vibrators
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 4 May 2010 18:51 On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:21:17 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: >"R H Draney" <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote > >>>> >> >>That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too. >>>> >> >>>> >> Post proof or retract. >>>> >> >>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_test >>>> >>>> Wikipedia is not a valid cite. Anyone can fake a web page. >>> >>> >>>Post proof or retract. >> >> If "anyone can fake a web page", it is not possible to "post proof" by >> your >> definition.... >> >> Is the vowel of "cot" the same as the one of "caught"?...post proof of >> your >> answer, but links to audio files are not acceptable.... >> >> On the other hand, if it's just Wikipedia you have a problem with, here's >> a page >> from the SAT Testing Board's own site: >> >> http://sat.collegeboard.com/scores/understanding-sat-scores >> >> Note that the first text on the page other than headers and menus reads: >> >> SAT scores are reported on a scale from 200-800 >> >> and that the second paragraph elaborates as: >> >> SAT Subject Test scores are reported on a scale from 200-800 > >They are now, anyway. I wonder if the scale change from 900 to 800 >was prompted by declining test scores? No, the scale hasn't changed, liar. >--oTTo-- >
From: David DeLaney on 4 May 2010 22:36 Adam Funk <a24061(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: >David DeLaney wrote: >> Mark Edwards <Mark-Edwards(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>You misspelt 'merely', 'straem' (a before e except as in dream) and 'roe' >>>(if you're in a straem, you'll be wanting to collect fish eggs. Otherwise, >>>this rhythm makes no sense.) >> >> Unless, like Alice, you're repeatedly catching crabs. > >Have you got a crab quadrille recipe? Or are you saying an ointment >is required? Surely we could combine them, and make a slatherable paste and/or plaster? Dave "Rowland's antimacassar oil" DeLaney -- \/David DeLaney posting from dbd(a)vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 4 May 2010 22:40 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:21:17 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane(a)GroinToHell.com> > wrote: > > >"R H Draney" <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote > > > >>>> >> >>That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT. > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Post proof or retract. > >>>> >> > >>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_test > >>>> > >>>> Wikipedia is not a valid cite. Anyone can fake a web page. > >>> > >>> > >>>Post proof or retract. > >> > >> If "anyone can fake a web page", it is not possible to "post proof" by > >> your > >> definition.... > >> > >> Is the vowel of "cot" the same as the one of "caught"?...post proof of > >> your > >> answer, but links to audio files are not acceptable.... > >> > >> On the other hand, if it's just Wikipedia you have a problem with, here's > >> a page > >> from the SAT Testing Board's own site: > >> > >> http://sat.collegeboard.com/scores/understanding-sat-scores > >> > >> Note that the first text on the page other than headers and menus reads: > >> > >> SAT scores are reported on a scale from 200-800 > >> > >> and that the second paragraph elaborates as: > >> > >> SAT Subject Test scores are reported on a scale from 200-800 > > > >They are now, anyway. I wonder if the scale change from 900 to 800 > >was prompted by declining test scores? > > No, the scale hasn't changed, liar. I bet otto took that test at least five times before all the scores added up to 875. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: krw on 4 May 2010 23:31 On Tue, 04 May 2010 22:40:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >> >> On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:21:17 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane(a)GroinToHell.com> >> wrote: >> >> >"R H Draney" <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote >> > >> >>>> >> >>That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Post proof or retract. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_test >> >>>> >> >>>> Wikipedia is not a valid cite. Anyone can fake a web page. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Post proof or retract. >> >> >> >> If "anyone can fake a web page", it is not possible to "post proof" by >> >> your >> >> definition.... >> >> >> >> Is the vowel of "cot" the same as the one of "caught"?...post proof of >> >> your >> >> answer, but links to audio files are not acceptable.... >> >> >> >> On the other hand, if it's just Wikipedia you have a problem with, here's >> >> a page >> >> from the SAT Testing Board's own site: >> >> >> >> http://sat.collegeboard.com/scores/understanding-sat-scores >> >> >> >> Note that the first text on the page other than headers and menus reads: >> >> >> >> SAT scores are reported on a scale from 200-800 >> >> >> >> and that the second paragraph elaborates as: >> >> >> >> SAT Subject Test scores are reported on a scale from 200-800 >> > >> >They are now, anyway. I wonder if the scale change from 900 to 800 >> >was prompted by declining test scores? >> >> No, the scale hasn't changed, liar. > > > > I bet otto took that test at least five times before all the scores >added up to 875. Since there is 200 points for getting one's name right, this is a definite possibility.
From: Adam Funk on 5 May 2010 16:57
On 2010-05-02, Michael A. Terrell wrote: > What do you expect in drivel crossposted from news:alt.usage.english > other than small minds that try to make you think they are intelligent? > It would be a good place for 'Sloman' and 'D from B C' to hang out. > Neither of them seem to know electronics, yet they use a lot of words to > say nothing. What do you read, my lord? -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? |