ROFF history

wrote in message
...
In article ,
Are you and other?

Oh no, do we have to start in on writing ability now. I didn't snip
anything from this sentence. It's 100% yours and there was no context.
Beautiful example of your coherence.

Yep, ya got me. I made a typo. "and" should have been written "an". Had
difficulty with that one, did ya?

But anyway, I digress. You like surveys, show me one person (besides
the other brain-dead inDUHvidual who can't read) who honestly thinks
that I misread "in a box on my shelf" as anything other than deceased.

Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the
pride
expressed by my father's ashes.

Once again, I'm not sure what your jumble of words is supposed to mean.
"we seem to be shy anyone else..." Classic.

Not familiar with the colloquial use of words? Not to fear, I don't mind
educatin' you a bit.

First you need to be able assertain the meaning of colloquial:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/colloquial or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial .

Next you need to understand that words often have many different meanings,
depending on context, in many cases. So, in the context of the sentence,
"Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the
pride expressed by my father's ashes." *Shy* means: "having less than the
full or specified amount or number : SHORT just shy of six feet tall"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shy

You were right about one thing though--Classic!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you think that no one
wants to agree with you because we are scaring them away?

There you go with that reading comprehension problem again!

"... we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the pride
expressed by my father's ashes[,]" actually means that no one, not a single
solitary sole cares, one way or the other about that for which we have been
posting about for the last two days or so. Get it? No one cares. It's
just you and me, buddy!

I'd wager it's because it's stupid, pointless, and you are wrong.

Yes, this whole thread has been pointless and stupid; however, I am
certainly not wrong. I know that you and Sandy Poo didn't know that
homosexuals could have children, I know that my father is dead and couldn't
possibly be proud of me, in the condition that he is in, and I know that you
have a great deal of difficulty reading and comprehending the written
word(s).

Nevertheless, no one has agreed with you.

Well, technically, that's not true, as Wolfgang *seems* to agree with me.
However, I will give you that no one else has agreed nor disagreed with me.
Now, how many folks have e-mailed you to tell you how right you are, as I
have yet to see a single post, from the hordes of fans you comand,
congradulating you on your grasp of the English language and it's elements
of style?


Not sure I said anything about name calling.

Well, I believe that we established that your memory was fading, in an
earlier thread. Go back to the thread involving 'ol Joey and check out
your
response to Cyli.

You want me to go do your homework for you? No thanks. Besides, my bet
is that you are reading something wrong. My guess is that you are
misreading the word "That" and are attributing it to the wrong concept.

Remember, you said that you were, "Not sure I said **anything** about name
calling."

**In response to Cyli**

"Once again, rather than actually asking for a clarification of
something that didn't seem to make sense, various people
(not you) resorted to name calling. That's ignorant....
- Ken

**In response to Wolfgang**

"It's a small man that can't admit when he's wrong......
......it's a tiny man who calls someone else names when they
themselves are wrong.....how tall are you again?
- Ken"

Now your just lyin'!

Straight out of the Wolfgang playbook. If your (or you're) argument is
failing, call your opponent a liar.

I'll help ya here. It's, "your," in this case. "Your" imparts possession,
as in *it's my argument.* "You're" is a contraction of the two words, you
and are. In the context of the sentence, " If ___ ___ argument is ailing,
call your opponent a liar[,]" "you are" makes no sense, whatsoever. Stick
with "your," for sentences of the same structure and context, in the future!

And no, I'm calling you a liar, because it's the best term to use when
someone falsely states that they don't recall something that they said, less
than a week ago; especially, when said statements are so easily verified.

I've been posting to ROFF for probably ~12 years now. I've had some
heated arguments and I'm sure if you dig through Deja/Google you'll be
able to find some quotes where I call someone a name. I'm sure you'll
use this evidence along with your misreading (yes again) with what I
wrote above to say that I'm a liar. But hey, if it keeps you occupied
searching through archives, have at it. Hint: Look for "Halfordian"
and "janikk" in the same post, that's your best bet.

I suppose that I could do as you suggest, but what would going so far back
accomplish? I have your words of the last week to verify that you are a
liar who either can't read, or just likes making a fool of himself!

