stan chisholm > wrote:

> "Wader of Doom" > wrote in message
> . uk...
> > stan chisholm > wrote:
> >
> >> > Why then do you continue to cross-post?
> >> >
> >> get stuffed
> >
> > Don't tell me that you've run out of arguments already,
> > mr crossposting stan chisholm, you demean yourself.
> >
> YOU are the one who is crossposting, I am merely responding to it.

Do they really breed them this dumb?

"Steve Firth" > wrote in message
. ..
> stan chisholm > wrote:
>
>> > If you can't cope with the standard of debate in uk.misc, I suggest you
>> > be the one to **** off. At the very least, learn how to ignore threads
>> > or crossposts. That way, you won't have to put up with me mocking your
>> > dreadful grasp of written English.
>>
>> Get KNOTTED
>
> Ah yes, writing a work in CAPITALS. What an erudite and witty putdown
> that is. You might find that if you do that you will need a HORSE to
> give you a HAND.
>
What on eareth are you jabbering on about ?

"Steve Firth" > wrote in message
.. .
> stan chisholm > wrote:
>
>> "Wader of Doom" > wrote in message
>> . uk...
>> > stan chisholm > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Why then do you continue to cross-post?
>> >> >
>> >> get stuffed
>> >
>> > Don't tell me that you've run out of arguments already,
>> > mr crossposting stan chisholm, you demean yourself.
>> >
>> YOU are the one who is crossposting, I am merely responding to it.
>
> Do they really breed them this dumb?

It is against the charter to crosspost, but this way at least more people
will read my charter enforcing posts, this will benefit everybody.

"Sn!pe" > wrote

> stan chisholm > wrote:
>
> [...]
>> read my charter enforcing posts, this will benefit everybody.
>
> Hooray! It's jolly decent of you to consider our welfare this way, stan.
> I do hope you don't mind us ribbing you like this, you're actually quite
> attractive in a fluffy "Can I keep it Mum?" sort of way.

"Get it OFF me, Smithers!"

(fuset)

stan chisholm > wrote:

> "Steve Firth" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > stan chisholm > wrote:
> >
> >> > If you can't cope with the standard of debate in uk.misc, I suggest you
> >> > be the one to **** off. At the very least, learn how to ignore threads
> >> > or crossposts. That way, you won't have to put up with me mocking your
> >> > dreadful grasp of written English.
> >>
> >> Get KNOTTED
> >
> > Ah yes, writing a work in CAPITALS. What an erudite and witty putdown
> > that is. You might find that if you do that you will need a HORSE to
> > give you a HAND.
> >
> What on eareth are you jabbering on about ?

Heaventh abothe! It'th Viowet Ewithabeth Bott and the hath pwoblemth
wiff her eareth!

stan chisholm > wrote:

> > Do they really breed them this dumb?
>
> It is against the charter to crosspost,

Stop crossposting then, dumbath.

> but this way at least more people will read my charter busting posts, this
> will benefit no one.

First sensible thing you haven't said all day.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:02:22 GMT, James Silverton wrote:

> Mr. wrote on Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:39:36 +0100:
>
>> "james" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In message >, Richard
>>> Tobin > writes
>>>> In article > ,
>>>> Wader of Doom > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whoever would have thought that he would top-post though?
>>>>
>>>> When commenting on a post as a whole, rather than
>>>> participating in a discussion, top-posting is the right
>>>> thing to do. Think of it as a post-it note stuck to a
>>>> letter.
>>>
>>> Top posting is never correct in the Usenet. Jim
>>> Follett
>
>>Except when it's funny.
>
> The humor escapes me here, please explain. I think top-posting implies
> that the poster considers the quoted part so tremendously interesting
> that everyone will be familiar with it without re-reading. Perhaps, also
> it agrees with Oscar Wilde, who said, I believe, that he never listened
> to conversations because he was thinking about what he was going to say.

****in' irishmen.

i love wilde, but i love this exchange as well:

OSCAR WILDE to James McNeill Whistler: "I wish I'd said that, Jimmy."
Whistler: "Don't worry, Oscar, you will."

