|
|
Posted by CQ on 10/15/02 11:30
In article <gLidnZBaV5J5W_3eRVnyhw@pipex.net>, Keith G said...
> OK, it's lunchtime, I'll play.... :-)
Been let out to the playground, have you?
> Btw, that'd be *arsehole* in ukra....
Ah, but there is so much more to the world than your little rec.audio
group.
> >> but I haven't really been paying close attention...
> >
> > No. That seems to be a problem for you. Too self involved, perhaps?
>
>
> Possibly. Who knows/cares/gives a shit...???
I don't know for sure, it was a guess, hence the "perhaps". I don't care
much, it was more in the way of a musing. Nobody around here gives a
shit but you do insist on inserting yourself in places where nobody cares
about your opinions so you are going to have to accept those of others in
return.
Optionally, you could just have the maturity to not read that which you
supposedly don't care/give a shit about, let alone respond to it.
> >> Why do you think the only one
> >> > (audiohead) that is actually silly or a little boy would care whether
> >> > or
> >> > not he bothers you and your group?
> >> No, beats me -
> >
> > No? You can't answer that question with a yes or no.
>
> Correct, it's difficult to answer a 'why' question with either one, I
> find....
Yet you attempted to above? You are in such a hurry to demean you miss
the point and are demeaning yourself. Laughable.
> Without a comma
> > after the "why" its answer requires an opinion.
>
>
> Requires? Like I'm *obliged* to provide you with one or summat??
No, nobody said anything about you being obliged. Are you comprehension
challenged as well as attention deprived? The fact is you chose to
attempt to answer the original question. I merely pointed out that to do
so required an opinion, not a simple yes or no.
Note: "its answer requires". Clear enough for you?
Seems you have a bit of a problem addressing the subject matter at hand
and want to resort to silly deflection. No surprise.
> So I do get to invoice you then? Simple yes or no will do - seeing as you
> are so fond of yes or no answers...
No, I think not. You have yet to deliver anything of value.
> > I asked you about what you think. Do you often have to ask others to
> > tell you what it is you think and why you think those things?
> All the time - and why I've gone into certain rooms at times and WTF it was
> that I was looking for when I had gone into those rooms...
> I also lose teaspoons...
Yes, but of everything you've lost I'm sure you miss your manners the
most, no? At least those strangers unlucky enough to encounter you in
public places certainly must miss your manners.
> I guess....
>
> <shrug>
Shrug? Is that meant to convey some sort of aloof lack of interest in
the point made? If that is the case then why respond at all?
How odd.
> >> as is the fact that there seem to be plenty of people
> >> in amm who are equally silly enough to respond to him....
> >
> > Actually there only seem to be two people here who bother with him
> > anymore.
>
>
> Did I ask?
You made an observation and an assumption that was in error. I corrected
your erroneous observation. Nobody can prevent a person such as you from
making assumptions, though.
Simple enough for you?
> no matter what an attention deprived self involved pompous little
> > pedant like yourself has to say.
>
>
> Your punctuation has gone to shit as well
Ah, 'twas a matter of style. Forgive me if I don't always conform, in my
writing in a relaxed and informal forum, to the pedantic and narrow
minded view you seem to hold of what is and what is not correct.
> - are you an American?
Is this meant to imply that only Americans are capable of misusing
punctuation? Are you so incredibly closed minded as to believe this?
Have you never heard of James Joyce?
> > would have had much more chance of success with them than your gratuitous
> > and condescending attempts at insult.
>
>
> Yebbut, where's the fun in that? :-)
Ah, so you are simply attempting to stir up shit because you find it to
be fun. I suspected as much.
> >> > Nice job though. You have called his attention to the fact that he is
> >> > now bothering those in another group and he may well take to bothering
> >> > you and have less time in his, err, busy life for bothering the
> >> > contributors to this group.
> >>
> >>
> >> Or I have called his attention to the fact that he is also making himself
> >> look a tit to people not subscribing to his 'own' group...???
> >
> > Oh yes. And the two people who are answering him here, what exactly do
> > you think THEY are doing when they answer him? Inviting him over for a
> > beer? The guy isn't going to be any more impressed by you calling him a
> > "tit" than he is by anyone else pointing out what an ass he is, no matter
> > what you think of your ability to apply withering insult at whim.
> >
> > He is actually so stupid that he will not understand that the word "tit"
>
>
> You've said 'tit' twice now - do you like that word?
Not particularly, no. That would be why I included the quotation marks
to make it clear that it was your word choice that I was quoting.
Apparently you like the word.
> > as you use it is different from the American slang that he knows which is
> > the only thing his limited range of intelligence allows him awareness of.
>
>
> If Yanks leak into UK newgroups they get UK currency - it's hard, but it's
> the way of the world....
>
"Leak into UK newgroups"? Is your group new? Is your spelling going to
shite?
Also, since you want to be the grammar police, what's up with all these
groups of four periods? Are they supposed to be ellipses? That's all
botched up, Keith.
An ellipsis is done like so: " . . . "
> >
> > He'll think you are saying he looks like a woman's breast.
> There you go again!
In order to "go again" I would have had to have repeated something I'd
said or done previously.
What exactly was that?
> (I think you're enjoying this! :-)
Watching you make an idiot and more than a bit of an ass out of yourself
while you are trying to be clever yet showing yourself to be nothing more
than an insufferable little pedant and a self-important fool has been
mildly amusing, yes.
However, you are quickly becoming quite boring.
<snip>
> > You came here whining
> I think you're the one doing the *whining*
Howzat again? Whining? Where would that be?
> moi beauty... ;-)
Well, the "moi" is misplaced but the other is the first thing you've
gotten even close to correct.
> about crossposting of a silly thread and slinging
> > gratuitous insults at people you do not know, even descending to the
> > amazingly puerile tactic of making fun of a person's name,
> It's a terrible name - sounds like a low-speed traffic accident.
Everyone can't be blessed with such mundane cognomens as yours, Mr.
Garratt.
Rather conjures up an image of someone being unsuccessfully strangled in
an attic, don't you think, Keith?
> OTOH, if it is his real name, it shows he's got gut and doesn't hide behind
> summay tossy like 'CQ'....
Hide behind? You seem to enjoy attempting insult where none exists. I'm
not hiding behind anything. I'm using, as is the usenet convention, a
"nym" or "nickname" to post. Many folks who regularly read this
newsgroup know exactly who I am, where I live, what I do, etc. Hard to
be hiding when I'm in such plain site.
> yet now, when
> > you have been replied to in kind, you feel it is alright for you to
> > crosspost and perpetuate the same thread.
>
>
> Fuckin' terrible ain't I?? ;-)
Perhaps you would like to think so, but no. You are simply a typical
usenet pest with an overblown opinion of yourself.
> We can add hypocrite to the
> > short list of attributes you have demonstrated in your short time in the
> > amm group.
>
> Go on then, why not if it makes you happy...?? :-)
Excuse me, but what sort of punctuation is that, exactly? Gone right
down the toilet again, haven't you, Keith? You certainly do provide
ample proof that even the British can butcher the English language, even
while you continue to try and nitpick the usage of others and make broad
and inapt generalizations about people you do not know.
Yes, hypocrite it is then.
> You'll have to excuse me now - me tea's cooled down a bit!
I can't see how that concerns me or causes me to "have to excuse" you.
Perhaps you meant "please excuse me now" but we already know you have
fuck-all for manners, right Keith old boy?
--
CQ
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|