The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 8 Mar 2007 15:14 On Mar 5, 7:26 pm, langkd_NO_S...(a)shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote: > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:16:08 +1300, BrianNZ <b...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote: > >It's like theseagullshave dropped their loads when the Henry train > >pulls into a thread. > > Bulls eye. Mine dented his tin foil hat. 1) There are no seagulls. Seagulls are a myth perpetuated by the CIA. 2) The non-existent seagulls in question were such lousy fliers that they couldn't possibly have pulled this off. 3) The tinfoil hat was built so massively that rather than dent it the droppings would have fallen off harmlessly. 4) Traces of sulfur were found on the dent. Sulfur compounds do not exist in the everyday world, so this proves it. I could go on, but this should be enough to refute your pathetic kook psycho assertions, so I win again. Damn I'm good !!!! [7000 line signature available on request]
From: P.Roehling on 8 Mar 2007 17:47 "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote > 1) There are no seagulls. Seagulls are a myth perpetuated > by the CIA. > > 2) The non-existent seagulls in question were such lousy > fliers that they couldn't possibly have pulled this off. > > 3) The tinfoil hat was built so massively that rather than > dent it the droppings would have fallen off harmlessly. > > 4) Traces of sulfur were found on the dent. Sulfur compounds > do not exist in the everyday world, so this proves it. > > I could go on, but this should be enough to refute your > pathetic kook psycho assertions, so I win again. > Damn I'm good !!!! > > [7000 line signature available on request] AHA! Undeniable *PROOF* that you're not *REALLY* a netkook!!! (With the *real* netkooks, the 7,000 line sig isn't optional.) And anyone who disagrees with me is a psychotic, obsessive, pathetic little liar!
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 8 Mar 2007 18:24 On Mar 8, 2:47 pm, "P.Roehling" <Pete.Roehl...(a)CUTOUTeee.org> wrote: > "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216...(a)aol.com> wrote > > I could go on, but this should be enough to refute your > > pathetic kook psycho assertions, so I win again. > > Damn I'm good !!!! > And anyone who disagrees with me is a psychotic, obsessive, pathetic little > liar! First of all, you forgot the "pants on fire" part. 42 days, 3 hours, 5 minutes and 37 seconds ago on January 25, at 13:07:24 you asserted that I was being childishly obsessive. Since then, I've posted 137 times, challenging you to prove this assertion that I was being obsessive. Acting like your usual psychotic self, you have yet to respond to my challenge. I keep on posting this challenge because I find your refusal to respond to me to be so uproariously funny. There is no doubt in my mind that my many thousands of fans in this newsgroup share my amusement at people hiding from me behind their killfiles. So in closing, let me just say "I know you are, but what am I ?" That ought to leave you dazzled for a while.
From: P.Roehling on 8 Mar 2007 19:56 "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote >> And anyone who disagrees with me is a psychotic, obsessive, pathetic >> little >> liar! > > First of all, you forgot the "pants on fire" part. > > 42 days, 3 hours, 5 minutes and 37 seconds ago on January 25, > at 13:07:24 you asserted that I was being childishly obsessive. > > Since then, I've posted 137 times, challenging you to prove this > assertion that I was being obsessive. Acting like your usual > psychotic self, you have yet to respond to my challenge. > > I keep on posting this challenge because I find your refusal to > respond to me to be so uproariously funny. > > There is no doubt in my mind that my many thousands of fans > in this newsgroup share my amusement at people hiding from > me behind their killfiles. > > So in closing, let me just say "I know you are, but what am I ?" > > That ought to leave you dazzled for a while. I take it all back, Rob: either you *do* have netkook potential or you're an extremely apt student! (On the other hand, if you want to be truly convincing you're going to have to contrive to lose about half of your vocabulary and all of your sense of humor.)
From: Road Glidin' Don on 8 Mar 2007 21:04
On 8 Mar 2007 15:24:00 -0800, "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Mar 8, 2:47 pm, "P.Roehling" <Pete.Roehl...(a)CUTOUTeee.org> wrote: >> "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216...(a)aol.com> wrote > >> > I could go on, but this should be enough to refute your >> > pathetic kook psycho assertions, so I win again. >> > Damn I'm good !!!! > >> And anyone who disagrees with me is a psychotic, obsessive, pathetic little >> liar! > >First of all, you forgot the "pants on fire" part. > >42 days, 3 hours, 5 minutes and 37 seconds ago on January 25, >at 13:07:24 you asserted that I was being childishly obsessive. > >Since then, I've posted 137 times, challenging you to prove this >assertion that I was being obsessive. Acting like your usual >psychotic self, you have yet to respond to my challenge. > >I keep on posting this challenge because I find your refusal to >respond to me to be so uproariously funny. > >There is no doubt in my mind that my many thousands of fans >in this newsgroup share my amusement at people hiding from >me behind their killfiles. > >So in closing, let me just say "I know you are, but what am I ?" > >That ought to leave you dazzled for a while. LOL! -- Home page: http://xidos.ca |