Exactly how many posts have Amy and Dani
combined been on the topic of prophecy and/or
current events that may be related to prophecy
during hte past 2 1/2 years.
A handfull at best.
It proves my point that the two of them are hear
for one reason, to stir up trouble.
Tony
.
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 06:10:29 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040517060318.23604.00001134@mb-m12.aol.com...
Exactly how many posts have Amy and Dani
combined been on the topic of prophecy and/or
current events that may be related to prophecy
during hte past 2 1/2 years.
A handfull at best.
It proves my point that the two of them are hear
for one reason, to stir up trouble.
Tony
"Let's look this up on Google."
expanded
Let us look this up on Google.
us? Who are you appealing to exactly? Name and shame the guilty.
Why don't YOU look it up on google? But first let me give you a
freebie hint... there's no way for google to discriminate the criteria
you wish to apply; you'll just have to go through each and every post.
So, get to it and we'll see you back here in a month... if you haven't
been restrained for your own safety beforehand.
Looking over the three posts of yours that I'm responding to today,
you're as full as ever of "we", "us" and "everyone", that should've
been written as "me", "me" and "me". For all our sakes, kindly drill
it into that concrete cranium that you are alone; that no amount of
interminable whining, petitioning, endless repetition of lies or Tony
"proof" (tm) is going change anything. Your dissembling and hypocrisy
trashed you years ago; deal with it.
I raised the subject of Daniel with you last week… so where did that
scalded cat run to I wonder?
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
18 May 2004 10:11:51 AM |
|
|
Amazing how Jean seeks to divert attention away from the subject and how Amy
defends herself by mention the one post she made.
My point is proven once again.
Jean needs to stop kissing Dani's ***** simply because he thinks she's cute and
realize that she supports the likes of Chris, Amy, Ex, and many other here who
are the core of the Anti-American people on this group.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
18 May 2004 01:53:35 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040518111151.02178.00000818@mb-m25.aol.com...
Amazing how Jean seeks to divert attention away from the subject and how
Amy
defends herself by mention the one post she made.
My point is proven once again.
Jean needs to stop kissing Dani's ***** simply because he thinks she's cute
and
realize that she supports the likes of Chris, Amy, Ex, and many other here
who
are the core of the Anti-American people on this group.
Tony
Ah ... now I get it ... *You're* Pro-American, and everything you say
should be agreed with *or else* we'd* be called *Anti*-American.
Why didn't you just say that in first place Tony! I had this weird sense
that there was a *difference* between Bush and America. But, not unlike
German leadership during the '30's and early '40's, the Fueher is the
Fatherland, and the Fatherland is the Fueher. Inseparable.
Great. Now ... how can I make up for lost time? Let's see ...
Saddam buried all his WMD's in the desert.
Saddam sent his WMD's *and* production equipment to Syria ( or Iran ), two
countries that must be given notice that Iraq's fate will be their own fate
unless they comply with the Fueher's ( Whoops! :-) ) I meant Bush's demands
to hand them over or destroy them with U.S. verification.
Libya is OK now. They're shipping us oil.
The terrorists in Iraq only proves that Iraq was a huge supporter of
international Islamic terrorism and was therefore, either directly or
indirectly, responsible for 9-11.
Bin Laden is secondary to bringing democracy to Iraq.
Uh ... oh .. and the sarin shell that exploded is the 'tip of the iceberg'
as far as Iraq's WMD stash, and finally prove's Saddam hadn't complied with
U.N. resolutions and that Bush made the correct decision to invade instead
of leaving it to that Liberal weakling Blix, who's likely a closet
Communist.
Elections are quickly becoming a dangerous thing in the U.S. since a change
of leadership during war can lead to catastrophic results. Elections should
be suspended until the end of the war on terrorism and a predecided line of
ascension should be written into the constitution so that if, God forbid,
something happens to Bush, then either Cheney or Rumsfield will be able to
continue on with his effective policies.
Yahoo!! Look at me Ma!! No Brains!!! I'm a Neocon now! Whoot!!
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bradly Wiebe" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
21 May 2004 04:39:00 PM |
|
|
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>ex wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
<br><a href="news:20040518111151.02178.00000818@mb-m25.aol.com">news:20040518111151.02178.00000818@mb-m25.aol.com</a>...
<br>> Amazing how Jean seeks to divert attention away from the subject
and how
<br>Amy
<br>> defends herself by mention the one post she made.
