Dave Weil is a liar.

[Lionel]

Concerning Arnold voice phone conversation with Devil, Dave "liar" Weil was
writing :

dave weil 28 fév 18:15
"I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it because I
neglected to delete it"

Considering the "size" of your archives, don't lie us anymore Weil, please.
You will note that Weil push the irony to be democrat who keep a file on
every "dissident" exactly in the same way than the KGB. ;-)
"Weil like" democrats always amazed me. :-D

Sorry it's nervous. :-(

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:11:06 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Concerning Arnold voice phone conversation with Devil, Dave "liar" Weil was
>writing :
>
>dave weil 28 fév 18:15
>"I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it because I
>neglected to delete it"
>
>Considering the "size" of your archives, don't lie us anymore Weil, please.

This actually supports my claim, since I *generally* keep stuff unless
I delete it and I have a LOT of deadwood on my computer.

However, my email archives are separate from the other old stuff on my
computer. I rarely have time to actually delete anything other than
blatant spam, and most of IT is still in the inbox, simply because
it's easier not to even deal with it.

>You will note that Weil push the irony to be democrat who keep a file on
>every "dissident" exactly in the same way than the KGB. ;-)

Hey, it's just easier for me to keep stuff than to delete it, since I
download all of my mail anyway.

>"Weil like" democrats always amazed me. :-D

Well, you ARE easily amazed.

>Sorry it's nervous. :-(

[Lionel]

Middius would have written : more from AutoLiarWeil

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:11:06 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Concerning Arnold voice phone conversation with Devil, Dave "liar" Weil was
>>writing :
>>
>>dave weil 28 fév 18:15
>>"I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it because I
>>neglected to delete it"
>>
>>Considering the "size" of your archives, don't lie us anymore Weil, please.
>
>
> This actually supports my claim, since I *generally* keep stuff unless
> I delete it and I have a LOT of deadwood on my computer.
>
> However, my email archives are separate from the other old stuff on my
> computer. I rarely have time to actually delete anything other than
> blatant spam, and most of IT is still in the inbox, simply because
> it's easier not to even deal with it.

You are really a lying idiot Weil.
Obviously this behaviour is very common but normal people
never use this stuff because they *forget* it exists !!!
In publishing on a public NG the content of some private
exchanges you prove that *your* conception of these archives
is totally different.

Moreover considering the number of time you have written on
this NG "saved mail" proves that your above blah, blah, blah
is an other falsehood.

>>You will note that Weil push the irony to be democrat who keep a file on
>>every "dissident" exactly in the same way than the KGB. ;-)
>
>
> Hey, it's just easier for me to keep stuff than to delete it, since I
> download all of my mail anyway.
>
>
>>"Weil like" democrats always amazed me. :-D
>
>
> Well, you ARE easily amazed.

Perhaps.

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Concerning Arnold voice phone conversation with Devil,
Dave
> "liar" Weil was writing :
>
> dave weil 28 fév 18:15

> "I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it
because I
> neglected to delete it"

> Considering the "size" of your archives, don't lie us
anymore
> Weil, please. You will note that Weil push the irony to be
> democrat who keep a file on every "dissident" exactly in
the
> same way than the KGB. ;-) "Weil like" democrats always
amazed
> me. :-D

> Sorry it's nervous. :-(

Note that Weil being a Middius tool, gets a pass from George
for this kind of behavior.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
> > Concerning Arnold voice phone conversation with Devil,
> Dave
> > "liar" Weil was writing :
> >
> > dave weil 28 f=E9v 18:15
>
> > "I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it
> because I
> > neglected to delete it"
>
> > Considering the "size" of your archives, don't lie us
> anymore
> > Weil, please. You will note that Weil push the irony to be
> > democrat who keep a file on every "dissident" exactly in
> the
> > same way than the KGB. ;-) "Weil like" democrats always
> amazed
> > me. :-D
>
> > Sorry it's nervous. :-(
>
> Note that Weil being a Middius tool, gets a pass from George
> for this kind of behavior.
>
>
More than a pass. In this little band of thugs, this kind of behavior
is actually encouraged. It's interesting to see that all the bad stuff
that Morein accuses Mccarty of, the internet thug gang of "Middius",
Albertz, weil, Phillips, etc., *actually does*.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:21:57 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Middius would have written : more from AutoLiarWeil
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:11:06 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Concerning Arnold voice phone conversation with Devil, Dave "liar" Weil was
>>>writing :
>>>
>>>dave weil 28 fév 18:15
>>>"I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it because I
>>>neglected to delete it"
>>>
>>>Considering the "size" of your archives, don't lie us anymore Weil, please.
>>
>>
>> This actually supports my claim, since I *generally* keep stuff unless
>> I delete it and I have a LOT of deadwood on my computer.
>>
>> However, my email archives are separate from the other old stuff on my
>> computer. I rarely have time to actually delete anything other than
>> blatant spam, and most of IT is still in the inbox, simply because
>> it's easier not to even deal with it.
>
>You are really a lying idiot Weil.
>Obviously this behaviour is very common but normal people
>never use this stuff because they *forget* it exists !!!

