New Pix

[Dave W]

On Mon, 12 May 2003 12:48:19 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:44:04 -0400, "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>| On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:31:38 -0400, "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>|
>>| >| > No, it's focusing on the bike rather than the ride. It's
>>self-evident.
>>| >
>>| >It's self-evident that some people cannot comprehend the concept of
>>focusing
>>| >on the bike **AND** the ride.
>>|
>>| >It's also a whole big pile of "my way/attitude/etc. is right, yours is wrong."
>>|
>>| Where did I write that blubberpuss?
>>
>>Where did I say you did felchmeister?
>
>The part right after "It's also" Starcommander. Try again.

Uh, he didn't say "Pete has a big plie of my way/attitude/etc is right, yours is wrong" But if he
had he would have been correct. Try again Spielberg...

 

[Dave W]

On Mon, 12 May 2003 16:25:03 -0400, Technician <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 16:16:22 -0400, "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >| On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:44:04 -0400, "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >|
>> >| >"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >| >news:[email protected]...
>> >| >| On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:31:38 -0400, "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >| >|
>> >| >| >| > No, it's focusing on the bike rather than the ride. It's
>> >| >self-evident.
>> >| >| >
>> >| >| >It's self-evident that some people cannot comprehend the concept of
>> >| >focusing
>> >| >| >on the bike **AND** the ride.
>> >| >|
>> >| >| >It's also a whole big pile of "my way/attitude/etc. is right, yours is wrong."
>> >| >|
>> >| >| Where did I write that blubberpuss?
>> >| >
>> >| >Where did I say you did felchmeister?
>> >|
>> >| The part right after "It's also" Starcommander. Try again.
>> >
>> >You are the one identifying yourself. Seems it does apply mainly to you. Thanks for pointing
>> >that out.
>>
>> Pointing out your idiocy? No problem, Starcommander blubberpuss.
>>
>> p.s. As long as you're borrowing that camera get some nifty pics of grass growing and paint
>> drying, to add to your collection.
>>
>>
>
>I do say, Pete is becoming a troll.

Becoming? We are way past Becoming!

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 10:33:00 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

|> |I merely wrote 'I see nothing wrong with that'. - No point wasting your
|time
|> |trying and play that tired 'where did I say that?' card with me.
|>
|> ROTFL whiner.
|
|Whiner? Heheheheheh - kiss my scrawny ****, heheheheh......
|
|I just find it hilarious, that in every a.m-b disagreement you get involved |in, you trot out the
same tired old 'tools' of circular, flawed reasoning, |and no real argument. It's just useless
semantics.

If the shoe fits...

The fact that you assume way too much and get your chamois repeatedly bunched is nobody's fault
but your own.

|> |Why does it make somone more concerned about their bike(s) than the
|riding,
|> |just because they have taken and posted pictures of their bikes 'static'? |That's almost like
|> saying John G is more concerned with the bottles than
|the
|> |beer, because he posted a picture of beer, in bottles, in the fridge, not |being drunk.
|>
|> No, it's focusing on the bike rather than the ride. It's self-evident.
|
|Only to you - it was a few photographs FFS, not a complete, comprehensive |and exhaustive
expression of the inner workings of a persons being, |heheheheh.......

Nah, the phenomenom isn't limited to just Starcommander Blubberpusses photos, it's actually quite
common, hence my comment.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 07:56:17 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:

|
|Uh, he didn't say "Pete has a big plie of my way/attitude/etc is |right, yours is wrong" But if he
had he would have been correct. Try |again Spielberg...

What's wrong puppy, no JD or Spider around to hump?

ROTFLMAO.

 

[Corvus Corvax]

P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I've never understood the whole "here is my generic bike leaning against a (insert couch, tree,
> post, workbench) picture" followed by a laundry list of components" thing.

Hee hee. You're so cute, Pete. Here's mine:

http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/bike.html

Of course, I've got a whole web page of my generic bike leaning against:

Cars: http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/CarTrouble.html

Diners: http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/TomsRestaurant.html

Art Museums: http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/MetMuseum.html
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/Guggenheim.html

Huge inflatable rodents: http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/GiantRat.html

Boats: http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/Intrepid.html

Insane asylums: http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/WardsIsland.html

In fact, I have the mother of all "here's a stupid picture of my bike leaning against something"
web sites:

http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/

XOXO

CC

 

[Penny S.]