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:41:06 +0100, stan chisholm wrote:

> "August West" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The entity calling itself stan chisholm wrote:
>>>
>>> "August West" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> The entity calling itself stan chisholm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, but you can't get these people to understand that or
>>>>> understand why it is essential that I try to enforce the charter.
>>>>
>>>> Which charter? This is cross-posted to THREE groups.
>>>
>>> uk.food+drink.misc of course.
>>
>> "Of course"?
>> Why "of course"?
>> You're a ****wit, son.
>> We don't like them in uk.misc.
>>
>>>This sort of thread is not welcome here, it breaches section 3 of the
>>>charter.
>>
>> What, exactly, is "this sort of thread"? The subject, sushi, would
>> seem to be relevant to food+drink.
>>
> **** off

what does the charter say about ****ing off?

blake

"Sn!pe" > wrote in message
.uk...
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> >> What, exactly, is "this sort of thread"? The subject, sushi, would
>> >> seem to be relevant to food+drink.
>> >>
>> > **** off
>>
>> what does the charter say about ****ing off?
>
> It's forbiddden unless it's our new friend stan that we're ****ing off.
>
>Section 7, foul and abusive language will not be tolerated........

"Sn!pe" > wrote in message
.uk...
> Steve Firth > wrote:
>
>> > >> > Why then do you continue to cross-post?
>> > >> >
>> > >> get stuffed
>> > >
>> > > Don't tell me that you've run out of arguments already,
>> > > mr crossposting stan chisholm, you demean yourself.
>> > >
>> > YOU are the one who is crossposting, I am merely responding to it.
>>
>> Do they really breed them this dumb?
>
> I'm beginning to wonder whether it's for real or just a simple but
> fairly effective troll. I think I'll settle for real and simple for the
> time being.
>
Trolling ? Whatever do you mean

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:07:33 +0100, "stan chisholm" >
wrote:

>
>"Steve Firth" > wrote in message
...
>> stan chisholm > wrote:
>>
>>> > If you can't cope with the standard of debate in uk.misc, I suggest you
>>> > be the one to **** off. At the very least, learn how to ignore threads
>>> > or crossposts. That way, you won't have to put up with me mocking your
>>> > dreadful grasp of written English.
>>>
>>> Get KNOTTED
>>
>> Ah yes, writing a work in CAPITALS. What an erudite and witty putdown
>> that is. You might find that if you do that you will need a HORSE to
>> give you a HAND.
>>
>What on eareth are you jabbering on about ?
>
I'm very sorry, if you don't know then you're not suitable material
for membership.
--
Hooray for the differently sane.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:28:51 +0100, "stan chisholm"
> wrote:

>
>"Sn!pe" > wrote in message
o.uk...
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> >> What, exactly, is "this sort of thread"? The subject, sushi, would
>>> >> seem to be relevant to food+drink.
>>> >>
>>> > **** off
>>>
>>> what does the charter say about ****ing off?
>>
>> It's forbiddden unless it's our new friend stan that we're ****ing off.
>>
>>Section 7, foul and abusive language will not be tolerated........
>
**** the **** right off, ****wit.
--
Hooray for the differently sane.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:12:36 +0100, stan chisholm wrote:

> It is against the charter to crosspost, but this way at least more people
> will read my charter enforcing posts, this will benefit everybody.

HA HAHAHAHAH HAHA HA HA HA HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *gasp* HAHAHAHAHA.

Best laugh I've had in ages. Thanks.

--
Cheers!
Ade.

"Amethyst Deceiver" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:28:51 +0100, "stan chisholm"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sn!pe" > wrote in message
. co.uk...
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> What, exactly, is "this sort of thread"? The subject, sushi, would
>>>> >> seem to be relevant to food+drink.
>>>> >>
>>>> > **** off
>>>>
>>>> what does the charter say about ****ing off?
>>>
>>> It's forbiddden unless it's our new friend stan that we're ****ing off.
>>>
>>>Section 7, foul and abusive language will not be tolerated........
>>
> **** the **** right off, ****wit.
> --
How dare you talk to me like that, wash you mouth out with soap and water
you impudent scoundrel.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:28:51 +0100, stan chisholm wrote:

> "Sn!pe" > wrote in message
> .uk...
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> >> What, exactly, is "this sort of thread"? The subject, sushi, would
>>> >> seem to be relevant to food+drink.
>>> >>
>>> > **** off
>>>
>>> what does the charter say about ****ing off?
>>
>> It's forbiddden unless it's our new friend stan that we're ****ing off.
>>
>>Section 7, foul and abusive language will not be tolerated........