<br>>
<br>> My point is proven once again.
<br>>
<br>> Jean needs to stop kissing Dani's ***** simply because he thinks she's
cute
<br>and
<br>> realize that she supports the likes of Chris, Amy, Ex, and many other
here
<br>who
<br>> are the core of the Anti-American people on this group.
<br>>
<br>> Tony
<p>Ah ... now I get it ... *You're* Pro-American, and everything
you say
<br>should be agreed with *or else* we'd* be called *Anti*-American.
<p>Why didn't you just say that in first place Tony! I had this weird sense
<br>that there was a *difference* between Bush and America. But, not unlike
<br>German leadership during the '30's and early '40's, the Fueher is the
<br>Fatherland, and the Fatherland is the Fueher. Inseparable.
<p>Great. Now ... how can I make up for lost time? Let's see ...
<p>Saddam buried all his WMD's in the desert.
<br>Saddam sent his WMD's *and* production equipment to Syria ( or Iran
), two
<br>countries that must be given notice that Iraq's fate will be their
own fate
<br>unless they comply with the Fueher's ( Whoops! :-) ) I meant Bush's
demands
<br>to hand them over or destroy them with U.S. verification.
<br>Libya is OK now. They're shipping us oil.
<br>The terrorists in Iraq only proves that Iraq was a huge supporter of
<br>international Islamic terrorism and was therefore, either directly
or
<br>indirectly, responsible for 9-11.
<br>Bin Laden is secondary to bringing democracy to Iraq.
<br>Uh ... oh .. and the sarin shell that exploded is the 'tip of the iceberg'
<br>as far as Iraq's WMD stash, and finally prove's Saddam hadn't complied
with
<br>U.N. resolutions and that Bush made the correct decision to invade
instead
<br>of leaving it to that Liberal weakling Blix, who's likely a closet
<br>Communist.
<br>Elections are quickly becoming a dangerous thing in the U.S. since
a change
<br>of leadership during war can lead to catastrophic results. Elections
should
<br>be suspended until the end of the war on terrorism and a predecided
line of
<br>ascension should be written into the constitution so that if, God forbid,
<br>something happens to Bush, then either Cheney or Rumsfield will be
able to
<br>continue on with his effective policies.
<p>Yahoo!! Look at me Ma!! No Brains!!! I'm a Neocon now! Whoot!!</blockquote>
Now THAT'S an american!
<p>Hilarious post :)
<br> </html>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
18 May 2004 05:50:05 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040518111151.02178.00000818@mb-m25.aol.com...
Amazing how
...much of plank you are.
Jean seeks to divert attention away from the subject
Why are you replying to me with this? Try Jean. In fact, who the hell
ARE you addressing, the fantasy devotees?
and how Amy defends herself by mention the one post she made.
LOL - the truth is that merely the most recent of my posts to YOU on
the topic of prophecy, was but days ago... and you ran away. Oh dear,
another abject and trademark failure. Depressing isn't it?
So why are you replying to me in the third-person? Ah, it's for them
out there, the choir invisible, the host of lurking disciples.
My point is proven once again.
You've actually established three things.
1. You can barely write a line without lapsing into signature cliché.
2. You've no idea what proven means.
3. You're obsessed, delusional and monu-mentally stupid.
Jean needs to stop kissing Dani's ***** simply because he thinks she's cute
Why are you telling me this? Reply to Jean.
and
realize that she supports the likes of Chris, Amy, Ex, and many other here
who are the core of the Anti-American people on this group.
<Tar-and-feather Amy as anti-American and maybe they'll swallow my
lies>
Wrong.
The day you get voted poster-boy for the US-of-A will be the day that
I become an anti-Septic. Until such time, my American daughter and I
will be splitting our sides at the deranged and insane McCarthy clone.
Do you remember what the Doctor reported about prolonged steroid
abuse? Grandiose delusions, you're a walking taking case study.
Totally fruit and nut.
-Anti-Phoney
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
19 May 2004 06:11:05 AM |
|
|
"Absolute Zero" <AmyCaton@GoFree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:ad960a96.0405181450.32949918@posting.google.com...
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040518111151.02178.00000818@mb-m25.aol.com...
Amazing how
..much of plank you are.
Jean seeks to divert attention away from the subject
Why are you replying to me with this? Try Jean. In fact, who the hell
ARE you addressing, the fantasy devotees?
and how Amy defends herself by mention the one post she made.
