ScottW wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


The Idiot lied:


Why you aid and abet his attacks on me
while pretending to feign criticism of him?

Funny, George is saying the same thing.

GOD DAMN, ARE YOU ****ING STUPID!

(Please stop being so stupid, Scottie. I'm running low on ways to show
my exasperation with your stupidity.)


Funny, Trots is saying the same thing.


George and I agree on some things. You being stupid is definitely one
of them. Hey, do those Viagras affect blood flow to the brain btw?

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:
In article . net,
trotsky wrote:


You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?

Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?

****ing hypocrite.

s******

In article , trotsky
wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article . net,
trotsky wrote:


You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.


Not good enough.

Very, well. "Hell is other people" from Huis Clos.

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:

In article . net,
trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:

Great. Duelling Messiahs.


You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.

"L'enfer c'est les autres"

Thank you. That's the one.

Stephen

In article 65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01,
ScottW wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .

The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
*originally* set the bar for personal insults.

Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own behavior.
Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can drag you into the
pit with him because you have no moral fiber of your own. I'm impressed.


Bingo.


Joe

In article iOXmb.35554$gi2.15333@fed1read01,
ScottW wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .

The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly. Who cares
what that sack of **** feels or believes? Oh -- you do. 'Nuff said.

Can't admit that you need Arny, eh? I know that reality is hard for you
to stomach, but all your squealing doesn't change that sad truth.


Yowza!
Impossible to not need your siamese
twin. There has been talk among brain surgeons,
that small, incremental surgeries may be able to
remove the midjet's head from arny's colon, but
the emotional loss was deemed to great for either
to survive.



Joe

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
In article . net,
trotsky wrote:

It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
bull**** that Arny's gotten.

Great. Duelling Messiahs.


LOL!


Joe

In article wK1nb.38228$gi2.5216@fed1read01,
ScottW wrote:

Funny, George is saying the same thing. You two are so alike.
I'd say separated at birth.


You are almost there, however
no separation has yet occurred.
rao is where the midget's head
meets arny's feces.


Joe

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:

In article . net,
trotsky wrote:

You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are. Until then, though, I suppose
I'm destined to hear the sound of an egg frying every time you post.

trotsky wrote:



dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:

In article . net,
trotsky wrote:


You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to
cover the situation.



Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on
this group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this
a hilarious joke?



Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?



dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are. Until then, though, I suppose
I'm destined to hear the sound of an egg frying every time you post.

Be brutally honest...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
personal
attacks?


It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take "exception".

ScottW

"trotsky" wrote in message
...

Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are.

Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
Probably not hypocritical enough for you.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are.


Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
Probably not hypocritical enough for you.


You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you? You did see
Middius lie about my "taunting" Arny, though.

I know you want to be in the thick of the discussion, Scottie, but the
word "stupid" just comes up again and again.

Gregipus lied:

You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?

I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....

Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
or that Nate committed suicide?

You claimed this:

Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.

How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on
this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are.


Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
Probably not hypocritical enough for you.


You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?

Is this the line for you? Your moral fiber is apparently decayed to a
single strand.

You did see
Middius lie about my "taunting" Arny, though.

I know you want to be in the thick of the discussion, Scottie, but the
word "stupid" just comes up again and again.

Sure. It's a typical childish denial response. Ever hear what a kid says
when he can't figure out his homework? No, I guess not.

ScottW

In article , trotsky
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:

In article . net,
trotsky wrote:

You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are.

Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.

Stephen

George M. Middius wrote:

Gregipus lied:


You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?


I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....


Still waitin' for those google references.


Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
or that Nate committed suicide?


You claimed this:


Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.


How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.


I don't even know whose quotes those are. Until you can properly
attribute them, I'll have to assume *you're* the liar.

ScottW wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...



Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on

this

group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are.


Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
Probably not hypocritical enough for you.


You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?


Is this the line for you? Your moral fiber is apparently decayed to a
single strand.


Tell us about your "multi-stranded" lines, Scottie. What the ****
language are you speaking?


You did see
Middius lie about my "taunting" Arny, though.

I know you want to be in the thick of the discussion, Scottie, but the
word "stupid" just comes up again and again.


Sure. It's a typical childish denial response. Ever hear what a kid says
when he can't figure out his homework? No, I guess not.


Wait, even the kids say you're stupid? Kids are pretty perceptive, I
guess. Does the nickname "limpy" ever come up? (I know, poor choice of
words.)

