Steve Wertz wrote:

>
> Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>
> -sw

but where will i get my crazy from???

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

The Bubbo wrote:
> Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>
>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>
>>-sw
>
>
> but where will i get my crazy from???
>

me, silly.

--

saerah

http://anisaerah.cmayes.net/blog/

email:
anisaerah at s b c global.net

Adam Bowman wrote:
>I always wonder when someone brings up a point about Bush, and you
> then bring up something that Clinton did, are you saying they are both
> wrong? Because that's all it points out to me, places where they both
> messed up. It doesn't negate the fact that Bush did wrong; was that
> your intention?
>
> That type of argument is like
>
> "Bob shot someone"
>
> "Yeah, but don't you remember when Don hit that guy with a bat?"
>

sarah bennett wrote:
> The Bubbo wrote:
>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>>
>> but where will i get my crazy from???
>>
>
> me, silly.
>

I like you, you're fun and all, maybe even a little wacky, but unless you're
going to start getting batshit crazy on me I'm going to have to start looking
elsewhere.

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:15:45 GMT, The Bubbo >
wrote:

>sarah bennett wrote:
>> The Bubbo wrote:
>>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>>
>>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>>
>>> but where will i get my crazy from???
>>
>> me, silly.
>
>I like you, you're fun and all, maybe even a little wacky, but unless you're
>going to start getting batshit crazy on me I'm going to have to start looking
>elsewhere.

Want me to volunteer to go off my meds?

Carol
--

Some people are like Slinkies... they don't really have a purpose but
they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Stolen from "traid" on the IRC

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:15:45 GMT, The Bubbo >
> wrote:
>
>>sarah bennett wrote:
>>> The Bubbo wrote:
>>>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>>>
>>>> but where will i get my crazy from???
>>>
>>> me, silly.
>>
>>I like you, you're fun and all, maybe even a little wacky, but unless you're
>>going to start getting batshit crazy on me I'm going to have to start
looking
>>elsewhere.
>
> Want me to volunteer to go off my meds?
>
> Carol

would you? for me?

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:38:04 GMT, The Bubbo >
wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:15:45 GMT, The Bubbo >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>sarah bennett wrote:
>>>> The Bubbo wrote:
>>>>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>>>>
>>>>> but where will i get my crazy from???
>>>>
>>>> me, silly.
>>>
>>>I like you, you're fun and all, maybe even a little wacky, but unless you're
>>>going to start getting batshit crazy on me I'm going to have to start
>>>looking elsewhere.
>>
>> Want me to volunteer to go off my meds?
>
>would you? for me?

I sure would. Although I seriously doubt that I could live up to your
expectations. I'm afraid I'd disappoint you terribly. :-(

Carol, too sane for Heather's own good
--

Some people are like Slinkies... they don't really have a purpose but
they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Stolen from "traid" on the IRC

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>would you? for me?
>
> I sure would. Although I seriously doubt that I could live up to your
> expectations. I'm afraid I'd disappoint you terribly. :-(
>
> Carol, too sane for Heather's own good

have some faith, darling, I'll love you just for your effort

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:54:13 GMT, The Bubbo >
wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>would you? for me?
>>
>> I sure would. Although I seriously doubt that I could live up to your
>> expectations. I'm afraid I'd disappoint you terribly. :-(
>>
>> Carol, too sane for Heather's own good
>
>have some faith, darling, I'll love you just for your effort

Actually, before I had my meds dialed in, I disappeared in gigantic
huffs quite regularly. I retreat when I freak out. Now I only huff
periodically, and a good night's sleep is usually all it takes until
I'm cute and cuddly again.

Carol
--

Some people are like Slinkies... they don't really have a purpose but
they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Stolen from "traid" on the IRC

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:54:13 GMT, The Bubbo >
> wrote:
>
>>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>>would you? for me?
>>>
>>> I sure would. Although I seriously doubt that I could live up to your
>>> expectations. I'm afraid I'd disappoint you terribly. :-(
>>>
>>> Carol, too sane for Heather's own good
>>
>>have some faith, darling, I'll love you just for your effort
>
> Actually, before I had my meds dialed in, I disappeared in gigantic
> huffs quite regularly. I retreat when I freak out. Now I only huff
> periodically, and a good night's sleep is usually all it takes until
> I'm cute and cuddly again.
>
> Carol

well...try to do the "huff" crazy

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:00:29 GMT, The Bubbo >
wrote:

>well...try to do the "huff" crazy

Lucy van Pelt: *I* know when I'm not wanted! *I* know when I'm not
wanted!

