Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #83765 > unrolled thread

[ot] Bernie or Donald ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 03:38 -0700
    Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 10:22 -0400
      Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 08:06 -0700
        Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 11:23 -0400
          Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:24 -0700
            Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:31 -0700
            Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 21:58 -0400
              Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-14 06:52 +0000
                Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 00:34 -0700
                Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-03-16 08:00 -0500
                Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-03-16 08:16 -0500
                  Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 07:41 -0600
                  Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 09:00 -0400
      Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 11:29 -0500
        Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-13 23:31 +0100
          Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 15:47 -0700
            Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-14 01:21 +0100
              Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-13 17:50 -0700
                Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-14 01:14 +0000
                  Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 00:15 -0700
                    Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 00:34 -0800
                    Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 01:46 -0700
                      Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 05:12 -0700
                        Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 06:21 -0700
                          Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 06:40 -0700
    Re: [ot] Bernie or Donald ? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-13 16:31 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#83765 — [ot] Bernie or Donald ?

Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as this is partially scary partially fun
It would be maybe interesting to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-) so what do you think on present candidates?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#83776

On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
> Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as this is partially scary partially fun
> It would be maybe interesting to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-) so what do you think on present candidates?
> 

I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to talk
politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are millions of
them.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83777

W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 15:22:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Jerry Stuckle napisał:
> On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
> > Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as this is partially scary partially fun
> > It would be maybe interesting to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-) so what do you think on present candidates?
> > 
> 
> I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to talk
> politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are millions of
> them.
> 
its offtopic but
1) there is not good if offtopic flods the whole 
group (like being 50% of whole matter), but there
is also not good if offtopics/digression dry to 
zero, 
(Recently as hodgin moves away i dont see a 
problem of offtopic flods - i think a level of 10%
oftopics is good level, speaking of hard offtopics 
like here, if talking about coding related it 
could be more imo)

2) there is also a matter of quality - stiffly boring 
and lame ontopics may and are sometimes more unlikely
to see than a bit of interesting offtopic

so in short this is a mater of amount and quality
and here politics could be a potential fun ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83779

On 3/13/2016 11:06 AM, fir wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 15:22:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Jerry Stuckle napisał:
>> On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
>>> Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as this is partially scary partially fun
>>> It would be maybe interesting to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-) so what do you think on present candidates?
>>>
>>
>> I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to talk
>> politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are millions of
>> them.
>>
> its offtopic but

There is no BUT...

> 1) there is not good if offtopic flods the whole 
> group (like being 50% of whole matter), but there
> is also not good if offtopics/digression dry to 
> zero,

In YOUR opinion.  I find the on-topic discussions here quite interesting.

> (Recently as hodgin moves away i dont see a 
> problem of offtopic flods - i think a level of 10%
> oftopics is good level, speaking of hard offtopics 
> like here, if talking about coding related it 
> could be more imo)
> 

Nobody gives a shit what YOU think.

> 2) there is also a matter of quality - stiffly boring 
> and lame ontopics may and are sometimes more unlikely
> to see than a bit of interesting offtopic
>

Yes, and you have proven to have no idea what high quality is.

> so in short this is a mater of amount and quality
> and here politics could be a potential fun ;-)
> 

And quite frankly, I don't think anyone here gives a shit what you
think.  It's off topic and you are an arsehole.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83786

well i dont thank you for another spasmatic donkey crap
maker answer 
I was surprised to see it again, i think i know what i 
can expect now 

Still i dont know jerry why i partially like you, Youre 
abominable bore, fully alogical  idiot and crap maker 
but it is so surprising in some moments that im partially 
disarmed ;-8
(but dont think to much on it, still youre making crap
and dont qualify to talk)

W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 16:23:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Jerry Stuckle napisał:
> On 3/13/2016 11:06 AM, fir wrote:
> > W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 15:22:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Jerry Stuckle napisał:
> >> On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
> >>> Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as this is partially scary partially fun
> >>> It would be maybe interesting to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-) so what do you think on present candidates?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to talk
> >> politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are millions of
> >> them.
> >>
> > its offtopic but
> 
> There is no BUT...
> 
> > 1) there is not good if offtopic flods the whole 
> > group (like being 50% of whole matter), but there
> > is also not good if offtopics/digression dry to 
> > zero,
> 
> In YOUR opinion.  I find the on-topic discussions here quite interesting.
> 
> > (Recently as hodgin moves away i dont see a 
> > problem of offtopic flods - i think a level of 10%
> > oftopics is good level, speaking of hard offtopics 
> > like here, if talking about coding related it 
> > could be more imo)
> > 
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what YOU think.
> 
> > 2) there is also a matter of quality - stiffly boring 
> > and lame ontopics may and are sometimes more unlikely
> > to see than a bit of interesting offtopic
> >
> 
> Yes, and you have proven to have no idea what high quality is.
> 
> > so in short this is a mater of amount and quality
> > and here politics could be a potential fun ;-)
> > 
> 
> And quite frankly, I don't think anyone here gives a shit what you
> think.  It's off topic and you are an arsehole.
> 
> -- 
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> jstucklex@attglobal.net
> ==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83789

