| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2008 11:35:54 AM |
| Object: |
Soc Puppet or Sock Puppet |
On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:32:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:26=A0am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:01:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:12=A0pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:40:11 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:01=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:15:03 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:34=A0am, wrote:
Read it here:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
It'shard to see how it's considered Christian since it has buddh=
ism as
a group there.
JM
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron and will do so as=
long
as you avoid facing up to these long outstanding questions.
--
Bob.
You claim that there are outstanding questions. =A0What are they so=
I
can respond?
My question is not one of the three outstanding issues, but still
relevant: doesn't it bother you that you make Creationists look very=
,
very dishonest?
In what way do I make creationists look very, very dishonest?
Hmm, shall we count the ways?
By spending the better part of a year trying to welch on a bet that
*you* offered.
You mean the bet where Gen2rev (augray and whatever secret soc puppet
John, this is a good example of my point that you snipped (which is
another good example of your dishonesty): you look dishonest by
repeating the same old mistakes virtually every time you post, no
matter how many people correct you, and point out exactly *why* you're
wrong. (Admittedly, this could be attributed to issues with your
intelligence, rather than your honesty). The phrase is "sock puppet",
I think this will be the fourth time I have to get my point across to
you. I have stated already that soc puppet is an acceptable term that
is referred to and used by many on newsgroups. If you don't believe me
do a search on the word. You are correct that sock puppet is where
the word comes from. Changing it soc puppet alters it and gives an
uber cool feel to a word that doesn't quite fit in with the internet.
There is no literal sock, so to speak. How many times do I have to
explain this to you?
JM
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Soc Puppet or Sock Puppet |
02 Feb 2008 01:36:02 PM |
|
|
<JM20000000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55cae8d4-0042-4574-85cc-d0b3e8424b4b@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 8:52 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:32:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:26 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:01:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:12 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:40:11 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:01 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:15:03 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:34 am, wrote:
Read it here:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
It'shard to see how it's considered Christian since it has
buddhism as
a group there.
JM
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron and will do so as
long
as you avoid facing up to these long outstanding questions.
--
Bob.
You claim that there are outstanding questions. What are they so I
can respond?
My question is not one of the three outstanding issues, but still
relevant: doesn't it bother you that you make Creationists look
very,
very dishonest?
In what way do I make creationists look very, very dishonest?
Hmm, shall we count the ways?
By spending the better part of a year trying to welch on a bet that
*you* offered.
You mean the bet where Gen2rev (augray and whatever secret soc puppet
John, this is a good example of my point that you snipped (which is
another good example of your dishonesty): you look dishonest by
repeating the same old mistakes virtually every time you post, no
matter how many people correct you, and point out exactly *why* you're
wrong. (Admittedly, this could be attributed to issues with your
intelligence, rather than your honesty). The phrase is "sock puppet",
I think this will be the fourth time I have to get my point across to
you. I have stated already that soc puppet is an acceptable term that
is referred to and used by many on newsgroups. If you don't believe me
do a search on the word. You are correct that sock puppet is where
the word comes from. Changing it soc puppet alters it and gives an
uber cool feel to a word that doesn't quite fit in with the internet.
There is no literal sock, so to speak. How many times do I have to
explain this to you?
Do you even know what sock puppet means,
nameless? A sock puppet has a hand in it,
controlling it. An Internet sock puppet is
someone who is controlled by someone else
or who willingly supports someone else in
order to make trouble. 'Soc' makes no sense
and is not cool at all. In fact, it looks stupid.
And, sock puppet does totally fit in with the
Internet, especially in newsgroups. Can't you
get anything right?
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
JM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Soc Puppet or Sock Puppet |
02 Feb 2008 01:13:46 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
JM20000000@hotmail.com wrote:
| On Feb 1, 8:52 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
|> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:32:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:
|>> On Feb 1, 8:26 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
|>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:01:17 -0800 (PST),
|>>> wrote:
|>>>> On Jan 31, 6:12 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
|>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:40:11 -0800 (PST),
|>>>>> wrote:
|>>>>>> On Jan 31, 3:01 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
|>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:15:03 -0800 (PST),
|>>>>>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 11:34 am, wrote:
|>>>>>>>>> Read it here:
|>>>>>>>>> http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
|>>>>>>>> It'shard to see how it's considered Christian since it has
buddhism as
|>>>>>>>> a group there.
|>>>>>>>> JM
|>>>>>>> McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
|>>>>>>> McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
|>>>>>>> TO censorship - still no examples.
|>>>>>>> Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron and will do so
as long
|>>>>>>> as you avoid facing up to these long outstanding questions.
|>>>>>>> --
|>>>>>>> Bob.
|>>>>>> You claim that there are outstanding questions. What are they so I
|>>>>>> can respond?
|>>>>> My question is not one of the three outstanding issues, but still
|>>>>> relevant: doesn't it bother you that you make Creationists look very,
|>>>>> very dishonest?
|>>>> In what way do I make creationists look very, very dishonest?
|>>> Hmm, shall we count the ways?
|>>> By spending the better part of a year trying to welch on a bet that
|>>> *you* offered.
|>> You mean the bet where Gen2rev (augray and whatever secret soc puppet
|> John, this is a good example of my point that you snipped (which is
|> another good example of your dishonesty): you look dishonest by
|> repeating the same old mistakes virtually every time you post, no
|> matter how many people correct you, and point out exactly *why* you're
|> wrong. (Admittedly, this could be attributed to issues with your
|> intelligence, rather than your honesty). The phrase is "sock puppet",
|
| I think this will be the fourth time I have to get my point across to
| you. I have stated already that soc puppet is an acceptable term that
| is referred to and used by many on newsgroups. If you don't believe me
| do a search on the word. You are correct that sock puppet is where
| the word comes from. Changing it soc puppet alters it and gives an
| uber cool feel to a word that doesn't quite fit in with the internet.
| There is no literal sock, so to speak. How many times do I have to
| explain this to you?
|
I think this will be the 10k time that it has been said.
You have no credibility here McScrewLoose, so what you say is not believed.
We laugh at you.
Video, ISBN's, T.O. evidence.
Get cracking, McLiar.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHpMDlf+wl0F6+jvgRAiu3AJ9EoHxm4fPeGufSMcdqOx6EzdhJ4wCgks8h
ZWsp5LrNXj0w0MclEu+xXyg=
=njie
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Soc Puppet or Sock Puppet |
02 Feb 2008 12:46:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:35:54 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:52 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:32:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:26 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:01:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:12 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:40:11 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:01 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:15:03 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:34 am, wrote:
Read it here:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
It'shard to see how it's considered Christian since it has buddhism as
a group there.
JM
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron and will do so as long
as you avoid facing up to these long outstanding questions.
--
Bob.
You claim that there are outstanding questions. What are they so I
can respond?
My question is not one of the three outstanding issues, but still
relevant: doesn't it bother you that you make Creationists look very,
very dishonest?
In what way do I make creationists look very, very dishonest?
Hmm, shall we count the ways?
By spending the better part of a year trying to welch on a bet that
*you* offered.
You mean the bet where Gen2rev (augray and whatever secret soc puppet
John, this is a good example of my point that you snipped (which is
another good example of your dishonesty): you look dishonest by
repeating the same old mistakes virtually every time you post, no
matter how many people correct you, and point out exactly *why* you're
wrong. (Admittedly, this could be attributed to issues with your
intelligence, rather than your honesty). The phrase is "sock puppet",
I think this will be the fourth time I have to get my point across to
you.
Then it will be the fourth time you have got it totally WRONG!
I have stated already that soc puppet is an acceptable term that
is referred to and used by many on newsgroups.
Only by a few ignorant dipsticks like you. The correct term "sock
puppet" will be found (at one time or another) on every newsgroup and
in a lot of other places.
If you don't believe me
do a search on the word.
I have done.
You are correct that sock puppet is where
the word comes from. Changing it soc puppet alters it and gives an
uber cool feel to a word that doesn't quite fit in with the internet.
You are a pathetic idiot. Your stupidity is exposed and still you try
to justify your error.
There is no literal sock, so to speak. How many times do I have to
explain this to you?
As many times as it takes for you to realize you are WRONG.
JM
Soc puppet produced 392 hits on google's advanced search, over 40 of
them by you and a good few other in replies to you pointing out how
very stupid you are to make such a basic error.
Sock puppet produced 141,000+ by the way.
If you use Yahoo (my chosen search engine) to look for "soc puppet" it
finds about 1,130 hits. But actually asks, at the top of the first
page, Did you mean: "sock puppet".
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22soc+puppet%22&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fp_ip=UK&vc=
On the other hand , "Sock Puppet" produces about 1,890,000 hits
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=UK&p=%22sock+puppet%22&SpellState=n-2891707814_q-v5olScjqyVGOZNSEgGjjcwAAAA%40%40&fr2=sp-top
Now do stop being a stupid little plonker and just accept that you
are, as always, totally wrong.
Oh yes. Any answer to the McClueless Video Challenge? How about cites
to end the McPiltdown Deathmarch? Evidence for censorship on TO or
google? With ever passing day you just look more and more dishonest as
you try to avoid these questions McClueless.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Soc Puppet or Sock Puppet |
02 Feb 2008 03:28:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:35:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:52 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:32:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:26 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:01:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:12 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:40:11 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:01 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:15:03 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:34 am, wrote:
Read it here:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
It'shard to see how it's considered Christian since it has buddhism as
a group there.
JM
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron and will do so as long
as you avoid facing up to these long outstanding questions.
--
Bob.
You claim that there are outstanding questions. What are they so I
can respond?
My question is not one of the three outstanding issues, but still
relevant: doesn't it bother you that you make Creationists look very,
very dishonest?
In what way do I make creationists look very, very dishonest?
Hmm, shall we count the ways?
By spending the better part of a year trying to welch on a bet that
*you* offered.
You mean the bet where Gen2rev (augray and whatever secret soc puppet
John, this is a good example of my point that you snipped (which is
another good example of your dishonesty): you look dishonest by
repeating the same old mistakes virtually every time you post, no
matter how many people correct you, and point out exactly *why* you're
wrong. (Admittedly, this could be attributed to issues with your
intelligence, rather than your honesty). The phrase is "sock puppet",
I think this will be the fourth time I have to get my point across to
you.
I understood your point the other three times, you illiterate fool. It
was wrong each time before, and it's wrong now.
I have stated already that soc puppet is an acceptable term that
is referred to and used by many on newsgroups.
By people who can't (or in your case, perversely refuse to) spell
words correctly.
If you don't believe me
do a search on the word.
From Wikipedia:
You searched for soc puppet [Index]
For more information about searching Wikipedia, see
Wikipedia:Searching.
There is no page titled "Soc puppet".
You are correct that sock puppet is where
the word comes from. Changing it soc puppet alters it and gives an
uber cool feel to a word that doesn't quite fit in with the internet.
It doesn't look "cool", it makes you look like an idiot who can't
spell.
There is no literal sock, so to speak. How many times do I have to
explain this to you?
JM
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
