"RG" wrote in message
m...

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:38 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2wxdg3

Was that picture taken in the east?

God only knows, given the source. But I can tell you the that photo in
question was taken over 3 years ago, on March 10th, 2004 at 0714. The
actual location of the shot and the name of the photographer has not been
disclosed, per usual. The ambiguity leaves the implication that the work
is of the original poster, but no such actual declaration has been made.
It's been an often repeated MO of the original poster over the years.


You watching Harry that close?? Pathetic!
Can't you find someone to con into buying an overpriced & un-needed
insurance policy?

Don White wrote:
"RG" wrote in message
m...
"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:38 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2wxdg3
Was that picture taken in the east?
God only knows, given the source. But I can tell you the that photo in
question was taken over 3 years ago, on March 10th, 2004 at 0714. The
actual location of the shot and the name of the photographer has not been
disclosed, per usual. The ambiguity leaves the implication that the work
is of the original poster, but no such actual declaration has been made.
It's been an often repeated MO of the original poster over the years.


You watching Harry that close?? Pathetic!
Can't you find someone to con into buying an overpriced & un-needed
insurance policy?



Since I don't live in a log cabin, and just about everyone knows that, I
didn't think it necessary to claim or not claim the photo. I believe the
photographer in question lived in Colorado or some similar place.

I see old RG still has that foot up his butt. I'll leave him in the bin
with the rest of the assholes.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:49 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"RG" wrote in message
om...

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:38 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2wxdg3

Was that picture taken in the east?

God only knows, given the source. But I can tell you the that photo in
question was taken over 3 years ago, on March 10th, 2004 at 0714. The
actual location of the shot and the name of the photographer has not been
disclosed, per usual. The ambiguity leaves the implication that the work
is of the original poster, but no such actual declaration has been made.
It's been an often repeated MO of the original poster over the years.


You watching Harry that close?? Pathetic!
Can't you find someone to con into buying an overpriced & un-needed
insurance policy?


Don, Harrie's the one who posts pictures, like his owls, pretending he took
them. Where have you been?

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:49 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"RG" wrote in message
. com...

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:38 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2wxdg3

Was that picture taken in the east?

God only knows, given the source. But I can tell you the that photo in
question was taken over 3 years ago, on March 10th, 2004 at 0714. The
actual location of the shot and the name of the photographer has not
been
disclosed, per usual. The ambiguity leaves the implication that the
work
is of the original poster, but no such actual declaration has been made.
It's been an often repeated MO of the original poster over the years.


You watching Harry that close?? Pathetic!
Can't you find someone to con into buying an overpriced & un-needed
insurance policy?


Don, Harrie's the one who posts pictures, like his owls, pretending he
took
them. Where have you been?


Can you prove that?

Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:49 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"RG" wrote in message
m...
"thunder" wrote in message
news On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:38 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2wxdg3
Was that picture taken in the east?
God only knows, given the source. But I can tell you the that photo in
question was taken over 3 years ago, on March 10th, 2004 at 0714. The
actual location of the shot and the name of the photographer has not
been
disclosed, per usual. The ambiguity leaves the implication that the
work
is of the original poster, but no such actual declaration has been made.
It's been an often repeated MO of the original poster over the years.

You watching Harry that close?? Pathetic!
Can't you find someone to con into buying an overpriced & un-needed
insurance policy?

Don, Harrie's the one who posts pictures, like his owls, pretending he
took
them. Where have you been?


Can you prove that?



Yes.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:33:32 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:49 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"RG" wrote in message
.com...

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:38 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2wxdg3

Was that picture taken in the east?

God only knows, given the source. But I can tell you the that photo in
question was taken over 3 years ago, on March 10th, 2004 at 0714. The
actual location of the shot and the name of the photographer has not
been
disclosed, per usual. The ambiguity leaves the implication that the
work
is of the original poster, but no such actual declaration has been made.
It's been an often repeated MO of the original poster over the years.


You watching Harry that close?? Pathetic!
Can't you find someone to con into buying an overpriced & un-needed
insurance policy?


Don, Harrie's the one who posts pictures, like his owls, pretending he
took
them. Where have you been?


Can you prove that?


Yes. Google 'owls' and you'll find them.

Don White wrote:
"RG" wrote in message
m...
"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:38 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2wxdg3
Was that picture taken in the east?
God only knows, given the source. But I can tell you the that photo in
question was taken over 3 years ago, on March 10th, 2004 at 0714. The
actual location of the shot and the name of the photographer has not been
disclosed, per usual. The ambiguity leaves the implication that the work
is of the original poster, but no such actual declaration has been made.
It's been an often repeated MO of the original poster over the years.


You watching Harry that close?? Pathetic!
Can't you find someone to con into buying an overpriced & un-needed
insurance policy?



Watching out for Daddy? How...sad.