SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:59 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:38 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

That's my point. It's only John Wayne. So I don't think I'll waste the
time "brushing up on my (sic) John Wayne trivia". Sorry YOU don't get
it, pilgrim.

Ummm I had it to begin with, it was my reference, you need to really get a
grip on this idea that a Thing actually CHANGES just 'cause you say it
does... Canute tried that too.

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:57 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:57:22 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

leaving me with a simple direct extremely minimally-invasive option

Hardly a "extremely minimally-invasive option".

Besides, who are you to speak for the rest of the newsgroups that you
are trying to "help"?

Don't know, only complaints I ever see are from, a couple of you guys here
who started it! Probably something about spoiling your pranks.

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/26/05 5:42 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:29:46 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/26/05 2:34 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:02:49 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/22/05 3:17 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:07:20 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Any crosspost silliness has been fr days now generated soley by RAO
denizens
intent on re-enacting the French Scene from Holy Grail.

Wrong. You crossposted just yesterday.

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:59 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:38 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

That's my point. It's only John Wayne. So I don't think I'll waste the
time "brushing up on my (sic) John Wayne trivia". Sorry YOU don't get
it, pilgrim.

Ummm I had it to begin with, it was my reference, you need to really get a
grip on this idea that a Thing actually CHANGES just 'cause you say it
does... Canute tried that too.

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:57 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:57:22 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

leaving me with a simple direct extremely minimally-invasive option

Hardly a "extremely minimally-invasive option".

Besides, who are you to speak for the rest of the newsgroups that you
are trying to "help"?

Don't know, only complaints I ever see are from, a couple of you guys here
who started it! Probably something about spoiling your pranks.

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:15 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:59 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:38 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

That's my point. It's only John Wayne. So I don't think I'll waste the
time "brushing up on my (sic) John Wayne trivia". Sorry YOU don't get
it, pilgrim.

Ummm I had it to begin with, it was my reference, you need to really get a
grip on this idea that a Thing actually CHANGES just 'cause you say it
does... Canute tried that too.

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:17 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:57 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:57:22 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

leaving me with a simple direct extremely minimally-invasive option

Hardly a "extremely minimally-invasive option".

Besides, who are you to speak for the rest of the newsgroups that you
are trying to "help"?

Don't know, only complaints I ever see are from, a couple of you guys here
who started it! Probably something about spoiling your pranks.

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:18 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:26 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/26/05 5:42 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:29:46 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/26/05 2:34 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:02:49 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/22/05 3:17 PM, in article
,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:07:20 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Any crosspost silliness has been fr days now generated soley by RAO
denizens
intent on re-enacting the French Scene from Holy Grail.

Wrong. You crossposted just yesterday.

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:15 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:59 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:38 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

That's my point. It's only John Wayne. So I don't think I'll waste the
time "brushing up on my (sic) John Wayne trivia". Sorry YOU don't get
it, pilgrim.

Ummm I had it to begin with, it was my reference, you need to really get a
grip on this idea that a Thing actually CHANGES just 'cause you say it
does... Canute tried that too.

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:17 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:57 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:57:22 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

leaving me with a simple direct extremely minimally-invasive option

Hardly a "extremely minimally-invasive option".

Besides, who are you to speak for the rest of the newsgroups that you
are trying to "help"?

Don't know, only complaints I ever see are from, a couple of you guys here
who started it! Probably something about spoiling your pranks.

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:18 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:26 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/26/05 5:42 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:29:46 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/26/05 2:34 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:02:49 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/22/05 3:17 PM, in article
,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:07:20 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Any crosspost silliness has been fr days now generated soley by RAO
denizens
intent on re-enacting the French Scene from Holy Grail.

Wrong. You crossposted just yesterday.

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

SSJVCmag wrote:
-this- message actually went to THREE (3!) different NG's (tech/pro/tubes)
and NONE of them was RAO where it was pulled from! Somebody's workin'
hard... amazing!
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.




On 9/27/05 5:50 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:57 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:57:22 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

leaving me with a simple direct extremely minimally-invasive option

Hardly a "extremely minimally-invasive option".

Besides, who are you to speak for the rest of the newsgroups that you
are trying to "help"?

Don't know, only complaints I ever see are from, a couple of you guys here
who started it! Probably something about spoiling your pranks.

SSJVCmag wrote:
-this- message actually went to THREE (3!) different NG's (tech/pro/tubes)
and NONE of them was RAO where it was pulled from! Somebody's workin'
hard... amazing!
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.





On 9/27/05 5:48 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/27/05 1:59 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:38 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/27/05 2:24 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:07:10 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.

As if John Wayne had any point of reference here.

But nice try in covering your grammatical error.

John Wayne trivia? Just say no. For the sake of all that's holy.

Nothing holy about it... Just quoting Jake McCandless.
Shame you didn't get it. Good flick.
Bigger shame you can't seem to HANDLE not-getting it.
It's only a MOVIE fergohdsakes!

That's my point. It's only John Wayne. So I don't think I'll waste the
time "brushing up on my (sic) John Wayne trivia". Sorry YOU don't get
it, pilgrim.

Ummm I had it to begin with, it was my reference, you need to really get a
grip on this idea that a Thing actually CHANGES just 'cause you say it
does... Canute tried that too.

SSJVCmag wrote:
This is just the most remarkable thing, there's a whacky net-wormhole that's
independantly reposting normal single-RAO postings onto other newsgroups.
Interesting stuff.


On 9/27/05 5:26 PM, in article
, "
wrote:


SSJVCmag wrote:
On 9/26/05 5:42 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:29:46 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/26/05 2:34 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:02:49 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 9/22/05 3:17 PM, in article
,
"dave weil" wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:07:20 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Any crosspost silliness has been fr days now generated soley by RAO
denizens
intent on re-enacting the French Scene from Holy Grail.

Wrong. You crossposted just yesterday.

Sorry, you lose.

Not Hardly.

Thanks for admitting that you lose.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of a double negative?

Nope, you just need a brushup on your John Wayne trivia.

I don't think so.

Suit yourself. What you don't know, you can't understand when referenced.
No prob.