meow
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Receiver for the car?
Next: Camry EGR Valve, Code P0401
From: david hillstrom on 15 Apr 2010 12:59 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:55:12 -0700, Checkmate <LunaticFringe(a)The.Edge> wrote: >Felching article from server... > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:50:19 -0400, david hillstrom put forth the notion >that... > > >> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:15:49 -0700, Checkmate <LunaticFringe(a)The.Edge> >> wrote: >> >> >Felching article from server... >> > >> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:43:15 -0400, david hillstrom put forth the notion >> >that... >> > >> > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:39:33 -0400, Rebecca Ore <macogoense(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <0nlcs51qrf47mkotku1rdjpfrpgbiop0s3(a)4ax.com>, >> >> > The 2-Belo <the2belo(a)msd.bigREMOVETHISlobe.ne.jp> wrote: >> >> > >> >> ><Something> >> >> > >> >> >He knew better than to click on the links. >> >> >> >> the 2-belo sucks goats. >> > >> >...while you're busy sucking three-legged syphilitic wiener djoggies. >> >> stop projecting. > >Why? The slides you sent me of you sucking three-legged syphilitic wiener >djoggies is... fascinating. lies -- dave hillstrom zrbj mhm15x4
From: Rebecca Ore on 15 Apr 2010 14:55 In article <4BC6C018.7F6471CF(a)gmail.com>, Veronica Karlsson <veronica.karlsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= wrote: > > > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:41:00 +0000, Veronica Karlsson wrote: > > > > >> >So, first you plonk him, then you respond to one of his posts... > > >> > > >> Now you are just being a liberal rewriting history to fit your world > > >> view. > > > > > > No. I'm just noticing that he's either seeing invisible things or lying. > > > Or maybe he just doesn't know what the word "plonk" means. > > > > Um, let's see. I have PAN. I can filter or unfilter at will. I think I > > explained that. > > To plonk somebody means to ignore them, to not speak to them, to not > even read what they write. It's perfectly OK to ignore somebody and > still read what they write. Nobody can know what you read or don't read > as long as reading is all you do, just like there's no way to know how > many lurkers there are reading but not taking part in the discussion. > But, to publically declare that you have plonked somebody and then, just > a few minutes later, fall for the temptation to respond makes you look > silly. I think the man likes looking silly. Maybe he's a Marxist troll?
From: Rebecca Ore on 15 Apr 2010 14:57 In article <d9vcs594gv3eq4gs5q474cc3npgh9peh0p(a)4ax.com>, david hillstrom <dave(a)meow.org> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:39:33 -0400, Rebecca Ore <macogoense(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >In article <0nlcs51qrf47mkotku1rdjpfrpgbiop0s3(a)4ax.com>, > > The 2-Belo <the2belo(a)msd.bigREMOVETHISlobe.ne.jp> wrote: > > > ><Something> > > > >He knew better than to click on the links. > > the 2-belo sucks goats. He shoots nice photographs, just not of drag queens. Takes pictures of baseball players. It's all colorful humans either way.
From: Rebecca Ore on 15 Apr 2010 14:58 In article <hq61jl$gfc$14(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:33:27 -0400, Rebecca Ore wrote: > > >> So I quit tobacco and started using a "Personal Vaporizer". They are now > >> banning imports of the product and spare parts,based on the results from > >> one part of one test based on products from a company nobody buys from > >> anyway. > >> They are overstepping their boundaries as outlined by the Constitution. > > > > As Lyndon Johnson said, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the > > US can't go completely socialistic. > > Yes there is. That requires the government taking control of almost > everything. You need to read the Constitution. "Provide for the general > welfare" does not mean "take over businesses as you see fit." We have clauses for anything regarding mail to be operated by the Federal government. It's in the Constitution.
From: Rebecca Ore on 15 Apr 2010 15:00
In article <hq620e$gfc$18(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:27:06 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > > > You snipped from here down. > > Yup. And I did it again. Repost again, bozo. > > > > >>Are you that incredibly dumb? You need another hobby. Smashing bricks > >>against your head isn't working out for you. > >> > >> > > See, Poik nailed you again. One statement was all you could handle. Is it > > because your brain gets all mushy and makes you woozy when you have to > > respond to more than 20 words? > > Not at all. If I feel it's worth it. I guess Poik's reading and > comprehensions skills aren't much better than yours. Kinda like asking for > the time and getting a dissertation on the universe. > > > > > See that was giving credit where credit is due. > > > > Seriously, you are fucked from this point on. > > <YAWN> Oh, well. It bothers me so. A bunch of trolls think I'm fucked. > Whatever am I to do? > > > > > Oh, and that was me, laughing AT you, again. > > Yeah? so? You're an idiot. Who cares? I think you're a cool Marxist trying to make right wingers look silly. Go you. |