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Q8bnb.42336$gi2.20158@fed1read01
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
personal attacks?

It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take
"exception".

I agree, and so I don't do that.

Of course Scott, you're going to assert that you don't distort the truth and
lie.

In your current state of self-righteousness, you can't make that compute,
but I can.

Scott, since you approve of the reprehensible lies and distortions of
Phillips as well as you own, you're totally hopeless in my book.

"Joe Duffy" wrote in message

In article wK1nb.38228$gi2.5216@fed1read01,
ScottW wrote:

Funny, George is saying the same thing. You two are so alike.
I'd say separated at birth.


You are almost there, however
no separation has yet occurred.
rao is where the midget's head
meets arny's feces.

The only reason why the Middiot is still there, is that he keeps jumping
back in right after I eject him.

"Joe Duffy" wrote in message

In article 65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01,
ScottW wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
*originally* set the bar for personal insults.

Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own
behavior. Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can
drag you into the pit with him because you have no moral fiber of
your own. I'm impressed.


Bingo.

It's not a matter of me dragging the Middiot back down, but that the Middiot
aspires to heights that he can't sustain. Scott is very confused, and thinks
that down is up and vice-versa. Proof: he brags about supping with Phillips
and Yustabe with a short spoon.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Q8bnb.42336$gi2.20158@fed1read01
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
personal attacks?

It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take
"exception".

I agree, and so I don't do that.

Except you did just that twice in the last day.

Of course Scott, you're going to assert that you don't distort the truth
and
lie.

In your current state of self-righteousness, you can't make that compute,
but I can.

Scott, since you approve of the reprehensible lies and distortions of
Phillips as well as you own, you're totally hopeless in my book.

And here you go again making claims you have no knowledge of.

Your problems are well documented. Better people than I have tried to show
you the errors of your ways and failed. You are incorrigible.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Joe Duffy" wrote in message

In article 65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01,
ScottW wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
*originally* set the bar for personal insults.

Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own
behavior. Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can
drag you into the pit with him because you have no moral fiber of
your own. I'm impressed.


Bingo.

It's not a matter of me dragging the Middiot back down, but that the
Middiot
aspires to heights that he can't sustain. Scott is very confused, and
thinks
that down is up and vice-versa.

Nice admission that you set the standard of moral decay around here.

Proof: he brags about supping with Phillips
and Yustabe with a short spoon.

Yup, excellent company. Well mannered and very pleasant.
I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If that
is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:THcnb.42999$gi2.37017@fed1read01
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Q8bnb.42336$gi2.20158@fed1read01
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
personal attacks?

It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take
"exception".

I agree, and so I don't do that.

Except you did just that twice in the last day.

Prove it, Scott.

Of course Scott, you're going to assert that you don't distort the
truth and lie.

In your current state of self-righteousness, you can't make that
compute, but I can.

Scott, since you approve of the reprehensible lies and distortions of
Phillips as well as you own, you're totally hopeless in my book.

And here you go again making claims you have no knowledge of.

And here you avoid addressing an issue that obviously embarasses you, Scott.

Your problems are well documented.

So are you's, Scott. That's the nature of a forum where almost all
transactions are logged.

Better people than I have tried
to show you the errors of your ways and failed.

Given the low-life you brag about hanging with Scott (Phillips, Yustabe are
well-documented), I just might be the best person who ever tried to show you
the error of your ways.

You are incorrigible.

...as if you aren't, Scott.

Since you seem to have run out of everything but lame IKWYABWAI, I'm
probably not going to respond to your next whiney post.

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:


In article . net,
trotsky wrote:

You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are.


Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.


Why is it always up to me? If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.

As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:vNcnb.43036$gi2.6225@fed1read01
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Joe Duffy" wrote in message

In article 65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01,
ScottW wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
*originally* set the bar for personal insults.

Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own
behavior. Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can
drag you into the pit with him because you have no moral fiber of
your own. I'm impressed.


Bingo.

It's not a matter of me dragging the Middiot back down, but that the
Middiot aspires to heights that he can't sustain. Scott is very
confused, and thinks that down is up and vice-versa.

Nice admission that you set the standard of moral decay around here.

I'm convinced you are so confused Scott, that this ISN'T a lie, merely an
untruth.

Proof: he brags about supping with Phillips
and Yustabe with a short spoon.

Yup, excellent company.

Yup, libelers, liars and perverts. You're known by the company you keep,
Scott.