LOL - the truth is that merely the most recent of my posts to YOU on
the topic of prophecy, was but days ago... and you ran away. Oh dear,
another abject and trademark failure. Depressing isn't it?
So why are you replying to me in the third-person? Ah, it's for them
out there, the choir invisible, the host of lurking disciples.
My point is proven once again.
You've actually established three things.
1. You can barely write a line without lapsing into signature cliché.
2. You've no idea what proven means.
3. You're obsessed, delusional and monu-mentally stupid.
Jean needs to stop kissing Dani's ***** simply because he thinks she's
cute
Why are you telling me this? Reply to Jean.
and
realize that she supports the likes of Chris, Amy, Ex, and many other
here
who are the core of the Anti-American people on this group.
<Tar-and-feather Amy as anti-American and maybe they'll swallow my
lies>
Wrong.
The day you get voted poster-boy for the US-of-A will be the day that
I become an anti-Septic. Until such time, my American daughter and I
will be splitting our sides at the deranged and insane McCarthy clone.
Do you remember what the Doctor reported about prolonged steroid
abuse? Grandiose delusions, you're a walking taking case study.
Totally fruit and nut.
Increased levels of aggression and significant sexual dysfunction were
mentioned by the good doctor too. Not to mention hair loss...
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
20 May 2004 04:54:57 AM |
|
|
I quote Jean, and Amy thinks I'm talking to her.
Can we say delusional?
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
21 May 2004 06:55:13 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040520055457.21319.00001763@mb-m04.aol.com...
I quote Jean, and Amy thinks I'm talking to her.
The mental-case gets funnier by the day.
No fool, you weren't "quoting" Jean.
"Jean seeks to divert attention away from the subject"
"Jean needs to stop kissing Dani's ***** simply because he thinks she's
cute"
You were criticising him in a reply to me that seems to be addressing
Usenet general.
Can we say delusional?
No YOU can't, except in self-reference.
Tony
The more you reply the more deranged you look, nut-case.
-A
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
18 May 2004 11:05:45 AM |
|
|
In article <20040518111151.02178.00000818@mb-m25.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing how Jean seeks to divert attention away from the subject and how Amy
defends herself by mention the one post she made.
My point is proven once again.
Jean needs to stop kissing Dani's ***** simply because he thinks she's cute and
realize that she supports the likes of Chris, Amy, Ex, and many other here who
are the core of the Anti-American people on this group.
Well, most of the true Americans here know that it's Bush and the neocons who
are Anti-Americans, who seek to destroy every ideal that this wonderful country
has ever held in esteem.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
20 May 2004 04:52:05 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
Well, most of the true Americans here >know that it's Bush and the neocons who
are Anti-Americans, who seek to destroy >every ideal that this wonderful
country has ever held in esteem.
You're talking about the radical left wing Liberals in this group.
True Americans are supporting our troops, praying for them, not back stabbing
them and second guessing their every move as you do every single day.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
20 May 2004 04:42:07 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040520055205.21319.00001762@mb-m04.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
Well, most of the true Americans here >know that it's Bush and the
neocons who
are Anti-Americans, who seek to destroy >every ideal that this wonderful
country has ever held in esteem.
You're talking about the radical left wing Liberals in this group.
True Americans are supporting our troops, praying for them, not back
stabbing
them and second guessing their every move as you do every single day.
Tony
Because they have no choice but to support them.
If most American's had a choice now, the troops wouldn't have gone there in
the first place.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
20 May 2004 06:18:17 PM |
|
|
In article <20040520055205.21319.00001762@mb-m04.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
Well, most of the true Americans here >know that it's Bush and the neocons who
are Anti-Americans, who seek to destroy >every ideal that this wonderful
country has ever held in esteem.
You're talking about the radical left wing Liberals in this group.
Nope. I'm talking about the neocons who want to rip away American freedoms and
install a police state in which the government can dictate to people who they
can speak to, what they can say, what they can think, what they can read, and
what they can do in the privacy of their own bedroom. In order to enforce,
neocons are in favor of not requiring any sort of due process whatsoever
(Patriot Act - I suggest you read it).
True Americans are supporting our troops, praying for them, not back stabbing
them and second guessing their every move as you do every single day.
