🚀 go-pugleaf

On 05/05/2009 11:07 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> You delete a database record that you forgot you defined as containing
> the master encryption password validation...
> 
> You spend hours wondering why all the new users added to your .htpasswd
> file don't work, until you remember that you copied the .htaccess from
> another virtual server and its still pointing at the old .htpasswd file..
> 
> Sheesh. I'm having an early night tonight..

Hmm ...

An early to bed and early to rise,
Makes a person healthy, wealthy and wise.

-- 
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman        Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe)        Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India         Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/  Visit: http://counter.li.org/

Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@cto.homelinux.net> wrote:
> On 05/05/2009 11:07 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> You delete a database record that you forgot you defined as containing
>> the master encryption password validation...
>> 
>> You spend hours wondering why all the new users added to your .htpasswd
>> file don't work, until you remember that you copied the .htaccess from
>> another virtual server and its still pointing at the old .htpasswd file..
>> 
>> Sheesh. I'm having an early night tonight..
> 
> Hmm ...
> 
> An early to bed and early to rise,
> Makes a person healthy, wealthy and wise.

Early to rise and late to bed, 
Makes a person, knackered, smelly and dead.

-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|  Andrew Halliwell BSc    |Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

On 5 May, 20:14, Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANS...@cto.homelinux.net>
wrote:
> On 05/05/2009 11:07 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> > You delete a database record that you forgot you defined as containing
> > the master encryption password validation...
>
> > You spend hours wondering why all the new users added to your .htpasswd
> > file don't work, until you remember that you copied the .htaccess from
> > another virtual server and its still pointing at the old .htpasswd file..
>
> > Sheesh. I'm having an early night tonight..
>
> Hmm ...
>
> An early to bed and early to rise,
> Makes a person healthy, wealthy and wise. (PC, anyway,
>
> --
> Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman        Registered Linux User: #229709
> Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe)        Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
> Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India         Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
> Home:http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit:http://counter.li.org/

Funny! Yet, 5 or 6 years ago, one of my students left her disssertaion
on a train, 70k words, 6 floppies on a train, nothing on the HD, she
was sharing a PC, had deleted her work, and had to spend several
months reconstructing it. My guess? They were better! But be careful
not to lose your stuff!
--
UncleEnglish.

On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:21:03 -0700, UncleEnglish wrote:
> Funny! Yet, 5 or 6 years ago, one of my students left her disssertaion
> on a train, 70k words, 6 floppies on a train

70 thousand words and it needed 6 floppies? That's gotta be an MS format
;-)

On 5 May, 21:34, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:21:03 -0700, UncleEnglish wrote:
> > Funny! Yet, 5 or 6 years ago, one of my students left her disssertaion
> > on a train, 70k words, 6 floppies on a train
>
> 70 thousand words and it needed 6 floppies? That's gotta be an MS format
> ;-)

Absolutelu!
--
Yrs,
John.

On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jules wrote:

> On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:21:03 -0700, UncleEnglish wrote:
>> Funny! Yet, 5 or 6 years ago, one of my students left her disssertaion
>> on a train, 70k words, 6 floppies on a train
>
> 70 thousand words and it needed 6 floppies? That's gotta be an MS format
> ;-)
>
"Words" is the key thing, he's surely not talking about the size of 
storage.  When counting Morse Code, one treated every five characters
as a word, but in real life, likely the words vary in size, and likely
for the worst.

70K * 5 is 350K, just under the size of a 5.25" single sided double
density floppy.  The Apple II would store something like 170K on a
floppy.  There was a period when there was no double density, so
it could be less.  The battery operated floppy drive for the old Radio 
Shack Model 100 used single sided disks, and would take only 100K.

Maybe some of the disks were duplicate backups, but I can imagine if
this was early enough, 70K words straddling more than one floppy even
without the help of Microsoft.

   Michael

On Tue, 5 May 2009, Michael Black wrote:

> Maybe some of the disks were duplicate backups, but I can imagine if
> this was early enough, 70K words straddling more than one floppy even
> without the help of Microsoft.

This was "5 or 6 years ago".

Long after the time when sane people stopped using floppy disks for 
_anything_ they actually cared about.

