Are you working now, or not? I need to know so I can tell your boss.
That's what I did, right?

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:45:17 -0400, Cape Cod Bob
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On 30 Jun 2005 07:12:53 -0700, "twillis" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This seems a good a place as any to mention that I am Mightily
>>>Entertained when I give Harlan spaghetti, one strand at a time. He is
>>>the CUTE!
>>>
>>>He is also Mightily Entertained, but hasn't mentioned whether he thinks
>>>I am the cute.
>>
>>Thanks for that very helpful, informative, perspicacious and utterly
>>worthless post.
>
>
> I'm guessing that the meaning of at least one of the words in that
> sentence eludes you. As written, it makes no sense. Which word are you
> needing help with?
>
>
>> Take it to a chat room!
>
>
> Um, d00d . . . what do you think this is, if not a chat room?
>

Theresa Willis > writes:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:45:17 -0400, Cape Cod Bob
> > wrote:
>
> >Thanks for that very helpful, informative, perspicacious and utterly
> >worthless post.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > Take it to a chat room!
>
> OK! Which one are you in?

Don't be a moran. The chat rooms he's posting to (or bboards, as I
usually call themm) are shown at the top. They are rec.food.cooking
and alt.religion.kibology. Only I think that second one must be a
typo because there is no such word as kibology. I checked.

--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes <http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/>

"Maybe I should ask sane people." -- Dag ]gren

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:54:10 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>Are you working now, or not? I need to know so I can tell your boss.
>That's what I did, right?
>

DON'T TELL HIS BOSS HE'S NOT WORKING!!

GREETINGS FROM THE FOURTH DIMENTIONS!

Dan Krueger > wrote in
ink.net:

> Are you working now, or not? I need to know so I can tell
> your boss. That's what I did, right?

Almost as fearful a social gaffe as top-posting, y'know.

All the best,

John.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote

> >>>>> Common usage _is_ correct usage, but only for the population that
> >>>>>uses it that way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>Irregardless of whether it is common usage or correct usage, the fact
> >>>>remains that "spaghetti noodles" refers to both the dish and the
> >>>>ingredient.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.irregardless.org/
> >>
> >>I must admit I am amused someone went to the trouble,
> >>but just the same:
> >>
> >>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
> >>
> >>HTH. HAND.
> >
> > Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
>
> As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.

Beer makes me pee. So sue me.

--oTTo--

Otto Bahn wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>>>>>>> Common usage _is_ correct usage, but only for the population that
>>>>>>>uses it that way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Irregardless of whether it is common usage or correct usage, the fact
>>>>>>remains that "spaghetti noodles" refers to both the dish and the
>>>>>>ingredient.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.irregardless.org/
>>>>
>>>>I must admit I am amused someone went to the trouble,
>>>>but just the same:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
>>>>
>>>>HTH. HAND.
>>>
>>>Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
>>
>>As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.
>
> Beer makes me pee. So sue me.

This your "A" material? Looks like posting for the sale of typing practice.

Beer? Let's see some ID there, Scooter.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote

> >>>>>>> Common usage _is_ correct usage, but only for the population that
> >>>>>>>uses it that way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>Irregardless of whether it is common usage or correct usage, the fact
> >>>>>>remains that "spaghetti noodles" refers to both the dish and the
> >>>>>>ingredient.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>http://www.irregardless.org/
> >>>>
> >>>>I must admit I am amused someone went to the trouble,
> >>>>but just the same:
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
> >>>>
> >>>>HTH. HAND.
> >>>
> >>>Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
> >>
> >>As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.
> >
> > Beer makes me pee. So sue me.
>
> This your "A" material? Looks like posting for the sale of typing practice.

As opposed to what, being trolled mercilessly?

--oTTo--

Otto Bahn wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Common usage _is_ correct usage, but only for the population that
>>>>>>>>>uses it that way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Irregardless of whether it is common usage or correct usage, the fact
>>>>>>>>remains that "spaghetti noodles" refers to both the dish and the
>>>>>>>>ingredient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.irregardless.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I must admit I am amused someone went to the trouble,
>>>>>>but just the same:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>HTH. HAND.
>>>>>
>>>>>Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
>>>>
>>>>As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.
>>>
>>>Beer makes me pee. So sue me.
>>
>>This your "A" material? Looks like posting for the sale of typing practice.
>
> As opposed to what, being trolled mercilessly?

