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.

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.

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.

On May 29, 1:26 pm, "roto" wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message

You just love to be a childish, insultant ass sometimes, don't you? Or
is that all the time. I also take it that you don't mind at all being
wrong.

Yet another irrelevant post from the Rosie O'Donnell of wrecked boats.

Awe, you do realize, don't you, that your childish and inane name
calling does nothing for your credibility?