I can't "forget" that it exists because I KNOW that I keep all of my
private correspondence.

>In publishing on a public NG the content of some private
>exchanges you prove that *your* conception of these archives
>is totally different.

I only posted a single private exchange that wasn't solicited. So,
"some" is misleading. Everything else was required as proof of
allegations that you were tossing around here on RAO. That is
CERTAINLY fair use in virtually anyone's mind.

>Moreover considering the number of time you have written on
>this NG "saved mail" proves that your above blah, blah, blah
>is an other falsehood.

This is just gibbersih. Care to restate?

>>>You will note that Weil push the irony to be democrat who keep a file on
>>>every "dissident" exactly in the same way than the KGB. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Hey, it's just easier for me to keep stuff than to delete it, since I
>> download all of my mail anyway.
>>
>>
>>>"Weil like" democrats always amazed me. :-D
>>
>>
>> Well, you ARE easily amazed.
>
>Perhaps.

No, not perhaps.

[Lionel]

dave "liar" weil a écrit :

> This is just gibbersih. Care to restate?

I'm just speaking about the conclusion you give to certain
exchanges you have in writting "saved post"...
This simply prove that you have the habit of saving posts
and message.
This also proves that you are a lying *******. :-)

>>>>You will note that Weil push the irony to be democrat who keep a file on
>>>>every "dissident" exactly in the same way than the KGB. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, it's just easier for me to keep stuff than to delete it, since I
>>>download all of my mail anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Weil like" democrats always amazed me. :-D
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you ARE easily amazed.
>>
>>Perhaps.
>
>
> No, not perhaps.

Perhaps.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:32:35 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>I'm just speaking about the conclusion you give to certain
>exchanges you have in writting "saved post"...
>This simply prove that you have the habit of saving posts
>and message.
>This also proves that you are a lying *******. :-)

I never said that I don't save posts and messages.

As to saving attachments, which is what you seem to be talking about
anyway (the "Tape" file), I'll repeat...I didn't know that I had
actually saved it, a couple of years after the fact. When The Devil
asked that all copies be deleted, I had to search for it to see if I
still had it, and sure enough I did...at which point, I immediately
deleted it.

You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
on the weekend? A family perhaps?

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :


> You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
> on the weekend? A family perhaps?

A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
you will never understand what is it.
Your father also isn't it ?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>
>
>> You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>> on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>
>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>you will never understand what is it.
>Your father also isn't it ?

I guess you don't.

Shame, that.

[sam]

dick Malesweski writes:
>
> More than a pass. In this little band of thugs, this kind of behavior
> is actually encouraged. It's interesting to see that all the bad stuff
> that Morein accuses Mccarty of, the internet thug gang of "Middius",
> Albertz, weil, Phillips, etc., *actually does*.


you're full of ****, dick. I've never done or encouraged anything
off of RAO. YOU otoh, have and continue to do so. that makes
you a hypocrite.

[Lionel]

dave "liar" weil a écrit :

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>
>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>you will never understand what is it.
>>Your father also isn't it ?
>
>
> I guess you don't.

You guess wrong small man. ;-)

> Shame, that.

Shame ? LOL ! I cannot believe it ! You are unshamely lying
since yesterday

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "liar" weil a écrit :
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>
>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>
>>
>> I guess you don't.
>
>You guess wrong small man. ;-)

Nope. I'm right.

>> Shame, that.
>
>Shame ? LOL ! I cannot believe it ! You are unshamely lying
>since yesterday

Prove it. I HAVE proved, on the other hand, that you were lying when
you claimed that I threatened to contact your ISP AND that I had given
you a "final warning".