Lucy, er Carol, off in a huff
--

Some people are like Slinkies... they don't really have a purpose but
they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Stolen from "traid" on the IRC

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:00:29 GMT, The Bubbo >
> wrote:
>
>>well...try to do the "huff" crazy
>
> Lucy van Pelt: *I* know when I'm not wanted! *I* know when I'm not
> wanted!
>
> Lucy, er Carol, off in a huff

Get back here, missy!

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

The Bubbo wrote:

> Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>
>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>
>>-sw
>
>
> but where will i get my crazy from???
>

SW is calling for a killfile because I replied with logic. Sorry he
can't get that.

~patches~ wrote:
> The Bubbo wrote:
>
>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>>
>> but where will i get my crazy from???
>>
>
> SW is calling for a killfile because I replied with logic. Sorry he
> can't get that.


I think we have different definitions of logic...

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:17:52 GMT, The Bubbo >
wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:08:17 GMT, The Bubbo >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:00:29 GMT, The Bubbo >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>well...try to do the "huff" crazy
>>>>
>>>> Lucy van Pelt: *I* know when I'm not wanted! *I* know when I'm not
>>>> wanted!
>>>>
>>>> Lucy, er Carol, off in a huff
>>>
>>>Get back here, missy!
>>
>> NO! I'm not even at my computer. I'm on my bed, crying. Bitch!
>
>don't make me come in there...

No, not that! Auntie Em, I'm frightened!

Dorothy
--

Some people are like Slinkies... they don't really have a purpose but
they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Stolen from "traid" on the IRC

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

>>don't make me come in there...
>
> No, not that! Auntie Em, I'm frightened!
>
> Dorothy

wow...YEAH!

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

ms_peacock wrote:

>>
>>
>> I think we have different definitions of logic...
>>
>> --
>> .:Heather:.
>> www.velvet-c.com
>> Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!
>
> Waaaaaaaaaaaaay different.
>
> Ms P
>
>

like she got her definition from the moon or something

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

~patches~ wrote:
>
> The Bubbo wrote:
>
> > Steve Wertz wrote:
> >
> >>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
> >>
> >>-sw
> >
> > but where will i get my crazy from???
>
> SW is calling for a killfile because I replied with logic. Sorry he
> can't get that.

Arf! You took the bait! You lose! :-)

ms_peacock riposted to ~patches~:

>> SW is calling for a killfile because I replied with logic. Sorry he
>> can't get that.
>
> Especially from you.


BEST ZINGER OF THE NIGHT!

*clapping*


ObFood: Miserable drizzle tonight, so I'm making one of my favorite
cold/wet-weather meals, sukiyaki: Combine beef stock, mirin (or sake), soy
sauce, and some sugar (might not be necessary if you're using mirin rather
than sake) in a pitcher. Slice sirloin very thinly and sear it in a hot
pan. When it's taken on some color, add sliced onions and red bell pepper.
Cook until the vegetables begin to caramelize around the edges, then add
some of the liquid from the pitcher, a handful of trumpet mushrooms, a bunch
of shredded Chinese cabbage (it'll cook WAY down), shredded carrots, bean
sprouts, and tofu. Cook at a boil for a while, adding liquid as necessary,
and then remove from the heat and add a bunch of scallions and some
cellophane noodles. The residual heat will soften the noodles and wilt the
scallions.

I'm cooking medium-grain (Calrose) rice to go along with it.

I'm pretty sure the carrots and bell pepper aren't authentic. I don't care.
You're also supposed to serve this with a bowl of beaten egg for dipping the
morsels, but I've only got ONE egg left in the fridge, and I've got
something better planned for it.

Bob

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:11:16 -0400, ~patches~
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The Bubbo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Wertz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>
>>>but where will i get my crazy from???
>>
>>SW is calling for a killfile because I replied with logic. Sorry he
>>can't get that.
>
>
> Logic? I have heard of people so logical that they eventually go
> bananas (ObFood). You're in Stage 2, though. If you were ever
> logical, that was before you started posting.
>
> You just can't admit that you had the whole thing situation wrong.
> You were peeing in your pants just dying to tell us who this
> person was.
>
> There is *no* frequent poster that befriended you and then stabbed
> you in the back. There is *nothing* in the headers except
> spinning stars from your drug-induced, paranoid delusions.
>
> The poster was a not so frequent poster who apparently just
> doesn't like you. End of story. There was no cancellation of
> accounts or negative action taken. You know the whole story by
> now, but you're too chicken(ObFood) to admit you were dead wrong.
>
> -sw

Umm, excuse me, but I do think you have me killfiled. That means you
should not be replying to *anything * I post. Well to my meaning of
killfile anyway. So you should at least try to play by the rules.

