Lady Veteran wrote:
>miguel wrote:
>>La N wrote:
>>> < snipped UMA unless you want them to know about your own
>>> personal Usenet history>
>>reinserted so they can see what a stupid, spiteful cunt you are.
>>> "Allisson" wrote
>>>>cbianco wrote:
>>>>>dan trg nil:
>>>>>>>>Humility compels me to take exception to the word "cause." I
>>>>>>>>do not "cause" problems; I merely facilitate them.
>>>>>>>I love that quote; that's truly sig-worthy.
>>>>>yes.
>>>>>backed by 15 years of ruthless R and D.
>>>>Rhetoric and Demagoguery?
>>>>[Nil=o's feints]>
>>>>>>Danimal has way too much time on his hands.
>>>>I'm certain he'd agree with you -- otherwise why the constant
>>>>haranguing about wasted time on usenet. Although, having
>>>>benefited from courses in logical debate (GRE analytical writing
>>>>score) at Danimal university, I'm unsure whose time is wasted. Except
>>>>maybe the person who resorts to petty jabs at time spent on Usenet
>>>>by others.
>>>>>>And so far he has been
>>>>>>unsuccessful in his attempts to fracture
>>>>>>friendships/relationships.
>>>>>henry james' definition of an artist is "one on whom nothing is
>>>>>lost".
>>>>I think the James brothers would have liked Dan. I find it
>>>>telling that Nil-o's perception is that Dan "cares" about who is
>>>>friends with or is in relationships with whom. I wonder what else
>>>>Nil=o can project about her worldview.
>>> Whatever you fantasize about me, you gossipy harpy, there is
>>> no way I would stoop as low as you have to make your mark
>>> on Usenet.
>>But wait! There's more! Nil=0 is about to show us how she doesn't
>>stoop low on usenet!
>>> Slept with anybody to out their personal information, Allison?
>>Good job not stooping low, nil=0. I'm glad we can always count on
>>you to take the high road. Why, by the way, would you believe that
>>inaccurately bringing up a four year old story about Allisson would
>>in some way diminish the obviousness of your personality disorder?
>You have a lot of room to talk shyster. That four-year old story is
>what allowed wholesale ridicule and taunting over in SSFA and YOU
>only said something when it began to bother YOU.
I'm sure you have a point in that someplace, but I am afraid I don't have a clue what
it might be. The truth is, however, that you are regarded as a cancer, a blight, upon
SSFA, and the reason is because you are operating under the delusion that you have
some power over trolls, or that your delusional belief in the power of your caustic
"""wit""" somehow drives trolls to distraction and will cause them to leave you and
SSFA alone. History has proven you incorrect 100% of the time. Every time you stomp
your porky feet, somewhere a troll has an orgasm.
>You are the reason there are lawyer jokes, short eyes.
A new and deadly insult from Lady Veteran. Can you please explain why "short eyes" is
supposed to be an insult?
miguel
|
| 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 |
|