-- 
dwmw2

On 6 Mai, 03:56, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2009 19:16:58 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jules wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:21:03 -0700, UncleEnglish wrote:
> >>> Funny! Yet, 5 or 6 years ago, one of my students left her disssertaion
> >>> on a train, 70k words, 6 floppies on a train
>
> >> 70 thousand words and it needed 6 floppies? That's gotta be an MS format
> >> ;-)
>
> > "Words" is the key thing, he's surely not talking about the size of
> > storage.  When counting Morse Code, one treated every five characters
> > as a word, but in real life, likely the words vary in size, and likely
> > for the worst.
>
> Yeah, I put a guesstimate on an average of 6 characters per word, but I'm
> not sure if that's sane (plus I didn't count whitespace :-)
>
> > 70K * 5 is 350K, just under the size of a 5.25" single sided double
> > density floppy.  The Apple II would store something like 170K on a
> > floppy.  There was a period when there was no double density, so it
> > could be less.  The battery operated floppy drive for the old Radio
> > Shack Model 100 used single sided disks, and would take only 100K.
>
> Sure - but not 5 or 6 years ago...
>
> > Maybe some of the disks were duplicate backups
>
> That would be my guess, so it was very much a tongue in cheek post - plus
> it didn't say that all of those 6 floppies contained the doc, just that
> it was that many left on the train...
>
> > but I can imagine if
> > this was early enough, 70K words straddling more than one floppy even
> > without the help of Microsoft.
>
> I'm not so sure; older wordprocessors were very efficient with their
> storage, with very low overheads for formatting information (I used to
> have a Diamond D5 dedicated WP machine, complete with 8" single-sided
> drives) - it was pretty surprising how much text could be crammed onto a
> disk.
>
> I think the bloat only started to creep in with the GUI-based WP's, to be
> honest. (although it still beats me why someone can send me a Word doc
> that's just a page or so of plain text, and it's several MB in size; it
> must take real talent to make an app that bad)

I just saved the plain text of your posting, including quotes, into
Word 97/03 format and Word 2007 format and it turned out to be,
respectively, 27 and 13Kbyte. I do understand one must feel the need
to dupe MS, even with the use of lies, to feel at home in this group.

On Wed, 06 May 2009 04:48:05 -0700, Chrisjoy wrote:
> I just saved the plain text of your posting, including quotes, into
> Word 97/03 format and Word 2007 format and it turned out to be,
> respectively, 27 and 13Kbyte. I do understand one must feel the need
> to dupe MS, even with the use of lies, to feel at home in this group.

Hmm, you've lost me as to where the lies are - unless you're referring to
my comment about receiving Word docs that are several MB for something
that appears to be just text, in which case I don't understand how you'd
know ;-)

(Aside: I'm reading this on cam.misc - I assume "this group" refers to the
Linux one? I suspect you may have missed my use of smileys and reference
to tongue in cheek posts, although my comment about bloat* in wp's over
the years very much stands...)

* raw text here is 2279 bytes - 13K is a six-fold increase, 27K
twelve-fold (Openoffice comes out as 13K too, incidentally)

cheers

Jules

On 6 Mai, 14:25, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 04:48:05 -0700, Chrisjoy wrote:
> > I just saved the plain text of your posting, including quotes, into
> > Word 97/03 format and Word 2007 format and it turned out to be,
> > respectively, 27 and 13Kbyte. I do understand one must feel the need
> > to dupe MS, even with the use of lies, to feel at home in this group.
>
> Hmm, you've lost me as to where the lies are - unless you're referring to
> my comment about receiving Word docs that are several MB for something
> that appears to be just text, in which case I don't understand how you'd
> know ;-)

So let me quote you sinse your short term memory don't serve you well.
"a Word doc
that's just a page or so of plain text, and it's several MB in size"

> (Aside: I'm reading this on cam.misc - I assume "this group" refers to the
> Linux one? I suspect you may have missed my use of smileys and reference
> to tongue in cheek posts, although my comment about bloat* in wp's over
> the years very much stands...)

Not a single smiley in the paragraph where you claimed a page or so of
text made Mbyte file.

> * raw text here is 2279 bytes - 13K is a six-fold increase, 27K
> twelve-fold (Openoffice comes out as 13K too, incidentally)

How many folds it is, is not relevant because a word 2007 file starts
at 10 500 bytes. This header holds alot for useful information you
lack in your generic file format, thus cannot compare directly.
Anyways, we're far away from your Mbyte claim.

Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?

Chrisjoy wrote:
> Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?

Can you say "over-reaction"?

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

On 6 Mai, 17:50, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?
>
> Can you say "over-reaction"?