See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote

> >>>>>>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>HTH. HAND.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
> >>>>
> >>>>As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.
> >>>
> >>>Beer makes me pee. So sue me.
> >>
> >>This your "A" material? Looks like posting for the sale of typing practice.
> >
> > As opposed to what, being trolled mercilessly?
>
> See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.

A sausage is more like your unnecessary fistula.

--oTTo--

I made you google!

No cluons were harmed when "Bob (this one)" > wrote:

[snips]

>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.

And a true tracheotomy is like a salmon crocquet...


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

Otto Bahn wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>>>>>>>>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>HTH. HAND.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.
>>>>>
>>>>>Beer makes me pee. So sue me.
>>>>
>>>>This your "A" material? Looks like posting for the sale of typing practice.
>>>
>>>As opposed to what, being trolled mercilessly?
>>
>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>
> A sausage is more like your unnecessary fistula.
>
> --oTTo--
>
> I made you google!

<LOL> A little projection, 8-ball, huh. Here's a life clue for you: Just
because you don't know what things are, don't assume everybody's as
uneducated as you.

This marks the end of this little game, but I want you to notice
something. I've been leading you around by your pert, upturned nose, and
I'm not even interested in trolling.

Do work on those skills (otto means something in Italian). Made you
google...

Bwah...

Pastorio

Mark Edwards wrote:
> No cluons were harmed when "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>
> And a true tracheotomy is like a salmon crocquet...

I said that very same thing this morning to a gourmet piscine
veterinarian. Except I spelled it correctly.

Amazing how great minds think alike. Nearly.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote

> >>>>>>>>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>HTH. HAND.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Beer makes me pee. So sue me.
> >>>>
> >>>>This your "A" material? Looks like posting for the sale of typing practice.
> >>>
> >>>As opposed to what, being trolled mercilessly?
> >>
> >>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
> >
> > A sausage is more like your unnecessary fistula.
> >
> > --oTTo--
> >
> > I made you google!
>
> <LOL> A little projection, 8-ball, huh. Here's a life clue for you: Just
> because you don't know what things are, don't assume everybody's as
> uneducated as you.

Blind squirrel effect -- true, most people are more uneducated,
and some even think fistulas are necessary.

> This marks the end of this little game, but I want you to notice
> something. I've been leading you around by your pert, upturned nose, and
> I'm not even interested in trolling.

The old "No, I was trolling you!" response *again*.

> Do work on those skills (otto means something in Italian). Made you
> google...
>
> Bwah...

Wipe your chin.

--oTTo--

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:01:58 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Otto Bahn wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/Y/YHBT.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>HTH. HAND.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Consider the source, oTTo. Fish in a barrel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As opposed to you two. Children splashing in the potty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Beer makes me pee. So sue me.
>>>>>
>>>>>This your "A" material? Looks like posting for the sale of typing practice.
>>>>
>>>>As opposed to what, being trolled mercilessly?
>>>
>>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>>
>> A sausage is more like your unnecessary fistula.
>>
>> --oTTo--
>>
>> I made you google!
>
><LOL> A little projection, 8-ball, huh. Here's a life clue for you: Just
>because you don't know what things are, don't assume everybody's as
>uneducated as you.

For differing values of "uneducated," of course.

Wait a minute. Weren't you busy lecturing us about the precise, exact
meaning of words?

>This marks the end of this little game, but I want you to notice
>something. I've been leading you around by your pert, upturned nose, and
>I'm not even interested in trolling.

"I meant to do that" would be more persuasive if we hadn't all seen
you fall into the mud puddle in the first place. Now get up. Your
pants are all wet. Again.

>Do work on those skills (otto means something in Italian). Made you
>google...
>
>Bwah...

On the next episode of "Showing Off Pastorio's Giant BRANE": Sloppy
Punctuation for Those . . . Who Don't . . . Know Better . . .

.. . .
.. . .
.. . . .

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote

> Did your computer post this message before you could add anything to
> it? Mine does that sometimes, too.

Me too!

--oTTo--

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:04:18 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

>Mark Edwards wrote:
>> No cluons were harmed when "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>>
>> [snips]
>>
>>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>>
>> And a true tracheotomy is like a salmon crocquet...
>
>I said that very same thing this morning to a gourmet piscine
>veterinarian. Except I spelled it correctly.

Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
dorsal.

--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"McGonnell, welcome to Plonksville, population: You"
-- Stacia

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> wrote:

>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote
>
>> Did your computer post this message before you could add anything to
>> it? Mine does that sometimes, too.
>
>Me too!
>
>--oTTo--
>

Chris McGonnell wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:04:18 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>>Mark Edwards wrote:
>>
>>>No cluons were harmed when "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[snips]
>>>
>>>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>>>
>>>And a true tracheotomy is like a salmon crocquet...
>>
>>I said that very same thing this morning to a gourmet piscine
>>veterinarian. Except I spelled it correctly.
>
> Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
> hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
> dorsal.

Sweet Jesus, you guys are bad at this. No wit. No clever repartee. It
seems that any response will do; no concerns with anything beyond
quantity. No wonder you try to tag-team it. No one is strong enough to
carry it alone.

So any reply, even one that shreds your trivial posturing, is a victory
for you? That's like claiming victory because you got hit harder than
the guy you tangles with. More brilliance.

Here's a brilliant example - another post between two other sterling
gangbang wordsmiths:
-----------
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> wrote:

>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote
>>
>>> Did your computer post this message before you could add anything
>>> to it? Mine does that sometimes, too.
>>
>>Me too!
>>
>>--oTTo--
--------------------

Who wouldn't admire the depth and breadth of vision there? Who wouldn't
consider it nearly Shakespearean in it's facile exposition of the great
verities?

I love watching skinny guys with sunken chests flexing their tiny
muscles and getting all red in the face. It just makes me appreciate
bright, competent people more.

It must be hard being on the upslope of the bell curve. Somebody help
them understand what this is about. Give them hankies first, You know
how they get.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote
> >>
> >>> Did your computer post this message before you could add anything
> >>> to it? Mine does that sometimes, too.
> >>
> >>Me too!
> >>
> >>--oTTo--
> --------------------
>
> Who wouldn't admire the depth and breadth of vision there?

Indeed. It's like a tag team, as if they were
working together to simultaneously catch the
same fish.

> Who wouldn't
> consider it nearly Shakespearean in it's facile exposition of the great
> verities?

Do the hooks dangling from your butt make it all
the more work to cut 'n paste the world's oldest
AOL troll into your post?

ROTF LOL!

--oTTo--

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Chris McGonnell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:04:18 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>>>No cluons were harmed when "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snips]
>>>>
>>>>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>>>>
>>>>And a true tracheotomy is like a salmon crocquet...
>>>
>>>I said that very same thing this morning to a gourmet piscine
>>>veterinarian. Except I spelled it correctly.
>>
>> Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
>> hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
>> dorsal.
>
>Sweet Jesus, you guys are bad at this. No wit. No clever repartee. It
>seems that any response will do; no concerns with anything beyond
>quantity. No wonder you try to tag-team it. No one is strong enough to
>carry it alone.

>So any reply, even one that shreds your trivial posturing, is a victory
>for you? That's like claiming victory because you got hit harder than
>the guy you tangles with. More brilliance.

Come on now. At least try to make up your mind. Less than an hour ago
you said you were leaving, taking our shiny hooks with you and
trailing leader along behind.

"This marks the end of this little game" You do remember saying that,
right?

>Here's a brilliant example -

Who wants to explain the joak to Giant Brane Bob?

>another post between two other sterling
>gangbang wordsmiths:

I've been a writer and editor for nearly 20 years, and in all that
time the only people I've seen use the word "wordsmith" are people who
can't write. Thanks for keeping the tradition alive.

>-----------
>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> wrote:
>
> >>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote
> >>
> >>> Did your computer post this message before you could add anything
> >>> to it? Mine does that sometimes, too.
> >>
> >>Me too!
> >>
> >>--oTTo--
>--------------------
>
>Who wouldn't admire the depth and breadth of vision there? Who wouldn't
>consider it nearly Shakespearean in it's facile exposition of the great
>verities?

What else did you get for your birthday, other than a thesaurus?

>I love watching skinny guys with sunken chests flexing their tiny
>muscles and getting all red in the face.

Your kink really isn't okay.

>It just makes me appreciate
>bright, competent people more.

As you should. Without their help, how would you get through the day?
Or across the street, for that matter.

