On 20 Nov 2003 04:08:27 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 19 Nov 2003 10:56:01 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
Good, more absolute proof that you're too stupid to follow a thread and
understand plain english. You responded to MY post about the panhandle
and didn't realize that I was talking about the panhandle and not all of
Florida? That's pretty dumb on your part.

You do realize that YOUR post was in response to MY post
about.....FLORIDA, not the panhandle, didn't you? That's pretty dumb
on your part. Again please show where I was "lying about living in the
panhandle". Can't, can you?

Man are you dumb, and you really love to drive that point home in
public. Just above you say that my post about the panhandle was in
response to YOUR post about florida. Well, any 8yo kid who knows how to
use a newsreader or google can plainly see that I was responding to
NYOB, not YOU. You should probably ask your daughter for help here, you
need it. Here is my original post again:

---------------
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:28:49 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
There aren't very many good ole southern boys in Florida anymore. It's
a southern state in geography only.


At least when you are down by the beach or in the big city. If you get
inland a
few miles you will still find good ol boys.

Goodland, Chokoloskee, and Everglades City have plenty. They fish for
square grouper down there. (wink, wink)

The panhandle (lower Alabama as it's called) is almost all good ole
southern boys.

Steve
---------------

Notice how the topic changed from Florida to inland Florida to certain
sections of Florida (Goodland, Chokoloskee, and Everglades City) so that
by the time I mentioned the Panhandle, the topic was no longer about all
of Florida. You're just don't know how to follow a simple conversation.

Also, see where I was responding to NYOB who responded to Gfretwell?
You're not even in that message. Just in case you don't believe me ,
here's a link to the message:

You dumby, Goodland, Chokoloskee, and Everglades City have NOTHING to
do with the panhandle. So, you think that because you mention the
panhandle, that now the thread is not about "all of Florida", but just
about the panhandle?? Using your idiotic pretense, then one could say
that because Everglades City was mentioned, that it would EXCLUDE the
panhandle, because Everglades City isn't in the panhandle.

Of course they are not in the panhandle. Please tell me you aren't so
stupid that you can't follow the posts changing subjects. Now, if you
can follow the conversation changing topics, look at your response to
me:

-----------
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:28:49 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
There aren't very many good ole southern boys in Florida anymore. It's
a southern state in geography only.


At least when you are down by the beach or in the big city. If you get
inland a
few miles you will still find good ol boys.

Goodland, Chokoloskee, and Everglades City have plenty. They fish for
square grouper down there. (wink, wink)

The panhandle (lower Alabama as it's called) is almost all good ole
southern boys.

Steve

The ratio of transplants to natives is well over 90%
-----------

Notice how in every prior post the subject clearly changed from one part
of Florida to another until my post, which was about the Panhandle.
Your repsonse to me did nothing to change that subject and clearly says
that you believe the Panhandle has a ratio of transplants to natives
well over 90%. You could have easily said "Florida has a ratio of
transplants to natives well over 90%" in order to change the topic back
to all of Florida, but you didn't. So the topic of your response
remained the Panhandle. This is all just simple english comprehension,
which you have proven to be incapable of, so it should surprise me that
you're proving it again here.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.newsguy.com

The fact that you claim I responded to YOU when in fact it was to NYOB
who responded to someone else (not you) is yet further incontrovertible
evidence that you're to[o] stupid to follow a simple conversation. Not
being able to follow a simple conversation is a clear indication of your
drug induced stupor.

Have a nice day,


Please show any evidence of a "clear indication of (my) drug induced
stupor". Again, a wild allegation at best. Those dillusions you are
having are getting much worse. Either that or you are purposefully
slandering me. Which is it?

Just above is a clear indication of your drug induced stupor. It's a
widely accepted fact that the inability to follow simple conversations
is indicative of drug use. It's one of the first signs police use to
pick out impaired individuals. You couldn't follow this simple string
of messages well enough to know who I responded to, what the subject
was, etc. These are all extremely simple tasks that drug use could
prevent you from accomplishing. I'll grant that it's possible you are
this stupid even without being impaired by drugs. But since here we
have such clear evidence of your drug use, you'll have to prove you
don't abuse drugs when you post and instead are just really really dumb.

Steve