Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.
Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).
I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.
If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.
Some ideas I have are:
1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.
2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.
3. Meta data - Have the ability to directly include graphics and things like
TeX into messages. For those that do not want to view it they can disable it
or have some other means to see it.
4. Specific tools for groups - Different groups have different needs for
communication. Mathematics groups need to efficiently communicate
mathematical formulas while electronics need to communicate schematics.
5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).
6. Non-anomality or some way to slow down spammers. Maybe better routing
data and such.
7. Potentially "Backwards compatible" with usenet - have the ability to surf
usenet with the same client to help make a smoother transition.
----
In any case this is extremely preliminary and just some thoughts. It seems
that usenet has started to go down the drain. Hopefully there are those out
there that are interested in keeping it alive. I'm thinking something very
similar to usenet but with just more "features".
If enough people are interested in doing this then maybe we can put
something together. All ideas and suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Jon
Oct 8 '07
224  6263 
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:14:36 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:27:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
Part of your service to the country no doubt.
No, you're just a special case.
So instead of signing the cross, why not just wave the flag at me some
more to show me just how special I really am. That'll make me go away.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
--
JF
On Oct 11, 11:47 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.orgwrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
MacArthur's singing that song to congress keep him from leaving a corpse
when he died.
No, it was MacAuthur's singing and science
that was one of the main reasons that we
starting making cruise missiles, helicopters, RPGs,
AI, Sattelites, and Robots for the idiot US Army, rather
than more tanks, forts, jeeps, and B-29s.
>
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:25:18 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:12:04 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:30:21 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>>the contraction of "it is" isn't possessive.
Or you might consider placing carets under the phrase objected to
instead of whatever else strikes your fancy.
---
If you can rouse yourself from your self-admitted drunken stupor you
might try using a non-proportional font like Courier or Courier New.
Usually I prefer truth.
---
No, you don't.
Sure I do.
>You prefer whatever comes along which will allow you to be an
argumentative, deceitful troublemaker.
And the difference would be what exactly? That I prefer truth instead
of kissing your ass?
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:54 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:10:30 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>>>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>
>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>
>>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>>
>>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>>
>>>
>> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>>
>>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>>
>> The sig
>> file is
>> used to
>>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>>>my
>>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>>you want to.
>>
>>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
>
>---
>It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
>and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
>what's up with that.
>
>you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage.
---
No, the least you could have done was nothing at all.
In which case I'd be fully on a par with you.
>In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
---
???
affrontery - to insult to the face by behavior or language
Used: "And you, Scarecrow, have the affrontery
to ask for a brain..."
(The Wizard speaking to the Scarecrow as the
foursome first meet him)
My dictionary disagrees. But then I expect it would with most movie
citations.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:33:53 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:10 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>>Or you might consider placing carets under the phrase objected to
instead of whatever else strikes your fancy.
He did, dumbshit.
Then he's a worse grammarian than I realized.
---
Hmm... Let's take a look at that:
First, it's my fault because you were using a proportional font and
weren't smart enough to realize that if you'd have used a
fixed-pitch font you wouldn't have had to complain about the
location of the carrots? Orange you being a little disingenius?
Second, my suggestion that you use a fixed-pitch font to read my
posts seems to either have fallen on deaf ears or ears which can't
gracefully accept correction. I'll vote for the ladder, since from
your post, above, you seem to have finally gotten the location
right, have climbed high enough to grasp the meaning, and are now
trying to refute what you once said by trying to impugn my Gramma.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
God knows your parents must be...
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:35:11 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:58 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>>Oh gee, professor, not really? And what about usenet postings where
servers have some difficulty with proportional spacing, where a choice
has to be made between ragged paragraphs and colloquial punctuation?
Next time your skirts get in a tizzy, complain to the servers not moi.
Utter bullshit.
I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.
---
LOL, it's about the best you could do at any level.
