 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / August 2007OT; Now here is some good news!
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/09/state/n120844D33.DTL > http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/09/state/n120844... Scotty, What a hypocrite you are. Is it enough for you that she is running against Pelosi? The lady is anti-war activist and she wants American troops out of Iraq. Or maybe you changed your views and became pacifist? Janusz On Aug 11, 11:28 am, "janus...@hotmail.com" <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/09/state/n120844... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Janusz Besides being spiteful and unable to take the mulittude of asswhippings you get handed here by the Americans your bigotry requires you to lie about and look down your punk nose at, you really are as stupid as you sound. On 12 Sie, 00:08, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 11, 11:28 am, "janus...@hotmail.com" <janus...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > requires you to lie about and look down your punk nose at, you really > are as stupid as you sound. Scotty, as usual typical load of BS instead of simple answer. Is it really so difficult for you to answer two simple questions? Janusz > Scotty, > What a hypocrite you are. > Is it enough for you that she is running against Pelosi? > The lady is anti-war activist and she wants American troops out of > Iraq. > Or maybe you changed your views and became pacifist? Maybe Scott's hoping that with two leftists in the race, the Republican will have a better chance? > Maybe Scott's hoping that with two leftists in the race, the > Republican will have a better chance? Apparently they don't have a word in Polish for "sarcasm" or "irony". Or maybe jAnus is dumb as a fence post hole, as he has continually illustrated here with determined eloquence. > > Maybe Scott's hoping that with two leftists in the race, the > > Republican will have a better chance? > > Apparently they don't have a word in Polish for "sarcasm" or "irony". Did it take you a lot of time or maybe it is the fruit of your genius? Janusz > Or maybe jAnus is dumb as a fence post hole, as he has continually > illustrated here with determined eloquence. On 12 Sie, 09:21, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:28:11 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Maybe Scott's hoping that with two leftists in the race, the > Republican will have a better chance? Do you really suspect him of any sophisticated thinking? IMHO it was rather - "enemy of my enemy is my friend" Janusz > Do you really suspect him of any sophisticated thinking? > IMHO it was rather - "enemy of my enemy is my friend" Or it could be just the lesser of two evils... Get rid of the experienced crook in politics and get one who will need a couple of years to become as crooked? I don't see either of them voting on any piece of legislation differently... They'll both tow the socialist line... > > Do you really suspect him of any sophisticated thinking? > > IMHO it was rather - "enemy of my enemy is my friend" Please dont try and project your stupidity onto me. You wear it perfectly. > Or it could be just the lesser of two evils... Get rid of the > experienced crook in politics and get one who will need a couple of > years to become as crooked? I don't see either of them voting on any > piece of legislation differently... They'll both toe the socialist > line... The good news is that she is running as an independent, which means she will get at least 40 or 50 votes, and she is running against the democrats who used her and then tossed her aside (*that* they should have done from the start) with her sights set on Pelosi, which is simply more evidence of her total disconnect from reality. Sheehan is simply insane and that she thinks she will ever win any kind of election anywhere is evidence of that. sh.t, her own family wont have her. jAnus never has been able to take any of his well deserved a.s whippings with any kind of class. > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:44:52 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You wear it perfectly. Scotty, you are answering Mike's post and he did so much to find out any logic in your statement. Shame on you. > > Or it could be just the lesser of two evils... Get rid of the > > experienced crook in politics and get one who will need a couple of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The good news is that she is running as an independent, which means she will > get at least 40 or 50 votes, Really big number. For sure it would create big problem for Pelosi. > and she is running against the democrats who > used her and then tossed her aside (*that* they should have done from the > start) with her sights set on Pelosi, which is simply more evidence of her > total disconnect from reality. Sheehan is simply insane and that she thinks > she will ever win any kind of election anywhere is evidence of that. OMG Scotty, don't you believe in democracy? >sh.t, > her own family wont have her. > > jAnus never has been able to take any of his well deserved a.s whippings > with any kind of class. It seems that your thoughts are focused on a.s whipping. Do you expect Douggy to visit you soon? Janusz > > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:44:52 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Scotty, you are answering Mike's post and he did so much to find out > any logic in your statement. Shame on you. Actually, it was pretty obvious to me that he was answering your comments via my post... Sometimes posts go missing and you only see replies to posts and not the original posts... Sometimes the replies arrive on your news server before the original posts... "Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote in message > Actually, it was pretty obvious to me that he was answering your > comments via my post... Sometimes posts go missing and you only see > replies to posts