Yes, and I can say "sensetive to bullshit" too.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 6 Mai, 17:50, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?
>> Can you say "over-reaction"?
> 
> Yes, and I can say "sensetive to bullshit" too.

But you can't spell it...

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

On 6 Mai, 18:20, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 6 Mai, 17:50, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>> Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?
> >> Can you say "over-reaction"?
>
> > Yes, and I can say "sensetive to bullshit" too.
>
> But you can't spell it...

How do you know, dumb fuck?

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0905051913050.26146@darkstar.example.net...
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jules wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:21:03 -0700, UncleEnglish wrote:
>>> Funny! Yet, 5 or 6 years ago, one of my students left her disssertaion
>>> on a train, 70k words, 6 floppies on a train
>>
>> 70 thousand words and it needed 6 floppies? That's gotta be an MS format
>> ;-)
>>
> "Words" is the key thing, he's surely not talking about the size of 
> storage.  When counting Morse Code, one treated every five characters
> as a word, but in real life, likely the words vary in size, and likely
> for the worst.

A word is five characters for a typist, too.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 6 Mai, 18:20, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 6 Mai, 17:50, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>>> Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?
>>>> Can you say "over-reaction"?
>>> Yes, and I can say "sensetive to bullshit" too.
>> But you can't spell it...
> 
> How do you know, dumb fuck?

'Cos I've got a clue.  And, if I ever need it, a dictionary.

With any luck, you'll get at least one of those at some point.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

On Wed, 06 May 2009 05:48:40 -0700, Chrisjoy wrote:
> So let me quote you sinse your short term memory don't serve you well.
> "a Word doc
> that's just a page or so of plain text, and it's several MB in size"

Yes, I've been emailed Word docs that are 'plain text' - in the sense that
they contain no fancy formatting, images, multiple fonts/styles etc. and
yet they are several MB in size. (I'm guessing that it's something to do
with previous revisions hanging around in the file, tbh)

> Not a single smiley in the paragraph where you claimed a page or so of
> text made Mbyte file.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that you were incapable of following a thread
of conversation. 

> How many folds it is, is not relevant because a word 2007 file starts at
> 10 500 bytes. This header holds alot for useful information you lack in
> your generic file format, thus cannot compare directly. Anyways, we're
> far away from your Mbyte claim.

Aha - the old "I tried it myself for a single case therefore it must be
true for all cases" approach to logic. 

> Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?

I don't know - have you tried asking yourself recently?

(no smileys in this post because you clearly don't deserve them)

cheers

J.

On 6 Mai, 18:59, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 6 Mai, 18:20, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>> On 6 Mai, 17:50, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>>>> Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?
> >>>> Can you say "over-reaction"?
> >>> Yes, and I can say "sensetive to bullshit" too.
> >> But you can't spell it...
>
> > How do you know, dumb fuck?
>
> 'Cos I've got a clue.  And, if I ever need it, a dictionary.

Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
spell a certain word, dumb fuck?

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 6 Mai, 18:59, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 6 Mai, 18:20, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Mai, 17:50, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?
>>>>>> Can you say "over-reaction"?
>>>>> Yes, and I can say "sensetive to bullshit" too.
>>>> But you can't spell it...
>>> How do you know, dumb fuck?
>> 'Cos I've got a clue.  And, if I ever need it, a dictionary.
> 
> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?

The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".

Oh, by the way, you might want to check the Google Groups Terms of
Service, specifically section 6:

You agree that [...] you will not:

    * defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the
legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;
    * post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or
unlawful Content;

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> > spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>
> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".

My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
> 
> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.

If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?

-- 

Brian

On Thu, 07 May 2009 14:03:32 +0100, Brian Morrison  
<scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> Chrisjoy wrote:
>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>
>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>
> If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?
>


He's deeply confused?

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
> 
> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.

Only in your strange little world.

First time I've come across someone suffering from a /written/ form of
Asperger's.  Interesting.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

On 7 Mai, 15:03, Brian Morrison <scraps...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> >>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
> >> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>
> > My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>
> If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?

I'm truely a libertarian, further more, of such kind who love to make
fun of dumb fucks who didn't understand yet, the only reason behind
language, is to get understood, and not to follow certain rules. Can I
speak frankly?

On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> >>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
> >> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>
> > My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>
> Only in your strange little world.

No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
it.

Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?