'**** off' isn't foul and offensive?

blake

"Sn!pe" > wrote in message
.uk...
> Mike.. . . > wrote:
>
> [...]
>> >>>> > **** off
>> >>>>
>> >>>> what does the charter say about ****ing off?
>> >>>
>> >>> It's forbiddden unless it's our new friend stan that we're ****ing
>> >>> off.
>> >>>
>> >>> Section 7, foul and abusive language will not be tolerated........
>> >
>> > I did not write that last line above, don't put words in my mouth,
>> > stan.
>> >
>> > Anyway, where can we inspect this famous charter of ufdm?
>> > A link would be helpful.
>>
>> i and a select few others decide what the charter is. if you dont like
>> that
>> fact then dont post here.
>
> So, is this "charter" published anywhere for inspection? It must be
> awfully rough on newcomers to ufdm if they don't know what the rules
> are; do you give each new member individual guidance as their ufdm
> career progresses? How many other things are forbidden? ITWSBT
>
> --
The charter is posted on the group, there is a troll one though but just
ignore that one.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:28:51 +0100, stan chisholm wrote:
>
>> "Sn!pe" > wrote in message
>> .uk...
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> What, exactly, is "this sort of thread"? The subject, sushi, would
>>>> >> seem to be relevant to food+drink.
>>>> >>
>>>> > **** off
>>>>
>>>> what does the charter say about ****ing off?
>>>
>>> It's forbiddden unless it's our new friend stan that we're ****ing off.
>>>
>>>Section 7, foul and abusive language will not be tolerated........
>
> '**** off' isn't foul and offensive?
>
Not really, **** off is offensive but **** off isn't.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:23:36 +0100, August West >
wrote the following to uk.misc:

>
> The entity calling itself stan chisholm wrote:
>>
>> "Sn!pe" > wrote in message
>> .uk...
>>
>>> So, is this "charter" published anywhere for inspection? It must be
>>> awfully rough on newcomers to ufdm if they don't know what the rules
>>> are; do you give each new member individual guidance as their ufdm
>>> career progresses? How many other things are forbidden? ITWSBT
>>
>> The charter is posted on the group, there is a troll one though but just
>> ignore that one.
>
> That wdwould the yours, then, as the official one is the one to be found
> at www.usenet.org.uk; any other one is a makey-upy troll.
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.food+dri...ood+drink.misc

Got to say it was kind of the trolls to identify themselves as such about a
month ago at http://preview.tinyurl.com/cvqs8x. "We're trolling
uk.food+drink.misc, join us there. Help us kill off another clique and the
netcops. " indeed.

mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:55:33 +0100, stan chisholm wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:28:51 +0100, stan chisholm wrote:
>>
>>> "Sn!pe" > wrote in message
>>> .uk...
>>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> What, exactly, is "this sort of thread"? The subject, sushi, would
>>>>> >> seem to be relevant to food+drink.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > **** off
>>>>>
>>>>> what does the charter say about ****ing off?
>>>>
>>>> It's forbiddden unless it's our new friend stan that we're ****ing off.
>>>>
>>>>Section 7, foul and abusive language will not be tolerated........
>>
>> '**** off' isn't foul and offensive?
>>
> Not really, **** off is offensive but **** off isn't.

The ****.

--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

On Apr 6, 8:33*am, "Martin" > wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Martin > wrote:
>
> > > Who eats that crap?
>
> > 0/10 must troll harder.
>
> > Try hiding behind a stupid alias, and cross-posting to a bunch of
> > unrelated groups. It would also help if you had your tiny penis
> > surgically attached to your forehead.
>
> > Oh hang on, you're there already on all counts.
>
> **** off, I'm deadly serious. That stuff tastes like shit.
>

People, who live in places with non-fresh seafood or with too few
Japanese or Korean people, do eat sushi that tastes like shit. Many
suffer diarrhea.

>
> Give me a pasty instead.
>

You eat pasties 7 days a week? No variety of food allowed?

In message >, Sn!pe
> writes
>stan chisholm > wrote:
>
>[...]
>> read my charter enforcing posts, this will benefit everybody.
>
>Hooray! It's jolly decent of you to consider our welfare this way, stan.
>I do hope you don't mind us ribbing you like this, you're actually quite
>attractive in a fluffy "Can I keep it Mum?" sort of way.

I say, is a fluffy like a furry? Thought a feathery, or a beaky would be
more your type.

