Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 11:06 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:00:07 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >Notice that What I noticed is that you don't even examine your cut and paste work. That entire segment was rife with incorrect characters. Got clue?
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 11:07 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:15:16 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <456844BE.827AEA7B(a)hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >[....] >>Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested >>contracts. > >Ben Laden Costruction is a local company they could have used instead. > You're an idiot.
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 11:10 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a4e43$4569b8a3$49ecfad$21907(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <phineaspuddleduck-B8D548.13474726112006(a)free.teranews.com>, >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <ekc2ot$8ss_004(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Just plonk the duck. He's never come close to write anything worth >>>>>reading. >>>> >>>>I'm already ignoring two: one because of posting repititious >>>>drivel and the other by his request. Every once in a while >>>>somebody does chime in with an interesting post. >>> >>>KRW said this has he is feeling overwhelmed. Unfortunately he has >>>misunderstood the idea of a public USENET. >> >> >> Oh, my. My, my, my, my. YOu really should figure out whom >> you are talking about before you pull outrageous boners like >> this one. >>>Plus with the Animal Farm reference going completely over his head as >>>well.... >> >> >> ARe you talking about denizens of this thread? > > It boils down to the simple fact he really doesn't > know what he's talking about. Really? Do you? It was an apt comment for him to make at the point it was made - unless you are talking about KRW as it seems, in which case - yes, you are correct.
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 11:11 On Sun, 26 Nov 06 13:39:04 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45699180.78427DD2(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >>> of tobacco illegal. >> >>No sweetheart. It's the smoking of it where it's not wanted that's becoming >>illegal. > >In this country, it's also illegal where it is wanted. The >commentary now going on in my state is the estimate that it >will take 10 years to make possession of tobacco illegal. > >Granted, this is personal experience again and not allowed in >your discussions. What I would like to know is why are your >personal experiences allowed to be used as debating facts >and mine cannot be? --- If I may chime in for a second... Good catch! It's because Graham isn't in it for the discussion and the exchange of information, he's in it for the win and in order to gain an unfair advantage he tries to stack the deck. -- JF
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 11:13
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:0nejm254r61ffb0hmon9pe2255atqfheho(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:00:07 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>Notice that > > > What I noticed is that you don't even examine your cut and paste > work. That entire segment was rife with incorrect characters. > > Got clue? You really have nothing to add but spelling and grammar lames, do you? |