On Thu, 07 May 2009 14:13:17 +0100, Chrisjoy  
<ultralibertarianer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>> > On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> >>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I  
>> can't
>> >>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>> >> The entry for "sensitive". �There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>
>> > My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>>
>> Only in your strange little world.
>
> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
> it.
>
> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?


Ah, the TNP defense.

On 6 Mai, 22:26, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 05:48:40 -0700, Chrisjoy wrote:
> > So let me quote you sinse your short term memory don't serve you well.
> > "a Word doc
> > that's just a page or so of plain text, and it's several MB in size"
>
> Yes, I've been emailed Word docs that are 'plain text' - in the sense that
> they contain no fancy formatting, images, multiple fonts/styles etc. and
> yet they are several MB in size. (I'm guessing that it's something to do
> with previous revisions hanging around in the file, tbh)

I much more creditable explaination is that you're a duckin' lyar.

> > Not a single smiley in the paragraph where you claimed a page or so of
> > text made Mbyte file.
>
> Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that you were incapable of following a thread
> of conversation.

Still not a single smiley in that paragraph, duck.

> > How many folds it is, is not relevant because a word 2007 file starts at
> > 10 500 bytes. This header holds alot for useful information you lack in
> > your generic file format, thus cannot compare directly. Anyways, we're
> > far away from your Mbyte claim.
>
> Aha - the old "I tried it myself for a single case therefore it must be
> true for all cases" approach to logic.
>
> > Is it fun to be a dumb fuck unable to admit your lies?
>
> I don't know - have you tried asking yourself recently?

The reason why dumb fucks are not able to understand that they are
dumb fucks is becuse they are dumb fucks.

On 7 Mai, 15:17, "Duncan Wood" <nntpn...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2009 14:13:17 +0100, Chrisjoy  
>
>
>
> <ultralibertaria...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >> > On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I  
> >> can't
> >> >>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
> >> >> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>
> >> > My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>
> >> Only in your strange little world.
>
> > No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
> > Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
> > it.
>
> > Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
>
> Ah, the TNP defense.

Rather "don't rest your conclusion on premisis only your opponent
knows something sure about"- defence.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 15:03, Brian Morrison <scraps...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>> If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?
> 
> I'm truely a libertarian, further more, of such kind who love to make
> fun of dumb fucks who didn't understand yet, the only reason behind
> language, is to get understood, and not to follow certain rules. Can I
> speak frankly?

Good luck getting a job that needs literacy, then.  Still, I suspect
there's a good few years before that's going to be a worry for you.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>> Only in your strange little world.
> 
> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
> it.
> 
> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?

Dunno.  Is it fun to be a functional illiterate with a pathetically
limited range of expression?

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

On 7 Mai, 15:30, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> >>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
> >>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
> >>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
> >> Only in your strange little world.
>
> > No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
> > Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
> > it.
>
> > Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
>
> Dunno.  Is it fun to be a functional illiterate with a pathetically
> limited range of expression?

If that's what I am in your confused world, and if I am to answer in
such a way you can comprehend, then a big YES is unavoidable, if I
want to justify your moronic question with an answer.

On 7 Mai, 15:28, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 7 Mai, 15:03, Brian Morrison <scraps...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> >> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> >>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
> >>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
> >>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
> >> If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?
>
> > I'm truely a libertarian, further more, of such kind who love to make
> > fun of dumb fucks who didn't understand yet, the only reason behind
> > language, is to get understood, and not to follow certain rules. Can I
> > speak frankly?
>
> Good luck getting a job that needs literacy,

Assuming I don't have that literacy already, conclusion saying I don't
need it, is unavoidable. Only by reason I have nuked any lame moronic
attacks and showd them to be immature. The climax was when I made it
clear that one must be an extreamly dumb fuck complaining about
spelling when language is not context, when he perfectly well
understood the meaning of the message. The fact that you didn't
capture this prying point only increase the size of the class DUMB
FUCKS{} in this group.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 15:30, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>>>> Only in your strange little world.
>>> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
>>> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
>>> it.
>>> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
>> Dunno.  Is it fun to be a functional illiterate with a pathetically
>> limited range of expression?
> 
> If that's what I am in your confused world, and if I am to answer in
> such a way you can comprehend, then a big YES is unavoidable, if I
> want to justify your moronic question with an answer.