>It must be hard being on the upslope of the bell curve. Somebody help
>them understand what this is about. Give them hankies first, You know
>how they get.
>
>No, seriously...
>
Your period key is sticking again.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 12:21:49 -0500, ceed
<ceed@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqr stuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote:

>I'm not quoting any of this on purpose.

Same here.

>
>Can you guys please stop this? It's just depressing to see in a newsgroup
>I have found to be as friendly as this one.

I don't see alt.cuddles.fluffy.bunny in the newsgroups line. Are you
in some other chat room?

>I've had to leave other
>newsgroups because these things kept happening, but that has mostly been
>groups that also have kids and teens posting to them (gaming related
>groups and such).

What exactly did you find so traumatic that you "had to leave" those
other chat rooms?

>I was hoping the fact that most of the people posting
>here were adults would prevent this kinds of thing. Obviously not. How
>sad....

How do you know that most of the people posting in this chat room are
adults? Do you ask "A/S/L"?

>And what I never get is why people can't take their fights over to e-mail
>and fight it out one-on-one? Whay do that *have* to pester everyone else
>with it?

It's a deal we've worked out with the guy who is holding a gun to your
head and forcing you to read everything posted to this chat room.
Nothing personal, you know.

>Why????

Oh, forcryinoutloud. Calm down.

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote

> >I'm not quoting any of this on purpose.
>
> Same here.

Me too.

--oTTo--

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
> wrote:
>>Here's a brilliant example -
>
>
> Who wants to explain the joak to Giant Brane Bob?

I'll take a whack at this one.

Dear Bob,

This is a game called, "Who Controls Whom." Note the "m"
on the end is very important, otherwise it wouldn't be writing
with the good English. The winner of the game (henceforth to
be referred to as "The Troll") is the player whom gets the
other player (hencerforth to be referred to as "Bob") to get
what her or him wants he or she to do. In this round of
the game, Kevin "Black Man" SWilson and oTTo "Bahn, James" Bahn
are attempting to make you post humorless and/or clueless
comments to the USERNET to make you look like foolish.
On a scale from 1 to 10, I give them about a 5 so far
(not their finest effort, but not completely unsuccessful).
You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have any goal
in mind, and you can't WIN THE GAME if you don't even
UNNERSTAN the R00LS. Therefore, feeble as their trolls
might be, they are still winning this particular battle of
wits.

All you have to do to turn the tables is decide what your
goal is and to execute a successful plan to achieve this goal.
I HAVE FAITH IN YOU BOB! I'm ROUTING for you!

YOU ARE WELCOME!

Kevin S. Wilson > writes:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
> wrote:
>
> >I love watching skinny guys with sunken chests flexing their tiny
> >muscles and getting all red in the face.
>
> Your kink really isn't okay.

Kevins, I keep forgetting: Which days are you a fat black man, and
which days are you a skinny white guy?

--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes <http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/>

"Maybe I should ask sane people." -- Dag ]gren

"Bob (this one)" > writes:
>Chris McGonnell wrote:

>> Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
>> hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
>> dorsal.

>Sweet Jesus, you guys are bad at this. No wit. No clever repartee. It
>seems that any response will do; no concerns with anything beyond
>quantity. No wonder you try to tag-team it.

Tag team what? We have a cleverly devised schedule maintained for
optimal annoyance. I see it's working well.

>So any reply, even one that shreds your trivial posturing, is a victory
>for you?

Heh.

>Here's a brilliant example - another post between two other sterling
>gangbang wordsmiths:
>-----------
>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> >>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote:

OK, that's enough. Please do not use "Otto", "Kevin", and "gangbang"
in the same sentence.

Stacia

Glitter Ninja wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > writes:
>
>>Chris McGonnell wrote:
>
>
>>>Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
>>>hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
>>>dorsal.
>
>
>>Sweet Jesus, you guys are bad at this. No wit. No clever repartee. It
>>seems that any response will do; no concerns with anything beyond
>>quantity. No wonder you try to tag-team it.
>
>
> Tag team what? We have a cleverly devised schedule maintained for
> optimal annoyance. I see it's working well.
>
>
>>So any reply, even one that shreds your trivial posturing, is a victory
>>for you?
>
>
> Heh.
>
>
>>Here's a brilliant example - another post between two other sterling
>>gangbang wordsmiths:
>>-----------
>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote:
>
>
> OK, that's enough. Please do not use "Otto", "Kevin", and "gangbang"
> in the same sentence.
>

Snork!

