In article ,
toTaLhAt wrote:

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:41:04 GMT, Whatever
wrote:

Telamon wrote:

I for one would appreciate it if the political nut cases would stick to
the off topic flame threads or start their own thread.

Time for some irony and hypocrisy. Just a small sample.

http://tinyurl.com/pz8do


Wow - that is the 'Pot calling the kettle black'.

Telamon - you're a real jerk that we know. Still nice to have the
proof though. And it's all there... oh yea.... right there.


Muhahhahhaha

You are one funny guy. How many handles can one guy have? Want to see a
real jerk look in the mirror and call him any name you want it's still
you.

Muhahhahhaha right back at you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

I for one would appreciate it if the political nut cases would stick
to the off topic flame threads or start their own thread.

Whatever wrote:

Time for some irony and hypocrisy. Just a small sample.
http://tinyurl.com/pz8do

In article ,
"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

Very interesting...320 posts, almost all of them political per se, not
complaints about OT posts. (Sorry, didn't have time to read all 320, but
the ones I did read *clearly* demonstrated the irony).

I think "hypocrisy" defines our boy up on his high horse quite well. Yet
another example of "Do as I say, not as I do".

Telamon wrote:

You and whatever have a high number of off posts. You and whatever
generally do not post helpful replies to questions. You and whatever can
point back to a period of time during a contentious election and that's
it for me but you and whatever are a different story. Do continue
looking like a clueless jackass as you do in most of your posts.


As you *still* don't get it, *you* appear to be the "clueless jackass".
So let me try one last attempt to explain it...

You say I have "a high number of off [sic] posts".

My news reader shows me that I have a *total* of approximately 146
posts on this NG, some off and some on topic. The other poster
(Whatever) clearly provided *proof* that *you* have 320 posts, virtually
ALL off topic.

Before you start slinging around accusations at others about "high
numbers" of OT posts, you may want to look in the mirror (and check
your calculator). Last time I looked, 320 is a bigger number than a
portion of 146.

Furthermore, your weak excuse/rationalization/justification for those
320 posts was because they were about "a contentious election". SO
WHAT??? OT is OT, contentious or not. Are you saying *YOU* are the only
one that can respond to contentious political posts and then whine and
chastise others for doing the EXACT SAME THING that you have done? And
do you think "contentious" is a justification for you alone? Have you
considered, for example, that the war many post about may be
"contentious" to them? Again, your stunning hypocrisy is shining brightly!

Others here have every right to exercise the same right to post that you
did 320 times.

Sorry, but at this end of the circuit, you are *still* coming through
loud and clear as a self-centered H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E !

To summarize, if you think a portion of 146 is a larger number of OT
posts than your 320 and if you think "contentious" is an OT
justification reserved only for you alone, then *you* are truly the
"clueless jackass"...

Shut up guys! , anyhoo i could get 9940 voice of iran real clear last
night at 15:30 for a good hour.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:19:18 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
toTaLhAt wrote:

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:41:04 GMT, Whatever
wrote:

Telamon wrote:

I for one would appreciate it if the political nut cases would stick to
the off topic flame threads or start their own thread.

Time for some irony and hypocrisy. Just a small sample.

http://tinyurl.com/pz8do


Wow - that is the 'Pot calling the kettle black'.

Telamon - you're a real jerk that we know. Still nice to have the
proof though. And it's all there... oh yea.... right there.


Muhahhahhaha

You are one funny guy. How many handles can one guy have? Want to see a
real jerk look in the mirror and call him any name you want it's still
you.

Muhahhahhaha right back at you.



Your reaction speaks volumes.

Mu************* (well, you know)

..... lmao at the tard, totin' hypocrite

In article ,
"Carter, K8VT" wrote:


Telamon wrote:

I for one would appreciate it if the political nut cases would stick
to the off topic flame threads or start their own thread.

Whatever wrote:

Time for some irony and hypocrisy. Just a small sample.
http://tinyurl.com/pz8do

In article ,
"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

Very interesting...320 posts, almost all of them political per se, not
complaints about OT posts. (Sorry, didn't have time to read all 320, but
the ones I did read *clearly* demonstrated the irony).

I think "hypocrisy" defines our boy up on his high horse quite well. Yet
another example of "Do as I say, not as I do".

Telamon wrote:

You and whatever have a high number of off posts. You and whatever
generally do not post helpful replies to questions. You and whatever can
point back to a period of time during a contentious election and that's
it for me but you and whatever are a different story. Do continue
looking like a clueless jackass as you do in most of your posts.


As you *still* don't get it, *you* appear to be the "clueless jackass".
So let me try one last attempt to explain it...

Snip

I'm not a hypocrite. I contribute a lot of on topic and helpful posts to
this news group and I don't feel the need to justify my posting history
to someone with your poor posting history. Your recent AND long time
posting history is most off topic political posts. This is the only post
in two days so it is clear to me that you just want to ague and
denigrate me so into the kill file with you.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article 1142737934.919693@teuthos, adam214
wrote:

Shut up guys! , anyhoo i could get 9940 voice of iran real clear last
night at 15:30 for a good hour.

Sorry about that.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

Telamon wrote:
I for one would appreciate it if the political nut cases
would stick to the off topic flame threads or start their
own thread.
Whatever wrote:
Time for some irony and hypocrisy. Just a small sample.
http://tinyurl.com/pz8do
In article ,
"Carter, K8VT" wrote:
Very interesting...320 posts, almost all of them political per
se, not complaints about OT posts. (Sorry, didn't have time to
read all 320, but the ones I did read *clearly* demonstrated
the irony).

I think "hypocrisy" defines our boy up on his high horse quite
well. Yet another example of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Telamon wrote:

You and whatever have a high number of off posts. You and
whatever generally do not post helpful replies to questions. You
and whatever can point back to a period of time during a
contentious election and that's it for me but you and whatever
are a different story. Do continue looking like a clueless
jackass as you do in most of your posts.

As you *still* don't get it, *you* appear to be the "clueless
jackass". So let me try one last attempt to explain it...

Snip

I'm not a hypocrite. I contribute a lot of on topic and helpful posts
to this news group and I don't feel the need to justify my posting
history to someone with your poor posting history.

First, sorry to drag this thread on, but you still don't seem to get it.

Next, maybe you do need to justify your posting history as this is
really at the heart of the debate...

* you accused and chastised me (and others) of a "high number" of OT posts.

* 'Whatever' called your bluff, did some research and caught *you* with
your pants down--*320* OT posts (while I have of 146 posts total, maybe
100 OT). That would seem to make *you* the winner of the "High Number"
award, not others. Sort of like a guy with 320 traffic tickets calling a
guy with 100 tickets a bad driver.

* When you accuse people of doing something wrong and then it comes to
pass that *you* have done the same "wrong" thing almost *three* times as
often, then, yes, you *should* justify your posting history or be
exposed for the hypocrite you are.

As to your trying to justify your 320 OTs because you post on topic
also--well, that's a little like a bank robber saying it's OK to rob
banks because he gives some of the money to charity. NOT! OT is OT and
your 320 trumps my 100. Period [.]

so into the kill file with you.

Plonk

Thought I was already there(!) but, please, do so again. It's getting
too hard to follow your illogic, denials, dodging, weaseling and bogus
"justification" of *YOUR* 320 OTs.