[Lionel]

Signal a écrit :

> "Lionel" emitted :
>
>
>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>
>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>you will never understand what is it.
>>Your father also isn't it ?
>
>
> Do you feel better for that?

Me no but Weil yes.
We are now exactly where *he* wanted to go and he loves
that. Astonishing no ?
Ask him directly he feels like a winner now and he's sure
that I am diminished. ;-)

Please don't be naive Paul why do you think Dave Weil has
done all these confidences concerning his alleged familial
tragedies on RAO ?
Why do you think he has done these confidences to Arnold
Krueger ?

BTW considering that he his totally mythomaniac I am nearly
sure that nothing of that has never happened.
It's just like if you were reproaching me to mock Weil's
fantasies. I excuse you.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:57:36 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>Signal a écrit :
>
>> "Lionel" emitted :
>>
>>
>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>
>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>
>>
>> Do you feel better for that?
>
>Me no but Weil yes.
>We are now exactly where *he* wanted to go

Astounding that I seem to have some sort of power over you - to get
you do do things without your own accord.

Of course, that assumes that I was actually wanting this. On this
point, you are totally wrong. After all, I said that you had won.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "liar" weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>>
>>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>>
>>>
>>>I guess you don't.
>>
>>You guess wrong small man. ;-)
>
>
> Nope. I'm right.
>
>
>>>Shame, that.
>>
>>Shame ? LOL ! I cannot believe it ! You are unshamely lying
>>since yesterday
>
>
> Prove it. I HAVE proved, on the other hand, that you were lying when
> you claimed that I threatened to contact your ISP AND that I had given
> you a "final warning".

You haven't prove anything.
When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
write me :

"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
stop and you haven't.

This is a formal warning."

A "formal warning" is a threat.
And I have written that you threaten me.

Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> dave weil a =E9crit :
> > On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dave "liar" weil a =E9crit :
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dave weil a =E9crit :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
> >>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
> >>>>
> >>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
> >>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
> >>>>you will never understand what is it.
> >>>>Your father also isn't it ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I guess you don't.
> >>
> >>You guess wrong small man. ;-)
> >
> >
> > Nope. I'm right.
> >
> >
> >>>Shame, that.
> >>
> >>Shame ? LOL ! I cannot believe it ! You are unshamely lying
> >>since yesterday
> >
> >
> > Prove it. I HAVE proved, on the other hand, that you were lying when
> > you claimed that I threatened to contact your ISP AND that I had given
> > you a "final warning".
>
> You haven't prove anything.
> When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
> write me :
>
> "Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
> stop and you haven't.
>
> This is a formal warning."
>
> A "formal warning" is a threat.
> And I have written that you threaten me.
>
> Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.
>
>
Lionel, why continue? weil is a simple minded little **** who just
loves to engage others in his endless, nit-picking, hair-splitting,
boring, droning "exchanges". And, to make matters worse, it appears his
restaurant is closed for at least part of the holiday (July 4th US
Independence Day) weekend, so he'll have lots of time to bore you to
death.
>
It is very apparent that weil is an asshole with the ethics of a hyena
and the brains of an amoeba. There's nothing left to prove. :-D
>
>
BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:29:49 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave "liar" weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I guess you don't.
>>>
>>>You guess wrong small man. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Nope. I'm right.
>>
>>
>>>>Shame, that.
>>>
>>>Shame ? LOL ! I cannot believe it ! You are unshamely lying
>>>since yesterday
>>
>>
>> Prove it. I HAVE proved, on the other hand, that you were lying when
>> you claimed that I threatened to contact your ISP AND that I had given
>> you a "final warning".
>
>You haven't prove anything.
>When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
>write me :

You mean when you were using a friend's account.

>"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
>stop and you haven't.
>
>This is a formal warning."
>
>A "formal warning" is a threat.
>And I have written that you threaten me.

No, you claimed that I threatened to report you to your ISP. I didn't.
I simply gave you a formal warning in the event that you continued
when you had said that you wouldn't.

>Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.

Nope. You are lying when you claim that I threatened to report you to
your ISP and that I gave you a "final warning". I gave you a single
warning, a formal one.

But keep lying. It's probably good for your twisted soul.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:57:36 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Signal a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" emitted :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>>
>>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you feel better for that?
>>
>>Me no but Weil yes.
>>We are now exactly where *he* wanted to go
>
>
> Astounding that I seem to have some sort of power over you - to get
> you do do things without your own accord.

