Hachoo The Stupid
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Keeping my insurance rates low.. Thank you taxpayers..?
Next: please help me! i have a huge problem!
From: Aratzio on 14 Jun 2010 23:11 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:59:41 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:37:33 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:07:01 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku >> ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >> >>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:42:02 -0700, in the land of alt.aratzio, Aratzio >>>> <a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com> got double secret probation for writing: >>>> >>>> <The dawning of the confused Hachoo> >>>>>>>><YAWN> Try to keep to one topic at a time, Nitwit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, you are quite too stupid to attempt more than one at a time. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're the one getting confused here, Chowderhead. >>>>> >>>>>Really, so what part of 8B, 80B, and 1.1T don't I get. It is all in the >>>>>report. Right where I got them. You did read the report that we are >>>>>discussingf? You wouldn't want to look like a complete idiot whining >>>>>about facts you should have known? >>>>> >>>>>Since I understand the interaction of that set of dollar figures and >>>>>you don't and you can't seem to grasp the words "a year" then how do >>>>>you think the confusion would be working against me? >>>>> >>>>>Do you understand those numbers and are you going to explain what you >>>>>think they mean? >>>>> >>>>>I say they mean essentially the same thing and are just differing >>>>>represetative values. Do you agree or disagree? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> And there is where he started getting confused. Unable to keep more >>>> than one thought, he started whining. >>> >>>Narrating for your audience? I guess you think they are too stupid to >>>figure it out. >> >> Oh, they igured it out, I just like rubbing it in, just for you. > >I don't care. "<STOMP> SO THERE!" *snicker* >Do you carry your ego in a separate backpack, or does it just walk >alongside you? Actually, I use a front end loader and a dump. Much more efficient, However, that from someone that so obviously suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder has a fine irony that was quite enjoyable. > >> >> >>>Must be, if they're reading any of this tripe. >>> >>> >> Well, you should not be so hard on yourself, that was tripe but it was >> some of your better tripe. > >Um, I wasn't talking about my postings, Chowderhead. Then why did you use "this" if you meant "that". You see, my reading always makes sense so when you write something that is obviously temporaly attached to your post I have to assume that is what you meant. > >> >> Now, what do you want to bet you can't figure that one out. > > >You're the one that has the problem with Double Entendre, remember? That wasn't a double entendre, you retard. For it to be a double entendre then the first meaning is the straight forward meaning and the more subtle ironic or risque is the secondary. So for it to be a double entendre you flamed yourself and your ironic meaning was you didn't mean to flame yourself. Try to use terms and phrases for which you actually understand the meaning and usage.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 15 Jun 2010 07:35 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:WhBRn.77391$HG1.3580(a)newsfe21.iad... > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:40:37 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >>>> I know. It's sort of minor hobby, trying to get him to put things in >>>> his own words. I already know his response. "If you don't know, why >>>> should I explain it to you?" Translated, that means "I heard someone >>>> else say Reagan freed up business, but I have no clue what they meant." >>> >>> If you could think your way out of a wet sock, it's be different. >>> >>> >> >> When someone asks you to back up your OPINION, it's YOUR job to think and >> speak. Maybe you should stop parroting things you heard from other >> sources, unless you're capable of explaining why you repeat these things. > > I have opinions. You don't have privy to them because your standard answer > is, "I didn't say that." Don't state your opinions if you're afraid of people asking for more information about them. And you ARE afraid.