Now Steve, I like you. Yes there is a reg here that I eluded to. Check
headers it's not that difficult. Who here is a reg but not posting
though their regular means? Think very carefully and I'm sure the
answer will come grasshopper unless you need to be hit over the head
with a 2x4 to se the light. I'd be more than happy to do the 2x4 method

"The Bubbo" > wrote in message
...
> ~patches~ wrote:
>> The Bubbo wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>>>
>>>>-sw
>>>
>>>
>>> but where will i get my crazy from???
>>>
>>
>> SW is calling for a killfile because I replied with logic. Sorry he
>> can't get that.
>
>
> I think we have different definitions of logic...
>
> --
> .:Heather:.
> www.velvet-c.com
> Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay different.

Ms P

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
> The Bubbo wrote:
>
>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Everybody kill-file patches, please.
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>>
>> but where will i get my crazy from???
>>
>
> SW is calling for a killfile because I replied with logic. Sorry he can't
> get that.

Especially from you.

Ms P

"The Bubbo" > wrote in message
...
> ms_peacock wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we have different definitions of logic...
>>>
>>> --
>>> .:Heather:.
>>> www.velvet-c.com
>>> Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!
>>
>> Waaaaaaaaaaaaay different.
>>
>> Ms P
>>
>>
>
> like she got her definition from the moon or something
>
> --
> .:Heather:.
> www.velvet-c.com
> Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

<cackle> Or maybe another solar system. It sure as hell isn't remotely
related to any definition of logic I've ever heard.

Ms P

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:21:58 -0400, ~patches~
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>
>>>Logic? I have heard of people so logical that they eventually go
>>>bananas (ObFood). You're in Stage 2, though. If you were ever
>>>logical, that was before you started posting.
>>>
>>>You just can't admit that you had the whole thing situation wrong.
>>>You were peeing in your pants just dying to tell us who this
>>>person was.
>>>
>>>There is *no* frequent poster that befriended you and then stabbed
>>>you in the back. There is *nothing* in the headers except
>>>spinning stars from your drug-induced, paranoid delusions.
>>>
>>>The poster was a not so frequent poster who apparently just
>>>doesn't like you. End of story. There was no cancellation of
>>>accounts or negative action taken. You know the whole story by
>>>now, but you're too chicken(ObFood) to admit you were dead wrong.
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>>Umm, excuse me, but I do think you have me killfiled.
>
>
> See. Here's part of your problem - you try and think, and it just
> doesn't work right. I never said I had you killfiled.

Oh I think just fine thanks. You called for a ng wide killfile against
me, did you not? That would leave one to believe that you had killfiled
me as well. Did you not killfile me? Doesn't really matter one way or
the other so don't bother answering.
>
>
>>And if you did. That means you
>>should not be replying to *anything * I post. Well to my meaning of
>>killfile anyway. So you should at least try to play by the rules.
>
>
> Like I said, I haven't killfiled you. Never said I did. Somebody
> voted me to perform a public service.
>
>
>>Now Steve, I like you. Yes there is a reg here that I eluded to.
>
>
> You mean "deluded to".

Nope I'm pretty sure what I meant but thanks for trying to tell me what
I meant.

>
>
>>Check headers it's not that difficult.
>
>
> <yawn> Anybody else getting tired of this?
>
>
>>Who here is a reg but not posting though their regular means?
>
>
> A few hours ago you said that they weren't posting anymore.
> Please, at least try and keep your lies straight.

Ok, listen carefully. The reg is not posting with their regular
connection they are now posting with another connection. That should be
rather easy for you to figure out.
>
>
>>Think very carefully and I'm sure the answer will come grasshopper
>
>
> Actually, I do know who the Mystery Poster is: It's you, the
> Drama Queen of RFC. You posted it to satisfy your neurotic
> craving for attention. That's the only thing that makes any sort
> of sense at this point. And yes, it's so painfully obvious now
> that you mention it.

