|
|
Posted by Aratzio on 09/30/05 01:00
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:56:28 -0700, Neredbojias
<neredbojias@neredbojias.com> got double secret probation because:
>With neither quill nor qualm, Aratzio quothed:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:45:41 -0700, Neredbojias
>> <neredbojias@neredbojias.com> got double secret probation because:
>>
>> >With neither quill nor qualm, Aratzio quothed:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:45:07 -0700, Neredbojias
>> >> <neredbojias@neredbojias.com> transparently proposed:
>> >>
>> >> >With neither quill nor qualm, Aratzio quothed:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Ooo, third grade cryptography. How, uh, clever.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Anyway, you are what you are. Thank God I'm not.
>> >>
>> >> Did you happen to note that you called me clever then claimed you were
>> >> not?
>> >
>> >Did you happen to realize that if you were a computer, your processing
>> >speed would be in the nanohertz range.
>>
>> Why not pico or femto? Would that you could actually make an analogy
>> that was relevant.
>
>Ooo, ooo, what a scintillating comeback. <yawn>
Well there you are trying to define what is or is not clever and now
what is or is not scintillating. You must be quite the critic in real
life. Do your *friends* laugh at you as much as I have been?
>
>> >> It is good to see that you have such a firm grasp of your own
>> >> limitations and that you are unafraid to display your limitations for
>> >> others to enjoy.
>> >
>> >It is good to see that you can see anything at all.
>>
>> Nice, a non sequitur.
>
>Ah, the expression favored by the idiot when he doesn't know what else
>to say...
PKB
"Ooo, ooo, what a scintillating comeback. <yawn>"
As for not having something to say, please demonstrate how your
comment was not a non sequitur response and therefore deserving of
anything beside ridicule for what it was.
>
>> >> >> Ooo, clueless wankstain, it is called an *acronym*.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, I know.
>> >>
>> >> No you did not:
>> >> "Ooo, third grade cryptography."
>> >> Trust me, cryptography is not the same as acronym.
>> >
>> >The funny thing is, your ersatz cleverness is even dumber than your dumb
>> >act.
>>
>> And yet you are the one trying to portray me as clever. So which is
>> it?
>
>I thought we went over this already. You made the same false assertion,
>I refuted it, and you proffered some lame, whinny rebuttal in return.
>Although this may be your typical modus operandi, you should really try
>to do better when you venture out into the real world.
*snicker*
Umm, cupcake, please to point out your refutation in this statement:
:Ooo, third grade cryptography. How, uh, clever.
:Anyway, you are what you are. Thank God I'm not.
You do remember when you claimed that IKYABWAI was cryptography. You
know right up top of this poast. Care to explain how my prior
statement could have been a "false assertion" when did not (and still
do not) know for what IKYABWAI is an acronym.
Logic is not a real big part of your life, is it?
>
>> >> >But you have to admit it's pretty juvenile, not
>> >> >particularly clever, and boring to most people who can read.
>> >>
>> >> So you feel that you can speak for the majority of usenet poasters,
>> >> most of whom would know the common acronym IKYABWAI. Which is
>> >> something upon which you may wish to cogitate.
>> >
>> >You really shouldn't use words like "cogitate" when you can't spell
>> >words like "posters". As for the question behind your "question", do
>> >you "really feel" that most people find your inane conversations
>> >interesting?
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
>Nice laugh. It fits my image of you.
>
>> Results 1 - 10 of 45,100 for (poast OR poaster OR poasts). (0.26
>> seconds)
>
>How enlightening. I wonder what the results would be for "shit"?
"expression favored by the idiot when he doesn't know what else to
say..."
>
>> Your ignorance of usenet jargon continues to shine like a quasar.
>
>My 'ignorance...shines'? Pretty paltry, gal. Your ignorance of the use
>and meanings of words continues to suck like a black hole.
*snicker* "Schizophrenia"
>
>> Wanna go up agin meuns in won uf dem chicken scratchin tingies?
>>
>> Must be difficult in your world to be such a gormless twat.
>
>Ha ha, IKYABWAI? (Sorry 'bout that, but when communicating on a lower
>level...)
Clueless twat, still have no idea what that means. Go right above
where you try to use *ignorance" for a classic example of IKYABWAI.
>
>> >> If you do not happen to know what an acronym means there are two
>> >> simple and easy things to do. One would be a google search. Since
>> >> IKYABWAI is such a common acronym it might be difficult to wade
>> >> through the hits. The other would have been to say "WTF is IKYABWAI"
>> >> or something of that ilk (YAY, I used ILK!).
>> >
>> >First you say I didn't know, now it's "if". Schizophrenia or short-term
>> >memory deficiency?
>>
>> *snicker*
>> Try reading what was written, muttonhead. "If you do not happen to
>> know what an acronym means". Note the OBVIOUS non specificity of that
>> statement. What followed would be the specific example of your
>> ignorance.
>
>Ah yes, selective referencing to support a fallacious argument. Is your
>ignorance deliberate or do you actually suffer from chronic reduced
>mental faculties?
Nice run away and avoid, cupcake. Keep trying and maybe someday you
will actually be capable of parsing English. Now go ahead point out
where "AN acronym" is specific to IKYABWAI as you stated.
Maybe if you keep crying "fallacious statement" someone will come
along and pat your hand and tell you it will all be better soon.
>
>> Secondly, cupcake:
>>
>> Schizophrenia:
>>
>> Medical Dictionary
>>
>> Definition: The most common form of psychosis, characterized by
>> partial or total withdrawal of interest in the world outside of
>> oneself and loss of intellectual and emotional function.
