On Nov 7, 6:02 pm, AllaBest <bip_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:50 pm, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
> > AllaBest <bip_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > It's like reading the bathroom > > > > graffiti of 13-year-old boys.
> > > You would know.
> > It really can be stunning what people attempt to pass off as "wit" > > around here. Here, this fuming idiot actually *copies* Fattuchus's > > equally idiotic shot from last night. How much lower can the level of > > discourse go?
> I hadn't seen her post yet, but I guess great minds think alike, don't > they?
Always had a dream to own one, and my dream came true a couple of years ago.
S-type Jaguar - not without some Jaguar problems, but still a car that handles superbly. I get heads turned and thumbs up everywhere I go. It's one classy looking car.
Drove it from the East Coast to the West Coast, too. Another of my dreams fulfilled. -- mad
poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote: > "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> So, you mean I should just assume that everything Jeff posts will be >>> useless, one-line tripe? I guess I'm idealistic enough that I'm >>> reluctant to write off people so thoroughly. This probably goes back >>> to a recent post where I confessed my vice of naively hoping I can >>> cure fools by prodding them to not act foolishly....
>>> Listen, we all give Jeff a LOT of leeway. He indulgently sighs and >>> whines about his personal maladies every day here like a bedridden, >>> 90-year-old woman, and everyone (even me) pities him and pretty much >>> gives him free rein. But he at LEAST could do this in a >>> space-efficient manner.
>> The underlying issue is Google Groups. A lot of folks just don't >> *get* what an actual newsreader displays.
> But people have explained this to Jeff, and he just shrugged us off.
I'm not sure he fully understands it. I'm guessing he still thinks that the stuff buried under "show quoted text" in Google doesn't show up when he replies.
On Nov 7, 5:09 pm, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why would you assume that, lunatic?
Why are constantly calling people name?
Not enough toys as a kid, I think?
Something went dreadfully wrong in your family life when you were young.
Would you care to talk about it before the hatred consumes your pseudo intellectual peanut you fondly consider a brain?
>Is it because you're so totally > immersed in your own lonely, masturbatory world that you presume > everyone else shares your sappy, white-1950s-housewife tastes in music?
You're repeating yourself. You must be exhausted. The little man has had a busy day, has he?
> Or is it just because you're pretending that views/comments ratio is > unusual?
Pretending, of course, just as pretend that you actually like Yoko's music, which I guess actually makes you a liar and a fraud.
On Nov 7, 5:16 pm, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
> I was intrigued at your recent revelation that even your immediate > family abhors you. Not that such warning signs have any chance of > breaking through your loony delusions of "good guy-ness."
I was channeling you hoping that the Christmas spirits would bring some healthy change to you in your life, Ebenezer.
> You complain about me attacking people, but you can't even compose a > decent argument about the topics I attack about. You are entirely > irrational. An animal. You feel threatened, you lash back. Utterly > primal.
I have found in life that when people attack as you do they are really speaking about themselves.
On Nov 7, 5:09 pm, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why would you assume that, lunatic?
Why are constantly calling people name?
Not enough toys as a kid, I think?
Something went dreadfully wrong in your family life when you were young.
Would you care to talk about it before the hatred consumes your pseudo intellectual peanut you fondly consider a brain?
>Is it because you're so totally > immersed in your own lonely, masturbatory world that you presume > everyone else shares your sappy, white-1950s-housewife tastes in music?
You're repeating yourself. You must be exhausted. The little man has had a busy day, has he?
> Or is it just because you're pretending that views/comments ratio is > unusual?
Pretending, of course, just as pretend that you actually like Yoko's music, which I guess actually makes you a liar and a fraud.
> > Is it worth getting your knickers in a twist for such a trivial > > matter?
> It's really not that trivial, considering how many times a day Jeff does > this as one of the group's most prolific posters.
So posting on a newsgroup to a thousand people regarding the same Beatle issues over and over again isn't trivial???
We are all bloody trivial Guru, even those pearls of golden wisdom you enlighten us with day upon day..are in fact..*trivial*...even me! I am Trivia King in fact.
On Nov 8, 7:23 am, The Walrus was Danny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net> wrote:
> > Do you have to hate Yoko Ono to be a Beatles fan?
> Yes to be a true bonafide Beatles fan, you must detest YO.
> Danny
I mostly agree. I would say that if a person is a dedicated Beatles fan and knows the details of their history and Yoko's involvement with John and the band, it would be very hard NOT to dislike her.
> > Do you have to hate Yoko Ono to be a Beatles fan?
> Yes to be a true bonafide Beatles fan, you must detest YO.
> Danny
< I mostly agree. I would say that if a person is a dedicated Beatles fan and knows the details of their history and Yoko's involvement with John and the band, it would be very hard NOT to dislike her. >
If you were a real Beatles fan, you'd care more about the music.
> > > Do you have to hate Yoko Ono to be a Beatles fan?
> > Yes to be a true bonafide Beatles fan, you must detest YO.
> > Danny
> < I mostly agree. I would say that if a person is a dedicated Beatles > fan and knows the details of their history and Yoko's involvement with > John and the band, it would be very hard NOT to dislike her. >
> If you were a real Beatles fan, you'd care more about the music.
She doesn't care about the music at all. She believes the thing John Lennon did best was to thumb his nose at the rich and powerful. The music definitely takes a back seat.
On Nov 8, 9:00 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:23 am, The Walrus was Danny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net> > wrote:
> > > Do you have to hate Yoko Ono to be a Beatles fan?
> > Yes to be a true bonafide Beatles fan, you must detest YO.
> > Danny
> I mostly agree. I would say that if a person is a dedicated Beatles > fan and knows the details of their history and Yoko's involvement with > John and the band, it would be very hard NOT to dislike her.
As "fan" is derived from fanatic, I agree that the true fanatics here are those obsessing over Yoko Ono.
> > > Do you have to hate Yoko Ono to be a Beatles fan?
> > Yes to be a true bonafide Beatles fan, you must detest YO.
> > Danny
> < I mostly agree. I would say that if a person is a dedicated Beatles > fan and knows the details of their history and Yoko's involvement with > John and the band, it would be very hard NOT to dislike her. >
> If you were a real Beatles fan, you'd care more about the music.
I'm interested in the Beatles as people AND in their music. I'm also interested in their art, books, movies, interviews, etc.
> > > Do you have to hate Yoko Ono to be a Beatles fan?
> > Yes to be a true bonafide Beatles fan, you must detest YO.
> > Danny
> < I mostly agree. I would say that if a person is a dedicated Beatles > fan and knows the details of their history and Yoko's involvement with > John and the band, it would be very hard NOT to dislike her. >
> If you were a real Beatles fan, you'd care more about the music.
< I'm interested in the Beatles as people AND in their music. I'm also interested in their art, books, movies, interviews, etc. >
Indiscriminately interested in everything that has their name on it?
|