--
JF
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
Or you could keep showing your ignorant ass to everyone on comp.dsp,
comp.lang.c++, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,
sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.design, and sci.math. That will
definately convince everyone that you're too stupid to live.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
<465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.netif your news server is any good.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
I use that sig file for all the newsgroups I use, and a lot of my
E-mail. I am tired of the anti-American and anti Veteran jackasses, so I
will continue to be posted to set you little idiots into a hissy fit.
It really burns your sorry ass that some veterans aren't ashamed of
having served, or continue to serve their community after they receive
their honorable discharge.
BTW: A sig file is a statment. Yours says that you aren't worth the
time to create a real sig file.
~v~~
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:58 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>Oh gee, professor, not really? And what about usenet postings where
servers have some difficulty with proportional spacing, where a choice
has to be made between ragged paragraphs and colloquial punctuation?
Next time your skirts get in a tizzy, complain to the servers not moi.
Utter bullshit.
I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.
Be careful, or you'll give yourself a hernia while trying to reach
that high.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>
>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>
>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>
>>
> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>
>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>
> The sig
> file is
> used to
>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere
>>with my
>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>you want to.
>
>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
---
It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his
.sig, and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks
him about what's up with that.
you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with
_that_?
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to
use poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or
possibly umbrage. In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
~v~~
And how about you reread, with more care this time, your own previous
post Mr. "take effrontery".
Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names
of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
> and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like
he's the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it
somehow has a bearing on the issues raised here.
~v~~
Have you been there or done that? I have others here have not. And
no, it matters not to Michael's credibility. Dissing his previous
service matters to your credibility, newcomer.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:05:19 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:52:25 -0400, Jerry Avins <jy*@ieee.org>
wrote:
>>>John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:06:30 -0700, lo***@truthless.net wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:21:37 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0700, Lester Zick
><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:06:28 -0500, John Fields
>><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>---
>>>You've got a total of 13 posts on seb and not one of them contains
>>>anything even remotely technical, so why are you pestering us with
>>>your trash?
>>Mainly because it isn't I expect but you can't tell the difference.
>---
>Your expectations and reality seem to be at odds with each other.
Like you can really tell the difference.
---
Like I can't?
Do you two need the exposure you get by cross posting this pissing
match?
---
Well, I kinda like the fact that the dynamics of a public pissing
match cause the pissers to realize that they can't just slough off a
particularly well-aimed squirt, since they're being watched and the
quality of their pissing judged.
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
--
JF
John Fields wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
Lester, and his stall mate, Eeyore.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:26:13 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
> and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
---
Funny, but in my view that's not the way he comes across at all in
that he very seldom, if ever, brings up his military experiences
unless someone asks him about them.
You, however, have made a couple of unwarranted references to
flag-waving and have been generally belligerent toward him,
ostensibly because of his military background, so I think there's a
little more going on in your head than you want to admit.
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:31:34 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:25:18 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:12:04 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:30:21 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>the contraction of "it is" isn't possessive.
>
>Or you might consider placing carets under the phrase objected to
>instead of whatever else strikes your fancy.
---
If you can rouse yourself from your self-admitted drunken stupor you
might try using a non-proportional font like Courier or Courier New.
Usually I prefer truth.
---
No, you don't.
Sure I do.
---
Well, you may _prefer_ truth, but you certainly don't seem to be
bound by your preferences.
---
>>You prefer whatever comes along which will allow you to be an
argumentative, deceitful troublemaker.
And the difference would be what exactly?
---
What difference?
---
>That I prefer truth instead of kissing your ass?
---
Well, that may be your "preference" but it certainly doesn't stop
you from lying.
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:42:24 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:54 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:10:30 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
>><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>
>>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>>
>>>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>>>
>>>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>>>
>>> The sig
>>> file is
>>> used to
>>>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>>>>my
>>>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>>>you want to.
>>>
>>>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>>>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>>>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
>>
>>---
>>It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
>>and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
>>what's up with that.
>>
>>you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
>
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
>
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage.
---
No, the least you could have done was nothing at all.
In which case I'd be fully on a par with you.
---
Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
What are you, about 12 years old?
---
>>In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
---
???
affrontery - to insult to the face by behavior or language
Used: "And you, Scarecrow, have the affrontery
to ask for a brain..."
(The Wizard speaking to the Scarecrow as the
foursome first meet him)
My dictionary disagrees. But then I expect it would with most movie
citations.
---
Perhaps an unabridged, or newer, dictionary is something you might
want to look for.
Also, it seems to be in more or less common use: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...n&q=affrontery
--
JF
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:50:17 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:42:24 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:54 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:10:30 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
>
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
>>><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>>>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>>>>
>>>>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> The sig
>>>> file is
>>>> used to
>>>>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>>>>>my
>>>>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>>>>you want to.
>>>>
>>>>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>>>>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>>>>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
>>>
>>>---
>>>It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
>>>and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
>>>what's up with that.
>>>
>>>you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
>>
>Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
>I'll make an acception.
>>
>~v~~
>
>He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage.
---
No, the least you could have done was nothing at all.
In which case I'd be fully on a par with you.
---
Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
>What are you, about 12 years old?
Yes.
>>>In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
---
???
affrontery - to insult to the face by behavior or language
Used: "And you, Scarecrow, have the affrontery
to ask for a brain..."
(The Wizard speaking to the Scarecrow as the
foursome first meet him)
My dictionary disagrees. But then I expect it would with most movie
citations.
---
Perhaps an unabridged, or newer, dictionary is something you might
want to look for.
And you might want to look for some new scripts.
>Also, it seems to be in more or less common use:
Most movie script citations are. Try science for a change.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:45:26 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:29:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:16:38 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:27:57 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:14:33 -0700, Richard Henry
<po******@hotmail.comwrote:
>Conventional American English requires that the period ending one
>sentence be followed by one or two (usually two) spaces prior to the
>start of the next sentence.
>
>Two spaces are recommended in non-proportional fonts like Courier New,
>a legacy from typewriter days. Some proportional fonts used in modern
>computers adjust the location of the period at the end of a sentence
>so that two spaces are not required to provide a distinctive space
>between sentences.
>
>I still use two spaces anyway.
Personally I find a simple period sufficient unto the day for the
usenet manual of style.
They were talking about AFTER the period, you retarded dingledorf!
Whereas I was talking about after YOUR period, oh Chairman of the
dorks.
Your IQ just dropped 40 points. Our knowledge of your maturity level
just peaked.
In these groups, you're toast, boy.
Good. Then eat me.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:43:12 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:31:34 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:25:18 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:12:04 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:30:21 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>the contraction of "it is" isn't possessive.
>>
>>Or you might consider placing carets under the phrase objected to
>>instead of whatever else strikes your fancy.
>
>---
>If you can rouse yourself from your self-admitted drunken stupor you
>might try using a non-proportional font like Courier or Courier New.
Usually I prefer truth.
---
No, you don't.
Sure I do.
---
Well, you may _prefer_ truth, but you certainly don't seem to be
bound by your preferences.
Clever rejoinder. Haven't seen any truth outta you, sport.
>>>You prefer whatever comes along which will allow you to be an
argumentative, deceitful troublemaker.
And the difference would be what exactly?
---
What difference?
The difference between truth and whatever you're trying to say.
>>That I prefer truth instead of kissing your ass?
---
Well, that may be your "preference" but it certainly doesn't stop
you from lying.
Oh, tattletale! You're all talk. Let's see you demonstrate the truth
of something for a change.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:19:53 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:33:53 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:10 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
Or you might consider placing carets under the phrase objected to
instead of whatever else strikes your fancy.
He did, dumbshit.
Then he's a worse grammarian than I realized.