Yup, that's what the "Liberals" are doing. Meanwhile, neocons are perfectly
happy to have sent our troops over to fight with inadequate body armor. Neocons
were also perfectly content to have our troops take the full blame for what
happened at Abu Graib, decrying anyone who actually supported the *troops* by
insisting that they would not have acted independently.
Like I said, Neocons are anti-American, on every level.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 09:32:54 AM |
|
|
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some insight
or when they react negatively, it is becasue of the image you give off of
pro-american with your obsession to win a lose lose situation that you brought
upon yourself... The losers here deserve to be focussed on, but these are not
Dani or the other women who defend her. You lost that arguments years ago, and
because you still insist, despite everyone telling you to just drop it, you risk
losing argumetns against the real enemies of freedom here, those you didn't
create, those who are here only to spread lies.
Wake the ***** up.
J.
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Exactly how many posts have Amy and Dani
combined been on the topic of prophecy and/or
current events that may be related to prophecy
during hte past 2 1/2 years.
A handfull at best.
It proves my point that the two of them are hear
for one reason, to stir up trouble.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foghorn Leghorn" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 09:53:41 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com...
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the
real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies.
Something more accurate would be 'Anti-Bush' and 'Anit-Israeli Policies'.
But some of you seem to have bought into Bush's BS whereby anyone that
disagrees with *him* and his neo-conservative policies is automaticly
classified as 'Anti-American'. You've seemed to have taken Bush's technique
and applied it the Mid-East conflict.
Do you understand this?? There *is* a difference between disliking Bush and
being anti-American, just as there is a difference with disliking Israeli
policies ( most recent the demolishing of Palestinian homes inside refugee
camps ) and Anti-Semitism.
Bush's policies are *not* helping. They need to get moderate Arab states,
leaders and their people onside before they can ever attempt to combat
Islamic terrorism. Instead they've further alienated them. The same goes for
the peace 'process' in the Mid-East.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 09:45:42 PM |
|
|
Foghorn Leghorn a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com...
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the
real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies.
Something more accurate would be 'Anti-Bush' and 'Anit-Israeli Policies'.
But some of you seem to have bought into Bush's BS whereby anyone that
disagrees with *him* and his neo-conservative policies is automaticly
classified as 'Anti-American'. You've seemed to have taken Bush's technique
and applied it the Mid-East conflict.
Do you understand this?? There *is* a difference between disliking Bush and
being anti-American, just as there is a difference with disliking Israeli
policies ( most recent the demolishing of Palestinian homes inside refugee
camps ) and Anti-Semitism.
In your dreams only. These are times of war, you are either for the terrorists
or for those who address them. There is no middle ground.
Now about Israel, the terrorists use civilians dwellings despite the Geneva
convention, which explain why these houses can legitimately be destroyed.
Terrorists always violate the Geneva convention, and so they never have any
right to be protected by it. This allows to go after them wherever they are, and
take down the civilian place they use, if they attack from them, no mater which
they are, which become illegal dwelling places automatically by the very letter
of the Geneva convention. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that.
So far there has not been any violation of anything by the Israelis, but there
has been of everything by the Palies, no matter what anyone says.
Bush's policies are *not* helping. They need to get moderate Arab states,
leaders and their people onside before they can ever attempt to combat
Islamic terrorism. Instead they've further alienated them. The same goes for
the peace 'process' in the Mid-East.
They need to do... SQUASH.
Well, about Iraq, what can I tell you, there was a last chance resolution that
guarantees war for non-compliance with even one single clause, and Saddam
complied with none of the clauses. It was not for Blix to tell the SC that
Saddam had failed to copy to those concerning Kuwait (by not giving them back
their National archives or their POWs, or by keeping threatening to annex them).
Nor was he to convene the SC for its failure to comply with clause 32, (pay for
homicide bombers). It was automatically the serious consequences which were the
lifting of the cease fire. Blix should have convene for Saddam not complying
with all the WMD he was supposed to. But it is a moot point since there were
other violations.
There was no choice with Iraq but to attack to even keep the UN relevant. If the
only resolution ever to promise force in case of non compliance, would have kept
being totally ignored after unanimous consent for the serious consequences it
entailed in case of even one non-compliance, once every single clause was
violated after it was passed, it would have meant that no problem could ever be
solved through the UN ever.
