The Beatles caused the disintegration of mankind - Page 4

02-24-2005, 08:11 AM

"S o r n i" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].rr.com> wrote:

>Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>> I'm beginning to sense just a /touch/ of enmity here.
>
>Zoot was absolutely nowhere on my radar before he started humping my posts
>(an AM-B term from JD) this week.
>
>I really don't keep track of who may have insulted me 6 months ago (or vice
>versa); after all, it IS just Usenet.
>
>Guess I pissed in his Kasha and he's been squatting by the highway ever
>since, waiting for me to ride by.
>
>I *am* guilty of cross-REPLYING a lot -- I never remember to check after
>hitting "Reply Group" -- but at least my posts in those kinds of threads are
>usually quite short. Why he would ignore people who truly "take the troll
>bait" and waste bandwidth in big bunches while humping me for a short (and
>always trimmed) quip is beyond me, but so be it.
>
>I guess he just has a bad taste in his mouth after blowing so many goats
>lately. <eg>
>
>Discerning readers will see what transpired.

Far be it from me to take any sort of position here. I guess I was
more wondering: do you think this is what the Beatles would have
wanted?

02-24-2005, 08:26 AM

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to sense just a /touch/ of enmity here.
>>
>> Zoot was absolutely nowhere on my radar before he started humping my
>> posts (an AM-B term from JD) this week.
>>
>> I really don't keep track of who may have insulted me 6 months ago
>> (or vice versa); after all, it IS just Usenet.
>>
>> Guess I pissed in his Kasha and he's been squatting by the highway
>> ever since, waiting for me to ride by.
>>
>> I *am* guilty of cross-REPLYING a lot -- I never remember to check
>> after hitting "Reply Group" -- but at least my posts in those kinds
>> of threads are usually quite short. Why he would ignore people who
>> truly "take the troll bait" and waste bandwidth in big bunches while
>> humping me for a short (and always trimmed) quip is beyond me, but
>> so be it.
>>
>> I guess he just has a bad taste in his mouth after blowing so many
>> goats lately. <eg>
>>
>> Discerning readers will see what transpired.
>
> Far be it from me to take any sort of position here. I guess I was
> more wondering: do you think this is what the Beatles would have
> wanted?

Nice. Hey, I'm prepared to "Let It Be"; he just needs to stop being a big
ol' bully WALRUS! (Sorta Beatlish.)

Other than blasting an occasional anonymous troll or spammer, I don't recall
ever starting a Usenet flame war (especially getting into /personal insults/
with someone). It's rather pathetic that Zoot takes this stuff so
seriously, but I'm not going to let lies or hate-filled remarks go
unchallenged.

I hate bullies. Always have. Always will.

02-24-2005, 08:26 AM

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to sense just a /touch/ of enmity here.
>>
>> Zoot was absolutely nowhere on my radar before he started humping my
>> posts (an AM-B term from JD) this week.
>>
>> I really don't keep track of who may have insulted me 6 months ago
>> (or vice versa); after all, it IS just Usenet.
>>
>> Guess I pissed in his Kasha and he's been squatting by the highway
>> ever since, waiting for me to ride by.
>>
>> I *am* guilty of cross-REPLYING a lot -- I never remember to check
>> after hitting "Reply Group" -- but at least my posts in those kinds
>> of threads are usually quite short. Why he would ignore people who
>> truly "take the troll bait" and waste bandwidth in big bunches while
>> humping me for a short (and always trimmed) quip is beyond me, but
>> so be it.
>>
>> I guess he just has a bad taste in his mouth after blowing so many
>> goats lately. <eg>
>>
>> Discerning readers will see what transpired.
>
> Far be it from me to take any sort of position here. I guess I was
> more wondering: do you think this is what the Beatles would have
> wanted?

Nice. Hey, I'm prepared to "Let It Be"; he just needs to stop being a big
ol' bully WALRUS! (Sorta Beatlish.)

