Harry Krause wrote:
Curtis CCR wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Curtis CCR wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:03:02 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

verificable

huh?

The best Harry could respond with was a lame attempt to exploit a typo.

He has been caught in the wrong once again and will now start replying
to every post with one or two sentence, 4th grade, playground insults.

That is the way he works when he gets jacked up.

Curtis: why should I expend any energy responding to your whining little
complaints? You actually think you are worth a long, reasoned response?
Please tell me why.

Hell, Harry, the best stuff you post is created by other people, and
what does it take to post one liners about a person's ass and a hole in
the ground? But hey! If you would like to START expending energy,
explain why I am wrong about your post being a copyright rip off.

Of course, you won't be able to explain it. So maybe you're right -
Why expend the energy?

What I asked was, why should I expend energy answering your whining with
a long, reasoned response? Still waiting.

I think the whinning everyone hears is you. "sniff sniff Why should
I... sniff sniff Why should I... You're not the boss of me! sniff
sniff."

Forget about my calling you a child. I and others have pointed out
that you violated Andy Borowitz's copyrights by distributing his
article in this newsgroup without permission. There are several ways
you can respond. You choose.