basskisser wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:

basskisser wrote:


Don White wrote:



..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.


If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.


Sucks to be Kevin.


YOU'RE Kevin?? The mystery is solved!


I always thought his name was Freddy.

Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:

basskisser wrote:

JimH wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
...


Here we go again.
Somebody has to teach these flyboys how to read a chart.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...nfriendly.html


Sorry to hear about that Don. I am sure the US pilots involved in this
accident feel worse than you can believe and will have a hard time
forgetting it.

You could be right, Bipolar Boy!

Insert Kevin's signature phrase here --- "Grow up".

Not quite bright enough to show some originality, huh?

Why are you responding? Are you Kevin?

It's quite simple. A person, using google groups can respond to any
thread, whether or not it is a direct post to them. Understand? Take
for instance if you were to post a question to JimH, aka Bipolar Boy, I
could simply reply to it, just like I am replying to this post. Again,
you just aren't great at originality, are you?


If you were not Kevin, then you would not respond to posts addressed to
Kevin.

Man, you are dumber than a post! We've been over this and over this,
but you are too stupid to reason with! When somebody responds to MY
POST, then I reply, get it idiot? Example for the learning impaired:
Let's say that you respond to one of Bipolar Boy's posts, and in doing
so called him Kevin. I wouldn't respond, because you are talking to
Bipolar Boy, not me.

wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Don White wrote:


..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.


If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.


Sucks to be Kevin.

YOU'RE Kevin?? The mystery is solved!


Wrong again.

His name is Dan.

How do you know that?

basskisser wrote:
wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Don White wrote:


..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.

If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.

Sucks to be Kevin.
YOU'RE Kevin?? The mystery is solved!

Wrong again.

His name is Dan.

How do you know that?


Oooh, somebody did a Krause on Kevin.

Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Don White wrote:


..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.

If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.

Sucks to be Kevin.
YOU'RE Kevin?? The mystery is solved!

Wrong again.

His name is Dan.

How do you know that?


Oooh, somebody did a Krause on Kevin.

oooh, somebody is still an idiot.....
Were you able to make your brain actually work a tad to understand why
I respond to posts that are replying to me??

basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Don White wrote:


..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.
If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.

Sucks to be Kevin.
YOU'RE Kevin?? The mystery is solved!
Wrong again.

His name is Dan.
How do you know that?

Oooh, somebody did a Krause on Kevin.

oooh, somebody is still an idiot.....
Were you able to make your brain actually work a tad to understand why
I respond to posts that are replying to me??


You are still the punching bag of the group. You have been abandoned and
or shuned by all of your friends. Why don't you stop being a JimH and
be a normal person.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 9/9/2006 5:13 PM, Bert Robbins wrote:


You are still the punching bag of the group. You have been abandoned and
or shuned by all of your friends.


Who left the cover off the septic tank so Bert could crawl out?


Sorry Harry. I guess I forgot to put the top back on last time I checked to
make sure he was still in there. ;-)

Harry Krause wrote:
On 9/9/2006 5:13 PM, Bert Robbins wrote:


You are still the punching bag of the group. You have been abandoned
and or shuned by all of your friends. Why don't you stop being a
JimH and be a normal person.


Who left the cover off the septic tank so Bert could crawl out?


More likely, he crawled up from under the outhouse.

Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
On 9/9/2006 5:13 PM, Bert Robbins wrote:


You are still the punching bag of the group. You have been abandoned
and or shuned by all of your friends. Why don't you stop being a
JimH and be a normal person.


Who left the cover off the septic tank so Bert could crawl out?


More likely, he crawled up from under the outhouse.

I see that the Jr. High School let you all go home for the weekend.

Bert Robbins wrote:

I see that the Jr. High School let you all go home for the weekend.



....and you were kept back for remedial attention?