Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:29 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:1kf2j21t09lrquklcn7h6muimmjgd2oqro(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:58:25 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>Your lack of knowledge is entertaining. > > You must be looking in a mirror again. >> >>Feel free to snip this as much as you want, I know long posts make you >>head >>hurt. > > You know nothing. That is the entire point. > > You are exposed, T Weak. You may want to see me naked but I suspect I am a bit old for you. Other than that, _you_ have done nothing but shown yourself up as a blowhard who has heard a few phrases and thinks he knows what they mean. In reality you have no clue but cant help making a fool of yourself by pretending you have. Well done.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:29 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:fN8Yg.11486$vJ2.381(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > news:poj0j25epgvc76airn680d7kubk6acs3c7(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:42:44 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> >>>Brainless sycophant. >> >> Funny that every time I agree with someone, you revert to this most >> silly troll. > > Not a troll, a flame. Get it right. > > Sycophants simply blindly agree with what somebody says, and contribute > nothing of value to the discussion. Think about it. Thinking is a tall order for Good Old Joe.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:31 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:8hg2j2turutstu714v6c1eaghd0m5tushs(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:05:15 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >>Sycophants simply blindly agree with what somebody says, > > > Funny. My agreement with him was far from blind. Your agreement was. You really are too stupid to reply. You should know better, but you don't. I am beginning to think you get off on being an international idiot.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:33 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:gng2j25g6c3qm53pnl00un48fjdi4tkbrt(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:23:35 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: > >>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:09:07 +0100, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>2 is still not a precise number. To this day we can not say it is exactly >>>2 >>>with an infinite amount of zeros after the decimal place. >> >>Out of context, that constitutes a collectable quotation! Actually, it >>ain't bad in context. >> > > You're right. That remark is anti-profound! Quite collectable! More sycophancy. You exhibit less understanding with each post.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:33
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:8572j2h5fk47bbttnnn9qrbjfeim7bct39(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:09:07 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>2 is still not a precise number. To this day we can not say it is exactly >>2 >>with an infinite amount of zeros after the decimal place. > > Out of context, that constitutes a collectable quotation! Actually, it > ain't bad in context. Thank you. |