and not the original posts... Sometimes the replies > arrive on your news server before the original posts... It's obvious to everyone except the jAnus the Desperately Stupid. On 13 Sie, 03:30, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:39:32 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Actually, it was pretty obvious to me that he was answering your > comments via my post... It could be obvious to you, and most of intelligent rec.scubans, but definitely not to Scotty whose stupidity is fathomless. As you can check he didn't answer a single question in the thread. > Sometimes posts go missing and you only see > replies to posts and not the original posts... Sometimes the replies > arrive on your news server before the original posts... It's not the case here. Janusz > On 13 Sie, 03:30, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > It's not the case here. > Janusz Nawh, he's probably just killfiling you... On 13 Sie, 11:13, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:09:23 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Nawh, he's probably just killfiling you... Directly answering my post and then pretending he killfiled me? Yes, it's Scotty's M.O. Janusz > > > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:44:52 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > > > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > replies to posts and not the original posts... Sometimes the replies > arrive on your news server before the original posts... Do you honestly expect Janusz to understand that? Dennis On 13 Sie, 15:00, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:39:32 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Dennis Do you find it difficult? I can help you. Janusz > On 13 Sie, 15:00, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Do you find it difficult? I can help you. No, I don't find it difficult. But clearly you do. :-) Dennis > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > No, I don't find it difficult. But clearly you do. > :-) So if you don't find it difficult and we are discussing lost, delayed etc. post could you adjust your machine clock. It seems that your post are being sent from future (one hour ahead). Janusz <snip> > > > > Do you honestly expect Janusz to understand that? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc. post could you adjust your machine clock. It seems that your post > are being sent from future (one hour ahead). Ok, lets look at this: Path: beE1!out04b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!new s.usenetserver.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usene tserver.com!KNOLOGY.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail From: "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> Newsgroups: rec.scuba References: <sfqdnW6jGciWvCDbnZ2dnUVZ_rSinZ2d@whidbeytel.com> <1186856891.347298.44720@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <a4dtb39j3eea5ejrlpfi5g768rb179f99p@4ax.com> <1186944292.248457.131060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <tpmub39t4puupt998idri0knn0204t38r9@4ax.com> <n6mdnVFZWPnR_CLbnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@whidbeytel.com> <1186951172.554975.102830@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <6rcvb3psc5h8e4rhjf3kt7435rj3tgc48h@4ax.com> <7e936$46c04b38$1860878d$4040@KNOLOGY.NET> <1187025748.155435.57920@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: OT; Now here is some good news! Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:46:20 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896 Message-ID: <25acb$46c098ce$1860878d$10232@KNOLOGY.NET> X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com Organization: UseNetServer.com Lines: 47 X-Trace: 25acb46c098cebdc5222810232 Xref: usenetserver.com rec.scuba:694608 X-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:45:49 EDT (beE1) Lets see.....12:46:20 -0600 that's 6 hours behind GMT or right in the Central Daylight Time Zone (CDT). Evidently it was received by the server - usenetserver, at 13:45:49 EDT - that'd be Eastern Time Zone, or 5 hours behind GMT. IIRC..... 6 - 5 = 1. There can be some variation in individual clocks. I'm not going to worry about syncing my clock to the news server. You may want to start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone Dennis On 14 Sie, 03:42, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Lets see.....12:46:20 -0600 that's 6 hours behind GMT or right in the > Central Daylight Time Zone (CDT). No my dear friend CDT is 5 hours behind GMT or UTC - it's summer time :-))))))) > Evidently it was received by the server - usenetserver, at 13:45:49 EDT - > that'd be Eastern Time Zone, or 5 hours behind GMT. four hours behind > IIRC..... 6 - 5 = 1. and 5-4 gives the same result :-))) > There can be some variation in individual clocks. I'm not going to worry > about syncing my clock to the news server. as I said you're posting from the future. Adjust time zone on your machine. > You may want to start here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone Have a nice reading Janusz > On 14 Sie, 03:42, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ok, lets look at this: > > Path: beE1!out04b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!new s.usenetserver.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usene > > tserver.com!KNOLOGY.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail > > From: "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > No my dear friend CDT is 5 hours behind GMT or UTC - it's summer > time :-))))))) And you'll also note that London is also on "summer time". > > Evidently it was received by the server - usenetserver, at 13:45:49 EDT - > > that'd be Eastern Time Zone, or 5 hours behind GMT. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > and 5-4 gives the same result :-))) > > There can be some variation in individual clocks. I'm not going to worry > > about syncing my clock to the news server. > > as I said you're posting from the future. Adjust time zone on your > machine. My tme zone is correct, Janusz. Its set to central time. > > You may want to start here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone > Have a nice reading I'm not the one with the problem, Janusz. Dennis On 14 Sie, 08:27, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > And you'll also note that London is also on "summer time". Yes, London is at UTC+1 right one, what doesn't change the fact that your computer time is wrong. It should be adjusted according to UTC, not London local time.. > > > Evidently it was received by the server - usenetserver, at 13:45:49 > EDT - [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > My tme zone is correct, Janusz. Its set to central time. I suppose Central America not Central Time (US and Canada) Even this post was exactly one hour ahead of time > > > You may want to start here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone > > Have a nice reading > > I'm not the one with the problem, Janusz. Once again -have a nice reading Janusz On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:27:32 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: > My tme zone is correct, Janusz. Its set to central time. Perhaps your daylight savings time flag is not set? I'm on the central time also and I'm GMT-5 right now... > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:27:32 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Perhaps your daylight savings time flag is not set? I'm on the > central time also and I'm GMT-5 right now... And just think - this is what Janusz has been reduced to whining about. :-) Dennis On 13 Sie, 14:50, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:27:32 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > > <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dennis "Good" job, Dennis Now, you are posting from the past. Janusz > On 13 Sie, 14:50, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Good" job, Dennis > Now, you are posting from the past. I'm time-traveling Janusz. Dennis On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:16:01 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: > I'm time-traveling Janusz. So it was the daylight savings time flag? > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:16:01 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: > > > I'm time-traveling Janusz. > > So it was the daylight savings time flag? Yep. for some reason it was turned off. Dennis On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:31:21 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: > Yep. for some reason it was turned off. Probably had something to do with the fact that the starting date for daylight savings time changed this year... Leave it to the government to screw with things that were already working... On 15 Sie, 11:16, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Dennis Congrats, finally you adjusted your clock. I hope, that it wasn't too exhausting for you. Janusz > On 15 Sie, 11:16, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Congrats, finally you adjusted your clock. I hope, that it wasn't too > exhausting for you. I never had any problem with it, Janusz. You were the whining. Dennis On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:00:59 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: > Do you honestly expect Janusz to understand that? Good point... My caffeine level must have been down... On 12 Sie, 21:14, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:44:52 -0700, "janus...@hotmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or it could be just the lesser of two evils... LOL Really lesser. Looking at Pelosi's electoral record it would be like an ant threatening elephant. Janusz P.S. It's really nice of you that you are trying so hard to find out any sense in Scotty's post. >Get rid of the experienced crook in politics and get one who will need a couple of > years to become as crooked? I don't see either of them voting on any > piece of legislation differently... They'll both tow the socialist > line... > On 12 Sie, 21:14, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > P.S. It's really nice of you that you are trying so hard to find out > any sense in Scotty's post. It's not really all that nice. It's perfectly clear what he meant and, if you had any idea of our political landscape, you would understand the comments yourself. Obviously, Scott doesn't truly think that it's good news. Scott understands that it's a futile attempt to make a difference. Sheehan has zero chance of winning anything against Pelosi with the possible exception of a beauty contest. Sheehan is no beauty, but have you seen Pelosi? Apparently, sarcasm is lost on some people after all. > Apparently, sarcasm is lost on some people after all. Ole jAnus is just doing the Polish obtuse... http://tinyurl.com/yon83b > > Apparently, sarcasm is lost on some people after all. > > Ole jAnus is just doing the Polish obtuse... > > http://tinyurl.com/yon83b Have you ever heard the saying that sarcasm is the last resort of a weak mind? I find that statement to be somewhat ironic becuase it's usually the weak minds that don't comprehend sarcasm in the first place (especially when it's subtle). I've always believed that it was actually the weak minded who made the statement because they just didn't get it. > Have you ever heard the saying that sarcasm is the last resort of a weak > mind? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > subtle). I've always believed that it was actually the weak minded who made > the statement because they just didn't get it. Anyone who doesnt embrace, understand or recognize sarcasm would have a difficult time here. > > Have you ever heard the saying that sarcasm is the last resort of a weak > > mind? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Anyone who doesnt embrace, understand or recognize sarcasm would have a > difficult time here. Yes, Scotty at last you know the source of your problems, but unfortunately for you brain damage is permanent. Janusz >>>Have you ever heard the saying that sarcasm is the last resort of a weak >>>mind? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes, Scotty at last you know the source of your problems, but > unfortunately for you brain damage is permanent. You have missed the entire point of Scott's post, even after Dennis explained it to you It must be hell to live in your world > Janusz > You have missed the entire point of Scott's post, even after Dennis > explained it to you > > It must be hell to live in your world Went on over with all the subtlety of an F111 Aardvark in full AB. > janus...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > It must be hell to live in your world Not at all. No humid, mild temperatures Janusz > > Janusz > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It's not really all that nice. Why? > It's perfectly clear what he meant and, if you had any idea of our political > landscape, you would understand the comments yourself. Yes. it is perfectly clear. Scotty is so simpleminded. Different story would have been with somebody more intelligent. and FYIO I'm familiar with "political landscape"of your country. > Obviously, Scott doesn't truly think that it's good news. Scott understands > that it's a futile attempt to make a difference. Scotty? ROTFL. Really good joke. > Sheehan has zero chance of winning anything against Pelosi with the possible > exception of a beauty contest. Sheehan is no beauty, but have you seen > Pelosi? Yes and frankly speaking as for a lady of her age she looks quite good if not very good. http://www.house.gov/pelosi/graphics/sheehan.gif Have a look at the picture and tell which one is older > Apparently, sarcasm is lost on some people after all. Apparently Janusz > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Janusz > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Why? I'm not really interested in explaining it. If you can't figure it out, I'll just leave it where it is and you can look at it however you want to. > > It's perfectly clear what he meant and, if you had any idea of our political > > landscape, you would understand the comments yourself. > > Yes. it is perfectly clear. Scotty is so simpleminded. Different > story would have been with somebody more intelligent. > and FYIO I'm familiar with "political landscape"of your country. I'm unfamiliar with the acronym. I'll assume it's a fat fingered version of FYI unless you tell me otherwise. So, being familiar with our political landscape, what chances do you give Sheehan against Pelosi? If the answer is, as I suspect, basically none, then how can you explain Scott's statements. Don't forget to check your bias at the door before answering. > > Obviously, Scott doesn't truly think that it's good news. Scott understands > > that it's a futile attempt to make a difference. > > Scotty? ROTFL. Really good joke. whatever > > Sheehan has zero chance of winning anything against Pelosi with the possible > > exception of a beauty contest. Sheehan is no beauty, but have you seen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.house.gov/pelosi/graphics/sheehan.gif > Have a look at the picture and tell which one is older Who ever said anything about being older? http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/07/nancy_pelosi_be.html Besides, the use of the word "possible" above clearly demonstrates that it wouldn't be a given. On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Sheehan wouldn't even be able to win a beauty contest with Pelosi either as it doesn't really change the context of the statements. :-) > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I'm not really interested in explaining it. If you can't figure it out, > I'll just leave it where it is and you can look at it however you want to. Do you really think that is is not nice when someone do his best to find out any sense in post written by mentally challenged one in order to improve self-respect of the latter one? > > > It's perfectly clear what he meant and, if you had any idea of our > political [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm unfamiliar with the acronym. I'll assume it's a fat fingered version of > FYI unless you tell me otherwise. For Your Information Only or For Your Eyes Only > So, being familiar with our political landscape, what chances do you give > Sheehan against Pelosi? If the answer is, as I suspect, basically none, > then how can you explain Scott's statements. Don't forget to check your > bias at the door before answering. Knowing Scott there is only one explanation - sheer stupidity. I would have had different opinion if the post had been written by someone else. > > > Obviously, Scott doesn't truly think that it's good news. Scott > understands [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Who ever said anything about being older? I said and asked a question. > http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/07/nancy_pelosi_be.html > > Besides, the use of the word "possible" above clearly demonstrates that it > wouldn't be a given. "possible" suggest it as an option. In this case probability of Sheehan winning beauty contest is zero. > On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Sheehan wouldn't even > be able to win a beauty contest with Pelosi either as it doesn't really > change the context of the statements. :-) Janusz > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > find out any sense in post written by mentally challenged one in order > to improve self-respect of the latter one? Like I said, "I'll just leave it where it is and you can look at it however you want to." > > > > It's perfectly clear what he meant and, if you had any idea of our > > political [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > FYI unless you tell me otherwise. > For Your Information Only or For Your Eyes Only Mind if I ask why you would put an acronym meaning "for