>>
>> Biology Dictionary
>>
>> Definition: Schizophrenia is the name for any of a group of mental
>> disorders characterized by abnormal thought, mood and behavior.
>>
>> For example:
>> thought: misinterpretation of reality, frequently inclined towards
>> self-protection from perceived harm
>> mood: inappropriate emotional response, lack of empathy with others
>> behavior: withdrawn, regressive, and bizarre
>>
>> Do at least have a fucking clue as to the meaning of the word you are
>> using.
>
>Well, pardon my English, but I think it describes you pretty well.
So you admit your English was flawed and that you used word whose
meaning you did not understand. Sort of makes:
"Your ignorance of the use and meanings of words continues to suck
like a black hole."
a "fallacious statement" and a PKB, eh, cupcake?
>-At
>least from what I've witnessed so far. Furthermore, my opinion is not
>in the least attenuated by the fact that you actually looked up the word
>in more than one reference and cited the definitions while apparently
>failing to grasp the very meanings you are attempting to employ on your
>behalf.
*boggle*
So you now try to weasel out of the fact you misused a word by
claiming my posting of DICTIONARY definitions means that I was unable
to grasp that you misused the words?
>
>> >> But you chose the more entertaining third method, from my view, the
>> >> stand upon the hill and scream out "I AM CLUELESS, PLEASE MAKE FUN OF
>> >> ME" method.
>> >>
>> >> >Why do you post such things to inappropriate newsgroups, anyway?
>> >
>> >Uh huh, sure, those 2 sentences are equivalent all right...
>>
>> Poast edits, cupcake? Now why would you wish to place to disparate
>> statements together and attempt to connect them?
>
>Uh, sexual exuberance?
"expression favored by the idiot when he doesn't know what else to
say..."
>
>> >> Your ability to display your ignorance appears infinite. So, cupcake,
>> >> do tell me what is your definition of "inappropriate groups" and how
>> >> you came to be poasting to all of the froups froups in teh froups
>> >> line.
>> >
>> >Are you answering a question with a question or do you just like to hear
>> >yourself say "froup"?
>>
>> I wrote words on a screen, cupcake. Hearing would have required
>> speaking.
>
>While you are technically correct, the nature of your silent writings is
>strongly suggestive of redundant mumbling.
Wow, so you read my following words and paraphrased, how original.
>
>> I am sure in your ignorant corner of your personal utopian
>> society everyone must sound out each and every word. In my more
>> educated and obviously more worldly existence reading is done silently
>> unless one is requested to read aloud.
>
>Okay, that's reasonable. Finally.
*snort* *chortle* *GUFFAW*
Nice self spank, cupcake.
>
>> Contrary to your punctuation lamery, it was obviously a question and
>> you seemed to have avoided answering the requested clarification of
>> your terminology.
>
>Hmm, attractive verbiage but still no substance. Still, an improvement.
Still avoiding the question, cupcake. For the 3rd time:
>
>> >> Extrapolate from there as to how I came to be poasting to the
>> >> same four froups.
>> >
>> >I know your proclivities. The subject is why are you posting such crap
>> >here.
>>
>> Umm, cupcake, the fact I responded to your poast in AUK has not quite
>> sunk in yet has it?
>
>Your response was noted but not accepted. It suggested only that you
>were either too lazy or too stupid to sever inappropriate newsgroups
>from your replies. -Which I already knew.
Another fine self-spank. Where ya poastin, cupcake? You are more than
a little slow on the uptake.
>
>> >> Then once you have spent several hours working your
>> >> way through the thread, ask yourself, "Pills or gun?" because frankly
>> >> you may be too stupid to actually live.
>> >
>> >Yet another pre-teen comment from someone who probably could do better
>> >if he tried. Well froup on, froup ranger, but froup somewhere else
>> >because this group isn't a froup-group and the *normal* participants
>> >aren't fruit loops.
>>
>> The alliteration was pathetic.
>
>Au contrare, mon twit, it was good. 'Course I wouldn't really expect
>you to appreciate it.
Appreciation of crap is left to those much less refined than myself.
>
>> So you are the crowning achievement of alt.html. The top dog. Poseur
>> deluxe.
>
>Oh, no, not at all. We have a guy here named Luigi who would really
>kick your ass were he so-inclined. However, in an ocean full of sharks,
>he usually leaves the sardines to his mendicants.
*snicker*
Pathetic was the correct word I just applied to to your writing,
rather than you.
>
>> What a parodoy of humanity you simpletons must be.
>
>Nice sentence, doof. Yeah, (we're) a real "parodoy" all right...
Ah, a speeling lame, how creative. Maybe a gay lame would be next?
>
>> Paradoxically you come upon the greater usenet assuming that you are
>> in some way wise in the ways and byways. Yet when your ignorance is
>> pointed out, by those that are much wiser, you revel in your ignorance
>> and wear it like armor to protecy you from such scurrilous attacks
>> that your ignorance will bring.
>
>Believe it or not, I liked that paragraph. Oh, it could have been
>better but so can most things and it was something more than just an
>automatic relaxant.
As I said "you revel in your ignorance".
>
>> One other little, minor display of just how ignorant you are:
>> Results 1 - 10 of 188,000 for (froup OR froups). (0.46 seconds)
>
>So - there are hundreds of thousands of froup-savvy people in the world.
>Well that's just marvelous. Maybe I'll go home tonight and look the
>word up in my dictionary so I can post the findings tomorrow and make a
>fool of myself, too.
Usenet jargon, my ignorant chewtoy would not be litsed in teh
dictionary.
--
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
Hammer of Thor - July, 2005
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|