Other than blasting an occasional anonymous troll or spammer, I don't recall
ever starting a Usenet flame war (especially getting into /personal insults/
with someone). It's rather pathetic that Zoot takes this stuff so
seriously, but I'm not going to let lies or hate-filled remarks go
unchallenged.

I hate bullies. Always have. Always will.

02-24-2005, 11:07 AM

On 2005-02-24, HIGH COURT <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> 1st VERDICT
>
> "The Beatles caused the disintegration of mankind"
>
>
> The Rock revolution happened in the Sixties (6, number of the Beast).

Here I always thought the "number of the beast" was "666" (or "616"
depending on which bible you consult).
But wait! Let's see where we can go with this: the work "six" starts with
the letter "s" -- so does the word "STUPID"! Wow is that cool, or what?
And it beautifully captures the essence of your article!

--

John ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ].org)

02-24-2005, 11:07 AM

On 2005-02-24, HIGH COURT <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> 1st VERDICT
>
> "The Beatles caused the disintegration of mankind"
>
>
> The Rock revolution happened in the Sixties (6, number of the Beast).

Here I always thought the "number of the beast" was "666" (or "616"
depending on which bible you consult).
But wait! Let's see where we can go with this: the work "six" starts with
the letter "s" -- so does the word "STUPID"! Wow is that cool, or what?
And it beautifully captures the essence of your article!

--

John ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ].org)

02-24-2005, 12:39 PM

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:58:59 GMT,
<7RmTd.32678$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>, "S o r n i" "the pink-boy
with nothing to say" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].rr.com> said it anyway:
\szip
>
>Most NORMAL people don't take newsgroups so personally, idiot. If you truly
>think I've got "nothing to say", then a) why are you obsessed with me; and
>b) JUST PLONK ME.

Look Billy, if you want to have a pissing contest, at least do it
standing up.
--
zk

02-24-2005, 12:39 PM

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:58:59 GMT,
<7RmTd.32678$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>, "S o r n i" "the pink-boy
with nothing to say" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].rr.com> said it anyway:
\szip
>
>Most NORMAL people don't take newsgroups so personally, idiot. If you truly
>think I've got "nothing to say", then a) why are you obsessed with me; and
>b) JUST PLONK ME.

Look Billy, if you want to have a pissing contest, at least do it
standing up.
--
zk

02-24-2005, 02:00 PM

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:58:59 GMT,
> <7RmTd.32678$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>, "S o r n i" said

>> Most NORMAL people don't take newsgroups so personally, idiot. If
>> you truly think I've got "nothing to say", then a) why are you
>> obsessed with me; and b) JUST PLONK ME.
>
> Look Billy, if you want to have a pissing contest, at least do it
> standing up.\

Oooh, a scathing comment from the big fat bully.

Run along now, Zoo-ey; I'm bored of you.

02-24-2005, 02:00 PM

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:58:59 GMT,
> <7RmTd.32678$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>, "S o r n i" said

>> Most NORMAL people don't take newsgroups so personally, idiot. If
>> you truly think I've got "nothing to say", then a) why are you
>> obsessed with me; and b) JUST PLONK ME.
>
> Look Billy, if you want to have a pissing contest, at least do it
> standing up.\

Oooh, a scathing comment from the big fat bully.

Run along now, Zoo-ey; I'm bored of you.

02-24-2005, 04:13 PM

S o r n i wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>
>>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:58:59 GMT,
>><7RmTd.32678$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>, "S o r n i" said
>
>
>>>Most NORMAL people don't take newsgroups so personally, idiot. If
>>>you truly think I've got "nothing to say", then a) why are you
>>>obsessed with me; and b) JUST PLONK ME.
>>
>>Look Billy, if you want to have a pissing contest, at least do it
>>standing up.\
>
>
> Oooh, a scathing comment from the big fat bully.
>
> Run along now, Zoo-ey; I'm bored of you.
>
>
And I thought a posting hiatus from me might give you all time to get
civilized again.
I was wrong, clearly.
Bill Baka