your information only" in a post on a public newsgroup? Did you really think that I would be the only one reading it? > > So, being familiar with our political landscape, what chances do you give > > Sheehan against Pelosi? If the answer is, as I suspect, basically none, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I would have had different opinion if the post had been written by > someone else. Apparently, you missed the part about your bias. > > http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/07/nancy_pelosi_be.html > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "possible" suggest it as an option. In this case probability of > Sheehan winning beauty contest is zero. See my previous comments below. > > On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Sheehan wouldn't even > > be able to win a beauty contest with Pelosi either as it doesn't really > > change the context of the statements. :-) > > Janusz > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Like I said, "I'll just leave it where it is and you can look at it however > you want to." Scotty would call it -scurry. > > > > > It's perfectly clear what he meant and, if you had any idea of our > > > political [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Mind if I ask why you would put an acronym meaning "for your information > only" in a post on a public newsgroup? the rest of the group (mentally impaired excluded) seems not to have such doubts as expressed in your post. I could use your acronym - YMMV, but chose different one in order not to bother the rest of the group. > Did you really think that I would be the only one reading it? Of course > > > So, being familiar with our political landscape, what chances do you > give [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Apparently, you missed the part about your bias. Bias? There is no bias. He is dumber than his shoe soles, what was proved beyond any doubt. > > >http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/07/nancy_pelosi_be.html > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > See my previous comments below. Two different comments ( the one up and the one below). Janusz > > > On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Sheehan wouldn't > even > > > be able to win a beauty contest with Pelosi either as it doesn't really > > > change the context of the statements. :-) > > > Janusz > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Scotty would call it -scurry. One, he wouldn't. Two, who cares? > > > > So, being familiar with our political landscape, what chances do you > > give [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bias? There is no bias. Of course there's a bias. You've expressed it below. > He is dumber than his shoe soles, what was > proved beyond any doubt. > > > >http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/07/nancy_pelosi_be.html > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Two different comments ( the one up and the one below). > Janusz While the two comments are separate, one of them compliments the other. > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > One, he wouldn't. Oh Yes, he would. > Two, who cares? I don't. What about you? > > > > > So, being familiar with our political landscape, what chances do you > > > give [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Of course there's a bias. You've expressed it below. It's not a bias. It's rather hard learned knowledge about his ways of "thinking". > > He is dumber than his shoe soles, what was > > proved beyond any doubt. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > While the two comments are separate, one of them compliments the other. compliments? Janusz > > While the two comments are separate, one of them compliments the other. > compliments? Yes. Like a nice rack compliments a beautiful a.s. Rack = set of boobs a.s = Gluteus Maximus It's kind of like saying that the two things go hand in hand. > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It's kind of like saying that the two things go hand in hand. Sorry, still it doesn't work com?pli?ment n. 1. An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation. 2. A formal act of civility, courtesy, or respect. 3. compliments Good wishes; regards: Extend my compliments to your parents. See Usage Note at complement. tr.v. com?pli?ment?ed, com?pli?ment?ing, com?pli?ments 1. To pay a compliment to. 2. To show fondness, regard, or respect for by giving a gift or performing a favor. or maybe you meant complement com?ple?ment n. 1. a. Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection. b. The quantity or number needed to make up a whole: shelves with a full complement of books. c. Either of two parts that complete the whole or mutually complete each other. 2. An angle related to another so that the sum of their measures is 90?. 3. Grammar A word or words used after a verb to complete a predicate construction; for example, the phrase to eat ice cream in We like to eat ice cream. 4. Music An interval that completes an octave when added to a given interval. 5. The full crew of officers and enlisted personnel required to run a ship. 6. Immunology A complex system of proteins found in normal blood plasma that combines with antibodies to destroy pathogenic bacteria and other foreign cells. Also called alexin. 7. Mathematics & Logic For a universal set, the set of all elements in the set that are not in a specified subset. 8. A complementary color. tr.v. (-mnt) com?ple?ment?ed, com?ple?ment?ing, com?ple?ments To serve as a complement to: Roses in a silver bowl complement the handsome cherry table. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin complmentum, from complre, to fill out; see complete.] Usage Note: Complement and compliment, though quite distinct in meaning, are sometimes confused because they are pronounced the same. As a noun, complement means "something that completes or brings to perfection" (The antique silver was a complement to the beautifully set table); used as a verb it means "to serve as a complement to." The noun compliment means "an expression or act of courtesy or praise" (They gave us a compliment on our beautifully set table), while the verb means "to pay a compliment to." Janusz > > > While the two comments are separate, one of them compliments the other. > > compliments? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's kind of like saying that the two things go hand in hand. Janusz is easily confused, so you have to be real careful. Dennis >><janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > find out any sense in post written by mentally challenged one in order > to improve self-respect of the latter one? Probably not but you can post your thoughts anyway >><janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Yes and frankly speaking as for a lady of her age she looks quite good > if not very good. That speaks worlds of your expertise - you have really validated your perception. thanks god, it is a picture taken from far away.. Pelosi is about a 6 Iron - she looks great from 150 yards away > http://www.house.gov/pelosi/graphics/sheehan.gif > Have a look at the picture and tell which one is older [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Janusz > That speaks worlds of your expertise - you have really validated your > perception. thanks god, it is a picture taken from far away.. Pelosi is > about a 6 Iron - she looks great from 150 yards away Yeah, but she doesn't have a moustache or beard, and for jAnus, that means she is a 10. > > That speaks worlds of your expertise - you have really validated your > > perception. thanks god, it is a picture taken from far away.. Pelosi is > > about a 6 Iron - she looks great from 150 yards away > > Yeah, but she doesn't have a moustache or beard, and for jAnus, that means > she is a 10. No, my dumb friend. She is 67. Janusz > > > That speaks worlds of your expertise - you have really validated your > > > perception. thanks god, it is a picture taken from far away.. Pelosi is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, my dumb friend. She is 67. So that would be 67 on a scale from 1 to n, n being......? Clearly, Scott was referring to a numeric rating from 1-10. Surely you realized that? Dennis On 14 Sie, 08:24, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Surely you realized that? Dennis, unfortunately you are not as smart as you think, so I'll explain it to you. Joe said that she looks good from 150 yards away, as it is the distance for 6 iron golf club - it was quite funny. Then Scotty comes with a number - 10. Surely he didn't understand Joe's joke. There is no 10 iron, and what is important the bigger number the shorter distance. If you claim that he was referring to the scale 1 to 10 it's possible, but unfortunately oligophrenic ways of "thinking" are completely unknown to me. If you are really interested what the number 67 means - it's her age and for this age IMHO she looks quite good. Janusz > On 14 Sie, 08:24, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Dennis, unfortunately you are not as smart as you think, so I'll > explain it to you. > Joe said that she looks good from 150 yards away, as it is the > distance for 6 iron golf club - it was quite funny. Then Scotty comes > with a number - 10. Surely he didn't understand Joe's joke. There is Clearly, he did, because he said that since she doesnt hafve a moustache or beard, for you she'd be a 10. This is a reflection of what he believes would be your low standards. > no 10 iron, and what is important the bigger number the shorter > distance. If you claim that he was referring to the scale 1 to 10 it's > possible, but unfortunately oligophrenic ways of "thinking" are > completely unknown to me. Janusz, its become obvious to me that ANY way of "thinking" is completely unknown to you. > If you are really interested what the number 67 means - it's her age > and for this age IMHO she looks quite good. And thus proving Scott's point. Dennis On 13 Sie, 14:54, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Janusz, its become obvious to me that ANY way of "thinking" is completely > unknown to you. I have no other option but to agree with you. I stick to thinking, which is typical for any mentally healthy human being and any way of oligophrenic "thinking" is completely unknown to me as I'm not properly trained in special education or psychiatry. Janusz > > If you are really interested what the number 67 means - it's her age > > and for this age IMHO she looks quite good. > > And thus proving Scott's point. > > Dennis > On 13 Sie, 14:54, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > oligophrenic "thinking" is completely unknown to me as I'm not > properly trained in special education or psychiatry. So what you're saying is that you agree with me that ANY way of "thinking:" is unknown to you, then try to claim that you do think. Proving my point, since you completely missed the contradiction in your statement. Dennis On 15 Sie, 11:15, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Proving my point, since you completely missed the contradiction in your > statement. If you see any contradiction maybe this can help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark If it doesn't work professional help strongly recommended. Janusz >>>>That speaks worlds of your expertise - you have really validated your >>>>perception. thanks god, it is a picture taken from far away.. Pelosi [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Dennis apparently not, I have never seen a 10 Iron and if it did exist it would put her much to close - I'll stick with the 6-Iron, Scott can stick with the numerical scale > janus...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > perception. thanks god, it is a picture taken from far away.. Pelosi is > about a 6 Iron - she looks great from 150 yards away Comparing to you it's a very good result. Janusz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.