Is that a reverse meta-troll that I see there? I mean he didn't, and ah,
you did, right? Or, in substitution, as an alternative and OTOH, are you
including the headers in the "sentence"?

That'll be 20 days or 20 dollars (SAIT) less time served.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Otto Bahn wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> "Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Did your computer post this message before you could add
>>>>> anything to it? Mine does that sometimes, too.
>>>>
>>>> Me too!
>>>>
>>>> --oTTo--
>> --------------------
>>
>> Who wouldn't admire the depth and breadth of vision there?
>
> Indeed. It's like a tag team, as if they were working together to
> simultaneously catch the same fish.

More like a reverse gangbang where several limpers are having my way
with them.

>> Who wouldn't consider it nearly Shakespearean in it's facile
>> exposition of the great verities?

> ROTF LOL!

Sure you are. It's all you have left.

Pastorio

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
> wrote:
>
>>Chris McGonnell wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:04:18 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Edwards wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No cluons were harmed when "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[snips]
>>>>>
>>>>>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>>>>>
>>>>>And a true tracheotomy is like a salmon crocquet...
>>>>
>>>>I said that very same thing this morning to a gourmet piscine
>>>>veterinarian. Except I spelled it correctly.
>>>
>>>Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
>>>hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
>>>dorsal.
>>
>>Sweet Jesus, you guys are bad at this. No wit. No clever repartee. It
>>seems that any response will do; no concerns with anything beyond
>>quantity. No wonder you try to tag-team it. No one is strong enough to
>>carry it alone.
>
>>So any reply, even one that shreds your trivial posturing, is a victory
>>for you? That's like claiming victory because you got hit harder than
>>the guy you tangles with. More brilliance.
>
> Come on now. At least try to make up your mind. Less than an hour ago
> you said you were leaving, taking our shiny hooks with you and
> trailing leader along behind.
>
> "This marks the end of this little game" You do remember saying that,
> right?

I do. Looks like I changed my mind, doesn't it?

Looks like you're replying to me, doesn't it?

>>Here's a brilliant example -
>
> Who wants to explain the joak to Giant Brane Bob?
>
>>another post between two other sterling
>>gangbang wordsmiths:
>
> I've been a writer and editor for nearly 20 years, and in all that
> time the only people I've seen use the word "wordsmith" are people who
> can't write. Thanks for keeping the tradition alive.

Right. I can see the determined skill and vast vista in your missives.
And I'd be happy to stack your publications and editing gigs against
mine, Shorty. My first published and paid piece was in 1956 even before
I was graduated from high school. My first editorial job was in 1963.
Hang 'em out, word-boy. Be a big guy.

Show us your truth...

>>-----------
>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> wrote:
>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Did your computer post this message before you could add anything
>>>>>to it? Mine does that sometimes, too.
>>>>
>>>>Me too!
>>>>
>>>>--oTTo--
>>
>>--------------------
>>
>>Who wouldn't admire the depth and breadth of vision there? Who wouldn't
>>consider it nearly Shakespearean in it's facile exposition of the great
>>verities?
>
> What else did you get for your birthday, other than a thesaurus?

Some lame children to smack around. Oh, wait...

That's you.

>>I love watching skinny guys with sunken chests flexing their tiny
>>muscles and getting all red in the face.
>
> Your kink really isn't okay.

You obtuseness and lamentable lack of repartee is ok. For a schoolkid.

>>It just makes me appreciate
>>bright, competent people more.
>
> As you should. Without their help, how would you get through the day?
> Or across the street, for that matter.

Not bad. About time you showed something besides your diaper contents.

>>It must be hard being on the upslope of the bell curve. Somebody help
>>them understand what this is about. Give them hankies first, You know
>>how they get.
>>
>>No, seriously...
>>
> Your period key is sticking again.

Right. I guess in your "writer and editor for nearly 20 years"
experience the word (and idea of) "ellipsis" was omitted.

Sliding backwards on the bell curve, Zippy.

Pastorio

Marc Goodman wrote:
> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a brilliant example -
>>
>> Who wants to explain the joak to Giant Brane Bob?

You know, over in misc.writing, they spell words funny on purpose, too.
The talk about "wrevels" and "poasts" and like that. They used to do
"cow orkers" and stuff like that until they realized that only lamers
would do that. No offense.