When I say that dave weil is megalomaniac it was an
euphemism. ;-)
I think you misundestood my point I just escorted you to be
sure that you will arrive where you wanted to go, you are
such a small man. :-)

> Of course, that assumes that I was actually wanting this. On this
> point, you are totally wrong.

You cannot stop lying and now you are lying to yourself.
You are a pitiful crybaby Weil, deal with it.

> After all, I said that you had won.

I didn't win anything except that now I feel a strange mix
of disdain and pity for you.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "liar" weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>>
>>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>>
>>>
>>>I guess you don't.
>>
>>You guess wrong small man. ;-)
>
>
> Nope. I'm right.

I already proposed you to verify by yourself. It's very easy
to do I'm sure that even an idiot like you can do that. ;-)

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:31:59 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave "liar" weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I guess you don't.
>>>
>>>You guess wrong small man. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Nope. I'm right.
>
>I already proposed you to verify by yourself. It's very easy
>to do I'm sure that even an idiot like you can do that. ;-)

Got the kids locked up in the basement?

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:29:49 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave "liar" weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess you don't.
>>>>
>>>>You guess wrong small man. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. I'm right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Shame, that.
>>>>
>>>>Shame ? LOL ! I cannot believe it ! You are unshamely lying
>>>>since yesterday
>>>
>>>
>>>Prove it. I HAVE proved, on the other hand, that you were lying when
>>>you claimed that I threatened to contact your ISP AND that I had given
>>>you a "final warning".
>>
>>You haven't prove anything.
>>When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
>>write me :
>
>
> You mean when you were using a friend's account.

This is surely not what I answered you. Perhaps I said a
colleague but surely not a friend since it was at the office.


>>"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
>>stop and you haven't.
>>
>>This is a formal warning."
>>
>>A "formal warning" is a threat.
>>And I have written that you threaten me.
>
>
> No, you claimed that I threatened to report you to your ISP. I didn't.
> I simply gave you a formal warning in the event that you continued
> when you had said that you wouldn't.
>
>
>>Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.
>
>
> Nope. You are lying when you claim that I threatened to report you to
> your ISP and that I gave you a "final warning". I gave you a single
> warning, a formal one.

English isn't my native language so I use a dictionnary to
prove that you are an idiot :

Warning :
# noun: a message informing of danger
# noun: cautionary advice about something imminent
(especially imminent danger)


> But keep lying. It's probably good for your twisted soul.


Now I am hesiting are you really an idiot or are you a
pathological liar ?
I thing that you are a pathological idiot liar. :-D

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:31:59 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:39:25 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave "liar" weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:13:24 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You seem fixated this afternoon. Don't you have anything better to do
>>>>>>>on the weekend? A family perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A family ? I remember that you explained on this NG that
>>>>>>your ex-girlfriend has realized just a little bit late that
>>>>>>you will never understand what is it.
>>>>>>Your father also isn't it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess you don't.
>>>>
>>>>You guess wrong small man. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. I'm right.
>>
>>I already proposed you to verify by yourself. It's very easy
>>to do I'm sure that even an idiot like you can do that. ;-)
>
>
> Got the kids locked up in the basement?

Is it what your father did to you ?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:41:22 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

<snip>
>>>You haven't prove anything.
>>>When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
>>>write me :
>>
>>
>> You mean when you were using a friend's account.
>
>This is surely not what I answered you. Perhaps I said a
>colleague but surely not a friend since it was at the office.

This is correct. Not a big deal. Friend, colleague, whichever.

>>>"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
>>>stop and you haven't.
>>>
>>>This is a formal warning."
>>>
>>>A "formal warning" is a threat.
>>>And I have written that you threaten me.
>>
>>
>> No, you claimed that I threatened to report you to your ISP. I didn't.
>> I simply gave you a formal warning in the event that you continued
>> when you had said that you wouldn't.
>>
>>
>>>Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.
>>
>>
>> Nope. You are lying when you claim that I threatened to report you to
>> your ISP and that I gave you a "final warning". I gave you a single
>> warning, a formal one.
>
>English isn't my native language so I use a dictionnary to
>prove that you are an idiot :
>
>Warning :
># noun: a message informing of danger
># noun: cautionary advice about something imminent
>(especially imminent danger)

This is what you wrote me prior to my warning:

"Now I will stop to mail you from Stéphane's PC because I'm afraid
that you could be too confused".