W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 17:24:53 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> 
> Still i dont know jerry why i partially like you, Youre 

i must liker oryginals or what, for example i symaptisized 
with hodgin for its 'unusuality' but when he started to put
to much trash into my ears (or eyes) it was to much for me
(i dont accept to much timewaste, talk should be sane and
constructive/usefull - we live to short to be feeded with 
some nonsense trash (or how to say that))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83838

On 3/13/2016 12:24 PM, fir wrote:
> well i dont thank you for another spasmatic donkey crap
> maker answer 
> I was surprised to see it again, i think i know what i 
> can expect now 
> 

Just what you get from a bullshit question.

> Still i dont know jerry why i partially like you, Youre 
> abominable bore, fully alogical  idiot and crap maker 
> but it is so surprising in some moments that im partially 
> disarmed ;-8
> (but dont think to much on it, still youre making crap
> and dont qualify to talk)
> 

And you're a complete arsehole - as so many posts of yours have shown.

But you're the one not "qualified to talk".  You should read the charter
of this newsgroup.  Your posts are totally off-topic in this newsgroup.

But then arseholes like you don't care about that.  You're egos are too big.

> W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 16:23:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Jerry Stuckle napisał:
>> On 3/13/2016 11:06 AM, fir wrote:
>>> W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 15:22:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Jerry Stuckle napisał:
>>>> On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
>>>>> Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as this is partially scary partially fun
>>>>> It would be maybe interesting to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-) so what do you think on present candidates?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to talk
>>>> politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are millions of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>> its offtopic but
>>
>> There is no BUT...
>>
>>> 1) there is not good if offtopic flods the whole 
>>> group (like being 50% of whole matter), but there
>>> is also not good if offtopics/digression dry to 
>>> zero,
>>
>> In YOUR opinion.  I find the on-topic discussions here quite interesting.
>>
>>> (Recently as hodgin moves away i dont see a 
>>> problem of offtopic flods - i think a level of 10%
>>> oftopics is good level, speaking of hard offtopics 
>>> like here, if talking about coding related it 
>>> could be more imo)
>>>
>>
>> Nobody gives a shit what YOU think.
>>
>>> 2) there is also a matter of quality - stiffly boring 
>>> and lame ontopics may and are sometimes more unlikely
>>> to see than a bit of interesting offtopic
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and you have proven to have no idea what high quality is.
>>
>>> so in short this is a mater of amount and quality
>>> and here politics could be a potential fun ;-)
>>>
>>
>> And quite frankly, I don't think anyone here gives a shit what you
>> think.  It's off topic and you are an arsehole.
>>
>> -- 
>> ==================
>> Remove the "x" from my email address
>> Jerry Stuckle
>> jstucklex@attglobal.net
>> ==================
> 

And you need to learn to trim *legal* signatures.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83844

On 14/03/16 01:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 3/13/2016 12:24 PM, fir wrote:
>> well i dont thank you for another spasmatic donkey crap
>> maker answer
>> I was surprised to see it again, i think i know what i
>> can expect now
>>
>
> Just what you get from a bullshit question.
>
>> Still i dont know jerry why i partially like you, Youre
>> abominable bore, fully alogical  idiot and crap maker
>> but it is so surprising in some moments that im partially
>> disarmed ;-8
>> (but dont think to much on it, still youre making crap
>> and dont qualify to talk)
>>
>
> And you're a complete arsehole - as so many posts of yours have shown.
>
> But you're the one not "qualified to talk".  You should read the charter
> of this newsgroup.

The comp.lang.c newsgroup has no charter. It pre-dates charters. If you 
must argue with idiots, telling them to do something idiotic is perhaps 
not the best way to proceed.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83847

W dniu poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 07:52:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał:
> On 14/03/16 01:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > On 3/13/2016 12:24 PM, fir wrote:
> >> well i dont thank you for another spasmatic donkey crap
> >> maker answer
> >> I was surprised to see it again, i think i know what i
> >> can expect now
> >>
> >
> > Just what you get from a bullshit question.
> >
> >> Still i dont know jerry why i partially like you, Youre
> >> abominable bore, fully alogical  idiot and crap maker
> >> but it is so surprising in some moments that im partially
> >> disarmed ;-8
> >> (but dont think to much on it, still youre making crap
> >> and dont qualify to talk)
> >>
> >
> > And you're a complete arsehole - as so many posts of yours have shown.
> >
> > But you're the one not "qualified to talk".  You should read the charter
> > of this newsgroup.
> 
> The comp.lang.c newsgroup has no charter. It pre-dates charters. If you 
> must argue with idiots, telling them to do something idiotic is perhaps 
> not the best way to proceed.
> 
poor richard simulates intellectual anger but it rather sounds as a small fart (well at least it is my opinion;-) you should really drop the stiffy phrases and say something fresh if you want to act as a person who says something, 

