Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #327971 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-23 12:10 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-30 07:55 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:10 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:14 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 14:35 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:58 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:16 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:46 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:53 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:57 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 16:11 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 23:46 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 21:10 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 21:14 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 21:58 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 20:57 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 21:55 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 14:40 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:53 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 15:34 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:43 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 20:52 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 18:06 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 12:17 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 23:03 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 16:27 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 23:41 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 16:57 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 00:11 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 17:17 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 00:25 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 17:47 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 12:54 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 10:36 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 18:23 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 14:32 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 18:46 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 16:45 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:08 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 11:45 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 14:54 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 19:18 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 15:23 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 19:34 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 15:37 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 19:58 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:01 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 20:11 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:11 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 20:27 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:27 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 20:38 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:47 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:02 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:08 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:31 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:33 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:51 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 18:07 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 22:28 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:17 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:32 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:20 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 17:28 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:37 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:21 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:15 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:14 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:23 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:13 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 17:25 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:30 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 20:06 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:12 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:22 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:11 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:13 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:44 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 00:39 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:42 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-25 20:58 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:53 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:46 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:56 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 23:57 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 04:46 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 22:22 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 05:43 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:05 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 21:11 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 04:48 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 22:27 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 05:51 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:05 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:47 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:10 -0700
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-27 22:46 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-10-29 00:31 +0000
Re: OT: OK, what changed? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-29 07:10 -0500
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-29 08:36 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-29 14:46 +0100
Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-29 09:41 -0400
Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:55 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsa.kf93a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328089 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/23/15, 3:43 PM, in article ads.kb923@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>> After a month rest are you better able to understand? >>>>> >>>>> Peter Köhlmann: >>>>> ----- >>>>> | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it >>>>> | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no >>>>> | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license >>>>> | holders would not allow this. >>>>> BSD allows such sheenigans >>>>> ----- >>>>> The BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow" this. >>>>> >>>>> Message-ID: l98q2g$nj1$1@dont-email.me >>>>> <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Wrong thread. >>> >>> This is the exact right thread I meant to ask the question in. The fact it >>> references another is not in question. But after a month of relaxing from >>> your humiliation of yourself do you understand the quote style? >> >> What are you babbling about? > > The quote, above, which you claimed was done in a way that you found > "completely wacky, intentionally deceptive and annoying, and unlike anything > ever seen from a normal human." > The "quote above" was completely unrelated to the post you responded to, which was about you being plonked for 30 days. That was in a completely different thread. But that didn't stop you babbling about something else entirely. > The question is if you have figured out how to actually read such a quote > yet? > The fact that someone would have to "figure out how to actually read such a quote" shows its "intentionally deceptive and annoying" properties to be self-evident. > But you knew that and are just dodging. > Whatever you say, Marshal Dillon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2512776.61525%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328164 |
On 10/24/15, 11:06 AM, in article fsa.kf93a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 10/23/15, 3:43 PM, in article ads.kb923@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> After a month rest are you better able to understand? >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Köhlmann: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it >>>>>> | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no >>>>>> | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license >>>>>> | holders would not allow this. >>>>>> BSD allows such sheenigans >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> The BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow" this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Message-ID: l98q2g$nj1$1@dont-email.me >>>>>> <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv> >>>>>> >>>>> ... >> The question is if you have figured out how to actually read such a quote >> yet? > > The fact that someone would have to "figure out how to actually read such > a quote" shows its "intentionally deceptive and annoying" properties to be > self-evident. LOL! No reasonable person would have to. I mean, really, your "logic" there is like my saying I cannot figure out what your above sentence means so thus YOU must be in the wrong. Completely idiotic of you. ... -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsmgldo0.kig8@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328166 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/24/15, 11:06 AM, in article fsa.kf93a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 10/23/15, 3:43 PM, in article ads.kb923@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>> After a month rest are you better able to understand? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann: >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it >>>>>>> | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no >>>>>>> | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license >>>>>>> | holders would not allow this. >>>>>>> BSD allows such sheenigans >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> The BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow" this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Message-ID: l98q2g$nj1$1@dont-email.me >>>>>>> <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > ... >>> The question is if you have figured out how to actually read such a quote >>> yet? >> >> The fact that someone would have to "figure out how to actually read such >> a quote" shows its "intentionally deceptive and annoying" properties to be >> self-evident. > > LOL! No reasonable person would have to. I mean, really, your "logic" there > is like my saying I cannot figure out what your above sentence means so thus > YOU must be in the wrong. > > Completely idiotic of you. > ... Why did you ask if I had "figured out how to actually read such a quote yet" if you did not yourself recognize just how non-standard your quotation style was? But of course you recognized that: The obfuscation and lack attribution were by design, and hence "intentionally deceptive and annoying."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25161FE.6156C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328189 |
On 10/24/15, 4:03 PM, in article fsmgldo0.kig8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 10/24/15, 11:06 AM, in article fsa.kf93a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/23/15, 3:43 PM, in article ads.kb923@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>>>> After a month rest are you better able to understand? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann: >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it >>>>>>>> | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no >>>>>>>> | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license >>>>>>>> | holders would not allow this. >>>>>>>> BSD allows such sheenigans >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> The BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow" this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Message-ID: l98q2g$nj1$1@dont-email.me >>>>>>>> <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> ... >>>> The question is if you have figured out how to actually read such a quote >>>> yet? >>> >>> The fact that someone would have to "figure out how to actually read such >>> a quote" shows its "intentionally deceptive and annoying" properties to be >>> self-evident. >> >> LOL! No reasonable person would have to. I mean, really, your "logic" there >> is like my saying I cannot figure out what your above sentence means so thus >> YOU must be in the wrong. >> >> Completely idiotic of you. >> ... > > Why did you ask if I had "figured out how to actually read such a > quote yet" if you did not yourself recognize just how non-standard your > quotation style was? But of course you recognized that: The obfuscation > and lack attribution were by design, and hence "intentionally deceptive > and annoying." > 1) I posted a quote. 2) You admitted you were so illiterate you thought it was "intentionally deceptive and annoying." 3) You stopped responding to me for a month. 4) When you started I asked if during that time you had figured out how to read a simple quote without such illiteracy. 5) You claim this proves your illiterate claim was right. That answers the question: you are functionally illiterate still. Thank you! -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 23:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsadk9.aef@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328191 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/24/15, 4:03 PM, in article fsmgldo0.kig8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 10/24/15, 11:06 AM, in article fsa.kf93a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/23/15, 3:43 PM, in article ads.kb923@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> After a month rest are you better able to understand? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann: >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it >>>>>>>>> | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no >>>>>>>>> | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license >>>>>>>>> | holders would not allow this. >>>>>>>>> BSD allows such sheenigans >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> The BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow" this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Message-ID: l98q2g$nj1$1@dont-email.me >>>>>>>>> <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> ... >>>>> The question is if you have figured out how to actually read such a quote >>>>> yet? >>>> >>>> The fact that someone would have to "figure out how to actually read such >>>> a quote" shows its "intentionally deceptive and annoying" properties to be >>>> self-evident. >>> >>> LOL! No reasonable person would have to. I mean, really, your "logic" there >>> is like my saying I cannot figure out what your above sentence means so thus >>> YOU must be in the wrong. >>> >>> Completely idiotic of you. >>> ... >> >> Why did you ask if I had "figured out how to actually read such a >> quote yet" if you did not yourself recognize just how non-standard your >> quotation style was? But of course you recognized that: The obfuscation >> and lack attribution were by design, and hence "intentionally deceptive >> and annoying." >> > > 1) I posted a quote. One might ask why you posted that irrelevant quote, but that would surely lead to another of your lie-filled circuses, so I'll let it go. > 2) You admitted you were so illiterate you thought it was > "intentionally deceptive and annoying." Where do I "admit that I am illiterate"? Oh you are just lying again. Typical Snit. > 3) You stopped responding to me for a month. You were plonked for a month for your behavior in a completely separate thread that had nothing to do with that quote. > 4) When you started I asked if during that time you had figured out > how to read a simple quote without such illiteracy. You asked this irrelevant question in reply to a post noting that you had been plonked for a month because of your behavior in a thread that had nothing to do with that quote that you are obsessed with. > 5) You claim this proves your illiterate claim was right. > I think the word "illiterate" could be applied to the above sentence, so I won't bother trying to decypher your lie, but whatever it is you are trying to say in #5 there, I'll just go ahead and ask for proof -- not expecting ever to see it, of course. > That answers the question: you are functionally illiterate still. > > Thank you! > So you are still lost. OK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25168FA.61574%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328192 |
On 10/24/15, 4:41 PM, in article fsadk9.aef@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> 1) I posted a quote. > > One might ask why you posted that irrelevant quote, but that would surely > lead to another of your lie-filled circuses, so I'll let it go. > >> 2) You admitted you were so illiterate you thought it was >> "intentionally deceptive and annoying." > > Where do I "admit that I am illiterate"? Oh you are just lying again. > Typical Snit. > >> 3) You stopped responding to me for a month. > > You were plonked for a month for your behavior in a completely separate > thread that had nothing to do with that quote. > >> 4) When you started I asked if during that time you had figured out >> how to read a simple quote without such illiteracy. > > You asked this irrelevant question in reply to a post noting that > you had been plonked for a month because of your behavior in a thread > that had nothing to do with that quote that you are obsessed with. > >> 5) You claim this proves your illiterate claim was right. >> > > I think the word "illiterate" could be applied to the above sentence, so > I won't bother trying to decypher your lie, but whatever it is you are > trying to say in #5 there, I'll just go ahead and ask for proof -- > not expecting ever to see it, of course. > >> That answers the question: you are functionally illiterate still. >> >> Thank you! >> > > So you are still lost. OK. Before you could not understand a quote so I asked if you now could. You said this proves the quote was hard to understand - demonstrating your functional illiteracy. Not a hard concept but clearly over your heard. Not worth 1000 posts just to try to get you to understand what you have been apparently trying for a month to do. And failing. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 00:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsal93.ao@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328195 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/24/15, 4:41 PM, in article fsadk9.aef@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> 1) I posted a quote. >> >> One might ask why you posted that irrelevant quote, but that would surely >> lead to another of your lie-filled circuses, so I'll let it go. >> >>> 2) You admitted you were so illiterate you thought it was >>> "intentionally deceptive and annoying." >> >> Where do I "admit that I am illiterate"? Oh you are just lying again. >> Typical Snit. >> >>> 3) You stopped responding to me for a month. >> >> You were plonked for a month for your behavior in a completely separate >> thread that had nothing to do with that quote. >> >>> 4) When you started I asked if during that time you had figured out >>> how to read a simple quote without such illiteracy. >> >> You asked this irrelevant question in reply to a post noting that >> you had been plonked for a month because of your behavior in a thread >> that had nothing to do with that quote that you are obsessed with. >> >>> 5) You claim this proves your illiterate claim was right. >>> >> >> I think the word "illiterate" could be applied to the above sentence, so >> I won't bother trying to decypher your lie, but whatever it is you are >> trying to say in #5 there, I'll just go ahead and ask for proof -- >> not expecting ever to see it, of course. >> >>> That answers the question: you are functionally illiterate still. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >> >> So you are still lost. OK. > > > Before you could not understand a quote so I asked if you now could. You > said this proves the quote was hard to understand - demonstrating your > functional illiteracy. > So let me get this straight. Your inability to structure a quote in a way that does not obscure its attribution is supposed to reflect on the reader's literacy? What kink of jackass school would hire you as a teacher? > Not a hard concept but clearly over your heard. Not worth 1000 posts just to > try to get you to understand what you have been apparently trying for a > month to do. And failing. > Your need for a thousand posts to convey a single idea indicates that I am illiterate? You are more lost than I feared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2516DB6.61582%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328199 |
On 10/24/15, 5:11 PM, in article fsal93.ao@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Before you could not understand a quote so I asked if you now could. You >> said this proves the quote was hard to understand - demonstrating your >> functional illiteracy. >> > > So let me get this straight. I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. > Your inability to structure a quote > in a way that does not obscure its attribution is supposed to reflect > on the reader's literacy? What kink of jackass school would hire you > as a teacher? > >> Not a hard concept but clearly over your heard. Not worth 1000 posts just to >> try to get you to understand what you have been apparently trying for a >> month to do. And failing. >> > > Your need for a thousand posts to convey a single idea indicates that I > am illiterate? You are more lost than I feared. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fa39folea.kig@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328200 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/24/15, 5:11 PM, in article fsal93.ao@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> Before you could not understand a quote so I asked if you now could. You >>> said this proves the quote was hard to understand - demonstrating your >>> functional illiteracy. >>> >> >> So let me get this straight. > > I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just > demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. > So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. >> Your inability to structure a quote >> in a way that does not obscure its attribution is supposed to reflect >> on the reader's literacy? What kink of jackass school would hire you >> as a teacher? >> >>> Not a hard concept but clearly over your heard. Not worth 1000 posts just to >>> try to get you to understand what you have been apparently trying for a >>> month to do. And failing. >>> >> >> Your need for a thousand posts to convey a single idea indicates that I >> am illiterate? You are more lost than I feared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 17:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25174B2.61589%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328202 |
On 10/24/15, 5:25 PM, in article fa39folea.kig@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 10/24/15, 5:11 PM, in article fsal93.ao@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> Before you could not understand a quote so I asked if you now could. You
>>>> said this proves the quote was hard to understand - demonstrating your
>>>> functional illiteracy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So let me get this straight.
>>
>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>
>
> So you have no argument.
Argument about what? I have merely noted your demonstration of functional
illiteracy dealing with how you cannot figure out the following quote is
quoting Peter. Nothing to argue about.
Peter Köhlmann <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv>:
-----
| For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it
| off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no
| example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license
| holders would not allow this.
BSD allows such sheenigans
-----
Of course, the BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow"
this, so Peter was just demonstrating HIS ignorance. You do not speak of
that, though. Apparently you sympathize with such ignorance.
...
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 12:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0j1c5$897$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #328202 |
On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >> > > So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2526128.6162A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328265 |
On 10/25/15, 9:54 AM, in article n0j1c5$897$1@dont-email.me, "DFS"
<nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>
>>
>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it.
>
>
> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
> others.
>
>
I merely note their lack of argument. In this case Owl is trying to say that
this quote was confusing to him:
Peter Köhlmann <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv>:
-----
| For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it
| off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no
| example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license
| holders would not allow this.
BSD allows such sheenigans
-----
He could not figure out I was quoting Peter (and Peter was quoting someone
else, who is not relevant). This was a demonstration of functional
illiteracy by Owl (reading and writing skills that are inadequate).
I then asked him if, after a month to reflect, he had been able to figure it
out. He then demonstrated functional illiteracy again by noting he thought
my merely asking him was a sign *I* thought the quote was somehow flawed. It
is like asking a 3 year old if they have figured out that 2+2=4. If the 3
year old has not figured that out they are finding the math to be too hard,
it does not mean the math is wrong!