> I'll take a whack at this one.
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> This is a game called, "Who Controls Whom." Note the "m"
> on the end is very important, otherwise it wouldn't be writing
> with the good English.

Yes. I understrange. English has be a very hardly language, either.

> The winner of the game (henceforth to
> be referred to as "The Troll") is the player whom gets the
> other player (hencerforth to be referred to as "Bob") to get
> what her or him wants he or she to do.

You put the "m" on the end very well.

Um, in games, there are at least two sides pitted against each other.
They both have offensive and defensive moves. Sorry to have to get so
technical.

> In this round of
> the game, Kevin "Black Man" SWilson and oTTo "Bahn, James" Bahn
> are attempting to make you post humorless and/or clueless
> comments to the USERNET to make you look like foolish.

See, my youngest child already explained that to me, but there's a small
component you're missing. I mean beyond any missing sense of the
language or of rationality. It's this: In the course of all these
mountain-moving efforts by my close friends Kev and Otto, they seem to
be saying rather dumb stuff just to kindle response.

I understand the goal of generating responses and have done so on
occasion myself (I'm sure you're shocked by this intimate revelation),
but when the triggering comments are themselves rather pedestrian and,
between us, not clever, funny, interesting beyond the typing or of any
discernible wit, well, I'm sure you understand. Poor kids become fodder
for playing with. The game has changed to one they can't carry. Claiming
victory in a contest of such unbalanced competition marks them as a tiny
but archetypal granfalloon.

I understand that once the children begin the engagement, they can't
skulk off as the situation would warrant - I mean who wants the
embarrassment to continue ad infinitum, egos being what they are - poor
kids just have to keep trying, even if it's to set up a blunt instrument
of a failure like this one.

> On a scale from 1 to 10, I give them about a 5 so far
> (not their finest effort, but not completely unsuccessful).
> You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have any goal
> in mind, and you can't WIN THE GAME if you don't even
> UNNERSTAN the R00LS. Therefore, feeble as their trolls
> might be, they are still winning this particular battle of
> wits.

Pity you haven't read the posts. I'm sure if you could, you'd note that
the rather shallow act of merely trolling has given way to a kind of
picador repartee. Or more like "departee" from my close and dear
friends. They cling to each other like frantic swimmers out of sight of
land, knowing that merely screaming isn't getting the job done.

> All you have to do to turn the tables is decide what your
> goal is and to execute a successful plan to achieve this goal.
> I HAVE FAITH IN YOU BOB! I'm ROUTING for you!

<LOL> Not bad. As you say, probably not your finest effort, but worth
noticing.

> YOU ARE WELCOME!

I certainly am. Why just this morning that nice old lady at Walmart told
me that. And I believe her.

Pastorio

On 06 Jul 2005 14:01:49 -0400, Rich
> wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I love watching skinny guys with sunken chests flexing their tiny
>> >muscles and getting all red in the face.
>>
>> Your kink really isn't okay.
>
>Kevins, I keep forgetting: Which days are you a fat black man, and
>which days are you a skinny white guy?

You'll have to ask one of my stalkers. They seem to be the only ones
keeping track.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote

> > ROTF LOL!
>
> Sure you are. It's all you have left.

You got one thing right -- I *am* Reading Out To Friends
(co-workers). They are amused too.

--oTTo--

Glitter Ninja wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > writes:
>
>>Chris McGonnell wrote:
>
>>>Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
>>>hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
>>>dorsal.
>
>>Sweet Jesus, you guys are bad at this. No wit. No clever repartee. It
>>seems that any response will do; no concerns with anything beyond
>>quantity. No wonder you try to tag-team it.
>
> Tag team what? We have a cleverly devised schedule maintained for
> optimal annoyance. I see it's working well.

<LOL> Sure it is. Try something new for a change, instead of these tired
self-congratulations. See what's actually transpiring (I'll wait) and
react to it instead of doing this circle-jerk kid stuff.

>>So any reply, even one that shreds your trivial posturing, is a victory
>>for you?
>
> Heh.

Yeah,. I know how it is. Ya get skunked and there's really nothing to say...

>>Here's a brilliant example - another post between two other sterling
>>gangbang wordsmiths:
>>-----------
>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote:
>
> OK, that's enough. Please do not use "Otto", "Kevin", and "gangbang"
> in the same sentence.