I'm getting bored of troll-taunting.  *plonk*

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

On 7 Mai, 17:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 7 Mai, 15:30, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> >>>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
> >>>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
> >>>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
> >>>> Only in your strange little world.
> >>> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
> >>> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
> >>> it.
> >>> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
> >> Dunno.  Is it fun to be a functional illiterate with a pathetically
> >> limited range of expression?
>
> > If that's what I am in your confused world, and if I am to answer in
> > such a way you can comprehend, then a big YES is unavoidable, if I
> > want to justify your moronic question with an answer.
>
> I'm getting bored of troll-taunting.  *plonk*

When dumb fucks are unable to support their psychotic rant, then it is
that their oponents are trolls. Where does Gov't grow psychotic
crackpots like these?

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 17:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> I'm getting bored of troll-taunting.  *plonk*
> 
> When dumb fucks are unable to support their psychotic rant, then it is
> that their oponents are trolls. Where does Gov't grow psychotic
> crackpots like these?

Check your birth certificate!

John
-- 
Maintainer of the s.g.b FAQs, at http://www.genealogy-britain.org.uk/
Currently researching LEE and BEDFORD families from Islington

On 7 Mai, 18:04, John Prentice <johnp.use...@john-
prentice.com.invalid> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 7 Mai, 17:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >> I'm getting bored of troll-taunting.  *plonk*
>
> > When dumb fucks are unable to support their psychotic rant, then it is
> > that their oponents are trolls. Where does Gov't grow psychotic
> > crackpots like these?
>
> Check your birth certificate!

Hit harder, girl.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 15:03, Brian Morrison <scraps...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>> If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?
> 
> I'm truely a libertarian, further more, of such kind who love to make
> fun of dumb fucks who didn't understand yet, the only reason behind
> language, is to get understood, and not to follow certain rules. Can I
> speak frankly?
> 
> 

Apparently you can't speak intelligibly at all.

But then again, its not hard to follow the speech of someone so mind 
numbingly vacuous that they haven't anything to say.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 15:28, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 7 Mai, 15:03, Brian Morrison <scraps...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>>>> If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?
>>> I'm truely a libertarian, further more, of such kind who love to make
>>> fun of dumb fucks who didn't understand yet, the only reason behind
>>> language, is to get understood, and not to follow certain rules. Can I
>>> speak frankly?
>> Good luck getting a job that needs literacy,
> 
> Assuming I don't have that literacy already, conclusion saying I don't
> need it, is unavoidable. Only by reason I have nuked any lame moronic
> attacks and showd them to be immature. The climax was when I made it
> clear that one must be an extreamly dumb fuck complaining about
> spelling when language is not context, when he perfectly well
> understood the meaning of the message. The fact that you didn't
> capture this prying point only increase the size of the class DUMB
> FUCKS{} in this group.

Oh what is your native language by the way?

Is the above Serbo Croation?

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>> Only in your strange little world.
> 
> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
> it.
> 
> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?

A question you might well address to yourself, it seems.

Duncan Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2009 14:13:17 +0100, Chrisjoy 
> <ultralibertarianer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> > On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>> >>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I 
>>> can't
>>> >>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>> >> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>>
>>> > My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>>>
>>> Only in your strange little world.
>>
>> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
>> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
>> it.
>>
>> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
> 
> 
> Ah, the TNP defense.

Now now. I have a tad more finesse in my ad hominems, surely?

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 15:17, "Duncan Wood" <nntpn...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 May 2009 14:13:17 +0100, Chrisjoy  
>>
>>
>>
>> <ultralibertaria...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I  
>>>> can't
>>>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>>>> Only in your strange little world.
>>> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
>>> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
>>> it.
>>> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
>> Ah, the TNP defense.
> 
> Rather "don't rest your conclusion on premisis only your opponent
> knows something sure about"- defence.

Well you would say that, wouldn't you?

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 15:30, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
>>>>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>>>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>>>> Only in your strange little world.
>>> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
>>> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
>>> it.
>>> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
>> Dunno.  Is it fun to be a functional illiterate with a pathetically
>> limited range of expression?
> 
> If that's what I am in your confused world, and if I am to answer in
> such a way you can comprehend, then a big YES is unavoidable, if I
> want to justify your moronic question with an answer.
> 
So you are a dumb fuck who's just having fun. OK.