Corvus Corvax wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I've never understood the whole "here is my generic bike leaning against a (insert couch, tree,
>> post, workbench) picture" followed by a laundry list of components" thing.

>
>
> XOXO
>
> CC

you guys crack me up. thanks for the VBG CC

Penny

 

[Dave W]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:31:29 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2003 07:56:17 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>|
>|Uh, he didn't say "Pete has a big plie of my way/attitude/etc is |right, yours is wrong" But if he
>had he would have been correct. Try |again Spielberg...
>
>What's wrong puppy, no JD or Spider around to hump?
>
>ROTFLMAO.

Sure they're about. But they're not making dumbass comments such as you.....

Dave (what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah.....ELITIST)

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 13:33:48 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:31:29 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 May 2003 07:56:17 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>|
>>|Uh, he didn't say "Pete has a big plie of my way/attitude/etc is |right, yours is wrong" But if
>>he had he would have been correct. Try |again Spielberg...
>>
>>What's wrong puppy, no JD or Spider around to hump?
>>
>>ROTFLMAO.
>
>Sure they're about. But they're not making dumbass comments such as you.....
>
>Dave (what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah.....ELITIST)

I'm not surprised that your feeble, drug-polluted mind can't differentiate between a discussion
and elitism.

Then again, most Camaro owners seem to have inferiority issues.

 

[Dave W]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 10:39:41 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2003 13:33:48 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:31:29 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 May 2003 07:56:17 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>|
>>>|Uh, he didn't say "Pete has a big plie of my way/attitude/etc is |right, yours is wrong" But if
>>>he had he would have been correct. Try |again Spielberg...
>>>
>>>What's wrong puppy, no JD or Spider around to hump?
>>>
>>>ROTFLMAO.
>>
>>Sure they're about. But they're not making dumbass comments such as you.....
>>
>>Dave (what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah.....ELITIST)
>
>I'm not surprised that your feeble, drug-polluted mind can't differentiate between a discussion
>and elitism.

Na, Peter it is elitism, in it's finest form. Hell you're just as quilty of posting your bike
leaning against stupid ****. I seem to recall seeing your clean bike leaning against a post in a
field that was overrun by cattle. And another of your bikes on the roof of your very dirty car in
Fruity ville. Not only are you an elitist, but a hypocritical one at that.
>
>Then again, most Camaro owners seem to have inferiority issues.

HAHA, that's some funny ****. i've never met any that had inferiority issues. If anything they have
those same tendencies that you display so well here. Over blown sense of self worth. I myself posses
this quality. But then my children don't think it's overblown at all. And their opinion means far
more to me than yours ever will.

Dave (go take some video, it's all you're good for.)

Well that and a good laugh....

 

[Technician]

> >Dave (what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah.....ELITIST)
>
> I'm not surprised that your feeble, drug-polluted mind can't differentiate between a discussion
> and elitism.

I must say, the irony of that is quite hilarious.
--
~Travis

travis57 at megalink dot net http://www.megalink.net/~farmers/

 

[Kathleen]

Corvus Corvax wrote: <snip>
> In fact, I have the mother of all "here's a stupid picture of my bike leaning against something"
> web sites:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/goth/1x1nyc/
>

When my daughter was in third grade, her class did this project where they made and
laminated this paper doll - Flat Stanley - then they mailed him all over the place. Flat
Stanly went all over the continental US, made it as far north as Canada and as far south as
Honduras. Some of the people had not only written very nice letters to the class for
Stanley's scrapbook, they had taken pictures of this paper doll propped up against all sorts
of local landmarks, taped to street signs, laying on top of a menu, plastered on the grill
of a jeep, etc., etc. Goofy as hell, but the scrapbook turned out pretty cool. The postage
would add up pretty quickly if you started mailing your bike around, though.

Kathleen

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 14:08:59 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:

|

|>I'm not surprised that your feeble, drug-polluted mind can't differentiate between a discussion
|>and elitism.
|
|Na, Peter it is elitism, in it's finest form. Hell you're just as |quilty of posting your bike
leaning against stupid ****. I seem to |recall seeing your clean bike leaning against a post in a
field that |was overrun by cattle.

Sigh, you truly continue to raise the bar of idiosy.

The bike shot on the torn up trail was to illustrate how chopped up it was and to note that it
didn't matter. It wasn't leaning, it wasn't taken as a "look at my generic bikre" picture, I didn't
have a laundry list of the lameass components that I hand selected.

