Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: El Trauco <naughtynaughtynaughty>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Pedo 4s00th used to post as ::Y-Not::
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:51:51 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: UTB
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <Xns98F38D0F92531utb@207.14.116.130>
References: <Grant-me-that-0903071@Grant.Grant> <oq41a.qso.19.1@news.alt.net> <q7f5v29d1m2ccfdge2c9uoro1a0fpnh32k@4ax.com> <Grant-me-that-01003072@Grant.Grant> <sjd8v2diuhlusg9an8j0o9ojfk4k7ia2su@4ax.com> <Grant-me-that-1103071@Grant.Grant> <QQGJh.265046$_X1.68997@fe05.news.easynews.com> <Xns98F36FBB246F1utb@207.14.116.130> <05HJh.297777$k82.7245@fe07.news.easynews.com> <Xns98F374CBD7802utb@207.14.116.130> <ssgev2tqm9t6g04ri5gesodfs3sfi7sgnn@4ax.com> <Xns98F37B9CA93EAutb@207.14.116.130> <r8oev250o6g0e544birhvejch44jnrudic@4ax.com>
X-Complaints-To: http://underthebridge.cabspace.com/complaints.html
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:2749
4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
news:r8oev250o6g0e544birhvejch44jnrudic@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:08:56 +0000 (UTC), El Trauco
> <naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>
>>4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
>>news:ssgev2tqm9t6g04ri5gesodfs3sfi7sgnn@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:28:44 +0000 (UTC), El Trauco
>>> <naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"-Grunt" <-Grunt@grunt.grunt> wrote in news:05HJh.297777$k82.7245
>>>>@fe07.news.easynews.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13-Mar-2007, El Trauco <naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow. That brought a tear to my eye.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am so glad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you like a peeled onion to wipe it away with?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Would you like a knife to cut your genitals off so you are no longer
>>>>a danger to children?
>>>
>>> Funny that you should assume that Grant is a danger to children --
>>> or are you accusing him of being a pedophile? And I wonder what
>>> bigoted reason you're basing such an assumption on?
>>
>>What are you basing your assumption on that he isn't?
>
> If we are talking about +Grant, perhaps the fact the said he was not
> is the criteria I chose to use.
>
> If we're talking about -Grunt ... well, I'm not talking about -Grunt.
So who do you think I was replying to, dimwit?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 |
|