And it will still mean that as long as the countries who signed 1441 and renege
their signatures do not apologize. No way will the US go to the UN before
intervening with Iran for instance, simply because most of the SC of the UN is a
bunch of unrepentant losers who do not respect their word.
Again, they need to do SQUASH. Yet, they even tried to pass a resolution that
guaranteed regime change instead of what 678, 687, and 1441 promised, regime
annihilation. But it was rejected beforehand by France, the fucking traitor
state. And now what happens with Iraq? Anan appoints a damn anti-semite *****
who sees Jews in his soup. IN-SA-NE.
Same thing about the peace process. When it was to happen, Arafat took down his
prime minister who was going to address the FIRST STEP of the road map, address
the fucking terrorists, and because of that, he replaced him by a pro terrorist
*****.
There is no road map anymore. As long as Arafat will be there the only thing
Israel can do is what they do, make unilateral moves. The palies will never do
anything. Power is in the potatoes if he thinks the road map is still on the map.
The only thing that could be questionable is nothing the Israeli or the US did
so far. But what they say they will do. I doubt it is legit their demolishing of
houses for their protection, if these have not been used in the past. it is
pre-emptive. so fare everything else is text book by the Geneva convention. The
only real criminals are the Muslims, and they are the worst bandits in the
world. But this would be a precedent, the first thing that would be beyond
simple logic, despite the fact that indeed they destroy a house to defend
themselves, as the geneva convention and their own supreme court guarantees, if
this house has not been used in the past as a targeting dwelling, then it can be
questioned, it cannot be preemptively without stretching dangerously the concept.
But the rest is perfectly legit. Ha yes, there were also in IRaq the renegade
soldiers and their brute commander who was also a domestic violator. Even though
many seem to suggest possible other directive beyond the Geneva convention,
which I doubt very much (the New Yorker journalist seems to be a fraud) there
are still strange interpretations of the reality that illegal combatants are NOT
protected by the Geneva convention, and all the foreign fighters in Afghanistan
or in Iraq, fall under that category, which is exactly why they have the basic
conditions they have at Guantanamo Bay, and why they can be detained
ex-communicado, they STILL have some basic protection from bad treatments. This
cannot be circumvented. And it seems there might have been some borderline
attempt to "solve" intelligence lacunas which required warnings by lawyers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/ and that these directives may have been
wrongfully exported to Iraq and even more wrongfully given from skilled
operatives to inexperimented regular soldiers still has to be assessed but seems
to be a possibility.
But these are glitches compared to the big picture. Outside the big picture we
are talking about and which the "moderate" arab states should not criticize.
So no, they have nothing to say.
But yes, the very very recent (this week!) two things, one in Israel that still
remains to be assessed, and one in Iraq that also still remains to be assessed,
may, IF THEY PROVE TO BE EXACT, make things much worse. It remains to be seen.
But SO FAR, with EVERYTHING ELSE, nothing warrants anything else than support
for the new Iraq.
it is a betrayal by any country in the world not to support either the coalition
or Israel against the terrorists.
They do just because they are Muslims and would support bandits to hell against
anyone because they are their "brothers", and for the coalition of the weasels,
merely for monetary interest, namely oil.
There is no fairness, and those who are fair are those who are ostracized. It is
a shame.
Unfortunately it seems there may be little glitches probably used when
confronted to such massive unjust disadvantage, to get some leverage, that are
nonetheless, for once, totally inappropriate.
Not that many of those who criticize would hesitate to do 10 times worst, but
those that represent the moral ground cannot allow themselves to play such a
game. Everybody hate them but have to respect them, because they have the power
of fair play and win. If they are shown to cheat, but really cheat, not the
***** lies that they all say, even if minor things, they are screwed.
The world will be worst off.
But not so far. Let's see what (will) happen[ed].
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 05:38:11 PM |
|
|
In article <q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some insight
Hey, now - just wait a cotton-pickin' minute! "The girls"?!?
Really, Jean! Next thing you know, you'll be posting how they belong in the
kitchen, or something!
*shock*
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 06:01:38 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:n9bqc.269290$e17.135164@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the
real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some
insight
Hey, now - just wait a cotton-pickin' minute! "The girls"?!?
Really, Jean! Next thing you know, you'll be posting how they belong in
the
kitchen, or something!
*shock*
Woods
Jean's still surprised your husbands let you use their computer ...