Apples and oranges stoner boy.

And another of your bikes on the roof of your |very dirty car in Fruity ville. Not only are you an
elitist, but a |hypocritical one at that.

More evidence of your idiocy. See above. Find someone who is an adult, and who is sober, to explain
the difference to you.

|>
|>Then again, most Camaro owners seem to have inferiority issues.
|
|HAHA, that's some funny ****. i've never met any that had inferiority |issues.

LOL, besides yourself? You must live an even more sheltered life than you let on then.

| If anything they have those same tendencies that you display
|so well here. Over blown sense of self worth. I myself posses this |quality. But then my children
don't think it's overblown at all. And |their opinion means far more to me than yours ever will.
|
|Dave (go take some video, it's all you're good for.)
|
|Well that and a good laugh....

Keep on trying to hump and I'll keep kicking your drug-addled, mangy ass off my leg...

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 10:33:00 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> |> |I merely wrote 'I see nothing wrong with that'. - No point wasting
your
> |time
> |> |trying and play that tired 'where did I say that?' card with me.
> |>
> |> ROTFL whiner.
> |
> |Whiner? Heheheheheh - kiss my scrawny ****, heheheheh......
> |
> |I just find it hilarious, that in every a.m-b disagreement you get
involved
> |in, you trot out the same tired old 'tools' of circular, flawed
reasoning,
> |and no real argument. It's just useless semantics.
>
> If the shoe fits...

It doesn't fit me.

> The *fact that you *assume way too much and get your chamois *repeatedly *bunched is nobody's
> fault but your own.

* - In the light of your use of the words 'fact' and 'assume' up there, then you follow on with even
more nonsense, your sentence has got to be possibly the most hilarious piece of irony I've seen
anywhere for some time - keep on throwing that **** around Pete - you aren't even close to hitting
me with it ',;~}~

> |> No, it's focusing on the bike rather than the ride. It's self-evident.
> |
> |Only to you - it was a few photographs FFS, not a complete, comprehensive |and exhaustive
> expression of the inner workings of a persons being, |heheheheh.......
>
> Nah, the phenomenom isn't limited to just Starcommander Blubberpusses photos, it's actually quite
> common, hence my comment.

Your above statement doesn't follow - Maybe you should leave alone it now Pete, you 'appear' to be
mentally exhausted.

Shaun aRe

 

[Craig Brossman]

"Kathleen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> When my daughter was in third grade, her class did this project where they made and laminated this
> paper doll - Flat Stanley - then they mailed him all over the place. Flat Stanly went all over the
> continental US, made it as far north as Canada and as far south as Honduras. Some of the people
> had not only written very nice letters to the class for Stanley's scrapbook, they had taken
> pictures of this paper doll propped up against all sorts of local landmarks, taped to street
> signs, laying on top of a menu, plastered on the grill of a jeep, etc., etc. Goofy as hell, but
> the scrapbook turned out pretty cool. The postage would add up pretty quickly if you started
> mailing your bike around,
though.
>
> Kathleen
>
We took "Flat Stanley" with us on our fall trip to Zion. Great pics of Glen Canyon Dam and of course
Zion National Park. We didn't know the child, a friend of a friend from back east, but it was fun,
particularly for my son.
--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado (remove .nospam. if replying)

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Wed, 14 May 2003 13:04:50 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

|> |Only to you - it was a few photographs FFS, not a complete, comprehensive |and exhaustive
|> expression of the inner workings of a persons being, |heheheheh.......
|>
|> Nah, the phenomenom isn't limited to just Starcommander Blubberpusses photos, it's actually quite
|> common, hence my comment.
|
|Your above statement doesn't follow - Maybe you should leave alone it now |Pete, you 'appear' to be
mentally exhausted.

The fact that you can't follow the big bouncing ball isn't surprising, although it is amusing.

Google might help you fill in the blanks. Maybe. It's a big stretch, but maybe.

 

[Dave W]

On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:55:36 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 May 2003 13:04:50 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>|> |Only to you - it was a few photographs FFS, not a complete, comprehensive |and exhaustive
>|> expression of the inner workings of a persons being, |heheheheh.......
>|>
>|> Nah, the phenomenom isn't limited to just Starcommander Blubberpusses photos, it's actually
>|> quite common, hence my comment.
>|
>|Your above statement doesn't follow - Maybe you should leave alone it now |Pete, you 'appear' to
>be mentally exhausted.
>
>The fact that you can't follow the big bouncing ball isn't surprising, although it is amusing.
>
>Google might help you fill in the blanks. Maybe. It's a big stretch, but maybe.

