PING: Andy
 

PING: Andy

Hi self.

Andy

PING: Andy
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:20:27 -0500, Andy wrote:

> PING: Andy
>
> Hi self.
>
> Andy

What a ****ing loser.

-sw

PING: Andy
 

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:20:27 -0500, Andy wrote:
>
>> PING: Andy
>>
>> Hi self.
>>
>> Andy
>
> What a ****ing loser.
>
> -sw

Well, my Irony Meter just went through the roof (again)...

Wasn't it you who posted the following in another thread:

>

<quote>
See Andy's most recent post highlighting... himself.

It really makes me wonder why people perpetuate total ****tards like
this by responding to these inane posts day after day?

I don't even read the threads, but I glance at the people responding
to them. They're the same ones who also have nothing to say, day
after day.

Usenet is not for people who have nothing important to say every 12 Â*
minutes at a time. Â*That's what Twitter is for. Â*I have earned 6
free invites for Twitter, BTW, Â*Just email me for your free code as
long as you be my friend! Â*I ROCK! Â*YEAH!

Pbbbt.

-sw
</quote>

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

PING: Andy
 

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:09:34 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:20:27 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>
>>> PING: Andy
>>>
>>> Hi self.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> What a ****ing loser.
>>
>> -sw
>
> Well, my Irony Meter just went through the roof (again)...
>
> Wasn't it you who posted the following in another thread:
>
> >

Yeah - that was me. It was nice of you to notice.

I think you were trying to make a point, but I didn't quite connect
the dots. Please continue with whatever strain of Jungle Fever
you're cooking these days.

-sw

PING: Andy
 

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:21:38 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:09:34 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:20:27 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>>
>>>> PING: Andy
>>>>
>>>> Hi self.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>
>>> What a ****ing loser.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> Well, my Irony Meter just went through the roof (again)...
>>
>> Wasn't it you who posted the following in another thread:
>>
>> >
>
> Yeah - that was me. It was nice of you to notice.
>
> I think you were trying to make a point, but I didn't quite connect
> the dots. Please continue with whatever strain of Jungle Fever
> you're cooking these days.

Oh, I remember you.

You're one of the six people(*) in RFC that always and endlessly
criticizes others for criticising people who tell other people not
to follow up to mindless threads, to which they have also posted
themselves thereby reinforcing the theory of the majority.

Doesn't that get old? And ahy is it that it's *always* women who do
that?

-sw

PING: Andy
 

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:09:34 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:20:27 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>
>>> PING: Andy
>>>
>>> Hi self.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> What a ****ing loser.
>>
>> -sw
>
>Well, my Irony Meter just went through the roof (again)...
>
>Wasn't it you who posted the following in another thread:
>
>
>
><quote>
>See Andy's most recent post highlighting... himself.
>
>It really makes me wonder why people perpetuate total ****tards like
>this by responding to these inane posts day after day?
>
>I don't even read the threads, but I glance at the people responding
>to them. They're the same ones who also have nothing to say, day
>after day.
>
>Usenet is not for people who have nothing important to say every 12 *
>minutes at a time. *That's what Twitter is for. *I have earned 6
>free invites for Twitter, BTW, *Just email me for your free code as
>long as you be my friend! *I ROCK! *YEAH!
>
>Pbbbt.
>
>-sw
></quote>

Oooo Cathy... that's a good zinger! Turn it on the little tur_.

You should have added extra quote markers by his quote in spite of the
<quote> markers. I bet at least half of the rfc readers didn't "get
it" and thought that was you speaking.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

PING: Andy
 

Sqwertz wrote:


> Oh, I remember you.
>
> You're one of the six people(*) in RFC that always and endlessly
> criticizes others for criticising people who tell other people not
> to follow up to mindless threads, to which they have also posted
> themselves thereby reinforcing the theory of the majority.
>
> Doesn't that get old? And ahy is it that it's *always* women who do
> that?
>
> -sw

REC: Inane Post

Ingredients:

4 lines self-raising bait
2 lines insult
2 cups stupidity

Instructions:

Mix all the ingredients in a newsreader
Post to Usenet


--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

PING: Andy
 

ChattyCathy wrote:

> REC: Inane Post
>
> Ingredients:
>
> 4 lines self-raising bait
> 2 lines insult
> 2 cups stupidity
>
> Instructions:
>
> Mix all the ingredients in a newsreader
> Post to Usenet

lol
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

PING: Andy
 

ChattyCathy said...

> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:20:27 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>
>>> PING: Andy
>>>
>>> Hi self.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> What a ****ing loser.
>>
>> -sw
>
> Well, my Irony Meter just went through the roof (again)...
>
> Wasn't it you who posted the following in another thread:
>
> >
>
> <quote>
> See Andy's most recent post highlighting... himself.
>
> It really makes me wonder why people perpetuate total ****tards like
> this by responding to these inane posts day after day?
>
> I don't even read the threads, but I glance at the people responding
> to them. They're the same ones who also have nothing to say, day
> after day.
>
> Usenet is not for people who have nothing important to say every 12 Â*
> minutes at a time. Â*That's what Twitter is for. Â*I have earned 6
> free invites for Twitter, BTW, Â*Just email me for your free code as
> long as you be my friend! Â*I ROCK! Â*YEAH!
>
> Pbbbt.
>
> -sw
> </quote>


It said that?

HA!!!

Andy