---
Hmm... Let's take a look at that:
First, it's my fault because you were using a proportional font and
weren't smart enough to realize that if you'd have used a
fixed-pitch font you wouldn't have had to complain about the
location of the carrots? Orange you being a little disingenius?
Clever devil that you wish you were.
>Second, my suggestion that you use a fixed-pitch font to read my
posts seems to either have fallen on deaf ears or ears which can't
gracefully accept correction.
I already accepted correction gracefully and got called pompous for my
efforts.
I'll vote for the ladder, since from
your post, above, you seem to have finally gotten the location
right, have climbed high enough to grasp the meaning, and are now
trying to refute what you once said by trying to impugn my Gramma.
Yeah, I guess.
>You should be ashamed of yourself.
Natcherly. I'm just somewhat more ashamed of you, your kith and kin.
>God knows your parents must be...
And I'm surprized you're allowed to post without parental supervision.
I mean assuming you know who they are.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:58:36 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:19:53 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:33:53 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:10 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>Or you might consider placing carets under the phrase objected to
>instead of whatever else strikes your fancy.
He did, dumbshit.
Then he's a worse grammarian than I realized.
---
Hmm... Let's take a look at that:
First, it's my fault because you were using a proportional font and
weren't smart enough to realize that if you'd have used a
fixed-pitch font you wouldn't have had to complain about the
location of the carrots? Orange you being a little disingenius?
Second, my suggestion that you use a fixed-pitch font to read my
posts seems to either have fallen on deaf ears or ears which can't
gracefully accept correction. I'll vote for the ladder, since from
your post, above, you seem to have finally gotten the location
right, have climbed high enough to grasp the meaning, and are now
trying to refute what you once said by trying to impugn my Gramma.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
God knows your parents must be...
Then, the dope tried to use carets to point at a segment of a line I
posted, and he got THAT wrong as well!
Actually I got that quite amusing.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:46:08 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:33:53 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:10 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
Or you might consider placing carets under the phrase objected to
instead of whatever else strikes your fancy.
He did, dumbshit.
Then he's a worse grammarian than I realized.
You're a goddamned retard.
Yes, yes, your opinions are invaluable but your science is a little
weak.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:21:38 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:35:11 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:58 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
Oh gee, professor, not really? And what about usenet postings where
servers have some difficulty with proportional spacing, where a choice
has to be made between ragged paragraphs and colloquial punctuation?
Next time your skirts get in a tizzy, complain to the servers not moi.
Utter bullshit.
I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.
---
LOL, it's about the best you could do at any level.
Actually not but then no one expects very much from you.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:59:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:58 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
Oh gee, professor, not really? And what about usenet postings where
servers have some difficulty with proportional spacing, where a choice
has to be made between ragged paragraphs and colloquial punctuation?
Next time your skirts get in a tizzy, complain to the servers not moi.
Utter bullshit.
I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.
Be careful, or you'll give yourself a hernia while trying to reach
that high.
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels.
>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:50:11 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:05:19 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:52:25 -0400, Jerry Avins <jy*@ieee.org>
wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:06:30 -0700, lo***@truthless.net wrote:
>
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:21:37 -0500, John Fields
><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0700, Lester Zick
>><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:06:28 -0500, John Fields
>>><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>---
>>>>You've got a total of 13 posts on seb and not one of them contains
>>>>anything even remotely technical, so why are you pestering us with
>>>>your trash?
>>>Mainly because it isn't I expect but you can't tell the difference.
>>---
>>Your expectations and reality seem to be at odds with each other.
>Like you can really tell the difference.
>
---
Like I can't?
Do you two need the exposure you get by cross posting this pissing
match?
---
Well, I kinda like the fact that the dynamics of a public pissing
match cause the pissers to realize that they can't just slough off a
particularly well-aimed squirt, since they're being watched and the
quality of their pissing judged.
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
The royal "we" sport. Your science is a little weak, or maybe it's
just your mind.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:56:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
Lester, and his stall mate, Eeyore.
