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 |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Ads |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote: > > <snip> > > Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". > Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. > > TIA Sparkmeister - according to the attributions my browser shows, you did post "KNOTHEAD". I had even commented to you that it was a nice pun. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote: > > <snip> > > Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". > Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. > > TIA Sparkmeister - according to the attributions my browser shows, you did post "KNOTHEAD". I had even commented to you that it was a nice pun. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:50:34 GMT, linda > > wrote: > > >>Big Bill wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:55 GMT, linda > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay, >>>>>>I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's >>>>>>Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. " >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If that's really what you "here", then you have a problem. That's not >>>>>anywhere near what was written. >>>>>What was written was a request for some sort of evidence to support >>>>>your claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>>and i think i have repeatedly stated, I CANNOT FIND ANY SITE. I cannot >>>>find any evidence.. hell, how much clearer do i have to be? >>> >>> >>>Then why did you post what you knew would be a post that would >>>generate requests for some evidence??? >>> >> >>Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >>as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >>our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... > > > Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? > Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so > I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." > This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. > Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you > say. Especially when you malign an ICON. > i wish i really were that naive... to be that young again! thank you for thinking both.... Actually, I was NOT the original poster that the DUKE was gay. Re-Read your original posts.... |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:50:34 GMT, linda > > wrote: > > >>Big Bill wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:55 GMT, linda > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay, >>>>>>I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's >>>>>>Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. " >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If that's really what you "here", then you have a problem. That's not >>>>>anywhere near what was written. >>>>>What was written was a request for some sort of evidence to support >>>>>your claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>>and i think i have repeatedly stated, I CANNOT FIND ANY SITE. I cannot >>>>find any evidence.. hell, how much clearer do i have to be? >>> >>> >>>Then why did you post what you knew would be a post that would >>>generate requests for some evidence??? >>> >> >>Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >>as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >>our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... > > > Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? > Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so > I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." > This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. > Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you > say. Especially when you malign an ICON. > i wish i really were that naive... to be that young again! thank you for thinking both.... Actually, I was NOT the original poster that the DUKE was gay. Re-Read your original posts.... |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Bigelow wrote:
> "Big Bill" > wrote in message > news > >>>Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >>>as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >>>our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... >> >>Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? >>Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so >>I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." >>This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. >>Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you >>say. Especially when you malign an ICON. > > > Malign? > How? Is being gay still a big deal in the US? > also, i would like to interject: is it against the *rules* to be Gay and an ICON? |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Bigelow wrote:
> "Big Bill" > wrote in message > news > >>>Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >>>as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >>>our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... >> >>Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? >>Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so >>I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." >>This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. >>Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you >>say. Especially when you malign an ICON. > > > Malign? > How? Is being gay still a big deal in the US? > also, i would like to interject: is it against the *rules* to be Gay and an ICON? |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Nelson wrote:
> In article >, > linda > wrote: > > >>i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still >>say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense. >> ;-) > > > Jesus christ on a pogo stick lady, not one person "came to the > Duke's defense." > There -were- [however] numerous questions as to the accuracy of > the claims that you had made. Somehow you managed to morph that > into coming to the DUKE's defense. [rolls eyes] > > >>however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ... > > > Then why don't you do the right thing and learn to trim your > replies instead of leaving a boatload of irrelevant text attached > to your posts. That way you won't come across as -quite- the > usenet newbie. Ouch... i bet you were a mean little boy. |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Nelson wrote:
> In article >, > linda > wrote: > > >>i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still >>say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense. >> ;-) > > > Jesus christ on a pogo stick lady, not one person "came to the > Duke's defense." > There -were- [however] numerous questions as to the accuracy of > the claims that you had made. Somehow you managed to morph that > into coming to the DUKE's defense. [rolls eyes] > > >>however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ... > > > Then why don't you do the right thing and learn to trim your > replies instead of leaving a boatload of irrelevant text attached > to your posts. That way you won't come across as -quite- the > usenet newbie. Ouch... i bet you were a mean little boy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy | Michael Barnes | Driving | 4 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |