On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:19:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
. com,
" wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:
Arnii, I've taken the liberty of inferring your
preference for the motif of slime over that of feces. I
think I speak for most of the group when I say that
your attempts to hyper-fecalize Usenet have largely
failed, and therefore continuing to associate you with
your preferred tool of the "debating trade" is getting
old. Even though it was principally my observation that
you are composed of 97% pure feces, I feel the time has
come to admit that as ****ty as you are, your sliminess
is a more universally recognized "character" trait. ;-)

Turdy, you are guilty by omission. What you're guilty
of is being a total ****. On the other hand, you've
mitigated your ****fulness by agreeing with the rest
of us that you are very, very slimy. I'll now explain
how you rendered your agreement to this basic tenet of
Kroofulness, and I'll do it using Kroologic. ;-)

Middius, who is this Krooborg character?

Who's asking? ;-)

If you've got any guts at all, you'll post his legal
name.

Once again I have to wonder why you respond so quickly
and so directly whenever people insult you. Showing how
slimy you are has never yet succeeded in lowering the
slime quotient of your posts.


Pot, Kettle, etc.

Otherwise we can safely presume that this is
just another one of your trips down fantasy lane, like
the coneheads and borg that you've posted about so
many times in the past.

Do you get slime all over the sheets when you pork the
Kroobitch?





The way you do with your NAMBLA slut?

Bringing up NAMBLA is a bit like invoking the name if
Hitler, me thinks.

Note that while Jenn picks nits with a NAMBLA comment she remains incapable
of finding any fault with Middius, despite his egregious "pork the
Kroobitch" comment.

Tell me, Arnold, do you think our disapproval will cause George to
modify his comments? Your usual line is that anyone who fails to
condemn a comment must agree with it (a point Mr. Sound raised as
well). I don't buy it. George speaks only for himself, as I speak only
for myself. I don't always like George's comments, but I guess he
knows that and doesn't care. If McKelvy speaks out of turn, do we take
it as coming from you and condemn you outright? We all speak for
ourselves and are individually responsible for what we say. In any
case you're always free to condemn George as much as you like.
Of course it won't make the slightest difference.