Yep, let's get this. I post my own pic then post as someone else to
steal it then post as sarah to steal it again then come back here to
rant about it. I really don't think so sweet pea. Just ask, oh I don't
know, try asking sara if I'm her. By now, it should be pretty clear to
her where I stand.
>
>
>>unless you need to be hit over the head with a 2x4 to se the light.
>>I'd be more than happy to do the 2x4 method
>
>
> Come and get me. The directions are in my headers.

You seriously ****ing need a wack!
>
> -sw

~patches~ wrote:

> Now Steve, I like you. Yes there is a reg here that I eluded to. Check
> headers it's not that difficult. Who here is a reg but not posting
> though their regular means?

Do you really believe that we are all going to compare the headers of
every poster today to those of every poster 2 weeks ago to see who has
a different header?

Honestly, once I read a post, I delete it. And I have a job. I don't
have hours to spend comparing headers.

You claimed you knew who it was and would announce it. The fact that
you still won't say tells me you either don't know, or you think it is
a big game to try to get get hundreds of readers to do the research
for a wild goose chase. (And I don't care for cooked goose all that
much)

If you had announced who it was back when it had happened, I would have
believed you. But you lost credibility by refusing to say. It simply
isn't worth the time and effort to see who was messing with you. If you
want us to know, then tell us. But don't be surprised if we don't care
enough to spend hours comparing headers.

Steve Wertz wrote:

> Actually, I do know who the Mystery Poster is: It's you, the
> Drama Queen of RFC. You posted it to satisfy your neurotic
> craving for attention. That's the only thing that makes any sort
> of sense at this point. And yes, it's so painfully obvious now
> that you mention it.
>

which is why she killfiled me after I mentioned Boulder. I might be a
wee bit too occcupied with my blog, but that means I check the stats

>
>>unless you need to be hit over the head with a 2x4 to se the light.
>>I'd be more than happy to do the 2x4 method
>
>
> Come and get me. The directions are in my headers.
>
> -sw


--

saerah

http://anisaerah.cmayes.net/blog/

email:
anisaerah at s b c global.net

Adam Bowman wrote:
>I always wonder when someone brings up a point about Bush, and you
> then bring up something that Clinton did, are you saying they are both
> wrong? Because that's all it points out to me, places where they both
> messed up. It doesn't negate the fact that Bush did wrong; was that
> your intention?
>
> That type of argument is like
>
> "Bob shot someone"
>
> "Yeah, but don't you remember when Don hit that guy with a bat?"
>

wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>
>>Now Steve, I like you. Yes there is a reg here that I eluded to. Check
>>headers it's not that difficult. Who here is a reg but not posting
>>though their regular means?
>
>
> Do you really believe that we are all going to compare the headers of
> every poster today to those of every poster 2 weeks ago to see who has
> a different header?
>
> Honestly, once I read a post, I delete it. And I have a job. I don't
> have hours to spend comparing headers.
>
> You claimed you knew who it was and would announce it. The fact that
> you still won't say tells me you either don't know, or you think it is
> a big game to try to get get hundreds of readers to do the research
> for a wild goose chase. (And I don't care for cooked goose all that
> much)

Wait one minute. I already outed one poster and was stomped royally for
that do you really think I want to out another? Damn you guys stomp no
matter what so what's the point? You're going to stick up for any reg
here and all the other regs will do the same just as they did with
Sarah. So yep you got your point across and yep I likely will go back
to lurking and yep I will still run a nice successful yahoo group all
without ever remembering this ng ever existed. There are a couple here
I woul really like to invite to my yahoo group but perhaps, best not.


>
> If you had announced who it was back when it had happened, I would have
> believed you. But you lost credibility by refusing to say. It simply
> isn't worth the time and effort to see who was messing with you. If you
> want us to know, then tell us. But don't be surprised if we don't care
> enough to spend hours comparing headers.
>


--
Theft of someone's digital images is copyright infringement contrary to
DMCA of 1998. A two faced thief in rfc steals others digital images for
harassment. Sarah Bennett, another rfc thief is worse. She steals pics
then tries to sell them as her own. Some here condone this behaviour.
Shame on you!