From: §ñühw¤£f on 15 Jun 2010 11:03 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:24:33 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:40:54 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:2VzRn.14001$3y2.8187(a)newsfe11.iad... >>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:38:47 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:Q_yRn.30820$yx.25938(a)newsfe13.iad... >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:25:34 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:55:48 -0600, ���hw�f wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ah wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 10:51 AM, ���hw�f wrote: >>>>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:7eVQn.76345$HG1.11538(a)newsfe21.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:10:25 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:zvTQn.57409$h57.40776(a)newsfe22.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:44:54 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:08:24 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is so nice when the facts are ALWAYS on my side. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can save 8 billion a year just by reducing and > closing >>>>>>>>>>> foreign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A sizeable chunk of change to be sure! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking a President who wastes $80B a year. Big > deal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf > Reduce >>>>>>>>>>> troops in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe and Asia, cut end strength by 50,000 $80 b. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting reading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who is the last president you thought was terrific? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have to ask? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Who is the last president you thought was terrific? > Type >>>>>>>>>>> the name. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James Earl Carter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Word. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Heathen! Apostate! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He told the people what they *needed* to hear, not what they > wanted >>>>>>>> to hear. People will do any number of things to delude > themselves >>>>>>>> and Reagan offered up a nostalgic veiw of a once prosperous >>>>>>>> Uhmurikuh and the sheeple went for it. The fact that he > couldnt >>>>>>>> deliver on it was less important than his ability to play to > their >>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed you are correct, sir. The reality of the times was far >>>>>>> different than what Reagan tried to convince us it was. I > always >>>>>>> thought of him as the wizard in Oz, all smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Word. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> See answer above. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reagan was your favorite president, even though he fed you (and > the >>>>> country) bland cream of wheat diluted with way too much water. >>>> >>>> >>>> I did quite well during the 80's. A lot of factors, but Reagan > freeing >>>> up business to do business had a lot to do with it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> How do YOU think he "freed up business to do business"? You said > it, so >>> you should be able to support the comment with a one or two > sentence >>> explanation. >> >> Good luck with that! > > > Really. I don't supply idiots with answers. > Translation: I havent got any credible CITES for my bumper-sticker based ideology. Its hard to defend a slogan, innit? ^_^ -- www.skepticalscience.com|www.youtube.com/officialpeta cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org _____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____ / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
From: pandora on 15 Jun 2010 15:51 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:32:40 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:24:33 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:40:54 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:2VzRn.14001$3y2.8187(a)newsfe11.iad... >>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:38:47 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:Q_yRn.30820$yx.25938(a)newsfe13.iad... >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:25:34 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:55:48 -0600, §ñühw€£f wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ah wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 10:51 AM, §ñühw€£f wrote: >>>>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:7eVQn.76345$HG1.11538(a)newsfe21.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:10:25 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:zvTQn.57409$h57.40776(a)newsfe22.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:44:54 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:08:24 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is so nice when the facts are ALWAYS on my side. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can save 8 billion a year just by reducing and closing >>>>>>>>>>> foreign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A sizeable chunk of change to be sure! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking a President who wastes $80B a year. Big deal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reduce >>>>>>>>>>> troops in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe and Asia, cut end strength by 50,000 $80 b. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting reading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who is the last president you thought was terrific? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have to ask? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Who is the last president you thought was terrific? Type >>>>>>>>>>> the name. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James Earl Carter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Word. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Heathen! Apostate! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He told the people what they *needed* to hear, not what they >>>>>>>> wanted to hear. People will do any number of things to delude >>>>>>>> themselves and Reagan offered up a nostalgic veiw of a once >>>>>>>> prosperous Uhmurikuh and the sheeple went for it. The fact that >>>>>>>> he couldnt deliver on it was less important than his ability to >>>>>>>> play to their beliefs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed you are correct, sir. The reality of the times was far >>>>>>> different than what Reagan tried to convince us it was. I always >>>>>>> thought of him as the wizard in Oz, all smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Word. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> See answer above. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reagan was your favorite president, even though he fed you (and the >>>>> country) bland cream of wheat diluted with way too much water. >>>> >>>> >>>> I did quite well during the 80's. A lot of factors, but Reagan >>>> freeing up business to do business had a lot to do with it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> How do YOU think he "freed up business to do business"? You said it, >>> so you should be able to support the comment with a one or two >>> sentence explanation. >> >> Good luck with that! > > > Really. I don't supply idiots with answers. In reality, you are an opinionated fool with no answers. You just like to hear yourself talk.
From: pandora on 15 Jun 2010 16:02
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:03:03 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:57:41 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >>>Adults can see the facts without the idealogical goggles. Wingnuts and >>>other exteremists on either side are left frothing like you do at the >>>drop of his name. > > So, you liked the goggles thing. Cool. I expect you'll be using it a lot > now. > > >>>Watch: Obama >>> >>>How did that make you feel when you saw his name? > > That your an idiot? ------------------------------ > >>> >> *SPNAK* > > Sure. You can't even spell it right. -------------------------------------- Hilarious! |