wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

You know why he defends him, because he and whinyslit are one in the same.
He's such a delusional ****wit that he cannot keep from speaking in the
third person about himself. That's a clear sign of someone in severe mental
distress when they have to invent friends to take up a fight. They are the
same person posting under different accounts.

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

Billy Smith wrote:
You know why he defends him, because he and whinyslit are one in the same.
He's such a delusional ****wit that he cannot keep from speaking in the
third person about himself. That's a clear sign of someone in severe mental
distress when they have to invent friends to take up a fight. They are the
same person posting under different accounts.

I don't this with a level of conviction I would call certainity I
suspect it as a high order likelyhood but I don't think about much
becuase I barely care

they are clearly a person or person (or multible personailites in the
same body (a favored thought at the monet) expressing the same stupid
and insane ideas, byond that I hardly care for the details after
he/they are sicking enough at first reading that I don't want to
inquire further
"an old friend" wrote in message

ass****ed an_old_friend wrote:
Billy Smith wrote:
You know why he defends him, because he and whinyslit are one in the same.
He's such a delusional ****wit that he cannot keep from speaking in the
third person about himself. That's a clear sign of someone in severe mental
distress when they have to invent friends to take up a fight. They are the
same person posting under different accounts.

So do you, Toad. So do you. Tell us why you post those shemale pics on
Nim Busters "Billy."


I don't this with a level of conviction

You and Billy aka Toad are two ****ing imbeciles, too.

On 6 Mar 2006 13:00:34 -0800, wrote:


ass****ed an_old_friend wrote:
more lies from Mr Slit

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Bwahahhaha, and you're the burger flipping boy.

wrote in message
oups.com...

ass****ed an_old_friend wrote:
Billy Smith wrote:
You know why he defends him, because he and whinyslit are one in the
same.
He's such a delusional ****wit that he cannot keep from speaking in the
third person about himself. That's a clear sign of someone in severe
mental
distress when they have to invent friends to take up a fight. They are
the
same person posting under different accounts.

So do you, Toad. So do you. Tell us why you post those shemale pics on
Nim Busters "Billy."


I don't this with a level of conviction

You and Billy aka Toad are two ****ing imbeciles, too.

assraped an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

You are ****ing stupid, Markie. There are several of us "defending him"
you ****ing ignoramus.

On 6 Mar 2006 12:49:14 -0800, "N0VFP" wrote:


assraped an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

You are ****ing stupid, Markie. There are several of us "defending him"
you ****ing ignoramus.
that does n't seem to be the case that is to say you are lying
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
On 6 Mar 2006 12:49:14 -0800, "N0VFP" wrote:


assraped an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

You are ****ing stupid, Markie. There are several of us "defending him"
you ****ing ignoramus.
that does n't seem to be the case that is to say you are lying

Wrong as usual, ****nuts.

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:
wrote:
On 6 Mar 2006 12:49:14 -0800, "N0VFP" wrote:

You are ****ing stupid, Markie. There are several of us "defending him"
you ****ing ignoramus.
that does n't seem to be the case that is to say you are lying

Wrong as usual, ****nuts.
an unproven asretion