On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:01:35 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



So nice to see we have another college poseur

Not a poseur -- I have the degree to prove it.

on staff here in R.R.S.
"Sans" is a perfectly acceptable when used to indicate a "lack of" or
"without". If you would like to get technical, there's this: [Sans: Middle
English, from Old French, blend of Latin sine, without, and absenti, in the
absence of, ablative of absentia, absence from absns, absent- present
participle of abesse, to be away. See absent.]

The fact remains that you couldn't be consistent in using a
single language throughout a simple three-word phrase.

Also, since you are now
resorting to a "grammer-dodge", I won't mention your substandard spelling.

At least I know how to spell "grammar".

I'll leave the desperate "grammer-dodge"

Still.

tactic to you. Now, where were we.
Oh Yes! As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again AND AGAIN,
"If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage

I also know how to spell "camouflage", o perfesser of grammer.

your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too
inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!" Now, would
you like YET ANOTHER drubbing or are ya' done yet?

Yeah, drub me again -- you've already used this one twice.


Spank you very much,

I am not your monkey -- it's obviously very much spanked.

Your pal,

-=jd=-

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:21:54 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Wed 07 Sep 2005 07:16:52p, wrote in message
:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:01:35 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



So nice to see we have another college poseur

Not a poseur -- I have the degree to prove it.


Yeah, the other poseur kept insisting the same...


on staff here in R.R.S.
"Sans" is a perfectly acceptable when used to indicate a "lack of" or
"without". If you would like to get technical, there's this: [Sans:
Middle English, from Old French, blend of Latin sine, without, and
absenti, in the absence of, ablative of absentia, absence from absns,
absent- present participle of abesse, to be away. See absent.]

The fact remains that you couldn't be consistent in using a
single language throughout a simple three-word phrase.


Still resorting to a "grammer-dodge"?


Also, since you are now
resorting to a "grammer-dodge", I won't mention your substandard
spelling.

At least I know how to spell "grammar".


Apparently, it affords you the opportunity to keep dodging the issue.



I'll leave the desperate "grammer-dodge"

Still.


Same.


tactic to you. Now, where were we.
Oh Yes! As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again AND
AGAIN, "If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to
camoflage

I also know how to spell "camouflage", o perfesser of grammer.



I never claimed to have such a worthless degree. What can you do with it?
Open a shop for "Paragraph Repair", be a "Hymn Coach"? I've only claimed
that you can't support your own assertions on the issue at hand.


your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel
too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!"
Now, would you like YET ANOTHER drubbing or are ya' done yet?

Yeah, drub me again -- you've already used this one twice.


Which *STILL* stands. There's no need to camoflage (Ha!) your lack of a
substantive reply by ignoring the issue. So just to make sure you have no
wiggle room, here is what you are incapable of refuting:

I accused rickets of the following:
I know you hope and wish for America to fail, if only to spite Bush...

rickets, in his usual fumblimg, flailing manner, replied via question:
Fail at what? What is success?

I answered by overstating the obvious, as regards rickets
Fail to succeed in it's military efforts, whether in large part or in small
part, regardless of the various goals of those efforts. Rather, in your
blind hatred for Bush, you would probably go so far as to sacrifice (in
every sense of the word) the entire Republic to slake your thirst for spite
and vengeance at being marginalized and rejected politically. Ain't that
so...

Then you, our newest college poseur, decided to chime in with the following
dribble:
I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose
is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting.

You were then smacked back into your corner with the following note from
me:
If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage your
lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too
inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!

Which still stands to this day! I have single-handedly reduced you to
nothing more than "grammer-flames" (Oh Professor Poseur) as you continually
attempt to dodge the issue. Though I should expect it, since you have
nothing of substance to offer. In any event, that you feel too inadequate
to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!

Spank you yet again,

Are ya done yet?

-=jd=-

Pardon me if I gave you the impression I give a rat's ass
about your self-serving drivel.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:59:22 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Sat 10 Sep 2005 07:48:58p, wrote in message
:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:21:54 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Wed 07 Sep 2005 07:16:52p, wrote in message
:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:01:35 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



So nice to see we have another college poseur

Not a poseur -- I have the degree to prove it.


Yeah, the other poseur kept insisting the same...


on staff here in R.R.S.
"Sans" is a perfectly acceptable when used to indicate a "lack of" or
"without". If you would like to get technical, there's this: [Sans:
Middle English, from Old French, blend of Latin sine, without, and
absenti, in the absence of, ablative of absentia, absence from absns,
absent- present participle of abesse, to be away. See absent.]

The fact remains that you couldn't be consistent in using a
single language throughout a simple three-word phrase.


Still resorting to a "grammer-dodge"?


Also, since you are now
resorting to a "grammer-dodge", I won't mention your substandard
spelling.

At least I know how to spell "grammar".


Apparently, it affords you the opportunity to keep dodging the issue.



I'll leave the desperate "grammer-dodge"

Still.


Same.


tactic to you. Now, where were we.
Oh Yes! As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again AND
AGAIN, "If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to
camoflage

I also know how to spell "camouflage", o perfesser of grammer.



I never claimed to have such a worthless degree. What can you do with
it? Open a shop for "Paragraph Repair", be a "Hymn Coach"? I've only
claimed that you can't support your own assertions on the issue at hand.


your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel
too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!"
Now, would you like YET ANOTHER drubbing or are ya' done yet?

Yeah, drub me again -- you've already used this one twice.


Which *STILL* stands. There's no need to camoflage (Ha!) your lack of a
substantive reply by ignoring the issue. So just to make sure you have
no wiggle room, here is what you are incapable of refuting:

I accused rickets of the following:
I know you hope and wish for America to fail, if only to spite Bush...

rickets, in his usual fumblimg, flailing manner, replied via question:
Fail at what? What is success?

I answered by overstating the obvious, as regards rickets
Fail to succeed in it's military efforts, whether in large part or in
small part, regardless of the various goals of those efforts. Rather, in
your blind hatred for Bush, you would probably go so far as to sacrifice
(in every sense of the word) the entire Republic to slake your thirst
for spite and vengeance at being marginalized and rejected politically.
Ain't that so...

Then you, our newest college poseur, decided to chime in with the
following dribble:
I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose
is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting.

You were then smacked back into your corner with the following note from
me:
If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage
your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel
too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!

Which still stands to this day! I have single-handedly reduced you to
nothing more than "grammer-flames" (Oh Professor Poseur) as you
continually attempt to dodge the issue. Though I should expect it, since
you have nothing of substance to offer. In any event, that you feel too
inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!

Spank you yet again,

Are ya done yet?

-=jd=-

Pardon me if I gave you the impression I give a rat's ass
about your self-serving drivel.

I'll consider that a resounding "No".

-=jd=-

Consider it your diseased snatch for all I care.