Tootles,

"Tootles" my ass! You'll be back. You just can't save yourself, from
yourself!

Love,
Op

- Ken

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
I'd wager it's because it's stupid, pointless, and you are wrong.

Yes, this whole thread has been pointless and stupid; however, I am
certainly not wrong.

Right on one, wrong on one. Not too bad, keep working on it.

Nevertheless, no one has agreed with you.

Well, technically, that's not true, as Wolfgang *seems* to agree with me.
However, I will give you that no one else has agreed nor disagreed with me.
Now, how many folks have e-mailed you to tell you how right you are, as I
have yet to see a single post, from the hordes of fans you comand,
congradulating you on your grasp of the English language and it's elements
of style?

I haven't even seen one person agree with you. I didn't ask anyone to
say that they agreed with me. Funny thing is, this post of yours did
apparently spur someone to email me privately. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure I'm
a liar.....keep the insults coming.


You want me to go do your homework for you? No thanks. Besides, my bet
is that you are reading something wrong. My guess is that you are
misreading the word "That" and are attributing it to the wrong concept.

Remember, you said that you were, "Not sure I said **anything** about name
calling."

That's just pitiful...."Anything"

Yes, I said it's wrong/ignorant to call someone names when you
[Opie/Wolfie] were wrong.



Now your just lyin'!

Straight out of the Wolfgang playbook. If your (or you're) argument is
failing, call your opponent a liar.

I'll help ya here. It's, "your," in this case. "Your" imparts possession,
as in *it's my argument.* "You're" is a contraction of the two words, you
and are. In the context of the sentence, " If ___ ___ argument is ailing,
call your opponent a liar[,]" "you are" makes no sense, whatsoever. Stick
with "your," for sentences of the same structure and context, in the future!

:-) So what part of "lyin'" do I possess? Bet ya still don't figure it
out. Keep working on that reading and writing ability.



"Tootles" my ass! You'll be back. You just can't save yourself, from
yourself!

Oh don't worry, tootles was just for that message. Keep going, you're
(or your in you're case) doing a great job embarrassing yourself.
- Ken

wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Yes, this whole thread has been pointless and stupid; however, I am
certainly not wrong.

Right on one, wrong on one. Not too bad, keep working on it.

Okay, you're wrong.

Well, technically, that's not true, as Wolfgang *seems* to agree with me.
However, I will give you that no one else has agreed nor disagreed with
me.
Now, how many folks have e-mailed you to tell you how right you are, as I
have yet to see a single post, from the hordes of fans you comand,
congradulating you on your grasp of the English language and it's
elements
of style?

I haven't even seen one person agree with you.

Well, as I said, Wolfgang *seems* to agree with me.

Learn to read, Ken!

I didn't ask anyone to
say that they agreed with me.

I don't recall askin' anyone to agree with me either? I even mentioned that
fact a few lines up, but I'm sure you missed that part of the post, what
with your selective reading abilities.

Funny thing is, this post of yours did
apparently spur someone to email me privately. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure I'm
a liar.....keep the insults coming.

Hell, I've had people e-mail me too--nothing to do with this thread though.

Remember, you said that you were, "Not sure I said **anything** about
name
calling."

That's just pitiful...."Anything"

I know! Why would you say something that you didn't really mean to say?

Yes, I said it's wrong/ignorant to call someone names when you
[Opie/Wolfie] were wrong.

So the above isn't "Anything."

I'll help ya here. It's, "your," in this case. "Your" imparts
possession,
as in *it's my argument.* "You're" is a contraction of the two words,
you
and are. In the context of the sentence, " If ___ ___ argument is
failing,
call your opponent a liar[,]" "you are" makes no sense, whatsoever.
Stick
with "your," for sentences of the same structure and context, in the
future!

:-) So what part of "lyin'" do I possess?

**** if I know. It's *your* ****ed-up reasonin' and I can't make heads nor
tails of it?

Bet ya still don't figure it
out. Keep working on that reading and writing ability.

**** son, how do you expect anyone to read such screwy garbled crap?

"Tootles" my ass! You'll be back. You just can't save yourself, from
yourself!

