On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:10:55 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:26:49 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:06:50 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> Initially Michel received no nasty comments and in fact he made the
>>> first nasty comments when he heard constructive criticisms that he
>>> didn't want to hear, and that's when the comments escalated to nasty.
>>> Michel was first to make personal attacks... and just because he
>>> wasn't calling names in no way negates the fact that his retorts were
>>> not rude/nasty... his retorts were smarmy and smarmy is offensive.
>>
>>ohnoes!!!!
>>
>>not sure what the **** this means, though:
>
> You don't know what anything means... and what's with the dangling
> though... you have a speech impediment too?
>
>>> and just because he
>>> wasn't calling names in no way negates the fact that his retorts were
>>> not rude/nasty...
>>
>>blake

o.k., you tell me then: what does 'wasn't' 'negates' 'not' mean? and what
was 'dangling'?

blake