Ha. Ha.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:55:33 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:26:13 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
>
>
>
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
>200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
>> and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
You're an E-1 grade retard.
I know. You keep reiterating the obvious. I can't quite tell why
unless you're class proctor and it takes one to know one and as
proctor you know them all.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:55:29 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
I use that sig file for all the newsgroups I use, and a lot of my
E-mail. I am tired of the anti-American and anti Veteran jackasses, so I
will continue to be posted to set you little idiots into a hissy fit.
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels, of course.
>It really burns your sorry ass that some veterans aren't ashamed of
having served, or continue to serve their community after they receive
their honorable discharge.
No, it really burns my sorry ass that some of us are stupid enough to
put their sorry asses in sig files.
BTW: A sig file is a statment. Yours says that you aren't worth the
time to create a real sig file.
Only because you're too lazy or stupid to read and construe it.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:34:13 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:26:13 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
>
>
>
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
>200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
>> and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
---
Funny, but in my view that's not the way he comes across at all in
that he very seldom, if ever, brings up his military experiences
unless someone asks him about them.
He brings it up in every sig file attached to every post. You're being
disingenuous which I suppose is about the most we can expect from you.
>You, however, have made a couple of unwarranted references to
flag-waving and have been generally belligerent toward him,
ostensibly because of his military background, so I think there's a
little more going on in your head than you want to admit.
You really are incredibly stupid. I offer disclaimers and explain the
disclaimers and you go right on insisting that I'm dissing Michael's
military service. Military partisanship has no bearing on the course
of science, truth, or issues of public censorship.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:33:12 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:45:26 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>Your IQ just dropped 40 points. Our knowledge of your maturity level
just peaked.
In these groups, you're toast, boy.
Good. Then eat me.
---
Yet another homosexual reference...
--
JF
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:48:59 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
Or you could keep showing your ignorant ass to everyone on comp.dsp,
comp.lang.c++, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,
sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.design, and sci.math. That will
definately convince everyone that you're too stupid to live.
When science and truth are convinced by your flag waving then I'll be
convinced.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
I suspect they may have been complaining more about your religion than
their partiotism.
><465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.netif your news server is any good.
~v~~
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:55:29 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
I use that sig file for all the newsgroups I use, and a lot of my
E-mail. I am tired of the anti-American and anti Veteran jackasses, so I
will continue to be posted to set you little idiots into a hissy fit.
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels, of course.
I take it you're an expert on scoundrels? There is no way that
you're a patriot.
It really burns your sorry ass that some veterans aren't ashamed of
having served, or continue to serve their community after they receive
their honorable discharge.
No, it really burns my sorry ass that some of us are stupid enough to
put their sorry asses in sig files.
BTW: A sig file is a statment. Yours says that you aren't worth the
time to create a real sig file.
Only because you're too lazy or stupid to read and construe it.
~v~~
yawn
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:48:59 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
Or you could keep showing your ignorant ass to everyone on comp.dsp,
comp.lang.c++, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,
sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.design, and sci.math. That will
definately convince everyone that you're too stupid to live.
When science and truth are convinced by your flag waving then I'll be
convinced.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
I suspect they may have been complaining more about your religion than
their partiotism.
You truly are the donkey's twin. When you run out of facts, drag ANY
relgion into the thread as a smokescreen.
>
<465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.netif your news server is any good.
~v~~
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:59:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:00:58 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:05:34 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
Oh gee, professor, not really? And what about usenet postings where
servers have some difficulty with proportional spacing, where a choice
has to be made between ragged paragraphs and colloquial punctuation?
Next time your skirts get in a tizzy, complain to the servers not moi.
Utter bullshit.
I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.
Be careful, or you'll give yourself a hernia while trying to reach
that high.
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels.
You've already said that. It looks like you're nothing but another
'20 word wonder'. :( ,
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
~v~~
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>What are you, about 12 years old?
