Dave
"Dave W" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:35:27 GMT, "Darsh" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:[email protected]...
> >> "Huw Pritchard" <
[email protected]> wrote in
> >message
> >>
news:[email protected]...
> >> | On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:32:15 +0000, Dave did issue forth:
> >> |
> >> | > Very well said Rim Job! Powerfull stuff indeed! And here you are
people
> >> | > would vote you as the poster most likely to post anything even remotely related to ATB's?
> >> |
> >> | Welllll, seeing as he posted an RR on Monday...
> >>
> >> ...and Dave's exceeded his (very high) quota of "woe is me/why doesn't
> >anyone understand
> >> me/only to be followed by 'I was just trolling'" posts, point to Mr.
Bean.
> >
> >That is if you buy the "I was just trolling" part. I don't believe it at all.
>
> the roaches ALWAYS make themselves known. You now fall in that category, fish boy!
Whatever Dave. I find it hard to even respond to you in a remotely serious manner. You are a liar
and an idiot. Some of it is not your fault, and some of it is. I feel sort of sorry for you.
> I believe he is just a simple liar, with no backbone.
>
> Yeah and I believe your a moron, with no command of the english language, and with limited reading
> comprehension to boot.
I understand your "command of the english language" line, but it is simply untrue. I have a decent
command of the english language, and I comprehend fairly well.
>
> He COULDN'T
> >stay away.
>
> See there ya' go, not that I couldn't. I WOULDN'T big difference.
No see Dave, you COULDN'T. You tried, but you failed. You want people to believe you trolled the
whole thing up, but you didn't. You simply failed to follow through.
> He lost his own battle that he didn't even have the courage to
> >really even start.
See above
> hahaha, that's funny as hell. WTF does that mean?
>
> if you have been paying attention, which you obviously haven't, you'd see that I start no
> argument. But I have no problem with participating in one.....
Dave, that is the saddest thing of all. You THINK you participate in arguements and "do well" or
something. You constantly talk about yourself "being here" or "not having a problem with it all".
You are lieing to yourself and everyone here. Lieing is a bad habit to form.
Pretty funny from a guy that thinks "substantiative" is NOT a word. I let that go last time because
I simply saw your idiocy for what it was. It was funny to read you degrade my command of the english
language over a word I wrote, that you don't think exists.
Dave, you are nothing. You are normal and unextraordinary. Don't try to make yourself into something
you are not. It belittles you. Take what you are and roll with it.
Oh yea, BTW... get a better dictionary before you go spewing nonesense about words you have
never seen.
darsh
_____________________________________________________________
substantiative adj : serving to support or corroborate; "collateral evidence" [syn: collateral,
confirmative, confirming, confirmatory, corroborative, corroboratory, substantiating, validating,
validatory, verificatory, verifying]
>
> Dave (still here!)
Not for me you aren't.
>
>
>
> >
> >darsh
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pete Fagerlin
> >>
> >> Save Fruita trails!
http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
> >>
> >>