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 07:09:30 PM |
|
|
In article <Ivbqc.24888$325.591290@news20.bellglobal.com>, "ex" <F.Leghorn@farm.com> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:n9bqc.269290$e17.135164@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the
real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some
insight
Hey, now - just wait a cotton-pickin' minute! "The girls"?!?
Really, Jean! Next thing you know, you'll be posting how they belong in
the
kitchen, or something!
*shock*
Woods
Jean's still surprised your husbands let you use their computer ...
Nah, Jean isn't like that at all - I'm just giving him a hard time. ;-)
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 10:00:50 PM |
|
|
ex a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:n9bqc.269290$e17.135164@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the
real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some
insight
Hey, now - just wait a cotton-pickin' minute! "The girls"?!?
Really, Jean! Next thing you know, you'll be posting how they belong in
the
kitchen, or something!
*shock*
Woods
Jean's still surprised your husbands let you use their computer ...
-ex
hahaha "their" computers? I can't believe they wouldn't have their own.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
17 May 2004 09:59:10 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some insight
Hey, now - just wait a cotton-pickin' minute! "The girls"?!?
Really, Jean! Next thing you know, you'll be posting how they belong in the
kitchen, or something!
*shock*
Woods
I was thinking about you too BTW but you were not in the ones mentioned with the
girls. But no, it has nothing to do with belonging to the kitchen.
Women make a big thing out of their gender in so many other circumstances. You
can't deny that. You have TV channels for heaven's sake.
But of course what matters here on this NG is the exchange of ideas, but there
is a little more latitude given to your gender by the nature of your grace
(graciousness?). I add a plus value to your gender, mind you. You have one
chromosome more than us after all, there is that little something (that I
recognize as more, not less) that is a plus value, that doesn't in any way
restrict you to anything, it just makes you more to be the beuty of the specie,
not less in anyway. I surely wouldn't put a scarf on you if that is what you
think. On the contrary. Did you misinterpret me?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
18 May 2004 05:48:15 AM |
|
|
In article <2_eqc.15573086$Id.2573194@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some
insight
Hey, now - just wait a cotton-pickin' minute! "The girls"?!?
Really, Jean! Next thing you know, you'll be posting how they belong in the
kitchen, or something!
*shock*
Woods
I was thinking about you too BTW but you were not in the ones mentioned with
the
girls. But no, it has nothing to do with belonging to the kitchen.
Women make a big thing out of their gender in so many other circumstances. You
can't deny that. You have TV channels for heaven's sake.
But of course what matters here on this NG is the exchange of ideas, but there
is a little more latitude given to your gender by the nature of your grace
(graciousness?). I add a plus value to your gender, mind you. You have one
chromosome more than us after all, there is that little something (that I
recognize as more, not less) that is a plus value, that doesn't in any way
restrict you to anything, it just makes you more to be the beuty of the specie,
not less in anyway. I surely wouldn't put a scarf on you if that is what you
think. On the contrary. Did you misinterpret me?
Oh, Jean - I was just teasing you. I know better than to think you'd do
anything remotely chauvinistic.
:-)
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look this up on Google |
18 May 2004 08:47:51 AM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <2_eqc.15573086$Id.2573194@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <q24qc.4684684$iA2.546135@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Trouble that your lust started up a long time ago. Better focus on the real
losers here, the other posters who post only anti-american or anti-semite
propaganda lies. They are a lot more lethal. The girls only put in some
insight
Hey, now - just wait a cotton-pickin' minute! "The girls"?!?
Really, Jean! Next thing you know, you'll be posting how they belong in the
kitchen, or something!
*shock*
Woods
I was thinking about you too BTW but you were not in the ones mentioned with
the
girls. But no, it has nothing to do with belonging to the kitchen.
Women make a big thing out of their gender in so many other circumstances. You
can't deny that. You have TV channels for heaven's sake.
But of course what matters here on this NG is the exchange of ideas, but there
is a little more latitude given to your gender by the nature of your grace
(graciousness?). I add a plus value to your gender, mind you. You have one
chromosome more than us after all, there is that little something (that I
recognize as more, not less) that is a plus value, that doesn't in any way
restrict you to anything, it just makes you more to be the beauty of the specie,
not less in anyway. I surely wouldn't put a scarf on you if that is what you
think. On the contrary. Did you misinterpret me?
Oh, Jean - I was just teasing you. I know better than to think you'd do
anything remotely chauvinistic.
:-)
Woods
:-)
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
