RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)
-   -   America the Beautiful (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/77340-america-beautiful.html)

AussieSeek.com Political Messageboards August 30th 05 09:04 AM

America the Beautiful
 
At

http://www.aussieseek.com

Where you get CASH for Comments


--------------------------------------------------------------

The American Military is ideologically impotent. Had the 'military'
been lead by intelligence rather than rhetoric, the Iraqis would have
kept their water and electricity supplies going instead of having them
bombed out. A social security system would have then ensured that all
Iraqi families are fed, clothed and the kids can get to school. Special
Military MASH hospitals could have delivered the health care that they
have lacked. In this atmosphere, violent extremists would be well and
truly upsetting the applecart.
Instead of the above scenario, the Iraqi people have been subjected to
the mentality of Columbine High School, wherein death is a random event
on a daily basis; the hospitals aren't working, the social security
system is almost non-existent. The violent have the argument over
moderate Iraqis, because who can argue with the facts over Abu Graib
Prison?
What Iraqi in his right mind would trust an American? So armed with
money and argument, the violent have an unlimited supply of suicide
bombers, and all the time in the world. The money gets paid to the
families of martyrs; the argument is the simple independence of a
Nation, that has the right to it's independence, and it's resources.
Had the American Military used Health and Humane Resource Delivery as a
vehicle of influence WITH the Iraqi people, they would be greatly
respected. Instead, they have denied Health for many years, killing the
children of Iraq in particular, and have denied distribution of social
funds leaving the male members of Iraqi households feeling impotent in
a Nation run by men whose pride and vanity is a by word. The American
Military is run by War-Mongers, rather than the organisers of victory.
America's geopolitical aims would be far better served by a kiss from
the organisers of victory than a kick from the warmongers of Abu Graib
mentality.


SeeingEyeDog August 30th 05 12:31 PM


"AussieSeek.com Political Messageboards" wrote in
message ups.com...

Where you get CASH for Comments


Send your cash to Sadamn Insane and his henchmen.



John S. August 30th 05 01:45 PM


AussieSeek.com Political Messageboards wrote:
At

http://www.aussieseek.com

Where you get CASH for Comments


--------------------------------------------------------------

The American Military is ideologically impotent. Had the 'military'
been lead by intelligence rather than rhetoric, the Iraqis would have
kept their water and electricity supplies going instead of having them
bombed out. A social security system would have then ensured that all
Iraqi families are fed, clothed and the kids can get to school. Special
Military MASH hospitals could have delivered the health care that they
have lacked. In this atmosphere, violent extremists would be well and
truly upsetting the applecart.
Instead of the above scenario, the Iraqi people have been subjected to
the mentality of Columbine High School, wherein death is a random event
on a daily basis; the hospitals aren't working, the social security
system is almost non-existent. The violent have the argument over
moderate Iraqis, because who can argue with the facts over Abu Graib
Prison?
What Iraqi in his right mind would trust an American? So armed with
money and argument, the violent have an unlimited supply of suicide
bombers, and all the time in the world. The money gets paid to the
families of martyrs; the argument is the simple independence of a
Nation, that has the right to it's independence, and it's resources.
Had the American Military used Health and Humane Resource Delivery as a
vehicle of influence WITH the Iraqi people, they would be greatly
respected. Instead, they have denied Health for many years, killing the
children of Iraq in particular, and have denied distribution of social
funds leaving the male members of Iraqi households feeling impotent in
a Nation run by men whose pride and vanity is a by word. The American
Military is run by War-Mongers, rather than the organisers of victory.
America's geopolitical aims would be far better served by a kiss from
the organisers of victory than a kick from the warmongers of Abu Graib
mentality.


Let's discuss your message one ranting phrase at a time. Please tell
me what ideologically impotent really means. I'm truly confused by
that phrase since the military isn't usually an organization one would
associate with an ideology.


RHF August 30th 05 05:10 PM

AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia.

David August 30th 05 05:27 PM

On 30 Aug 2005 09:10:43 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia.
.
AS.C - Sing the Praises of Australia ! { Or give Australia Hell ! }
Post them on your own board = http://www.aussieseek.com
.
AS.C - But kindly allow Americans to comment on what is right
or wrong about America (The USofA); and keep your unwanted
comments about to yourself.
.
Hello Everyone - First we have the Cana-Duh-ians and now AS.C
makes it look like we now have the Ozzy-Tales-Yas !
.
as.c - to put it bluntly - bugger off mate ~ RHF
.
.

This is an Australian board, you twit.


