John H wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:14:53 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:
wrote:
John H wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:05:43 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:
John H wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:41:55 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:
John H wrote:
On 25 May 2005 05:23:20 -0700, wrote:
John H wrote:
I believe he was talking to Kevin, the guy who doesn't exist. So, why do you pay
attention to a post like that?
--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD
Hmmm, let's see if even a dried up old drunk like you can figure this
out. HE WAS REPLYING TO SOMETHING *I* SAID......Now, being how his is
too stupid to figure this all out (and it's quite simple), he believes
I'm Kevin. I don't mind, it's fun watching Fritz, who thinks he's quite
special wallow around in ignorance!
Who are you? You've used Kevin, basskisser, atl man, etc. etc. Just who are you?
Also, please translate: "Now, being how his is
too stupid to figure this all out (and it's quite simple), he believes
I'm Kevin. I don't mind, it's fun watching Fritz, who thinks he's quite
special wallow around in ignorance!"
Is that supposed to be a sentence? Remember what I said about trying to use
decent grammar and spelling when discussing the stupidity of your fellow man?
And I thought you were going to be pleasant in here.
Well, fool me once...
How was I unpleasant, Harry? Was I calling someone a name? Was I posting
inflammatory political bull****?
Were you?
I'm not going to regurgitate your unpleasantness. Reread some of your
most recent posts and come to your own conclusion.
Ah. My posts referencing the grammar used in derogatory, name-calling posts by
others is offensive to you?
As you are one of the most prolific of the derogatory name-callers in the group,
I can understand why those posts may bother you.
You won't regurgitate the unpleasantness because it cuts too close to the quick.
--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD
Oh, but you forget one little problem John. YOU are the one who wanted
to "change the tone of the group". Does "bull****", "horse****", and
"you are a ****ing liar" sound like something that helps the tone of
the group? You are nothing short of a hypocrite. You and the two that
kiss your ass daily, Fritz and Jim sling more trash in this newsgroup
daily than anyone else. Jim has finally seen the light, so to speak,
and realizes that not everyone that doesn't 100% agree with him, is bad.
Herring sometimes thinks his own nasty posts don't stink.
My posts aren't nasty. Haven't used the f-word except when referring to lies you
told, and 'horse****' and 'bull****' are very mild compared to a lot of the
stuff posted. In fact, I can't believe Kevin is even commenting on the last two
words.
--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD
John, while I'm not Kevin, and I don't see his posts, so I don't know
what he said to you, you are replying to a reply of mine. So, that
being said, I do know why *I* am commenting on your profanity. It's
because you think that it's okay for you to do such, but then out of
the same gray matter, you state that you are trying to "improve the
tone of the group". Now, I'll ask so that any simpleton can understand.
Do YOU think that using words like "horse****", "bull****", and calling
people "****ing liars" is IMPROVING the "tone of the group"? If no,
then why do you do it? Now, above you've went and put qualifiers on
your profanity. Horse****, and bull**** seem to be okay to you. Please
provide a list with their Tone Improvement Factors, so that we may know
which words are totally acceptable to you in improving the tone of the
group, and which are not.