Anyone remember this song?

wavy g's number won fan wrote:

> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>
>
>>
>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>
>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>
>>>
>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>question.
>>>
>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>
>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>logically.
>>
>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>
>
> ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
> generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
> like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
> entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>
> ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
> u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
> can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
> go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
> infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
> and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
> influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
> things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
> universe works.
>
> now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
> already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
> into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
> music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
> ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!

Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
constructive and promptly cease.

--
Yug txen eht sa riaf sa tsuj ton m'i taht dias reveohw?
?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93

The Parapraxis League of the Clueless needs donations
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/06dbb46ae3c920b6?dmode=source

Support the Mother's Against Stalker Gay-Queer Worms Association
Give generously! http://deadbeef.lol33ta.com/DeadBeef

 

??? rrock is no match for wavy g:

>
>
>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>
>> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>
>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>question.
>>>>
>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>
>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>logically.
>>>
>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>
>>
>> ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>> generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>> like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>> entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>
>> ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>> u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>> can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>> go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>> infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>> and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>> influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>> things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>> universe works.
>>
>> now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>> already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>> into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>> music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>> ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>
>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>constructive and promptly cease.

hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
remembered, i won. so what gives?

 

Yep, I remember that song.
It is called sucky-suck-suck.

--
The most powerful Usenet tool you have ever heard of.
NewsMaestro v. 4.0.4 has been released.

Job list improvements for new installations having no jobs
to begin with.

In some previous releases some class files were missing.
As a result, the program would not run.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Multi-job support and other important feature additions
and various improvements and optimizations.

Web page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/

Download page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/Download_Information.htm

Send any feedback to newsmaestroinfo@mail.ru.
Your personal info will not be released and your privacy
will be honored.

 

"anonym_easynews_poster" <anonym@invalid.com> wrote in
news:CEMTi.121972$m81.115007@fe01.news.easynews.com:

>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
>> Well the south side of Chicago
>> Is the baddest part of town
>> And if you go down there
>> You better just beware
>> Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>
>> Now Leroy more than trouble
>> You see he stand about six foot four
>> All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>> All the men just call him "sir"
>>
>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>> Badder than old King Kong
>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>> Now Leroy he a gambler
>> And he like his fancy clothes
>> And he like to wave his diamond rings
>> In front of everybody's nose
>> He got a custom Continental
>> He got an Eldorado too
>> He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>> He got a razor in his shoe
>>
>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>> Badder than old King Kong
>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>> Well Friday bout a week ago
>> Leroy shootin' dice
>> And at the edge of the bar
>> Sat a girl named Doris
>> And ooh that girl looked nice
>> Well he cast his eyes upon her
>> And the trouble soon began
>> And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>> 'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>
>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> The baddest man in the whole damned town
>> Badder than old King Kong
>> And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>
>> Well the two men took to fightin'
>> And when they pulled them from the floor
>> Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>> With a couple of pieces gone
>>
>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>> Badder than old King Kong
>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> What is a junkyard dog, please?
>
>

They have junkyards full of old dogs. HTH.
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

wavy g's number won fan <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in
news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com:

> Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>
>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>Is the baddest part of town
>>And if you go down there
>>You better just beware
>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>
>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>
>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>Badder than old King Kong
>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>In front of everybody's nose
>>He got a custom Continental
>>He got an Eldorado too
>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>
>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>Badder than old King Kong
>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>And at the edge of the bar
>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>And the trouble soon began
>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>
>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>Badder than old King Kong
>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>
>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>
>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>Badder than old King Kong
>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the
> 50"s. u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.

Yeah, the Beatles are rubbish, I listen to Britney Spears instead.
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

"Jasper PNL Mfrg LLCC" <Jasp@PNLLLCC.org> wrote in
news:YtNTi.2239$f63.1461@trndny03:

>
> "anonym_easynews_poster" <anonym@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:CEMTi.121972$m81.115007@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>
>> > And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>> What is a junkyard dog, please?
>>
>>
>
> have you ever tangled with a guard dog at a junkyard ?
>
>
>

Does getting your foot caught in the dog lead count?
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

wavy g's number won fan wrote:

> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>
>
>>
>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>question.
>>>>>
>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>
>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>logically.
>>>>
>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>
>>>
>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>
>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>universe works.
>>>
>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>
>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>constructive and promptly cease.
>
>
> hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
> debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
> remembered, i won. so what gives?

It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
with that if that is your desire.


--
nz_mem_top=nz_mem_bottom=(char *)nz_mem_bank+nz_mem_allocated;
?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93

The Parapraxis League of the Clueless needs donations
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/06dbb46ae3c920b6?dmode=source

Support the Mother's Against Stalker Gay-Queer Worms Association
Give generously! http://deadbeef.lol33ta.com/DeadBeef

 

"Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Yeah, the Beatles are rubbish, I listen to Britney Spears instead.

Proof of your Gayness!

Number One

 

??? rrock is no match for wavy g:

>
>
>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>
>> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>
>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>
>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>universe works.
>>>>
>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>
>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>
>>
>> hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>> debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>> remembered, i won. so what gives?
>
>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>with that if that is your desire.

ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."

there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.

so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?

 

wavy g's number won fan wrote:
> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>
>
>>
>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>
>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>
>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>
>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>
>>>
>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>
>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>with that if that is your desire.
>
>
> ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
> directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>
> there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
> i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
> question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
> behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>
> so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?

Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
60"s and seventes". Is that correct?

I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.

Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "

If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
association, the answer to your question is "yes."

Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
in the basement?"

This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.

--

?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93

The Parapraxis League of the Clueless needs donations
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/06dbb46ae3c920b6?dmode=source

Support the Mother's Against Stalker Gay-Queer Worms Association
Give generously! http://deadbeef.lol33ta.com/DeadBeef

 

"John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
news:162dnf81oZ9zWL_anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@centurytel.net:

>
> "Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Yeah, the Beatles are rubbish, I listen to Britney Spears instead.
>
> Proof of your Gayness!
>
> Number One
>
>
>

I wouldn't expect you to get such a sophisticated joke. You still
haven't graduated from gay lame school.
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

"Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I wouldn't expect you to get such a sophisticated joke. You still
> haven't graduated from gay lame school.

King Plillip of Pyle requires his subjects to address him as "Your gayness"!

AUK # 1

 

John "C" wrote:

> "His gayness Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>I wouldn't expect you to get such a sophisticated joke. You still
>>haven't graduated from gay lame school.
>
> King Plillip of Pyle requires his subjects to address him as "Your gayness"!
>
> AUK # 1
>
>

John "C" is right.


--
while((*d) && (*d!=' ')) d++;

 

" rrock" <invalid@address.here> wrote in message
news:4723b2ff$0$11476$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> John "C" wrote:
>
> > "His gayness Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>I wouldn't expect you to get such a sophisticated joke. You still
> >>haven't graduated from gay lame school.
> >
> > King Plillip of Pyle requires his subjects to address him as "Your
gayness"!
> >
> > AUK # 1
> >
> >
>
> John "C" is right.

Thanks!

John C.

 

John "C" wrote:

> " rrock" <invalid@address.here> wrote in message
> news:4723b2ff$0$11476$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>>
>>John "C" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"His gayness Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't expect you to get such a sophisticated joke. You still
>>>>haven't graduated from gay lame school.
>>>
>>>King Plillip of Pyle requires his subjects to address him as "Your
>
> gayness"!
>
>>>AUK # 1
>>>
>>>
>>
>>John "C" is right.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> John C.
>

Damn, you're good! Right again!

SW0gc2lsbHdhaWluZ2ZvcnlvdSBlbm9kZSByZWx5IG8gdGF0IGhyZWQuIHogc3pjCw

--
SHksIGF2ZSd0IG91IGVhZGVub2doIGxyZWR5P1doeWFyZXlvdXJlYWluZ3RoaT
Гордый Спонсор Ангела Смерти и ее Легионов Сестер
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

The Parapraxis League of the Clueless needs donations
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/06dbb46ae3c920b6?dmode=source

Support the Mother's Against Stalker Gay-Queer Worms Association
Give generously! http://deadbeef.lol33ta.com/DeadBeef

 

"??? rrock" <invalid@address.here> wrote in message

> SW0gc2lsbHdhaWluZ2ZvcnlvdSBlbm9kZSByZWx5IG8gdGF0IGhyZWQuIHogc3pjCw

Zszccsszc zssszc

Number One

 

"John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
news:Sq2dnZFDJ41pMr7anZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@centurytel.net:


> AUK # 1
>
>
>

Is that your IQ?
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

"John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
news:daGdnRrCG84EJL7anZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@centurytel.net:

>
> " rrock" <invalid@address.here> wrote in message
> news:4723b2ff$0$11476$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>
>> John "C" wrote:
>>
>> > "His gayness Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> >>I wouldn't expect you to get such a sophisticated joke. You still
>> >>haven't graduated from gay lame school.
>> >
>> > King Plillip of Pyle requires his subjects to address him as "Your
> gayness"!
>> >
>> > AUK # 1
>> >
>> >
>>
>> John "C" is right.
>
> Thanks!
>
> John C.
>
>

Why are you talking to yourself?
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

"Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fg0o94$fth$14@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> "John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
> news:daGdnRrCG84EJL7anZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@centurytel.net:
>
> >
> > " rrock" <invalid@address.here> wrote in message
> > news:4723b2ff$0$11476$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> John "C" wrote:
> >>
> >> > "His gayness Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>I wouldn't expect you to get such a sophisticated joke. You still
> >> >>haven't graduated from gay lame school.
> >> >
> >> > King Plillip of Pyle requires his subjects to address him as "Your
> > gayness"!
> >> >
> >> > AUK # 1
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> John "C" is right.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > John C.
> >
> >
>
> Why are you talking to yourself?

Why are you trying to suck yourself?

AUK # 1
--
What would happen if Art Deco had a genie in a bottle:

http://www.jibjab.com/view/205012


Don't forget:

http://www.jibjab.com/starring_you/receipt/1861764
You viewers made it No. 1 in Jib-Jab history as
most viewed in the shortest time posted!
**Pinky Sue Lamb's nude shot did it**

 

"Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fg0o93$fth$13@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> "John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
> news:Sq2dnZFDJ41pMr7anZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@centurytel.net:
>
>
> > AUK # 1
> >
> >
> >
>
> Is that your IQ?

140 which is twice what yours is at 70.

AUK # 1
--
What would happen if Art Deco had a genie in a bottle:

http://www.jibjab.com/view/205012


Don't forget:

http://www.jibjab.com/starring_you/receipt/1861764
You viewers made it No. 1 in Jib-Jab history as
most viewed in the shortest time posted!
**Pinky Sue Lamb's nude shot did it**