Charles Demas wrote:

> In article >,
> Dan Logcher > wrote:
>
>>Charles Demas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Dan Logcher > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Charles Demas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Michael > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><Scawny Dog Johnson> wrote in message
eranews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:02:44 GMT, Dan Logcher
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, I was returning from some Christmas shopping at
>>>>>>>>a distance mall, driving down the high not far from my
>>>>>>>>favorite sushi bar and decided to have lunch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dan, This newsgroup is not titled, alt.whatdan.hadforlunch.
>>>>>>>What makes you think we are even slightly interested in what you had
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Snipping of bozo's mind fart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Keep it up Dan, about as on topic as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I'm surprised that you rose to the bait Michael.
>>>>>
>>>>>Look at who you're responding to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dan hardly needs encouragement to keep posting and I suspect that that
>>>>>ole fry cook just love seeing Dan rise to his bait *EACH* *AND* *EVERY*
>>>>>time he throws out a hook.
>>>>>
>>>>>It annoys me that Dan can't restrain himself from responding, and
>>>>>reresponding again, but I expected better from you, Michael.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Why does it annoy you? He doesn't get a rise out of me, just a
>>>>response. A rise would be if I were ****ed off or something, and
>>>>I know he's just a nobody Frycook (all of his multiple personalities).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>OK, but just remember, you asked for an explanation.
>>>
>>>He's generally disruptive in this newsgroup, and would go away if
>>>he weren't getting responses. I'd prefer that he went away unfulfilled.
>>>
>>>As long as you keep responding to him, he'll stick around,
>>>
>>> WHICH IS'NT WHAT I WANT!
>>>
>>> DON'T YOU GET IT DAN?
>>>
>>> YOU'RE GIVING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS!
>>>
>>>As I see it, there are two explanations:
>>>
>>>1. You're really that f**king stupid.
>>>
>>>2. You're really the fry cook and you're playing a very clever game.
>>>
>>>Whichever it is, I find it annoying, and FWIW, I don't think it's
>>>explanation number 2.
>>>
>>3. Maybe I do it expressly to annoy you.
>>
>>4. I don't see it as giving him anything.
>>
>>He's not going away, and neither am I. You should lighten up, Chuck.
>>It's not good for ones health to be all annoyed at such trivial things.
>>
>
> Definitely #1.
>
> BTW, I never asked you to go away.
>
> I responded originally to Michael saying that I thought he was
> smarter than to have responded to the fry cook. I long ago gave up
> expecting you to do anything intellegent, but occasionally I say to
> myself, "He can't really be *THAT* stupid. He'll learn."
>
> Wrong every time. :~(

Maybe you're the one with intellegence problem. Just because it bothers
you don't make it stupid if anyone else replies to him. You're not the
authority on here or anywhere.

--
Dan