You didn't. So I gave you a formal warning. You didn't seem to be able
to keep your word.

If I had wanted to threaten you with a report to your ISP, I would
have SAID that.

These definitions are more applicable (especially the first one):

Counsel to desist from a specified undesirable course of action.
A cautionary or deterrent example.

>> But keep lying. It's probably good for your twisted soul.
>
>
>Now I am hesiting are you really an idiot or are you a
>pathological liar ?
>I thing that you are a pathological idiot liar. :-D

Yes, you ARE a "thing". Not a very nice one.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:41:22 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>You haven't prove anything.
>>>>When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
>>>>write me :
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean when you were using a friend's account.
>>
>>This is surely not what I answered you. Perhaps I said a
>>colleague but surely not a friend since it was at the office.
>
>
> This is correct. Not a big deal. Friend, colleague, whichever.
>
>
>>>>"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
>>>>stop and you haven't.
>>>>
>>>>This is a formal warning."
>>>>
>>>>A "formal warning" is a threat.
>>>>And I have written that you threaten me.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, you claimed that I threatened to report you to your ISP. I didn't.
>>>I simply gave you a formal warning in the event that you continued
>>>when you had said that you wouldn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. You are lying when you claim that I threatened to report you to
>>>your ISP and that I gave you a "final warning". I gave you a single
>>>warning, a formal one.
>>
>>English isn't my native language so I use a dictionnary to
>>prove that you are an idiot :
>>
>>Warning :
>># noun: a message informing of danger
>># noun: cautionary advice about something imminent
>>(especially imminent danger)
>
>
> This is what you wrote me prior to my warning:
>
> "Now I will stop to mail you from Stéphane's PC because I'm afraid
> that you could be too confused".

You are a liar, I first kindly explain you that the messages
you received were sent unintentionally.
Just an idiot can imagine that an answer to a usenet
exchange arrives intentionally on his private mail. :-)

> You didn't. So I gave you a formal warning. You didn't seem to be able
> to keep your word.
>
> If I had wanted to threaten you with a report to your ISP, I would
> have SAID that.
>
> These definitions are more applicable (especially the first one):
>
> Counsel to desist from a specified undesirable course of action.
> A cautionary or deterrent example.

You are a liar Weil the text of your message is explicit you
didn't give a "Counsel" you were obviously threatened me.

You are too vexed that I reveal your petty cantankerous
behaviour while McKelvy was mocking you.
You are a too little man for having so much hubris. :-)

>>>But keep lying. It's probably good for your twisted soul.
>>
>>
>>Now I am hesiting are you really an idiot or are you a
>>pathological liar ?
>>I thing that you are a pathological idiot liar. :-D
>
>
> Yes, you ARE a "thing". Not a very nice one.

LOL !

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:13:08 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:41:22 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>You haven't prove anything.
>>>>>When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
>>>>>write me :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You mean when you were using a friend's account.
>>>
>>>This is surely not what I answered you. Perhaps I said a
>>>colleague but surely not a friend since it was at the office.
>>
>>
>> This is correct. Not a big deal. Friend, colleague, whichever.
>>
>>
>>>>>"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
>>>>>stop and you haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a formal warning."
>>>>>
>>>>>A "formal warning" is a threat.
>>>>>And I have written that you threaten me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, you claimed that I threatened to report you to your ISP. I didn't.
>>>>I simply gave you a formal warning in the event that you continued
>>>>when you had said that you wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope. You are lying when you claim that I threatened to report you to
>>>>your ISP and that I gave you a "final warning". I gave you a single
>>>>warning, a formal one.
>>>
>>>English isn't my native language so I use a dictionnary to
>>>prove that you are an idiot :
>>>
>>>Warning :
>>># noun: a message informing of danger
>>># noun: cautionary advice about something imminent
>>>(especially imminent danger)
>>
>>
>> This is what you wrote me prior to my warning:
>>
>> "Now I will stop to mail you from Stéphane's PC because I'm afraid
>> that you could be too confused".
>
>You are a liar, I first kindly explain you that the messages
>you received were sent unintentionally.
>Just an idiot can imagine that an answer to a usenet
>exchange arrives intentionally on his private mail. :-)

And I "kindly" let it slide for a couple of times. However, i received
multiple messages in the span of a couple of days. Finally, I had had
enough and I warned you to stop. It worked.