See Shaun. He's still the same Elitist MTB rider. Typical Pete F response. NA, he's not mentally
exhausted (great analogy though!)

He's mentally challenged. And hates it when he's challenged, hence the usual response.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:24:59 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:

|On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:55:36 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
|<[email protected]> wrote:
|
|>On Wed, 14 May 2003 13:04:50 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
|>
|>
|>
|>|> |Only to you - it was a few photographs FFS, not a complete, comprehensive |and exhaustive
|>|> expression of the inner workings of a persons being, |heheheheh.......
|>|>
|>|> Nah, the phenomenom isn't limited to just Starcommander Blubberpusses photos, it's actually
|>|> quite common, hence my comment.
|>|
|>|Your above statement doesn't follow - Maybe you should leave alone it now |Pete, you 'appear' to
|>be mentally exhausted.
|>
|>The fact that you can't follow the big bouncing ball isn't surprising, although it is amusing.
|>
|>Google might help you fill in the blanks. Maybe. It's a big stretch, but maybe.
|
|See Shaun. He's still the same Elitist MTB rider. Typical Pete F |response. NA, he's not mentally
exhausted (great analogy though!)
|
|He's mentally challenged. And hates it when he's challenged, hence the |usual response.

I hope Shaun put on a body condom before he read that or at least that you're HIV negative.

If he did, at least it will be easier for him to clean up your mess.

 

[Dave W]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 21:21:20 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2003 14:08:59 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>|
>
>|>I'm not surprised that your feeble, drug-polluted mind can't differentiate between a discussion
>|>and elitism.
>|
>|Na, Peter it is elitism, in it's finest form. Hell you're just as |quilty of posting your bike
>leaning against stupid ****. I seem to |recall seeing your clean bike leaning against a post in a
>field that |was overrun by cattle.
>
>Sigh, you truly continue to raise the bar of idiosy.

And you continue to keep up rather well. Don't you?

>
>The bike shot on the torn up trail was to illustrate how chopped up it was and to note that it
>didn't matter. It wasn't leaning, it wasn't taken as a "look at my generic bikre" picture, I didn't
>have a laundry list of the lameass components that I hand selected.

still a generic bike leaning against the post shot if there ever was one. Just without the generic
parts lists. Guess your hypocrisy crosses all boundries. Even trail advocacy huh?

>
>Apples and oranges stoner boy.

excellent choices for ride snacks! Elitist boy!
>
> And another of your bikes on the roof of your |very dirty car in Fruity ville. Not only are you an
> elitist, but a |hypocritical one at that.
>
>More evidence of your idiocy. See above. Find someone who is an adult, and who is sober, to explain
>the difference to you.

Na. But I would really like to hear it from your elitist pig self though. Hypocrite!

>|>
>|>Then again, most Camaro owners seem to have inferiority issues.
>|
>|HAHA, that's some funny ****. i've never met any that had inferiority |issues.
>
>
>LOL, besides yourself? You must live an even more sheltered life than you let on then.

Your truly just a tool aren't you?

>
>| If anything they have those same tendencies that you display
>|so well here. Over blown sense of self worth. I myself posses this |quality. But then my children
>don't think it's overblown at all. And |their opinion means far more to me than yours ever will.
>|
>|Dave (go take some video, it's all you're good for.)
>|
>|Well that and a good laugh....
>
>Keep on trying to hump and I'll keep kicking your drug-addled, mangy ass off my leg...

I'm not humping PETEY, just inquiring as to why you think your **** don't stink, when in fact your
reeking up the AM-B. If this reply is you "Kicking my mangy ass of your leg" then you lose, because
the fact remains. YOU ARE AN ELITIST HYPOCRITE! And I'm still going to point it out to you.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:21:22 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:

>
|>The bike shot on the torn up trail was to illustrate how chopped up it was and to note that it
|>didn't matter. It wasn't leaning, it wasn't taken as a "look at my generic bikre" picture, I
|>didn't have a laundry list of the lameass components that I hand selected.
|
|still a generic bike leaning against the post shot

Ok, where's the post? Was the purpose to "show off," as others have put it, my bike or was the
purpose to give a reference for the depth of the trail damage?