(fir, the fresh maker)
you get bored me, i go

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84087

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:nc5msr$7vt$1@dont-email.me...
> On 14/03/16 01:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 3/13/2016 12:24 PM, fir wrote:
>>> well i dont thank you for another spasmatic donkey crap
>>> maker answer
>>> I was surprised to see it again, i think i know what i
>>> can expect now
>>>
>>
>> Just what you get from a bullshit question.
>>
>>> Still i dont know jerry why i partially like you, Youre
>>> abominable bore, fully alogical  idiot and crap maker
>>> but it is so surprising in some moments that im partially
>>> disarmed ;-8
>>> (but dont think to much on it, still youre making crap
>>> and dont qualify to talk)
>>>
>>
>> And you're a complete arsehole - as so many posts of yours have shown.
>>
>> But you're the one not "qualified to talk".  You should read the charter
>> of this newsgroup.
>
> The comp.lang.c newsgroup has no charter. It pre-dates charters. If you 
> must argue with idiots, telling them to do something idiotic is perhaps 
> not the best way to proceed.

    lol I see not much changes... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84088

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:nc5msr$7vt$1@dont-email.me...

> The comp.lang.c newsgroup has no charter. It pre-dates charters.

    There is the C faqs but I guess that's not a "charter". Do any usenet 
groups have "charters"? I am not sure what is meant by that. There are pages 
about how to ask questions the smart way. <shrug>

[...]

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84090

"Bill Cunningham" wrote:

> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message 
> news:nc5msr$7vt$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> The comp.lang.c newsgroup has no charter. It pre-dates charters.
>
>    There is the C faqs but I guess that's not a "charter". Do any usenet 
> groups have "charters"? I am not sure what is meant by that. There are 
> pages about how to ask questions the smart way. <shrug>

Yes, there really are charters. Here's a link to some of the computer 
groups.

http://www.livinginternet.com/u/mod_charter_or_FAQ/comp/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84091

On 3/16/2016 9:16 AM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message 
> news:nc5msr$7vt$1@dont-email.me...
> 
>> The comp.lang.c newsgroup has no charter. It pre-dates charters.
> 
>     There is the C faqs but I guess that's not a "charter". Do any usenet 
> groups have "charters"? I am not sure what is meant by that. There are pages 
> about how to ask questions the smart way. <shrug>
> 
> [...]
> 
> Bill
> 
> 

Yes, most usenet groups have charters.  When this newsgroup was started
(early 80's?  It's been so long ago I've forgotten and I didn't get
involved in this newsgroup until mid-80's), some guys put together an
FAQ.  We really didn't need a charter at the time because people behaved
themselves.  But as some swayed off topic, there was an attempt to
include guidelines on what was on and off topic in the FAQs.

I guess I thought that would have evolved into a charter for the group
when that became required for new groups, but I guess not.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83787

On 13-Mar-16 09:22, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
>> Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of
>> flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times
>> (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as
>> this is partially scary partially fun It would be maybe interesting
>> to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-)
>> so what do you think on present candidates?
> 
> I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to
> talk politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are
> millions of them.

Agreed; there is some tolerance (how much is debatable) for threads that
start on-topic and then wander off, but it's another thing entirely for
a thread to _start_ off-topic, especially when done deliberately.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83825

On 13/03/16 17:29, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 13-Mar-16 09:22, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
>>> Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of
>>> flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times
>>> (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as
>>> this is partially scary partially fun It would be maybe interesting
>>> to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-)
>>> so what do you think on present candidates?
>>
>> I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to
>> talk politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are
>> millions of them.
>
> Agreed; there is some tolerance (how much is debatable) for threads that
> start on-topic and then wander off, but it's another thing entirely for
> a thread to _start_ off-topic, especially when done deliberately.
>

And of all the off-topic things to discuss, I think a discussion about 
such a volatile issue as American presidential elections is perhaps the 
worst (well ahead of religion).  Most people are going to keep quiet 
about their opinions - and the ones that speak the loudest are likely to 
be the ones that have least knowledge or understanding.  Those that do 
give strong opinions are going to open themselves to judgement by 
others.  After all, the votes in the USA are usually split roughly 
half-in-half between Republican and Democrat.  And a large proportion of 
this group's regulars are Americans.  So no matter who expresses an 
opinion, you are going to get a fair number of people here thinking that 
that person is a fundamentally wrong about such an important thing as 
running a country.  That is not going to be a good thing for the social 
environment of this group!

