Re: Killfile Update: SuperM (was: why 2.35:1 ?)
- From: SuperM <SuperM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:04:10 -0700
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:33:10 -0400, Derek Janssen <ejanss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Gave us:
SuperM wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:50:25 -0700, "Richard C."
<post-age@xxxxxxxxxxx> Gave us:
Top posting has its purpose.
So does flogging.
Sheesh, you can't even take a joke right.
Well, let's look at the posts in the last 24 hours:
- Bulk responses? = Check.
Wrong. I read and respond one post at a time. Even though they show
up in this group, which doesn't get much action(clue), look at the
times for each post, idiot.
- "No top posting" in lieu of actual content? = Check
It was a joke, dumbshit. Check yourself.
- Geek-credibility "Your theater system will pay for itself in 10
years!" investment-delusions? = Check.
Never said any such thing... ever.
- "Retard" obsession? = Che....uh, wait, looks like we're missing
something here.
You're seeming pretty obsessed, stalk boy.
Guess someone's laying low under the new screenname in the hopes of
building "credibility" again, hoping to get back into the "Mine's better
than yours" threads again with a clean slate.
You're an idiot. = check.
...Oh, well, allow us to shoot those chances all to heck--
Now we can get back to group-ostracizing his entire existence again. :)
Proof of your trolldom. = check.
(Oh, and Rich, let's see: You said, what, new screenname in two weeks?
Wrong, and you don't even have a clue as to why, nor is it any of
your business, little boy.
Hmm, held out a little longer than we thought, although not sure if we
can technically count "SuperMassive" as a *new* screenname--
You can't even get that right. It is SuperM@ssive. There is no "a",
idiot.
We'll haveWho are you going to get the ruling from, one of your other
to get a ruling on that one, but betting pools open on the next?)
personalities?
Derek Janssen (in poker, it's never about the cards, it's about the tells)
ejanss@xxxxxxxxxxx
Yeah... you just provide quite a few, boy. All about you.
.
- References:
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: Derek Janssen
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: def456
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: Jay G.
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: Derek Janssen
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: def456
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: Richard C.
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: SuperM
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: Richard C.
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- From: SuperM
- Killfile Update: SuperM (was: why 2.35:1 ?)
- From: Derek Janssen
- Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- Prev by Date: Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- Next by Date: Re: Killfile Update: SuperM (was: why 2.35:1 ?)
- Previous by thread: Re: Killfile Update: SuperM (was: why 2.35:1 ?)
- Next by thread: Re: why 2.35:1 ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|