It's not that hard to figure out.

if there ever was |one. Just without the generic parts lists. Guess your hypocrisy |crosses all
boundries. Even trail advocacy huh?

LOL. You really need to check the herb that you're currently working. It's apparently spiked with
something that makes you even more stupid than normal.

|>|>Then again, most Camaro owners seem to have inferiority issues.
|>|
|>|HAHA, that's some funny ****. i've never met any that had inferiority |issues.
|>
|>
|>LOL, besides yourself? You must live an even more sheltered life than you let on then.
|
|Your truly just a tool aren't you?

Ah, the truth hurts, eh?

|
|>
|>| If anything they have those same tendencies that you display
|>|so well here. Over blown sense of self worth. I myself posses this |quality. But then my children
|>don't think it's overblown at all. And |their opinion means far more to me than yours ever will.
|>|
|>|Dave (go take some video, it's all you're good for.)
|>|
|>|Well that and a good laugh....
|>
|>Keep on trying to hump and I'll keep kicking your drug-addled, mangy ass off my leg...
|
|I'm not humping PETEY, just inquiring as to why you think your **** |don't stink,

Where did I claim that stoner? Do you see a pattern here? You are trotting out the same things that
you've whined about to various folks because you apparently feel dreadfully inadequate when people
don't find your post humping act "funny."

Everyone is oput to get you apparently.

when in fact your reeking up the AM-B. If this reply is |you "Kicking my mangy ass of your leg" then
you lose, because the fact |remains. YOU ARE AN ELITIST HYPOCRITE! And I'm still going to point |it
out to you.

LOL. You continue to drown in your ignorance.

Maybe it's time for another toke already? That'll make you feel better about yourself until the buzz
wears off, again.

 

[Dave W]

On Wed, 14 May 2003 10:29:20 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:21:22 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>|>The bike shot on the torn up trail was to illustrate how chopped up it was and to note that it
>|>didn't matter. It wasn't leaning, it wasn't taken as a "look at my generic bikre" picture, I
>|>didn't have a laundry list of the lameass components that I hand selected.
>|
>|still a generic bike leaning against the post shot
>
>Ok, where's the post? Was the purpose to "show off," as others have put it, my bike or was the
>purpose to give a reference for the depth of the trail damage?

Doesn't matter what the post was about, the picture was of your generic bike, against a generic post
in a cattle driven field. The caption isn't the point. The picture is.
>
>It's not that hard to figure out.

apparently it is for you.....

>
>if there ever was |one. Just without the generic parts lists. Guess your hypocrisy |crosses all
>boundries. Even trail advocacy huh?
>
>LOL. You really need to check the herb that you're currently working. It's apparently spiked with
>something that makes you even more stupid than normal.

whatever you say Petey, whatever you say.
>

>Ah, the truth hurts, eh?

Had It been the truth maybe, but you don't know the truth, so it's nothing more than comic
relief...which you are known for.

>
>Where did I claim that stoner?

I was wondering when you would trot out that ol' tired response. You didn't have to say a word. It's
self evident.

Do you see a pattern here? You are
>trotting out the same things that you've whined about to various folks because you apparently feel
>dreadfully inadequate when people don't find your post humping act "funny."

Not at all. I don't see it as whining. Just stating my piece, without all the "where did I say that"
******** that you inanely throw out when you are at a loss...
>
>Everyone is oput to get you apparently.

It's not about me Petey my boy, it's about you and your child like statements towards Mr. Binch, and
his posting of something he is proud of. Nothing more than that, Quit trying to make it out I'm the
one who did something wrong here. It isn't working toward your advantage.

>
>when in fact your reeking up the AM-B. If this reply is |you "Kicking my mangy ass of your leg"
>then you lose, because the fact |remains. YOU ARE AN ELITIST HYPOCRITE! And I'm still going to
>point |it out to you.
>
>LOL. You continue to drown in your ignorance.

Am I? From your standpoint, I guess I would try and make it look that way as well. But then I'm not
the one slagging on people for posting a link to picks of their mountain bikes in this, a mountain
bike related newsgroup, am I?

>
>Maybe it's time for another toke already? That'll make you feel better about yourself until the
>buzz wears off, again.

HAHAHA, same ol' tired response PETEY Boy! You should look for some better retorts. These are about
as tired as you are.....