Krypsis wrote:
> On 24/10/2012 4:54 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:10:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:09:34 -0500, Sqwertz
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I invite you to count the number of times she posts, and the
>>>>>> number of
>>>>>> times she responds to those you deride her. A normal person
>>>>>> would take
>>>>>> a hint.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, does that excuse the behavior of folks here? People are
>>>>> responsible for their own behavior.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but Julie is not as innocent as she seems. She's not
>>>> exactly respectful of the help people have tried to give her
>>>> in the
>>>> past. And she still pulls the same crap over and over again.
>>>>
>>>> You don't want to get sucked into this Jean. You haven't read
>>>> all the
>>>> threads, probably. I know you try and stay away from them. And
>>>> for
>>>> good reason they're not pretty. Julie simply does not play
>>>> well with
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>
>>> That is why kill files were invented. When you make personal
>>> attacks
>>> on people you demean yourself more than the person you target.
>>
>> Maybe in your eyes. But I don't feel demeaned in the least. And you
>> can't very well speak for anyone else either - especially
>> considering
>> the less than respectful following that Julie has here. Apparently
>> she's worse in other groups (or so we're led to beleive by several
>> other people's comments)
>>
>> -sw
>>
> I don't judge people by the comments of others. You would do well
> to do likewise!
>
Having a mind of one's own is an excellent thing!

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:04:57 -0600, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> Krypsis wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2012 4:54 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:10:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:09:34 -0500, Sqwertz
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I invite you to count the number of times she posts, and the
>>>>>>>> number of
>>>>>>>> times she responds to those you deride her. A normal person
>>>>>>>> would take
>>>>>>>> a hint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, does that excuse the behavior of folks here? People are
>>>>>>> responsible for their own behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry, but Julie is not as innocent as she seems. She's not
>>>>>> exactly respectful of the help people have tried to give her
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> past. And she still pulls the same crap over and over again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't want to get sucked into this Jean. You haven't read
>>>>>> all the
>>>>>> threads, probably. I know you try and stay away from them. And
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> good reason they're not pretty. Julie simply does not play
>>>>>> well with
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -sw
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why kill files were invented. When you make personal
>>>>> attacks
>>>>> on people you demean yourself more than the person you target.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe in your eyes. But I don't feel demeaned in the least. And you
>>>> can't very well speak for anyone else either - especially
>>>> considering
>>>> the less than respectful following that Julie has here. Apparently
>>>> she's worse in other groups (or so we're led to beleive by several
>>>> other people's comments)
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>>
>>> I don't judge people by the comments of others. You would do well
>>> to do likewise!
>>>
>> Having a mind of one's own is an excellent thing!
>
> How was I imposing my feeling on anyone else? I wasn't. You know
> Krypsis, you're one to talk<laugh>. You sure do your share of
> bitching about others here. And if you ever had a well-placed thought
> rather these moments of misplaced run-of-the-mill wisdom, I sure
> haven't seen it.
>
> Then again I don't see your posts unless somebody else quotes it.
> It's extremely rare that somebody would follow up to something you
> said. That should tell you something in itself.
>
> ObFood: Why don't the "Walkers" on 'Walking Dead' eat each other? How
> else could they have survived for 10+ months? It doesn't even appear
> they can drink water with those mangled faces - the brains would have
> died by now. And how did the walkers locked in the prison cells
> survive?
>
> -sw

Uh, I am not Krypsis. Oh, I see, you are replying thtough me.
Carry on.

In article >, Sqwertz >
wrote:

> ObFood: Why don't the "Walkers" on 'Walking Dead' eat each other?


same reason wolves don't eat each other

How
> else could they have survived for 10+ months? It doesn't even appear
> they can drink water with those mangled faces - the brains would have
> died by now. And how did the walkers locked in the prison cells
> survive?

they starve slower than real live humans. Perhaps given enough time they will
all starve to death

On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:55:59 PM UTC-6, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:11:51 -0700, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article >, Sqwertz >
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> ObFood: Why don't the "Walkers" on 'Walking Dead' eat each other?
>
> >
>
> > same reason wolves don't eat each other
>
>
>
> Uh, the Walkers have no problem eat humans. That's the whole theme of
>
> the series, dumbass.
>
>
>
> >> How
>
> >> else could they have survived for 10+ months? It doesn't even appear
>
> >> they can drink water with those mangled faces - the brains would have
>
> >> died by now. And how did the walkers locked in the prison cells
>
> >> survive?
>
> >
>
> > they starve slower than real live humans. Perhaps given enough time they will
>
> > all starve to death
>
>
>
> The can't even DRINK - moth of them have mangled mouths that water
>
> would just fall right out of. They should have shriveled up from
>
> dehydration 8 months ago, and surely have starved by now.
>
>
>
> Why can't they at least come up with a local, believable series about
>
> zombies? Sheesh.
>
>
> -sw

Only people with "sick" minds would watch such a show. Sheesh!

In article >, Sqwertz >
wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:11:51 -0700, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>
> > In article >, Sqwertz
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> ObFood: Why don't the "Walkers" on 'Walking Dead' eat each other?
> >
> > same reason wolves don't eat each other
>
> Uh, the Walkers have no problem eat humans. That's the whole theme of the
> series, dumbass.

which in what way changes what I said?


>
> >> How else could they have survived for 10+ months? It doesn't even appear
> >> they can drink water with those mangled faces - the brains would have died
> >> by now. And how did the walkers locked in the prison cells survive?
> >
> > they starve slower than real live humans. Perhaps given enough time they
> > will all starve to death
>
> The can't even DRINK - moth of them have mangled mouths that water would just
> fall right out of. They should have shriveled up from dehydration 8 months
> ago, and surely have starved by now.

that's the trouble with fiction


>
> Why can't they at least come up with a local, believable series about
> zombies? Sheesh.
>
> -sw

In article >,
Roy > wrote:

>
> Only people with "sick" minds would watch such a show. Sheesh!

is that you julie?

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Why can't they at least come up with a local, believable series about
> zombies? Sheesh.

If you think about what you just said, Steve, it's kind of funny.
A believable series of (fantasy) zombies? meheheh

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> Why can't they at least come up with a local, believable series about
>> zombies? Sheesh.
>
> If you think about what you just said, Steve, it's kind of funny.
> A believable series of (fantasy) zombies? meheheh


Joss Whedon has endorsed Romney (to hasten the Zombie Apocalypse):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,7991846.story

-RK

In article >, Sqwertz >
wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:29:27 -0700, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>
> > In article >, Sqwertz
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:11:51 -0700, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article >, Sqwertz
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ObFood: Why don't the "Walkers" on 'Walking Dead' eat each other?
> >>>
> >>> same reason wolves don't eat each other
> >>
> >> Uh, the Walkers have no problem eat humans. That's the whole theme of the
> >> series, dumbass.
> >
> > which in what way changes what I said?
>
> I should have known not to try and engage you in any sort of
> conversation. Thanks for the periodic reinforcement.
>
> -sw

Lack of answer noted