>> You didn't. So I gave you a formal warning. You didn't seem to be able
>> to keep your word.
>>
>> If I had wanted to threaten you with a report to your ISP, I would
>> have SAID that.
>>
>> These definitions are more applicable (especially the first one):
>>
>> Counsel to desist from a specified undesirable course of action.
>> A cautionary or deterrent example.
>
>You are a liar Weil the text of your message is explicit you
> didn't give a "Counsel" you were obviously threatened me.

Not it's not. If it had been "explicit", I would have said, "If you do
this again, I'm going to report you to your ISP". You should look up
the word "explicit".

>You are too vexed that I reveal your petty cantankerous
>behaviour while McKelvy was mocking you.
>You are a too little man for having so much hubris. :-)

Oh, THAT'S rich. You've got hubris enough for both of us. You're just
vexed that I undermined your "tough guy" image, Mr. Policeman.

>>>>But keep lying. It's probably good for your twisted soul.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now I am hesiting are you really an idiot or are you a
>>>pathological liar ?
>>>I thing that you are a pathological idiot liar. :-D
>>
>>
>> Yes, you ARE a "thing". Not a very nice one.
>
>LOL !

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:13:08 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:41:22 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>You haven't prove anything.
>>>>>>When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
>>>>>>write me :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean when you were using a friend's account.
>>>>
>>>>This is surely not what I answered you. Perhaps I said a
>>>>colleague but surely not a friend since it was at the office.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is correct. Not a big deal. Friend, colleague, whichever.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
>>>>>>stop and you haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a formal warning."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A "formal warning" is a threat.
>>>>>>And I have written that you threaten me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you claimed that I threatened to report you to your ISP. I didn't.
>>>>>I simply gave you a formal warning in the event that you continued
>>>>>when you had said that you wouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. You are lying when you claim that I threatened to report you to
>>>>>your ISP and that I gave you a "final warning". I gave you a single
>>>>>warning, a formal one.
>>>>
>>>>English isn't my native language so I use a dictionnary to
>>>>prove that you are an idiot :
>>>>
>>>>Warning :
>>>># noun: a message informing of danger
>>>># noun: cautionary advice about something imminent
>>>>(especially imminent danger)
>>>
>>>
>>>This is what you wrote me prior to my warning:
>>>
>>>"Now I will stop to mail you from Stéphane's PC because I'm afraid
>>>that you could be too confused".
>>
>>You are a liar, I first kindly explain you that the messages
>>you received were sent unintentionally.
>>Just an idiot can imagine that an answer to a usenet
>>exchange arrives intentionally on his private mail. :-)
>
>
> And I "kindly" let it slide for a couple of times. However, i received
> multiple messages in the span of a couple of days. Finally, I had had
> enough and I warned you to stop. It worked.
>
>
>>>You didn't. So I gave you a formal warning. You didn't seem to be able
>>>to keep your word.
>>>
>>>If I had wanted to threaten you with a report to your ISP, I would
>>>have SAID that.
>>>
>>>These definitions are more applicable (especially the first one):
>>>
>>>Counsel to desist from a specified undesirable course of action.
>>>A cautionary or deterrent example.
>>
>>You are a liar Weil the text of your message is explicit you
>> didn't give a "Counsel" you were obviously threatened me.
>
>
> Not it's not. If it had been "explicit", I would have said, "If you do
> this again, I'm going to report you to your ISP". You should look up
> the word "explicit".

Nuance this is what a direct *honest* guy would have written
and you are sly and hypocrite.


>>You are too vexed that I reveal your petty cantankerous
>>behaviour while McKelvy was mocking you.
>>You are a too little man for having so much hubris. :-)
>
>
> Oh, THAT'S rich. You've got hubris enough for both of us.

I have pride, you have hubris don't my fault if you don't
understand the difference.

> You're just
> vexed that I undermined your "tough guy" image, Mr. Policeman.

Not as vexed than you when I have undermined your "nice guy"
image. :-)
Not as vexed than you when I exposed the real objective of
your RAO confidences.