My dearest Stacia, it would appear that they do actually belong in the
same sentence and I appreciate your doing that.

Collect your usual fee. It's on the dresser.

Pastorio

Otto Bahn wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>>>ROTF LOL!
>>
>>Sure you are. It's all you have left.
>
> You got one thing right -- I *am* Reading Out To Friends
> (co-workers). They are amused too.

And they say that great literature and deep thinking are dead...

Pastorio

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:57:44 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Chris McGonnell wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:04:18 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Edwards wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>No cluons were harmed when "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snips]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See, slow-boy, a false dichotomy is like a sausage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And a true tracheotomy is like a salmon crocquet...
>>>>>
>>>>>I said that very same thing this morning to a gourmet piscine
>>>>>veterinarian. Except I spelled it correctly.
>>>>
>>>>Did your imaginary veterinarian dip you for mange or just take the
>>>>hook outta your mouth? And which fin did it use? I'm betting on
>>>>dorsal.
>>>
>>>Sweet Jesus, you guys are bad at this. No wit. No clever repartee. It
>>>seems that any response will do; no concerns with anything beyond
>>>quantity. No wonder you try to tag-team it. No one is strong enough to
>>>carry it alone.
>>
>>>So any reply, even one that shreds your trivial posturing, is a victory
>>>for you? That's like claiming victory because you got hit harder than
>>>the guy you tangles with. More brilliance.
>>
>> Come on now. At least try to make up your mind. Less than an hour ago
>> you said you were leaving, taking our shiny hooks with you and
>> trailing leader along behind.
>>
>> "This marks the end of this little game" You do remember saying that,
>> right?
>
>I do. Looks like I changed my mind, doesn't it?

You don't know?
>
>Looks like you're replying to me, doesn't it?

>>>Here's a brilliant example -
>>
>> Who wants to explain the joak to Giant Brane Bob?
>>
>>>another post between two other sterling
>>>gangbang wordsmiths:
>>
>> I've been a writer and editor for nearly 20 years, and in all that
>> time the only people I've seen use the word "wordsmith" are people who
>> can't write. Thanks for keeping the tradition alive.
>
>Right. I can see the determined skill and vast vista in your missives.
>And I'd be happy to stack your publications and editing gigs against
>mine, Shorty. My first published and paid piece was in 1956 even before
>I was graduated from high school. My first editorial job was in 1963.
>Hang 'em out, word-boy. Be a big guy.
>
>Show us your truth...

Next Up: Bob the Giant Brane brags about how much money he makes, the
cool car he drives, and the size of his large American penis.

>>>-----------
>>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:26:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>Did your computer post this message before you could add anything
>>>>>>to it? Mine does that sometimes, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Me too!
>>>>>
>>>>>--oTTo--
>>>
>>>--------------------
>>>
>>>Who wouldn't admire the depth and breadth of vision there? Who wouldn't
>>>consider it nearly Shakespearean in it's facile exposition of the great
>>>verities?

Still don't get the joke, do you?

>> What else did you get for your birthday, other than a thesaurus?
>
>Some lame children to smack around. Oh, wait...
>
>That's you.
>
>>>I love watching skinny guys with sunken chests flexing their tiny
>>>muscles and getting all red in the face.
>>
>> Your kink really isn't okay.
>
>You obtuseness and lamentable lack of repartee is ok. For a schoolkid.
>
>>>It just makes me appreciate
>>>bright, competent people more.
>>
>> As you should. Without their help, how would you get through the day?
>> Or across the street, for that matter.
>
>Not bad. About time you showed something besides your diaper contents.
>
>>>It must be hard being on the upslope of the bell curve. Somebody help
>>>them understand what this is about. Give them hankies first, You know
>>>how they get.
>>>
>>>No, seriously...
>>>
>> Your period key is sticking again.
>
>Right.

Literal sunofagun, aren't you? Know wonder you got trolled.

>I guess in your "writer and editor for nearly 20 years"
>experience the word (and idea of) "ellipsis" was omitted.

Those aren't ellipses, son. You think they are, but until you start
using them correctly, they're just dots on the screen.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:02:58 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>In the course of all these
>mountain-moving efforts by my close friends Kev and Otto, they seem to
>be saying rather dumb stuff just to kindle response.

