On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:53:00 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
>>>>> Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a
>>>>> good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them
>>>> for OT-ness.
>>>
>>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of
>>> the most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few
>>> minutes counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you and
>>> Greg would rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I counted
>>> yours and Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the results, are
>>> you?
>>
>> i don't really give a **** about the results.
>
> Of course you don't. That's why you keep bringing them up. See the top quote
> in this passage? That was from YOU, right? You seem to have taken offense at
> my mentioning the results, and you can't seem to just let it go.
>
> Bob

jesus, bob, you're pretty slow for a triple-niner. you complained about my
o.t. posts, but said it was o.k. for christine because she was your friend
and you liked her. then i commented

>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?

can you follow the drift of conversation now?

blake