Well mannered and very pleasant.

If you call Phillip's dozens of claims that I'm a "pedophile" good
manners...

If you call's Yustabe's reveling in pedophilia and murder "pleasant"...

....then these are the guys for you, Scott.

I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If
that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

Gregipus Obtusicus has disconnected his barely functioning brain
cell.

You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?

I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....

Still waitin' for those google references.

Waitin' is your forte, so go with that.

Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
or that Nate committed suicide?

You claimed this:

Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.

How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.

I don't even know whose quotes those are.

If you really don't, it's because you can't read very well.

Until you can properly
attribute them, I'll have to assume *you're* the liar.

What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
out-stupid Scottie.

In article , trotsky
wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:


In article . net,
trotsky wrote:

You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.



Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?


Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are.


Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.


Why is it always up to me?

Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
get as far as agreeing to proposals.

If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.

Lots of people know lots you don't know.

As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.

That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
just about anything.

And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

You are incorrigible.

..as if you aren't, Scott.

Since you seem to have run out of everything but lame IKWYABWAI, I'm
probably not going to respond to your next whiney post.



Frame it. The most obvious hypocrisy ever uttered.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If
that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

Ooops, no response. Could you actually be embarrassed by the facts?

ScottW

"trotsky" wrote in message
...

As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.

Why not? You said anything I could say would be insulting to you.
Arny is the most obvious hypocrite, but you are least self aware.

ScottW

Scottie said:

I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If
that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

Ooops, no response. Could you actually be embarrassed by the facts?

Maybe you can get a certain person to share The Recording with you.

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:


Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.


Why is it always up to me?


Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
get as far as agreeing to proposals.


Which "proposal" are you talking about? I'm bored with Star Trek
references, frankly.


If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.


Lots of people know lots you don't know.


That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
knowledge.


As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.


That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
just about anything.


Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
ask me.


And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.


That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.

ScottW wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.


Why not? You said anything I could say would be insulting to you.


I'm offended by stupidity, sure.


Arny is the most obvious hypocrite, but you are least self aware.


Kewl, now do you.

George M. Middius wrote:

Gregipus Obtusicus has disconnected his barely functioning brain
cell.


You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?


I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....



Still waitin' for those google references.


Waitin' is your forte, so go with that.


Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
or that Nate committed suicide?


You claimed this:


Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.


How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.



I don't even know whose quotes those are.


If you really don't, it's because you can't read very well.


Until you can properly
attribute them, I'll have to assume *you're* the liar.


What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
out-stupid Scottie.


I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
insane, that's something different.

Gregibull****pus whined:

And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.

That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.

The Gregipus Codex is going to rival the Krooglish-to-human
translation module soon. Just a quick note: In human language,
bull**** means "something no reasonable person would accept to be
true". Now tell us what it means it your dialect.

BTW, have you updated your personal definition of "to lie" yet? Take
as long as you mother****ing need, you're done with forks to spare,
etc.

trotsky said:

What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
out-stupid Scottie.

I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
insane, that's something different.

If that's your story, fine. But that was the only text you posted in
that message. What's the matter -- unable to use Google to look up a
unique post? Only Krooger is that stupid, at least as far as we know.
I'll give you a hint -- you made that post before 01/01/01.

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there
have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.


Why not? You said anything I could say would be insulting to you.


I'm offended by stupidity, sure.

How does it feel to be self-offending?


Arny is the most obvious hypocrite, but you are least self aware.

Kewl, now do you.

I'm one of those people you despise because you failed at attempting to
be like me.

Don't deny it. Else, why did you go to college?

ScottW

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


trotsky said:

What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
out-stupid Scottie.

I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
insane, that's something different.

If that's your story, fine.

What is fine about it? It's another lame Trotsky rationalization for his
hypocrisy. Ranks right in there with "he never attacks first but if he did,
he had a reason".
In fact, a statement like that from somebody else would be ripped by Trots
for no backbone. Yet he is himself, an invertebrate.

ScottW

In article , trotsky
wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:


Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.


Why is it always up to me?


Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
get as far as agreeing to proposals.


Which "proposal" are you talking about?

There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.

I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.

Why bring it up, then?

If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.


Lots of people know lots you don't know.


That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
knowledge.

There's that world-class paraphrasing again.

As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.


That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
just about anything.


Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
ask me.

And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
routine. Talk about arrested development...

And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.


That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.

It's true.