Your duplicity is really disgusting.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> dave weil a =E9crit :
> > On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:13:08 +0200, Lionel >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dave weil a =E9crit :
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:41:22 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
> >>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>>>>You haven't prove anything.
> >>>>>>When I had this problem with this ****ing newreader you
> >>>>>>write me :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You mean when you were using a friend's account.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is surely not what I answered you. Perhaps I said a
> >>>>colleague but surely not a friend since it was at the office.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is correct. Not a big deal. Friend, colleague, whichever.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>"Please stop writing me privately. You said that you would
> >>>>>>stop and you haven't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>This is a formal warning."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>A "formal warning" is a threat.
> >>>>>>And I have written that you threaten me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, you claimed that I threatened to report you to your ISP. I didn'=
t=2E
> >>>>>I simply gave you a formal warning in the event that you continued
> >>>>>when you had said that you wouldn't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Conclusion you are a liar, nothing new.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. You are lying when you claim that I threatened to report you to
> >>>>>your ISP and that I gave you a "final warning". I gave you a single
> >>>>>warning, a formal one.
> >>>>
> >>>>English isn't my native language so I use a dictionnary to
> >>>>prove that you are an idiot :
> >>>>
> >>>>Warning :
> >>>># noun: a message informing of danger
> >>>># noun: cautionary advice about something imminent
> >>>>(especially imminent danger)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is what you wrote me prior to my warning:
> >>>
> >>>"Now I will stop to mail you from St=E9phane's PC because I'm afraid
> >>>that you could be too confused".
> >>
> >>You are a liar, I first kindly explain you that the messages
> >>you received were sent unintentionally.
> >>Just an idiot can imagine that an answer to a usenet
> >>exchange arrives intentionally on his private mail. :-)
> >
> >
> > And I "kindly" let it slide for a couple of times. However, i received
> > multiple messages in the span of a couple of days. Finally, I had had
> > enough and I warned you to stop. It worked.
> >
> >
> >>>You didn't. So I gave you a formal warning. You didn't seem to be able
> >>>to keep your word.
> >>>
> >>>If I had wanted to threaten you with a report to your ISP, I would
> >>>have SAID that.
> >>>
> >>>These definitions are more applicable (especially the first one):
> >>>
> >>>Counsel to desist from a specified undesirable course of action.
> >>>A cautionary or deterrent example.
> >>
> >>You are a liar Weil the text of your message is explicit you
> >> didn't give a "Counsel" you were obviously threatened me.
> >
> >
> > Not it's not. If it had been "explicit", I would have said, "If you do
> > this again, I'm going to report you to your ISP". You should look up
> > the word "explicit".
>
> Nuance this is what a direct *honest* guy would have written
> and you are sly and hypocrite.
>
>
> >>You are too vexed that I reveal your petty cantankerous
> >>behaviour while McKelvy was mocking you.
> >>You are a too little man for having so much hubris. :-)
> >
> >
> > Oh, THAT'S rich. You've got hubris enough for both of us.
>
> I have pride, you have hubris don't my fault if you don't
> understand the difference.
>
> > You're just
> > vexed that I undermined your "tough guy" image, Mr. Policeman.
>
> Not as vexed than you when I have undermined your "nice guy"
> image. :-)
> Not as vexed than you when I exposed the real objective of
> your RAO confidences.
>
> Your duplicity is really disgusting.
>
>
Like finding a maggot in the vichyssoise. :-(

[Lionel]

dave "ex-nice guy" weil wrote :


> You're just vexed that I undermined your "tough guy" image, Mr. Policeman.

LOL, I missed this one :

"Thouh guy" image.... :-D

What is a "though guy" Weil ?
The dictionnary isn't clear on this word the first acceptable definition I
found was :
"not given to gentleness or sentimentality"

I bet that your grocer is also your professor of psychology. :-)

[Lionel]

wrote :

> BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?

This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
American guys who feel good in France. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>
> This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
> American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>
>
And the water is free. :-D

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> wrote :
>
>> BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>
> This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
> American guys who feel good in France. ;-)

They like the view, looking down.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Lionel wrote:
>> wrote :
>>
>> > BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>
>> This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>> American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>
>>
> And the water is free. :-D
>

So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote :
> >
> >> BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
> >
> > This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
> > American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>
> They like the view, looking down.
>
>
>
Down from where, you ignorant ****wit?

