink before you get put back in a rubber room.
>
> You should have deleted Sorni or acknowledged you were jumping in at
> the wrong level. You lack of manners and protocol cannot be excused by
> color-coded readers.

Hey moron, Sorni claimed he was *misquoted*. He wasn't. Even my
newsreader could figure it out. I guess it is smarter than the
lot of you put together.

The only valid criticism is that my original post was longer than
it needed to be (by a few words.) So what? If you don't like it,
whine to the style police.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
>>> of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, loser. Your format was wrong. You know it but are in a state
>> of denial. See your shrink before you get put back in a rubber room.
>>
>> You should have deleted Sorni or acknowledged you were jumping in at
>> the wrong level. You lack of manners and protocol cannot be excused
>> by color-coded readers.
>
> Hey moron, Sorni claimed he was *misquoted*. He wasn't. Even my
> newsreader could figure it out. I guess it is smarter than the
> lot of you put together.

I used the wrong term initially, as clearly I was talking about ATTRIBUTION,
not quoting per se. (See? That's how someone admits an error, Bill :) Had
*NO IDEA* it would lead to such a protracted cluster coitus.

Still, once it was painfully clear what the issue was, you absolutely
refused to own up to even the most inconsequential of mistakes.

Bill "ancient history" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I used the wrong term initially, as clearly I was talking about ATTRIBUTION,
> not quoting per se. (See? That's how someone admits an error, Bill :) Had
> *NO IDEA* it would lead to such a protracted cluster coitus.
>
> Still, once it was painfully clear what the issue was, you absolutely
> refused to own up to even the most inconsequential of mistakes.

The attribution was right was well, as who said what could be
unambiguously determined. Your claims to the contrary are simply
lies on your part - it was explained to you enough that you can't
pretend ignorance.

The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
post could have been a few words shorter.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> I used the wrong term initially, as clearly I was talking about
>> ATTRIBUTION, not quoting per se. (See? That's how someone admits
>> an error, Bill :) Had *NO IDEA* it would lead to such a protracted
>> cluster coitus.
>>
>> Still, once it was painfully clear what the issue was, you absolutely
>> refused to own up to even the most inconsequential of mistakes.
>
> The attribution was right was well, as who said what could be
> unambiguously determined. Your claims to the contrary are simply
> lies on your part - it was explained to you enough that you can't
> pretend ignorance.
>
> The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
> post could have been a few words shorter.

THAT WAS the complaint, you moronic egomaniac! The few words were "Sorni
says:"!

Bill "God, you're dense" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
> > post could have been a few words shorter.
>
> THAT WAS the complaint, you moronic egomaniac! The few words were "Sorni
> says:"!

That's another lie - you complained about quotes or attribution, not
about writing style being merely slightly verbose. Are you really
that stupid or are you just another usenet ass who froths at the mouth
because he can't read proper English?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
>>> post could have been a few words shorter.
>>
>> THAT WAS the complaint, you moronic egomaniac! The few words were
>> "Sorni says:"!
>
> That's another lie - you complained about quotes or attribution, not
> about writing style being merely slightly verbose. Are you really
> that stupid or are you just another usenet ass who froths at the mouth
> because he can't read proper English?

Last reply (this round).

You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your ****ing holy
newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case said "Sorni says:").

All I did was point that out (yes, I used the term "quote", which IS THE
ACTUAL INTENTION of said attribution, but I admit is technically incorrect
in this context).

Everyone else saw it; many chimed in to tell you so, but you just won't own
it. I'm guessing you never will. (You conveniently ignored a few of your
fellow "ARPA era nerds" who ALSO saw your minor little stupid error and let
you know.)

Now if Jim Lane will resist the urge to respond to you any longer, this
seemingly endless thread can die a merciful, Zen-like death. (I say Jim
because your replies to him have pulled me back in more than a few times;
just can't seem to help myself!)

Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me froth at
the keyboard" S.

PS: AFAIK no one called you a "liar" in all this, the way you like to throw
around names. You're just a small asshole.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> > That's another lie - you complained about quotes or attribution, not
> > about writing style being merely slightly verbose. Are you really
> > that stupid or are you just another usenet ass who froths at the mouth
> > because he can't read proper English?
>
> Last reply (this round).

We've heard that one before.

>
> You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your ****ing holy
> newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case said "Sorni says:").

Minor wording aside, what I posted said "Sorni says that Durbin says:"
The attribution is clear to anyone with half a brain. By suppressing
the "Durbin says" portion of it, you are willfully distorting what
was actually said, which makes you dishonest, since it is obviously not
being done by accident.

>
> Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me froth at
> the keyboard" S.

Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what emotional
problem?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

>> You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your
>> ****ing holy newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case
>> said "Sorni says:").
>
> Minor wording aside, what I posted said "Sorni says that Durbin says:"
> The attribution is clear to anyone with half a brain. By suppressing
> the "Durbin says" portion of it, you are willfully distorting what
> was actually said, which makes you dishonest, since it is obviously
> not being done by accident.

Now you ARE lying. Anyone can read the original posts and judge for
themselves.
>
>>
>> Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me
>> froth at the keyboard" S.
>
> Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what
> emotional problem?

The word is "due", moron. And you question MY ability to understand
English.

Bill "just go away for God's sake" S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back