🚀 go-pugleaf

"Cerberus" <styx.sentinel.PAY@FERRYMAN.gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9BC97CDFE1C67NoneShallPass@127.0.0.1...
> "-=Spudley=-" <-=Spudley=-@home.com> wrote:
>
>> "Cerberus" <styx.sentinel.PAY@FERRYMAN.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9BC96D7B92D14NoneShallPass@127.0.0.1...
>>> "-=Spudley=-" <-=Spudley=-@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Cerberus" <styx.sentinel.PAY@FERRYMAN.gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9BC87C3191C5ENoneShallPass@127.0.0.1...
>>>>> "-=Spudley=-" <-=Spudley=-@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Je�us" <none@all.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MPG.241cafbcc8f6a7e8989684@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>>> In article <Xns9BC4C90A3B260NoneShallPass@127.0.0.1>,
>>>>>>> styx.sentinel.PAY@FERRYMAN.gmail.com says... <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > With your bullcrap blustering you bounce back like the moron
>>>>>>>> > that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mena seriouisly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately the word "I" has only one letter in it, otherwise he
>>>>>> would have fucked up that spelling as well. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By gum you're a thick one aren't you Spuddles? Are you so fucking
>>>>> stupid that you completely fail to comprehend Je�us is pointing
>>>>> out the fundamental irony that your own words apply far better to
>>>>> you than anyone else that frequents this cesspool?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In your tiny world of self delusion and by Je�us own words of
>>>> reply to my post, you missed it by a mile, not surprising really.
>>>
>>> Words of reply? To _your_ post? I see one reply to your post
>>> douchebag, containing one word. You can't even follow a properly
>>> threaded conversation for fucks sake.
>>>
>>
>> FFS it should have been "word" of reply, cretin.
>
> Then why did you paste so many words by way of response just moments
> ago? Which is it Spuddles? You can't have it both ways, no matter what
> your sick and delusional fantasies would have you believe.
>

"word" of reply is correct, in regards to Jebus's post of reply to me, 
"words" of reply would be correct in regards to Jebus words of reply to the 
thread.
That still doesn't change the fact that your assumption was wrong.

>> But then, he who
>> corrects others while missing the point should at least be able to
>> spell "plagiarise" correctly, if he's aiming for any sort of
>> credibilty while throwing stones from his little glass house.
>
> I'm glad to see you got some extra mileage from your favourite online
> dictionary Spuddles. It doesn't change the fact that typo and
> _speling_ flames are about as lame as it gets. You really have nothing
> left in the barrel do you? Disappointing really...
>

Then you are lame as it gets, for that is what you do, but you don't like it 
when someone corrects you on your similar mistakes.


> Some of us are brave enough to fly without a spell checker Spuddles,
> when will you remove your training wheels?
>
>
>>>> You want it so much that you make this shit up in your head and
>>>> then expect people to swallow, hook line and sinker by the very
>>>> act of your writing it. Pathetic really and desperate.
>>>
>>> My hook was struck Spuddles, deep in those fleshy jowls of yours...
>>>
>>>> A true sign of one who seeks attention. Apart from the pithy quips
>>>> and digs you've made over the months when I've not posted, your
>>>> seeking of my attention shows your desperation like a bright
>>>> beacon.
>>>
>>> You know Spuddles dear, I feel it is time I pointed out that your
>>> oft repeated, and most favourite of words does not mean what you
>>> think it does. I'll leave you to work out which word that is, but
>>> here's a hint, you have used it twice in this post.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that you missed me these many months, and
>> the fact that these posts of yours are just an attention seeking
>> sickness of yours.
>
> Throwing an unbaited hook out of idle curiosity into very still waters
> is little more than... idle curiosity. Gotta love your response time
> though Spudley dear, and then that pathetic coughing and spluttering
> that you hadn't visited here in months! ROFLMAO
>


"Spudley dear" that's getting rather familiar, must be the "cupcake" calling 
the kettle black.


>>>> Your mantra of "None Shall Pass!" and your pithy efforts here and
>>>> serves to show how backed up you must truly be.
>>
>> Your words contain much pith, "pulp" but little else substance.
>
> Oh goodie, I just love it when you start arguing with Oxford
> University Press. Things can only get better from here, but I'll play
> along for a while Spuddles. Tell me, if my words are compared to the
> pith of the fruit, which might I add contains most of the goodness and
> the "meat", are yours to be compared to the stone in the middle? Or
> the pips interspersed?
>

Well you could make a hat out of pith, that's about it.
Tress can grow from the stone or pips of the fruit.

>>> If you are going to plgiarise Spuddles, could you at least provide
>>> correct attribution?
>>
>> Who it came from is of nil importance, it is not copyrighted. The
>> sentiments are an accurate observation of your general demeanor.
>
> God forbid YOU have an original thought...

Says the echo.

>
>> I await your next bounce back, fuckwit.
>
> I know you do Spuddles, I know you do... :-)
>

It's only too bad that your substance is so pithy.

>
>
> -- 
> Cerberus
>
> None Shall Pass!