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:21:58 -0400, ~patches~
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Now Steve, I like you. Yes there is a reg here that I eluded to. Check
>>headers it's not that difficult. Who here is a reg but not posting
>>though their regular means?
>
>
> Never challenge a shell programmer with a somewhat simple text
> problem.
>
> With the help of my friends: Forte Agent, grep, cut, uniq, and
> sort, I saved the most recent 9,800 posts from RFC. I then
> extracted out the relevent headers - enough to be unique, got rid
> of anybody who has posted less than 5 times using those headers,
> and then compared the top 1/3rd to the bottom 1/3rd of the list
> (sorted by frequency). Then I sorted it again a few different
> ways, and checked out a few people's original posts just to make
> sure I didn't miss anything.
>
> Lots of people have a change or two in their newsreader or have
> always used more than one reader or provider. There is, however,
> exactly one "regular" (very regular) poster who obviously switched
> to a new newsreader and/or provider in the last 6 days.
>
> But I know for a fact that this person doesn't live in or near
> Denver. Nor would anybody (including you) think this person
> posted your precious pizza as their own.
>
> So the answer lies not in the header. You can give that line a
> rest from now on.
>
> I suppose now you'll ask us all to read *between* the lines in the
> headers, am I right?
>
> -sw

Nope and for the record you did just a tad too much work. I outed one
person and am still paying for it. So if I out another reg, that would
really mean the end for me here. It's likely close anyway the way thing
s are going so what the hell. My final post to this ng will out the
other thief then you can all come to her defense. Just like everyone
has rallied around sarah. Except this time when I announce, it will be
a one time postingl

--
Theft of someone's digital images is copyright infringement contrary to
DMCA of 1998. A two faced thief in rfc steals others digital images for
harassment. Sarah Bennett, another rfc thief is worse. She steals pics
then tries to sell them as her own. Some here condone this behaviour.
Shame on you!

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:31:58 -0400, ~patches~
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Wait one minute. I already outed one poster and was stomped royally for
>>that do you really think I want to out another?
>
>
> You didn't "out" anybody. That cafepress post was announced and
> got approval in the Cabal Mailing List (RFCCML) the night before
> (no shitting). Many (most?) of the regulars here already knew
> about it. It was a setup.
>
> -sw
No problem; If that's the way it was oh well <shrug>

--
Theft of someone's digital images is copyright infringement contrary to
DMCA of 1998. A two faced thief in rfc steals others digital images for
harassment. Sarah Bennett, another rfc thief is worse. She steals pics
then tries to sell them as her own. Some here condone this behaviour.
Shame on you!

~patches~ wrote:

>
> Nope and for the record you did just a tad too much work. I outed one
> person and am still paying for it. So if I out another reg, that would
> really mean the end for me here. It's likely close anyway the way thing
> s are going so what the hell. My final post to this ng will out the
> other thief then you can all come to her defense. Just like everyone
> has rallied around sarah. Except this time when I announce, it will be
> a one time postingl
>

For Sucks Fakes, TELL US!! I can't stand the suspense a minute
longer....

--
Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

"Steve Wertz" > wrote

> So the answer lies not in the header. You can give that line a
> rest from now on.
>
> I suppose now you'll ask us all to read *between* the lines in the
> headers, am I right?

What a giant stinking pile of horseshit this has been on patches
part. I've only posted pictures of my kitchen and my cat, I
hereby announce that if someone wants to post that it's their
kitchen or their cat, be my guest. Oh! I posted my soup on
the virtual cookin a few weeks ago, you can say it's your soup,
too. Okay? Go wild, don't think you have to steal those valuable
works of art.

nancy, annoyed

Nancy wrote:

> What a giant stinking pile of horseshit this has been on patches
> part. I've only posted pictures of my kitchen and my cat, I
> hereby announce that if someone wants to post that it's their
> kitchen or their cat, be my guest. Oh! I posted my soup on
> the virtual cookin a few weeks ago, you can say it's your soup,
> too. Okay? Go wild, don't think you have to steal those valuable
> works of art.

I posted a picture of the dog I'm caring for. People are not only permitted
to download the picture, they're ENCOURAGED to do so. She's adorable, and
her happy face brings joy to all who see her. Here's the link, in case you
missed it the first time:

http://tinypic.com/jkaz29.jpg

Sure, feel free to claim she's your dog, but SHE knows better! :-)

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote

> Nancy wrote:

> I posted a picture of the dog I'm caring for. People are not only
> permitted to download the picture, they're ENCOURAGED to do so. She's
> adorable, and her happy face brings joy to all who see her. Here's the
> link, in case you missed it the first time:
>
> http://tinypic.com/jkaz29.jpg
>
> Sure, feel free to claim she's your dog, but SHE knows better! :-)

(laugh) Boston terrier? What a cutie.

nancy

~patches~ wrote:


Damn you guys stomp no
> matter what so what's the point? You're going to stick up for any reg

Oh, Please. You are more a regular than I am. When I joined this
group, I assumed you were a regular because you posted so much. Don't
accuse me of defending a regular when I don't know who is and who
isn't. I don't care who anybody is. And I wasn't defending anybody.