David August 30th 05 11:36 PM

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:38:34 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


*PLENTY* of Iraqis, in their right mind no less, trust Americans and other
coalition forces. But, you won't hear that via main-stream-media, where
good-news is no-news and bad-news is great-news. Like the well worn axiom,
"Dog Bites Man" doesn't sell, but "Man Bites Dog" will go to press every
time.

-=jd=-

Besides the Kurds and pro-Iranian Shiites we are installing?


David August 31st 05 01:01 AM

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:41:42 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Tue 30 Aug 2005 06:36:05p, David wrote in message
:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:38:34 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


*PLENTY* of Iraqis, in their right mind no less, trust Americans and

other
coalition forces. But, you won't hear that via main-stream-media, where
good-news is no-news and bad-news is great-news. Like the well worn

axiom,
"Dog Bites Man" doesn't sell, but "Man Bites Dog" will go to press every
time.

-=jd=-



Besides the Kurds and pro-Iranian Shiites we are installing?


You betcha! Iraqis across all demographics! Apologies, that probably burns
your hide to hear. I know you hope and wish for America to fail, if only to
spite Bush...

-=jd=-

Fail at what? What is success?


m II August 31st 05 02:03 AM

John S. wrote:

Please tell me what ideologically impotent really means.



It means it is directed by the whims of a power hungry lunatic who sold his soul
in order to become President and is now slowly starting to pay the price.

Notice how the weasels that got him where he is are keeping a very low profile?







mike

[email protected] August 31st 05 02:40 AM

It is Australia that is Impotent.
cuhulin


[email protected] August 31st 05 02:44 AM

What BURNS! me is that report that Impotent Aussieseek posted that says
American Military is ideology impotent.Our Troops go where they are sent
and they do their JOB very well.
cuhulin


Telamon August 31st 05 05:17 AM

In article .com,
"RHF" wrote:

AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia.


Snip

Who cares. Just put him in the kill file.

Please stop reposting Trolls I've kill filed.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

AussieSeek.com Political Messageboards September 1st 05 12:16 AM

Im not Anti American. I Just think the IRAQ thing is
something America has to get out of.
I hate the PBS Death List on TV

======================

Hi Keith

Red cross are already on the spot.


http://www.redcross.org/


DON'T GIVE TO WORLD VISION

Zappy


David September 1st 05 01:44 AM

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:04:16 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


Fail at what? What is success?


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...

-=jd=-

Military efforts to accomplish what? You are the blind Bubba.


[email protected] September 1st 05 01:55 AM

Iraq is much more than about wmd's and or oil.U.S.A.is in the process of
establishing Military Bases all over the World in Foreign Countries and
near Foreign Countries.We HAVE to show the World who is BOSS.
cuhulin


[email protected] September 1st 05 01:59 AM

Opium production is down? That means one or two of two things,ONLY.They
have already harvested all of the Opium crops for this year or winter
time is coming on over there.Both things are the most likely,ONLY.bush
got "his".
cuhulin


m II September 1st 05 03:01 AM

wrote:

Iraq is much more than about wmd's and or oil.U.S.A.is in the process of
establishing Military Bases all over the World in Foreign Countries and
near Foreign Countries.We HAVE to show the World who is BOSS.
cuhulin



That philosophy is what makes you so loved everywhere. Good thing most Americans
aren't ignorant, inbred pricks such as yourself.






mike

[email protected] September 1st 05 09:25 AM

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 04:17:52 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article .com,
"RHF" wrote:

AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia.


Snip

Who cares. Just put him in the kill file.

Please stop reposting Trolls I've kill filed.


By what right do you direct the activities of others on this
newsgroup?

David September 1st 05 03:11 PM

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:09:25 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


How am I blind? Can *you* name one of the Bush administrations military
goals? You have to be able to define what you are protesting, right?
Otherwise, I've just outed you as a phony. Now, I've stated one or the
goals in another message I posted a few minutes ago. But, before you go
peeking, let's see if *you* can name one. Or, say "Uncle" and I'll post it
in my next reply in this thread.

-=jd=-

Now you are just plain demented.

What defines military success in Iraq?


David September 1st 05 03:12 PM

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:10:14 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Wed 31 Aug 2005 08:59:38p, wrote in message news:910-
:

Opium production is down? That means one or two of two things,ONLY.They
have already harvested all of the Opium crops for this year or winter
time is coming on over there.Both things are the most likely,ONLY.bush
got "his".
cuhulin



It appears from the information provided that you would be incorrect on both
presumptions.