You might be onto something there. I wonder if there's a word for
posting obvious nonsense in order to goad pompous, earnest bores into
"proving" the obvious nonsense wrong. If there isn't a word, there
ought to be.

Maybe we could call it "spaghetti noodling."

On the other hand, what kind of boob would fall for such an obvious
ploy?

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:02:58 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Claiming
>victory in a contest of such unbalanced competition marks them as a tiny
>but archetypal granfalloon.

Bill Palmer called, Bob. He wants his thesaurus back.

"Matthew L. Martin" > wrote

> > OK, that's enough. FNARReFNARRoFNARR FNARR"FNARR"FNARR FNARRbFNARR
> > FNARRe FNARRsFNARRcFNARR


It had to be done.

> Snork!
>
> Is that a reverse meta-troll that I see there? I mean he didn't, and ah,
> you did, right?

Not only that, but in one fell swoop she ruined my
googlability 4EVAH!

USA GBR FRA ITA GER RUS CNA
9.9 10.0 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.4 9.8

> Or, in substitution, as an alternative and OTOH, are you
> including the headers in the "sentence"?

Kontext-Away swoops in and whisks away Stacia before
more serious damage is done.

> That'll be 20 days or 20 dollars (SAIT) less time served.

?! Even jury duty pays like ten bucks a day.

--oTTo--

"Bob (this one)" > wrote

> Collect your usual fee. It's on the dresser.

Realizing it was too late, Kontext-Away shakes its head
and leaves the building.

--oTTo--

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Marc Goodman wrote:
>> The winner of the game (henceforth to
>> be referred to as "The Troll") is the player whom gets the
>> other player (hencerforth to be referred to as "Bob") to get
>> what her or him wants he or she to do.
>
>
> You put the "m" on the end very well.
>
> Um, in games, there are at least two sides pitted against each other.
> They both have offensive and defensive moves. Sorry to have to get so
> technical.

You are right. I should have said "sport." Since Kevin and oTTo
have goals here, it's up to you whether this is a competition
or just fishing. Fishing tends to be more fun for the fisherman
than the fish, you know.

> I understand the goal of generating responses and have done so on
> occasion myself (I'm sure you're shocked by this intimate revelation),
> but when the triggering comments are themselves rather pedestrian and,
> between us, not clever, funny, interesting beyond the typing or of any
> discernible wit, well, I'm sure you understand. Poor kids become fodder
> for playing with. The game has changed to one they can't carry. Claiming
> victory in a contest of such unbalanced competition marks them as a tiny
> but archetypal granfalloon.

Wait, is this a competition now? With, like, offensive and defensive
moves? Because I thought this was a sport, not a competition. WHICH
IS IT, BOB?

By the way, we already know (and love) the fact that oTTo and Kevin
are morans. But, you seem to want to be perceived as someone who
is more than reasonably intelligent, level-headed, and in control
of the situation. So, what do you think it says about you that
all it takes to make you respond time and time again is for some
poor kids to post pedestrian, not clever, unfunny, uninteresting
lacking in any discernible wit? Are trying to look deliberately
cruel, or just obssessive?

> I understand that once the children begin the engagement, they can't
> skulk off as the situation would warrant - I mean who wants the
> embarrassment to continue ad infinitum, egos being what they are - poor
> kids just have to keep trying, even if it's to set up a blunt instrument
> of a failure like this one.

You OBVIOUSLY don't know Kevin and oTTo if you think they'll ever
stop. Kevin has his own _cadre_ of leg humpers that he's been
trading barbs with for ALMOST A DECADE. They're like remoras
clinging to the back of a great white shark, a SHARK WITH LEGS.

> They cling to each other like frantic swimmers out of sight of
> land, knowing that merely screaming isn't getting the job done.

FNARR, Kevin and oTTo clinging to each other. WHAT ARE YOU, SOME
KIND OF HOMOPHOBE? That crap might play in KANSAS, but this is
the BIG CITY.

>> All you have to do to turn the tables is decide what your
>> goal is and to execute a successful plan to achieve this goal.
>> I HAVE FAITH IN YOU BOB! I'm ROUTING for you!

In spite of everything, I still think people are good at heart.
- Anne Frank

Otto Bahn wrote:
> USA GBR FRA ITA GER RUS CNA
> 9.9 10.0 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.4 9.8

HA! That fake country ROM has fallen by the wayside!
FLAWLESS VICTORY!