Chrisjoy wrote:
> On 7 Mai, 18:04, John Prentice <johnp.use...@john-
> prentice.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>> On 7 Mai, 17:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm getting bored of troll-taunting.  *plonk*
>>> When dumb fucks are unable to support their psychotic rant, then it is
>>> that their oponents are trolls. Where does Gov't grow psychotic
>>> crackpots like these?
>> Check your birth certificate!
> 
> Hit harder, girl.

Gosh. We will have to revise the date on that upward.

Are you old enough to be allowed to use a computer?

On Thu, 07 May 2009 20:22:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher  
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Duncan Wood wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 May 2009 14:13:17 +0100, Chrisjoy  
>> <ultralibertarianer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 Mai, 18:43, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>>>> > On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I  
>>>> can't
>>>> >>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
>>>> >> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
>>>>
>>>> > My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
>>>>
>>>> Only in your strange little world.
>>>
>>> No, dumb fuck, in any reasonable world my question stands unanswered.
>>> Just because I mistyped a word doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Is it fun to be an extreamly dumb fuck?
>>   Ah, the TNP defense.
>
> Now now. I have a tad more finesse in my ad hominems, surely?


I  was only referring to the typing, may I proffer a sincere apologiy if I  
implied you have anything else in common.

Chrisjoy wrote:

> 
> The reason why dumb fucks are not able to understand that they are
> dumb fucks is becuse they are dumb fucks.

Indeed. We have all gathered that from your responses.

Do you know any other naughty words?

On Thu, 07 May 2009 12:51:42 -0700, Chrisjoy wrote:
> Even though you tried all FIVE times, you have shown nothing to the
> contrary. In fact, your five answers in in this thread, this very
> afternoon, stands out as an confimation to the uposite of your
> conclusion.
> 
> How is it to be so fuckin' stupid as your?

You really meant: "How is it to be so fuckin' stupid as you're?", didn't
you?

I shouldn't laugh, I really shouldn't...

On 7 Mai, 21:20, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> > On 7 Mai, 15:03, Brian Morrison <scraps...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> >> Chrisjoy wrote:
> >>> On 7 Mai, 14:02, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Where in a dictionary do you find proof to support your claim I can't
> >>>>> spell a certain word, dumb fuck?
> >>>> The entry for "sensitive".  There is no entry for "sensetive".
> >>> My question stands unanswered, dumb fuck.
> >> If you're truly a libertarian, why would any of this concern you?
>
> > I'm truely a libertarian, further more, of such kind who love to make
> > fun of dumb fucks who didn't understand yet, the only reason behind
> > language, is to get understood, and not to follow certain rules. Can I
> > speak frankly?
>
> Apparently you can't speak intelligibly at all.

Even though you tried all FIVE times, you have shown nothing to the
contrary. In fact, your five answers in in this thread, this very
afternoon, stands out as an confimation to the uposite of your
conclusion.

How is it to be so fuckin' stupid as your? Will you share with me what
an average day looks like?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Chrisjoy wrote:
> 
>>
>> The reason why dumb fucks are not able to understand that they are
>> dumb fucks is becuse they are dumb fucks.
> 
> Indeed. We have all gathered that from your responses.
> 
> Do you know any other naughty words?

A few posts back I started mentally replacing "dumb fuck" with "asshat", 
just to inject some variety into the conversation. If it goes on much 
longer, I might try "nutcrumpet" as well.

HTH.

On 2009-05-07, Robert Foreman <rwf24@cantab.net> wrote:
>
>
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Chrisjoy wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> The reason why dumb fucks are not able to understand that they are
>>> dumb fucks is becuse they are dumb fucks.
>> 
>> Indeed. We have all gathered that from your responses.
>> 
>> Do you know any other naughty words?
>
> A few posts back I started mentally replacing "dumb fuck" with "asshat", 
> just to inject some variety into the conversation. If it goes on much 
> longer, I might try "nutcrumpet" as well.
>
> HTH.
"Nutcrumpet", I like that. Just for fun I looked up "asshat" on Google
image search. That page would make an interesting poster.

Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@cto.homelinux.net> writes:


> An early to bed and early to rise,
> Makes a person healthy, wealthy and wise.

Early to rise and early to bed,
Makes worms breakfast, eaten and dead.

Paul
-- 
Paul Leyland <pcl23@gen.cam.ac.uk>        | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Dept. of Genetics, Cambridge University   |     the English way.
Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EH, UK    | The time is gone, the song is over.
Tel: +44-1223-333963 Fax: +44-1223-333992 | Thought I'd something more to say.