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsdcmbv93.a06@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328265 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >>> >> >> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. > > > That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and > others. > And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without full disclosure. For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 14:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0j74t$6fu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #328306 |
On 10/25/2015 2:23 PM, owl wrote: > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >>>> >>> >>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. >> >> >> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and >> others. >> > > And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without > full disclosure. Liar. > For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer > on occasion to keep my claws sharp. Horseshit. Weeks of pwnage leading up to a "30-day plonk", then you're immediately back at it, guns blazing, 14 posts in two days (and all 9 you made yesterday) dedicated to your pwner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsadl93.afae@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328310 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 10/25/2015 2:23 PM, owl wrote: >> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. >>> >>> >>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and >>> others. >>> >> >> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without >> full disclosure. > > Liar. > LOL. Apparently you forget that I rescued the two of you from mutual assured destruction some months ago. > >> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer >> on occasion to keep my claws sharp. > > Horseshit. Weeks of pwnage leading up to a "30-day plonk", then you're > immediately back at it, guns blazing, Dude, you said "guns"... :) http://i.imgur.com/B4KAbQB.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 16:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0jeu4$mtb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #328317 |
On 10/25/2015 2:46 PM, owl wrote: > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> On 10/25/2015 2:23 PM, owl wrote: >>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and >>>> others. >>>> >>> >>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without >>> full disclosure. >> >> Liar. >> > > LOL. Apparently you forget that I rescued the two of you from mutual > assured destruction some months ago. You're living a life of delusion. See the last 2 words at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C6W965q5XOU/xu3xANWMjpMJ >>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer >>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp. >> >> Horseshit. Weeks of pwnage leading up to a "30-day plonk", then you're >> immediately back at it, guns blazing, > > Dude, you said "guns"... :) > http://i.imgur.com/B4KAbQB.jpg ha! 3 peashooters... 1 per IQ point... 1.5 if you include your wife.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfaoe9.a0@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328341 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 10/25/2015 2:46 PM, owl wrote: >> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>> On 10/25/2015 2:23 PM, owl wrote: >>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >>>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and >>>>> others. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without >>>> full disclosure. >>> >>> Liar. >>> >> >> LOL. Apparently you forget that I rescued the two of you from mutual >> assured destruction some months ago. > > > You're living a life of delusion. > > > See the last 2 words at > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C6W965q5XOU/xu3xANWMjpMJ > > > > >>>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer >>>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp. >>> >>> Horseshit. Weeks of pwnage leading up to a "30-day plonk", then you're >>> immediately back at it, guns blazing, >> >> Dude, you said "guns"... :) >> http://i.imgur.com/B4KAbQB.jpg > > > ha! > > 3 peashooters... 1 per IQ point... 1.5 if you include your wife. > Peashooting is fun! I usually use 440gr peas with the one on the left and 240gr peas with the two on the right. What do you use with yours?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2527170.6165D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328306 |
On 10/25/15, 11:23 AM, in article fsdcmbv93.a06@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it.
>>
>>
>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
>> others.
>>
>
> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without
> full disclosure.
>
> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer
> on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
Come on, you humiliated yourself, ran off for a month to lick your wounds,
and then ran right back and humiliated yourself again.
In this case you admitted this quote was confusing to you:
Peter Köhlmann <http://goo.gl/zvo4fv>:
-----
| For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it
| off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no
| example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license
| holders would not allow this.
BSD allows such sheenigans
-----
You could not figure out I was quoting Peter (and Peter was quoting someone
else, who is not relevant). This was a demonstration of functional
illiteracy by you (reading and writing skills that are inadequate).
I then asked you if, after a month to reflect, you had been able to figure
it out. You then demonstrated functional illiteracy again by noting you
thought my merely asking you was a sign *I* thought the quote was somehow
flawed. It is like asking a 3 year old if they have figured out that 2+2=4.
If the 3 year old has not figured that out they are finding the math to be
too hard, it does not mean the math is wrong!
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 14:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uy5bzfvwknky$.1fsawf5l0n8d6$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328306 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >>>> >>> >>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. >> >> >> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and >> others. >> > > And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without > full disclosure. > > For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer > on occasion to keep my claws sharp. You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 19:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsaoe.afj93@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328319 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just >>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you have no argument. None. Just repetition of nonsense. Got it. >>> >>> >>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and >>> others. >>> >> >> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without >> full disclosure. >> >> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer >> on occasion to keep my claws sharp. > > You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you. > He needs all the help he can get, so it's good to see that you're doing your part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web