Prev: Time to ban all TOYS from cars
Next: Is God an Atheist?
From: tomorrow on 21 Jul 2010 22:13
On Jul 21, 9:24 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 11:44 am, "tomor...(a)erols.com"
>
> <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > (Me? Sarcastic? Yeah, right.)
>
> > > (You, plagerist?  Yeah, right.)
>
> > (You, misspeller?  Yeah, right.)
>
> When you've gotta lower yourself to attacking typos, Tim, you don't
> have anything relevant left to say.

I didn't realize that relevancy was a requirement or even a
consideration in reeky.

Sheesh, maybe I should start looking for that bag of emoticons again,
if saying that I was being sarcastic isn't enough to tip you off that
I'm not being serious.

Or were you being serious when you accused me of plagiarism when
obviously (at least I thought it was pretty obvious, seeing as how I
simply cut-n-pasted what you wrote, directly beneath and in plain view
of what you wrote - isn't plagiarism usually a bit more invidious and
disguised than THAT?) I was just playing off of your own joke?

Never mind, it isn't even worth discussing.
From: tomorrow on 21 Jul 2010 22:13
On Jul 21, 9:26 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 7:24 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 11:44 am, "tomor...(a)erols.com"
>
> > <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > (Me? Sarcastic? Yeah, right.)
>
> > > > (You, plagerist?  Yeah, right.)
>
> > > (You, misspeller?  Yeah, right.)
>
> > When you've gotta lower yourself to attacking typos, Tim, you don't
> > have anything relevant left to say.
>
> sarcasm if a fine art adn not everyone appreciates nor can they
> identify fine art.

Well said, Keith.
From: S'mee on 21 Jul 2010 23:17
On Jul 21, 1:27 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On 7/21/2010 2:44 PM, tomor...(a)erols.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 2:18 pm, Twibil<nowayjo...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Jul 20, 9:12 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com"
>
> >> <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> Heh.   Most of the people in the Washington DC metro area who bought
> >>> Priuses (Priii?) apparently did so in order to be able to camp out as
> >>> single occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes, blocking motorcyclists and
> >>> car poolers trying to get to work on time!
>
> >> Shrug. That's not the same thing as thinking the cars were going to
> >> save you money.
>
> > I'm aware of that.  That's why I added it to the discussion.  If it
> > were the same thing, I wouldn't have bothered to point it out.
>
> >> Besides, you can make that same (accurate) lane-
> >> blocking accusation about *any* of the vehicles permitted in the HOV
> >> lanes with single occupants.
>
> > Yeah, but we were talking about Priuses, not other vehicles.
>
> >> They *all* do it, except for the motorcycles.
>
> > Yeah, but we were talking about Priuses, not other vehicles.
>
> >> (Note: California is now in the process of removing the double yellow
> >> lines and making the HOV lanes easily accessible all the time. It
> >> works *wonders* for traffic flow.)
>
> > We never had double yellow lines; generally just white "diamonds"
> > painted in the lanes and HOV restriction signs overhead and beside the
> > lane (except for reversible lanes, which are physically separated from
> > the regular traffic lanes for obvious reasons).  Oh, and cop cars
> > positioned at stragegic points in the mediam all along the length of
> > the HOV lanes.  Does NOTHING for traffic flow.
>
> At least CA has the option of making the easily accessible--Connecticut
> put a DITCH between the HOV lane and the traffic lane, with
> strategically placed edge traps.

I like it seprates the cagers from teh rest of us...take it at speed
on a DS or ADV bike? I might be willing to try it if I was there. But
first figure out a reason that I would go east of the missippi
willingly...I'd go as far as the appilachias for a funeral/wedding or
somebody needed me "NOW there are cops and bodies everywhere". Kind
of emergency.
From: Twibil on 22 Jul 2010 02:10
On Jul 21, 6:26 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> sarcasm if a fine art adn not everyone appreciates nor can they
> identify fine art.

Yes. You, among others.
From: Henry on 22 Jul 2010 12:59
Twitbull whined and cried:
> <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> (Me? Sarcastic? Yeah, right.)

>>> (You, plagerist? Yeah, right.)

>> (You, misspeller? Yeah, right.)

> When you've gotta lower yourself to attacking typos, Tim, you don't
> have anything relevant left to say.

So whines the loathsome nut job who "attacks" peoples' deceased
mothers - while hiding and cowering behind his killfile. Twitbull,
you are far, far lower than anything or anyone we've seen on a
newsgroup. Neither pitiful nor pathetic even begin to describe
your "character".



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Time to ban all TOYS from cars
Next: Is God an Atheist?