Oh don't worry, tootles was just for that message. Keep going, you're
(or your in you're case) doing a great job embarrassing yourself.

Not embarrassed in the least, myself. You're still here too, right?

Op --not a word about the adoption question that you supposedly answered in
past posts? What's up with that?--

- Ken

In article ,
says...
wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Yes, this whole thread has been pointless and stupid; however, I am
certainly not wrong.

Right on one, wrong on one. Not too bad, keep working on it.

Okay, you're wrong.

Close but no cigar.


Well, technically, that's not true, as Wolfgang *seems* to agree with me.
However, I will give you that no one else has agreed nor disagreed with
me.
Now, how many folks have e-mailed you to tell you how right you are, as I
have yet to see a single post, from the hordes of fans you comand,
congradulating you on your grasp of the English language and it's
elements
of style?

I haven't even seen one person agree with you.

I didn't ask anyone to
say that they agreed with me.

I don't recall askin' anyone to agree with me either?

Never said you did. I asked anyone who agreed with you to post. Only
person posted and they confirmed that you were wrong.


I'll help ya here. It's, "your," in this case. "Your" imparts
possession,
as in *it's my argument.* "You're" is a contraction of the two words,
you
and are. In the context of the sentence, " If ___ ___ argument is
failing,
call your opponent a liar[,]" "you are" makes no sense, whatsoever.
Stick
with "your," for sentences of the same structure and context, in the
future!

:-) So what part of "lyin'" do I possess?

**** if I know. It's *your* ****ed-up reasonin' and I can't make heads nor
tails of it?

I know, it's hilarious. Unfortunately you removed it in your last
reply, so now you'll never figure out if "your lyin'".


Bet ya still don't figure it
out. Keep working on that reading and writing ability.

**** son, how do you expect anyone to read such screwy garbled crap?

I assume most everyone else here (except Wolfie of course) can read.
You could try getting a grade schooler to explain it to you.


Not embarrassed in the least, myself.

I guess that's the next level of self awareness. If you're too dumb
to figure out you should be embarrassed there's not much anyone can
do for you.


You're still here too, right?

I've always been here.
- Ken

wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Yes, this whole thread has been pointless and stupid; however, I am
certainly not wrong.

Right on one, wrong on one. Not too bad, keep working on it.

Okay, you're wrong.

Close but no cigar.


Well, technically, that's not true, as Wolfgang *seems* to agree with
me.
However, I will give you that no one else has agreed nor disagreed
with
me.
Now, how many folks have e-mailed you to tell you how right you are,
as I
have yet to see a single post, from the hordes of fans you comand,
congradulating you on your grasp of the English language and it's
elements
of style?

I haven't even seen one person agree with you.

I didn't ask anyone to
say that they agreed with me.

I don't recall askin' anyone to agree with me either?

Never said you did. I asked anyone who agreed with you to post. Only
person posted and they confirmed that you were wrong.


I'll help ya here. It's, "your," in this case. "Your" imparts
possession,
as in *it's my argument.* "You're" is a contraction of the two words,
you
and are. In the context of the sentence, " If ___ ___ argument is
failing,
call your opponent a liar[,]" "you are" makes no sense, whatsoever.
Stick
with "your," for sentences of the same structure and context, in the
future!

:-) So what part of "lyin'" do I possess?

**** if I know. It's *your* ****ed-up reasonin' and I can't make heads
nor
tails of it?

I know, it's hilarious. Unfortunately you removed it in your last
reply, so now you'll never figure out if "your lyin'".


Bet ya still don't figure it
out. Keep working on that reading and writing ability.

**** son, how do you expect anyone to read such screwy garbled crap?

I assume most everyone else here (except Wolfie of course) can read.
You could try getting a grade schooler to explain it to you.


Not embarrassed in the least, myself.

I guess that's the next level of self awareness. If you're too dumb
to figure out you should be embarrassed there's not much anyone can
do for you.


You're still here too, right?

I've always been here.
- Ken

There is no Fawn Lake in Yellowstone you insufferable moron.

Wolfgang
hee, hee, hee.