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 16 Jun 2010 01:21 On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:56:40 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:34:51 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:13:44 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku >> ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >> >>>On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:44:57 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:01:22 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>>> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >>>> writing: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:11:29 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> What, the NPD kept you from reading and responding, right? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Sure thing, Chowderhead. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Wow, scathing, you post the stupid, you get spanked and all you can do >>>> is try to act like it didn't matter. >>>> >>>> So, do you understand the difference between "this" and "that" now? >>> >>>Coming from you, I just consider the source. >>> >>> >> Ah, so you don't care anmore, being wrong always seems to do that to you. > >It has more to do with you being a bullshitter. > Being caught lying seems to have caused you to become even more repetitious than is your norm. Maybe you should try a little aversion therapy. Every time you have the urge to lie hit a finger with a hammer. Eventually you will no longer be able to type your lies and you will begin to feel better about yourself as a person. You can thank me later.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 16 Jun 2010 08:14 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:H7YRn.127794$gv4.72664(a)newsfe09.iad... > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:11:28 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:59:13 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:35:46 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:WhBRn.77391$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. >>> >>> >>> And you're as dumb as Aratzio... >> >> No, you're afraid. > > BWAHAHAHA! Wrong, as usual. > > My opinions don't fit the Politically Correct 'model', so they aren't > valid? > > How awfully narrow-minded of you! Nobody commented on whether your opinions were politically correct. You will now disagree.
From: pandora on 16 Jun 2010 14:06 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:37:57 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:02:20 -0500, in the land of alt.aratzio, pandora > <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing: > >>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:03:03 -0400, Hachiroku ???? 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! >> > Once he found out how stupid he was, he didn't care anymore. > > The usual for him. He can't handle being wrong. The stupid are like that.
From: pandora on 16 Jun 2010 14:53 On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:06:53 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:09:43 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:56:16 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:06:56 -0500, pandora wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:21:06 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:35:10 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>>>> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >>>>> writing: >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> So you are in accord with California republicans. >>>>> >>>>> Of which 25% are so completely insane they voted for Orly Taitz. >>>>> >>>>> Yep, some party you got there. >>>> >>>> It seems that he, like so many of their ilk, are only interested in >>>> making money. >>> >>> >>> And the problem with that is....? >>> >>> I am for *anybody* making money. That's what's so great about >>> Capitalism. >>> >>> "reditributing wealth" brings everyone to the same level of poverty. >>> Unless you're a monied Democrat, of course. >> >> That's a very negative attitude but one I'm not surprised that you >> have. > > > How do you figure that's negative?!?!? <rolls eyes>! You really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you? > Letting people pull themselves UP is negative?!?! I said nothing about people pulling themselves up. > Putting people on Welfare and letting them STAY poor appears to be a > more negative attituded to me. That IS a negative and not one I espouse. > You two are certainly a pair that can beat a full house. Whew!
From: pandora on 16 Jun 2010 14:57
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:09:10 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:11:28 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:59:13 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:35:46 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "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. >>> >>> >>> And you're as dumb as Aratzio... >> >> No, you're afraid. > > BWAHAHAHA! Wrong, as usual. No, quite correct. > My opinions don't fit the Politically Correct 'model', so they aren't > valid? I have no problem with you having differing opinions. It's what makes the world go round. It's your not putting forth any cogent arguments FOR your opinions or at the least stating exactly just what they are and defending them, that makes YOU not valid. > How awfully narrow-minded of you! Putting words in the mouths of others, then negating them makes you the idiot. |