Yes.
---
That certainly explains your immaturity.
But it doesn't explain yours.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
---
Hardly. My reply to your statement that the least you could do
would be to take affront or possibly umbrage was to illustrate the
logical inconsistency in your reasoning by pointing out that there
was a course you could have taken which would have allowed you to
do even less.
Why don't you explain it to us.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>Also, it seems to be in more or less common use:
Most movie script citations are.
---
Art reflects life, dontcha know?
But nothing reflects you.
>>Try science for a change.
---
LOL, what would _you_ know about science other than it's a word with
seven letters?
And you aren't either.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:07:19 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:24:52 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>>What are you, about 12 years old?
Yes.
Mentally perhaps. This only means that the drinking you claim to be
doing will cause you to depart from us quite early in life.
Hooray for that!
That's the most you can celebrate?
~v~~
Wherein Captain Obvious eats his heart out.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:37:36 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:33:12 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:45:26 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>Your IQ just dropped 40 points. Our knowledge of your maturity level
just peaked.
In these groups, you're toast, boy.
Good. Then eat me.
---
Yet another homosexual reference...
~v~~
Wherein Captain Obvious describes his anal fixations.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:29:55 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>>What a childish, utter ass you are!
And what a D.C. cocksucker you sound like!!!!!!
---
Well, to sound like isn't to be, but you certainly seem to have a
homosexual genital fixation!
Only because opinions and shit have assholes like you in common.
---
Well, in my case, opinions come out of my mouth and the ends of my
fingers, and shit comes out of my asshole, but in yours it seems
they both spew from your lips as well as your fingertips.
So what do you use your asshole for? (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge...)
Do try to come up with something entertaining, won't you?
Already have. Now it's your turn.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:20:27 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Utter bullshit.
I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.
Be careful, or you'll give yourself a hernia while trying to reach
that high.
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels.
You've already said that.
Lottsa people've already said that. See collateral thread where you
can bluster to your heart's content.
It looks like you're nothing but another
'20 word wonder'. :( ,
Which puts me what, 19 up on you?
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:12:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels, of course.
I take it you're an expert on scoundrels? There is no way that
you're a patriot.
I don't claim partriotism as a basis for truth; you do.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:14:01 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>When science and truth are convinced by your flag waving then I'll be
convinced.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
I suspect they may have been complaining more about your religion than
their partiotism.
You truly are the donkey's twin. When you run out of facts, drag ANY
relgion into the thread as a smokescreen.
And which facts did you have in mind exactly? Yours or someone elses.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:58:45 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
> Utter bullshit.
I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.
Be careful, or you'll give yourself a hernia while trying to reach
that high.
I find it amusing that it took a real twit like the ZickTard to cause
you to compliment me. :-]
No compliment. It's just that due to all the flag waving his reach is
not quite what it used to be.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:34:03 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>>>>If you can rouse yourself from your self-admitted drunken stupor you
>>>might try using a non-proportional font like Courier or Courier New.
>>
>>Usually I prefer truth.
>
>---
>No, you don't.
Sure I do.
---
Well, you may _prefer_ truth, but you certainly don't seem to be
bound by your preferences.
Clever rejoinder. Haven't seen any truth outta you, sport.
---
How would you know?
How would you, Captain Obvious?
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:34:03 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>Are you familiar with "Seppuku"?
No, but let's hope you are.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:34:03 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>Let's see you demonstrate the truth
of something for a change.
---
"for a change"?
I wasn't aware that I'd been doing other than that
Nobody ever suspected you were . . .
since I started
knocking down your house of cards.
Which is why you haven't.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:34:03 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>But, in line with your request, here's something pretty simple and,
in keeping with your professed penchant for "science", something you
might enjoy figuring out:
In other words I should change my font to accurately read your stupid
comments?
~v~~ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jon Slaughter |
last post by:
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.
Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