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Lionel wrote:
> >> wrote :
> >>
> >> > BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
> >>
> >> This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
> >> American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
> >>
> >>
> > And the water is free. :-D
> >
>
> So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.
>
>
>
How much did you pay that hooker for your last golden shower, SackO?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Lionel wrote:
>> >> wrote :
>> >>
>> >> > BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>> >>
>> >> This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>> >> American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>> >>
>> >>
>> > And the water is free. :-D
>> >
>>
>> So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.
>>
>>
>>
> How much did you pay that hooker for your last golden shower, SackO?

La Salope lets me **** on her face for free.
She has more class than you though, she won't swallow.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:48:20 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>Your duplicity is really disgusting.

<s******>

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>>Lionel wrote:
>>
wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>
>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And the water is free. :-D
>>
>
>
> So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.

Do you say that because *you* pretend to have an excuse ? :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>>
>>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>And the water is free. :-D
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.
>
> Do you say that because *you* pretend to have an excuse ? :-)

gibberish



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote :
>>
>>
>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>
>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>
>
> They like the view, looking down.

When Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran after a lonf exil
in France his disciples asked him how it was possible to
survive in the morally bankrupt Occident.
Khomeini answered "I was always looking my feet".

You have an illustrious predecessor, Sackman. :-D

[Lionel]

Middius' shadow wrote :

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>>
wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>>>
>>>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And the water is free. :-D
>>>>
>>>
>>>So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How much did you pay that hooker for your last golden shower, SackO?
>
>
> La Salope lets me **** on her face for free.
> She has more class than you though, she won't swallow.

Question for you Sackman. Are you the guy who was speaking
of escalation in a recent mail ? ;-)

PS : If you like that why you are too scary that I
materialize my invitation ? :-D

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>
>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>
>>
>> They like the view, looking down.
>
> When Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran after a lonf exil in France his
> disciples asked him how it was possible to survive in the morally bankrupt
> Occident.
> Khomeini answered "I was always looking my feet".
>
> You have an illustrious predecessor, Sackman. :-D

gibberish!
I am not planning any long exiles in France!!
thank God!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>>
>>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>They like the view, looking down.
>>
>>When Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran after a lonf exil in France his
>>disciples asked him how it was possible to survive in the morally bankrupt
>>Occident.
>>Khomeini answered "I was always looking my feet".
>>
>>You have an illustrious predecessor, Sackman. :-D
>
>
> gibberish!
> I am not planning any long exiles in France!!
> thank God!

Yes, thank God. :-D

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Middius' shadow wrote :
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>>>
wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And the water is free. :-D
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>How much did you pay that hooker for your last golden shower, SackO?
>>
>>
>> La Salope lets me **** on her face for free.
>> She has more class than you though, she won't swallow.
>
> Question for you Sackman. Are you the guy who was speaking of escalation
> in a recent mail ? ;-)
>
> PS : If you like that why you are too scary that I materialize my
> invitation ? :-D

I compare you favorably to your friend the
RAO terrorist, you should be happy.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Middius' shadow wrote :
>>
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
wrote :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>>>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And the water is free. :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How much did you pay that hooker for your last golden shower, SackO?
>>>
>>>
>>>La Salope lets me **** on her face for free.
>>>She has more class than you though, she won't swallow.
>>
>>Question for you Sackman. Are you the guy who was speaking of escalation
>>in a recent mail ? ;-)
>>
>>PS : If you like that why you are too scary that I materialize my
>>invitation ? :-D
>
>
> I compare you favorably to your friend the
> RAO terrorist, you should be happy.

I am happy this is why I invited you to satisfy your
phantasm... ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Middius' shadow wrote :
>>>
>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
wrote :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>BTW, what did you make of the first stage of Le Tour?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This first stage is a message for our friend Sackman. There are some
>>>>>>>>American guys who feel good in France. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And the water is free. :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, there is no excuse for not showering every day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How much did you pay that hooker for your last golden shower, SackO?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>La Salope lets me **** on her face for free.
>>>>She has more class than you though, she won't swallow.
>>>
>>>Question for you Sackman. Are you the guy who was speaking of escalation
>>>in a recent mail ? ;-)
>>>
>>>PS : If you like that why you are too scary that I materialize my
>>>invitation ? :-D
>>
>>
>> I compare you favorably to your friend the
>> RAO terrorist, you should be happy.
>
> I am happy this is why I invited you to satisfy your phantasm... ;-)

more gibberish



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----