D
Dave W
Guest
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:00:47 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:43 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:47:57 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
>|<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>|>ROTFLMAO!
>|>
>|>"what Pete lead this thread into"
>|>
>|>Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience riding a Bow Ti comment on how
>|>they really ride, rather than letting some inaccurate assumptions stand.
>|
>|WOW I am impressed. You really are someone with experience. Did it |require your particular
>"patented" Fagerlin response? Abusive ********
>
>LOL! "abusive ********"?
>
>Just when I thought you couldn't get any more idiotic, you come up with this.
The point remains, you are an overly abusive person. No need to be so defensive about it.
Realise it!
>
>Are you this fragile in real life?
Hardly, but then I am fortunate enough not to be associated with the likes of you. If I had you as a
friend, I might try being a serial killer or something...
>
>
> I appreciated the links |you provided for Mr Stocker, really, it was a learning experience. But
> |we could do without your lame ass MTBR diatribes here. But this IS an |ALT group, and you're
> free to "color" your responses any way you want. |But as you do, be expecting a reply from
> someone like me.
>
>I always anticipate relies from thin-skinned hypocritical delicate flowers, but thanks for the
>useless advice anyway
There's the point I was making. If you wouldn't be so freakin negative you wouldn't have to
anticipate any responces.
>
>p.s. "diatribe"? If you view a discussion of the relative merits of various URts to be a diatribe,
> you need to go grab a dictionary.
You still don't get it do you? I said nothing about the context of your discussion, just your
posting style. Why must you be so defensive?
Dave (Guilty consciance?)
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:43 -0400, Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:47:57 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
>|<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>|>ROTFLMAO!
>|>
>|>"what Pete lead this thread into"
>|>
>|>Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience riding a Bow Ti comment on how
>|>they really ride, rather than letting some inaccurate assumptions stand.
>|
>|WOW I am impressed. You really are someone with experience. Did it |require your particular
>"patented" Fagerlin response? Abusive ********
>
>LOL! "abusive ********"?
>
>Just when I thought you couldn't get any more idiotic, you come up with this.
The point remains, you are an overly abusive person. No need to be so defensive about it.
Realise it!
>
>Are you this fragile in real life?
Hardly, but then I am fortunate enough not to be associated with the likes of you. If I had you as a
friend, I might try being a serial killer or something...
>
>
> I appreciated the links |you provided for Mr Stocker, really, it was a learning experience. But
> |we could do without your lame ass MTBR diatribes here. But this IS an |ALT group, and you're
> free to "color" your responses any way you want. |But as you do, be expecting a reply from
> someone like me.
>
>I always anticipate relies from thin-skinned hypocritical delicate flowers, but thanks for the
>useless advice anyway
There's the point I was making. If you wouldn't be so freakin negative you wouldn't have to
anticipate any responces.
>
>p.s. "diatribe"? If you view a discussion of the relative merits of various URts to be a diatribe,
> you need to go grab a dictionary.
You still don't get it do you? I said nothing about the context of your discussion, just your
posting style. Why must you be so defensive?
Dave (Guilty consciance?)