Saw an art exhibition the other day, where the artist seemed to have
something of an obsession with sn!pe; all sorts of paintings of them,
solitary on watery terrain.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

IAWTP

In message >, Mr. Broadhurst
> writes
>Except when it's funny.
>
>"james" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, Richard Tobin
>> > writes
>>>In article > ,
>>>Wader of Doom > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Whoever would have thought that he would top-post though?
>>>
>>>When commenting on a post as a whole, rather than participating
>>>in a discussion, top-posting is the right thing to do. Think
>>>of it as a post-it note stuck to a letter.
>>
>> Top posting is never correct in the Usenet. Jim Follett
>
>

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

I'm not sure that Mr Broadhurst reads either of the two groups you
posted to, so I've reinstated the x-post to u.m.

HTH HAND SHANDY ETC



In message >, James Silverton
> writes
>Mr. wrote on Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:39:36 +0100:
>
>> "james" > wrote in message
...
>>> In message >, Richard
>>> Tobin > writes
>>>> In article > ,
>>>> Wader of Doom > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whoever would have thought that he would top-post though?
>>>>
>>>> When commenting on a post as a whole, rather than
>>>> participating in a discussion, top-posting is the right
>>>> thing to do. Think of it as a post-it note stuck to a
>>>> letter.
>>>
>>> Top posting is never correct in the Usenet. Jim
>>> Follett
>
>>Except when it's funny.
>
>The humor escapes me here, please explain. I think top-posting implies
>that the poster considers the quoted part so tremendously interesting
>that everyone will be familiar with it without re-reading. Perhaps,
>also it agrees with Oscar Wilde, who said, I believe, that he never
>listened to conversations because he was thinking about what he was
>going to say.
>

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Dang,let's see if this works



In message >, bof >
writes
>
>I'm not sure that Mr Broadhurst reads either of the two groups you
>posted to, so I've reinstated the x-post to u.m.
>
>HTH HAND SHANDY ETC
>
>
>
>In message >, James Silverton
> writes
>>Mr. wrote on Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:39:36 +0100:
>>
>>> "james" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In message >, Richard
>>>> Tobin > writes
>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>> Wader of Doom > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whoever would have thought that he would top-post though?
>>>>>
>>>>> When commenting on a post as a whole, rather than
>>>>> participating in a discussion, top-posting is the right
>>>>> thing to do. Think of it as a post-it note stuck to a
>>>>> letter.
>>>>
>>>> Top posting is never correct in the Usenet. Jim
>>>> Follett
>>
>>>Except when it's funny.
>>
>>The humor escapes me here, please explain. I think top-posting implies
>>that the poster considers the quoted part so tremendously interesting
>>that everyone will be familiar with it without re-reading. Perhaps,
>>also it agrees with Oscar Wilde, who said, I believe, that he never
>>listened to conversations because he was thinking about what he was
>>going to say.
>>
>

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message >, Sn!pe
> writes

<snip of non sushi related stuff>

On the subject of sushi, or maybe, more properly, sashimi, are you
finding the antipodean shoreline pickings to your taste?


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

No top-posting in uk.misc, c*nt!#

"bof" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dang,let's see if this works
>
>
>
> In message >, bof >
> writes
>>
>>I'm not sure that Mr Broadhurst reads either of the two groups you posted
>>to, so I've reinstated the x-post to u.m.
>>
>>HTH HAND SHANDY ETC
>>
>>
>>
>>In message >, James Silverton
> writes
>>>Mr. wrote on Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:39:36 +0100:
>>>
>>>> "james" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In message >, Richard
>>>>> Tobin > writes
>>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>>> Wader of Doom > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whoever would have thought that he would top-post though?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When commenting on a post as a whole, rather than
>>>>>> participating in a discussion, top-posting is the right
>>>>>> thing to do. Think of it as a post-it note stuck to a
>>>>>> letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Top posting is never correct in the Usenet. Jim
>>>>> Follett
>>>
>>>>Except when it's funny.
>>>
>>>The humor escapes me here, please explain. I think top-posting implies
>>>that the poster considers the quoted part so tremendously interesting
>>>that everyone will be familiar with it without re-reading. Perhaps, also
>>>it agrees with Oscar Wilde, who said, I believe, that he never listened
>>>to conversations because he was thinking about what he was going to say.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> bof at bof dot me dot uk