You teased us for days and then insist we spend hours searching
headers. Either you know who it is, or you don't.

I notice you didn't respond to my points at all. You just accused me of
defending an unnamed person.

> wrote

> Well, it ain't me. For the record, I do post from two different
> newsreaders depending one whether I want to hang up and redial or not.
> But my email is the same; I've posted from both newsreaders for years;
> I am not a regular; and I live in Seatac, Washington.

You don't need to defend yourself, no one does, not even
the person who did it.

nancy

Nancy wrote:

>> http://tinypic.com/jkaz29.jpg
>>
>> Sure, feel free to claim she's your dog, but SHE knows better! :-)
>
> (laugh) Boston terrier? What a cutie.

Staffordshire terrier. She's irrepressibly happy and loving, just a joy to
have around. She actually belongs to a friend of mine, but my friend moved
to an apartment where they don't allow pets, and I was delighted to take the
dog in.

Bob

On 11 Apr 2006 07:15:02 -0500, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>I posted a picture of the dog I'm caring for. People are not only permitted
>to download the picture, they're ENCOURAGED to do so. She's adorable, and
>her happy face brings joy to all who see her. Here's the link, in case you
>missed it the first time:
>
>http://tinypic.com/jkaz29.jpg
>
>Sure, feel free to claim she's your dog, but SHE knows better! :-)

What a happy looking dog! And she looks JUST like you!

Carol
--

Some people are like Slinkies... they don't really have a purpose but
they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Stolen from "traid" on the IRC

Carol wrote:

>> http://tinypic.com/jkaz29.jpg
>>
>> Sure, feel free to claim she's your dog, but SHE knows better! :-)
>
> What a happy looking dog! And she looks JUST like you!

If you apply that CSI photo-enhancing software to the picture you can see me
reflected in her eyes. (I suppose ~patches~ has already downloaded the
photo, applied that software and some anti-aging software, and posted the
image of what I looked like as a six-year-old to a kiddie-porn site.) I
think the dog is a lot better-looking than I am, and she's sure got a better
pedigree. :-)

She is QUITE the chick magnet: I've had sweet young things stop dead in
their tracks and blurt out, "Oh, how CUTE!" upon seeing her sitting in my
car. That same comment was even dragged out of a burly female jail guard
when I was walking the dog to visit her owner in rehab last year.

Bob

wrote:

> Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>
>>Lots of people have a change or two in their newsreader or have
>>always used more than one reader or provider. There is, however,
>>exactly one "regular" (very regular) poster who obviously switched
>>to a new newsreader and/or provider in the last 6 days.
>>
>
>
> Well, it ain't me. For the record, I do post from two different
> newsreaders depending one whether I want to hang up and redial or not.
> But my email is the same; I've posted from both newsreaders for years;
> I am not a regular; and I live in Seatac, Washington.
>
Did I ever say it was you?

Nancy Young wrote:

> > wrote
>
>
>>Well, it ain't me. For the record, I do post from two different
>>newsreaders depending one whether I want to hang up and redial or not.
>>But my email is the same; I've posted from both newsreaders for years;
>>I am not a regular; and I live in Seatac, Washington.
>
>
> You don't need to defend yourself, no one does, not even
> the person who did it.
>
> nancy
>
>
>
That's quite correct Nancy. I make a couple of on topic posts then all
this just errupt again to the point at least one poster had to start a
couple of threads just for my benefit. I've been trying to defend
myself but it just isn't working. So getting nasty is the next step
then getting even, oh well.

--
Theft of someone's digital images is copyright infringement contrary to
DMCA of 1998. A two faced thief in rfc steals others digital images for
harassment. Sarah Bennett, another rfc thief is worse. She steals pics
then tries to sell them as her own. Some here condone this behaviour.
Shame on you!

~patches~ wrote:

> That's quite correct Nancy. I make a couple of on topic posts then all
> this just errupt again to the point at least one poster had to start a
> couple of threads just for my benefit. I've been trying to defend
> myself but it just isn't working. So getting nasty is the next step
> then getting even, oh well.
>
You annoyed people first. Ya know all those old timers who killfiled you
ages and ages ago? So you have a few meltdowns and type more stupid
shit out... and now you're playing the victim card? Oh pahleese. Get
some ovaries and admit you thrive on the self initiated drama.