If you (fir) want to discuss politics in a somewhat technical 
environment, try sci.electronics.design - most of the threads there are 
off-topic, and politics is discussed enthusiastically (not knowledgeably 
or politely, but you can't have everything).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83826

W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 23:31:50 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał:
> On 13/03/16 17:29, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > On 13-Mar-16 09:22, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> On 3/13/2016 6:38 AM, fir wrote:
> >>> Im not much involved in politics, treating this as a some kind of
> >>> flying circus, I was usually get bored by it though recent times
> >>> (like year or so) i watch quite a good dose of all this news as
> >>> this is partially scary partially fun It would be maybe interesting
> >>> to hear some discussion on politics as a seasonal entertainment ;-)
> >>> so what do you think on present candidates?
> >>
> >> I think it's totally off topic in this newsgroup.  If you want to
> >> talk politics, find a political newsgroup or website.  There are
> >> millions of them.
> >
> > Agreed; there is some tolerance (how much is debatable) for threads that
> > start on-topic and then wander off, but it's another thing entirely for
> > a thread to _start_ off-topic, especially when done deliberately.
> >
> 
> And of all the off-topic things to discuss, I think a discussion about 
> such a volatile issue as American presidential elections is perhaps the 
> worst (well ahead of religion).  Most people are going to keep quiet 
> about their opinions - and the ones that speak the loudest are likely to 
> be the ones that have least knowledge or understanding.  Those that do 
> give strong opinions are going to open themselves to judgement by 
> others.  After all, the votes in the USA are usually split roughly 
> half-in-half between Republican and Democrat.  And a large proportion of 
> this group's regulars are Americans.  So no matter who expresses an 
> opinion, you are going to get a fair number of people here thinking that 
> that person is a fundamentally wrong about such an important thing as 
> running a country.  That is not going to be a good thing for the social 
> environment of this group!
> 
> If you (fir) want to discuss politics in a somewhat technical 
> environment, try sci.electronics.design - most of the threads there are 
> off-topic, and politics is discussed enthusiastically (not knowledgeably 
> or politely, but you can't have everything).

dont give any text for me to signing lama
as you maybe know what i think on it ;-)
were not n such relations so speak for yourself especially that things you sey are not much intelligent i am afraid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83832

On 13/03/16 23:47, fir wrote:

> dont give any text for me to signing lama as you maybe know what i
> think on it ;-) were not n such relations so speak for yourself
> especially that things you sey are not much intelligent i am afraid
>

I have /no/ idea what you are trying to say here - but you seem to be 
smiling, and it's always good to smile :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83834

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 13/03/16 23:47, fir wrote:
>> dont give any text for me to signing lama as you maybe know what i
>> think on it ;-) were not n such relations so speak for yourself
>> especially that things you sey are not much intelligent i am afraid
>
> I have /no/ idea what you are trying to say here - but you seem to be 
> smiling, and it's always good to smile :-)

David, please don't feed the troll.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83836

In article <lnk2l5lw6y.fsf@kst-u.example.com>,
Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 13/03/16 23:47, fir wrote:
>>> dont give any text for me to signing lama as you maybe know what i
>>> think on it ;-) were not n such relations so speak for yourself
>>> especially that things you sey are not much intelligent i am afraid
>>
>> I have /no/ idea what you are trying to say here - but you seem to be 
>> smiling, and it's always good to smile :-)
>
>David, please don't feed the troll.

The leader of CLC has spoken.  Please pay heed.

-- 
"That's the eternal flame."[7] The single became another worldwide hit.[8]

Hoffs was actually naked when she recorded the song, after being convinced
by Sigerson that Olivia Newton-John got her amazing performances by
recording everything while naked.[9]

(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bangles)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83845

W dniu poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 02:14:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał:
> In article <lnk2l5lw6y.fsf@kst-u.example.com>,
> Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >> On 13/03/16 23:47, fir wrote:
> >>> dont give any text for me to signing lama as you maybe know what i
> >>> think on it ;-) were not n such relations so speak for yourself
> >>> especially that things you sey are not much intelligent i am afraid
> >>
> >> I have /no/ idea what you are trying to say here - but you seem to be 
> >> smiling, and it's always good to smile :-)
> >
> >David, please don't feed the troll.
> 
> The leader of CLC has spoken.  Please pay heed.
> 
phantasmal delusional leader trol insults again 
- but i began to got  some idea
(will tell if it evolve as its 
a crunchy thing)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web