If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 7, 7:10*am, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-07, Harry K > wrote: > > > But you see the cop _was_ challenged and lost and if he still has a > > job he isn't about to do that ever again. *The _effective_ challenge > > was not one-on-one on the street though, it was in the courts. *The > > street challenge was not only ineffective, it cost the person big > > time. > > You don't get the court case without standing up in the one-on-one. If > you lick the cops boots and the cop is satisified with the boot licking > there is no court challenge. The actions of the cop are never reviewed > and they will be repeated until he's no longer satisified with someone > licking his boots and he goes ape on someone who did submit or someone > else stands up to him. Your're right. I realized that there never would have been a case if the street conflict hadn't occurred after I posted. <snip> Harry K |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P >
wrote: > On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote: > > > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And > > offensive. *And just plain rude. > > Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just > posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony. No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on reality (at best). Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun at the less-abled. If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. But, from experience, I know that's a waste of my time. So, ridicule it is. And no irony involved! LOL. E.P. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P > > wrote: >> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote: >> >> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And >> > offensive. *And just plain rude. >> >> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just >> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony. > No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on > reality (at best). Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting > MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun > at the less-abled. I am well familiar you structure things so you can give yourself exceptions to the rules you want others to follow. > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. But, from > experience, I know that's a waste of my time. Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? I think it's called alt.net.kooks or something like that. Affraid that you'd be laughed at? Oh wait, that's right, you don't live by what you preach. > So, ridicule it is. And no irony involved! LOL. It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you create for others. Something you do continually. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 7, 12:26*pm, Brent P >
wrote: > On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote: > > > On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P > > > wrote: > >> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote: > > >> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And > >> > offensive. *And just plain rude. > > >> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just > >> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony. > > No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on > > reality (at best). *Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting > > MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun > > at the less-abled. > > I am well familiar you structure things so you can give yourself > exceptions to the rules you want others to follow. Actually, you aren't. It's just more made up **** for an idiot. > > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place > > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from > > experience, I know that's a waste of my time. > > Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to your posts. The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my control. > > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL. > > It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you > create for others. Something you do continually. Wrong, yet again. I didn't make the rules. They existed before even you showed up in USENET. I just abide by them (something that you seem to be unable to do). Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. Thanks! E.P. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> Actually, you aren't. It's just more made up **** for an idiot. *yawn* name calling to get out. lame. >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time. >> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? > > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to > your posts. The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my > control. Another exception you make for yourself. >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL. >> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you >> create for others. Something you do continually. > Wrong, yet again. I didn't make the rules. They existed before even > you showed up in USENET. I just abide by them (something that you > seem to be unable to do). You're not abiding by jack **** Ed. You've reduced yourself to whiny little troll who has to mention me in threads I am not even participating in. > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. Thanks! So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking' threads that it doesn't belong here? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 5, 9:18 pm, Brent P > wrote:
> > Cops > are not our masters and it's not 'stupid' to argue with them, one just > has to understand what they really are. Uh huh... armed with multiple weapons, and police powers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_qVJfaYZA ----- - gpsman |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote: > > > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot. > > *yawn* name calling to get out. lame. Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL. > >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place > >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from > >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time. > > >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? > > > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to > > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my > > control. > > Another exception you make for yourself. The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin' hilarious. > >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL. > > >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you > >> create for others. Something you do continually. > > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even > > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you > > seem to be unable to do). > > You're not abiding by jack **** Ed. As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else. My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect. > > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks! > > So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different > than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking' > threads that it doesn't belong here? *sigh* Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from *driving*, you drooling dip****. I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else? L-****ing-OL. E.P. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote: >> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote: >> >> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot. >> >> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame. > > Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL. > >> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place >> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from >> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time. >> >> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? >> >> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to >> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my >> > control. >> >> Another exception you make for yourself. > > The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin' > hilarious. > >> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL. >> >> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you >> >> create for others. Something you do continually. >> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even >> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you >> > seem to be unable to do). >> >> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed. > > As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of > knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with > you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else. > > My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect. > >> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks! >> >> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different >> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking' >> threads that it doesn't belong here? > > *sigh* > > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from > *driving*, you drooling dip****. > > I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take > any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and > brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else? > > L-****ing-OL. > > E.P. > |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote: >> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote: >> >> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot. >> >> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame. > > Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL. The king of context trimming getting all bent out of shape because of a little extra aggressiveness in the clean up. There was no thought put to it at all, Ed. But here you go seeing malice where there was none... gee that's a behavior you accuse other people of... >> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place >> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from >> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time. >> >> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? >> >> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to >> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my >> > control. >> >> Another exception you make for yourself. > > The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin' > hilarious. What is hilarious is that you complain I am littering the newsgroup but by your own actions, you increase what you are complaining about by no less than 10 fold. >> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL. >> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you >> >> create for others. Something you do continually. >> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even >> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you >> > seem to be unable to do). >> >> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed. > As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of > knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with > you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else. > My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect. What do you call a person who sprinkles his posts with insults directed at people who aren't even participating in the thread at the time? Is there a special term for that now or does still fall under 'trolling'? As far as denial or uninformed, well some are. But not all. Your use of 'anyone' is clearly false. >> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks! >> >> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different >> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking' >> threads that it doesn't belong here? > *sigh* > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from > *driving*, you drooling dip****. How about you point out specifically where I started a 'tin foil hatted' tangent in this very typical topic I posted on with elements of MFFY, 'just let them do it', and 'road rage'? Put up or shut up. And I mean started, not replied into, because replying into a tangent is someone else's tangent, not mine. > I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take > any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and > brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else? > L-****ing-OL. See, this is why it's pretty clear you have some inner need to discredit me. You just spout lies like the above. Care to show where I mentioned any of the above, ever, in any serious fashion? (I have mentioned aliens in jest or in an anology of the absurd a few times over the years, but never the other two in any form or fashion) Care to put up or shut up, motha-****a? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 8, 10:30 am, Brent P >
wrote: > > The king of context trimming getting all bent out of shape because of a > little extra aggressiveness in the clean up. There was no thought put to > it at all, Ed. Now there's a surprise. Not that you act without thinking, that's obvious, but that you realize it yourself. ----- - gpsman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
And now, a word about snow tires... | Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B | Technology | 15 | March 10th 08 04:51 AM |
is "voltimeter" even a word?!?! | nashjeff | Ford Explorer | 15 | September 6th 05 11:43 AM |
Corvette's word origin | Bob Sexton | Corvette | 3 | August 26th 05 01:41 AM |
EA will need lots of word of mouth! | AlenlorDRot | Simulators | 1 | December 29th 04 12:16 AM |