|
|
Posted by Tim Weaver on 05/17/06 00:33
Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> Veronica Karlsson wrote:
>>
>> >> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=www.backwater-productio
>> >> ns.net
>> >>
>> >> The quarter MILLION or so people who visit my server seem to think
>> >> otherwise.
>>
>> >Have they emailed you and told you what they think or are you just
>> >assuming that they must like it because of how many they are?
>>
>> ...if they didn't like em, why would my ranking continually increase?
>> DUM DUM DUM DUM
>
> Is this "ranking" based on something human, like interviews with users,
> or some kind of technical measurement, like "hits" or something? IOW,
> what does it *mean*? (clue: "many hits" != "readers like it")
>
>
>> Boy, you sure do look STUPID when you try and justify your blatant
>> idiocy.
>>
>> >> See you can say my sites suck as much as you want...
>>
>> >"sites"? I was just commenting on one page (the one you mentioned at
>> >the beginning of this thread), and that one does suck.
>>
>> So what sucks about it?
>
> Do you think it would be a good idea for me to tell you that? Surely
> it's enough information to tell you that it does suck?
>
>
>> You know, pushing aside your blatant penis
>> envy and desperate need to lash out at something you personally are
>> wholly incapable of EVER coming close to producing. Oh snap, there I
>> go beatin up long side yer fat ugly head with that 'ol bitch reality,
>> ne?
>>
>> >> but your
>> >> NONpinions aren't worth shit without some relevant argument behind
>> >> them.
>>
>> >What? You mean, like, communicating with you and tell you *why* it
>> >sucks? Why should I do that?
>>
>> Well, for starters NOT looking like a bumbling fuckin retard...then
>> again maybe you're okay with that. *shrugs*
>
> That doesn't answer my question. Is there some reason why I should
> motivate why my opinion is what it is?
>
>
>> >> And the bottom line is that you stupid, jealous fools HAVE NO
>> >> arguments, all you have is whiney little bitch snits about how much
>> >> you covet my work.
>>
>> >Huh? (Doesn't that word mean... ?)
>> >
>> >*looks up "covet"*
>> >
>> >No, I do not covet your work.
>>
>> So you just REALLY like that circa 1996 porn site look, huh?
>
> AFAIR, ca 1996 porn sites were very popular (though I don't see what
> that has to do with your blog page).
>
>
>> >> The majority of you pathetic fools couldn't even
>> >> DREAM of creating a site as advanced as some of the ones I've put
>> >> together.
>>
>> >1. advanced != good
>>
>> You sounda like...cave man
>>
>> You...no lika teh...advancement
>>
>> *grunt* *grunt*
>>
>> Fire...pretty...but burn stupid caveman
>>
>> *grunt*
>>
>> Fire...no good
>
> The fact that your tool is newer does not automatically make the things
> you build with it better.
>
>
>> >2. I have seen no evidence of your page being "advanced".
>>
>> Cupcake, you're so the fuck far outta yer league you wouldn't know
>> advanced if it suddenly crawled the fuck up yer ass and EXPLODED.
>
> The page did not look one bit "advanced" to me.
>
>
>> >> Fact of the matter is...yer just a bunch of fuckin poser
>> >> ass wannabes. So if you don't like my sites, if you wanna sit there
>> >> dribbling in yer pullups and start whining about how much you think
>> >> they "suck"...log the fuck off, Stupid, go somewhere else, cause I
>> >> sure as FUCK didn't make ANY of sites for trainable muppet fuck
>> >> tweenage Ritalin addicts like you stupid kids.
>>
>> >You posted the link in a newsgroup. You got comments. Live with it!
>>
>> You got your comments ripped apart and then got all smacked up like a
>> stupid bitch. Pull up yer wet lil Huggies, dry yer eyes and learn to
>> fuckin deal already.
>
> Your page still sucks.
bwa-HAAHAA!!!
--
Tim Weaver
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I am not so sure what you heard is not what I meant.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|