-=jd=-

It means the Taliban are regaining control of Afghanistan.


[email protected] September 1st 05 07:34 PM

We Americans,real Americans,are Hunting down and Killing the raghead
terrorist.That's Good Enough for ME.
cuhulin


David September 2nd 05 01:34 AM

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:19:01 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

*sigh*... And you even replied to the post where I stated it previously!
What defines military success in Iraq? Succintly: Replacing Saddam Hussein
and his regime with a democratic styled govt that can stand on it's own.
We've removed Saddam. We've removed his regime. They have already had free
and open elections once. They are about to ratify their constitution. I'd
say we are well on the way to acheiving our goal there. I can't wait to
hear your dissappointment!

-=jd=-

By ''democratic styled govt'' you of course mean an Islamic Theocracy
aligned with Iran. OK. We did it. Now let's flee. Peace with
honor.


David September 2nd 05 01:34 AM

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:20:32 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


It means the Taliban are regaining control of Afghanistan.



That would be incorrect as well. Any other guesses? Or, would you rather
just visit the U.N. site and read it for yourself?

-=jd=-

The UN is not to be trusted.


dxAce September 2nd 05 01:42 AM



David wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:19:01 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

*sigh*... And you even replied to the post where I stated it previously!
What defines military success in Iraq? Succintly: Replacing Saddam Hussein
and his regime with a democratic styled govt that can stand on it's own.
We've removed Saddam. We've removed his regime. They have already had free
and open elections once. They are about to ratify their constitution. I'd
say we are well on the way to acheiving our goal there. I can't wait to
hear your dissappointment!

-=jd=-

By ''democratic styled govt'' you of course mean an Islamic Theocracy
aligned with Iran. OK. We did it. Now let's flee. Peace with
honor.


'Tard boy... you wouldn't know honour if it crawled up your mentally retarded
ass and decided to spend the winter.

Now get on out there and tote it whilst you still have a little daylight left.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



[email protected] September 2nd 05 01:48 AM

He would probally trust a 'snow snake' though.
cuhulin


[email protected] September 2nd 05 03:05 AM

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:04:16 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


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...


I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose
is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting.

[email protected] September 3rd 05 07:26 AM

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:35:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 01 Sep 2005 10:05:35p, wrote in message
:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:04:16 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


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...


I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose
is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting.


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!

-=jd=-


Note my ass -- it's pointed in our general direction.

[email protected] September 4th 05 05:16 PM

America is Beautifull. www.devilfinder.com Kate Smith God Bless
America
cuhulin


[email protected] September 5th 05 11:39 AM

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:22:26 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Sat 03 Sep 2005 02:26:32a, wrote in message
:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:35:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 01 Sep 2005 10:05:35p,
wrote in message
:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:04:16 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


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...

I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose
is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting.


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!

-=jd=-


Note my ass -- it's pointed in our general direction.


As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again, "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!" Now, are ya' done yet or
would you like another drubbing?

-=jd=-


Maybe, when you're through drubbing your dick. The corrct
construction, by the way, is sine ad hominem. slopping a bt if French
before a Latin phrase only makes you look dumb. But you continue to do
pompous well. "Noted" -- how ****ing superior.

[email protected] September 5th 05 04:20 PM

You need to learn how to operate a spelling book and learn how to spell.
cuhulin


David September 5th 05 08:27 PM

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


So nice to see we have another college poseur 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.] Also, since you are now
resorting to a "grammer-dodge", I won't mention your substandard spelling.
I'll leave the desperate "grammer-dodge" 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
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?

Spank you very much,

Your pal,

-=jd=-

You just stood there screaming
Fearing no one was listening to you
They say the empty can rattles the most
The sound of your voice must soothe you
Hearing only what you want to hear
And knowing only what you’ve heard
You you’re smothered in tragedy
You’re out to save the world

Misery
You insist that the weight of the world
Should be on your shoulders
Misery
There’s much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery

You still stood there screaming
No one caring about these words you tell
My friend before your voice is gone
One man’s fun is another’s hell
These times are sent to try men’s souls
But something’s wrong with all you see
You you’ll take it on all yourself
Remember, misery loves company

Misery
You insist that the weight of the world
Should be on your shoulders
Misery
There’s much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery

You just stood there creaming
My friend of misery
-Hetfield/Ulrich


[email protected] September 8th 05 12:16 AM

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=-



[email protected] September 11th 05 12:48 AM

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.

[email protected] September 11th 05 05:58 AM

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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com