🚀 go-pugleaf

michelle@doherty-enterprises.mb.ca wrote:
: On 17 Dec 1997 16:52:45 GMT, ak955@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero)
: wrote:

: >michelle@doherty-enterprises.mb.ca wrote:
: >
: >: I'm not either. I need my daily stress reliever of hitting the delete
: >: key and making bomb exploding sounds at the sight of seeing an Amaro
: >: post.
: >
: >You must mean me, Amero. What are you doing in the newsgroup during
: >the day? Don't you have anything better to do? What about Christmas
: >shopping? And why are you in man.general? 

: Amero, well pardon me, I must pay more attention. This is my day off,

You should pay more attention. I was referring to the "daily". *8-)

: so I decided to play with you....aren't you lucky. 

And you're so much fun... (g)
... thank gawd The Little Green Man Is Coming In a Whirly-Bird *8-)

: And seeing as how I live in Manitoba, I believe this is enough reason
: for me to be here.

Sheesh... Michelle, you don't have to justify your existence. I'm just
wondering why you hang out in a newsgroup that has nothing to speak of 
but posts you're complaining about and what is "favourite" about it.

: Sorry, I am one of those people that have their Christmas shopping
: done by Nov.

IMO you should be sorry being one of those people.

:>So you've got a dead newsgroup and apparently want to keep it that way.

: I am getting involved in a few news groups, but manitoba.general is my
: favorite. However, when I want gutter talk, your posts will do.

But as yet no one has revealed what is "favourite" about it. Would it
be the "Top 10 Christmas Carols on Parliament Hill" thread? 

>(quietly) Have you ever heard of lurkers?

: Yes, I used to be one.

No comment.

>: I have, but, cautioning on the side of logic, I decided to quit
>: wasting my time.
>
>Bullshit! Nobody was replying to your posts so you've got your
>panties in a bunch.

: Actually I got a few responses and e-mails taking my side. 

As I recall the few responses were from those who support disciplining
unruly, uppity women by taking their shoes away for a week, confining 
them to the kitchen during daylight hours and topping them up with Midol.
You didn't say anything to upset those fellas (or did only one fella
respond). Your posts supported the practice of masculinity and men as
women's "protectors".

: Now, leave my panties alone. I am not your type.

Trust me Michelle, I'm not interested in your panties, what's in them.
I'm attracted to what's between a person's ears. And you need not be
concerned in that regard, a vacant space turns me off.

>(quietly) I suspect I could teach you a few tricks.

: Repeat: I am not you type!

See above. (quietly) What's goin' on with you?

:>That's what I like about you Michelle, you're such a nice, mannerly
:>polite, virtuous woman in contrast to the mean, nasty, evil men.

: Good God. Please pay attention. I AM NOT YOUR TYPE! Please try an
: appropriate dating service.

Sheesh... just the mere mention by me, a woman, of you getting your
panties in a bunch and you become concerned about what's _in_ your
panties, and add to that the mention of teaching you tricks and you're
SHOUTING to the public that you're not my type and that I should seek
whatever is on your mind elsewhere. Whew, if I'd noted that I've taught my
dog a few tricks, I might have been accused of beastiality. Good God. 
What's goin' on with you? Same sex sexual dreams? Some het women find 
such dreams disturbing.

:>And I suspect anybody who doesn't share your "christmas attitude"
:>is "inflexible".

: Not at all. 

Said by one who has all her Christmas shopping done by Nov.

: Although I am glad to see the word inflexible stuck in your ummm.....
: mind.

I remembered you'd said that Michelle because I was joking with someone
in RL about your fantasy of my inflexibility and the issue of religion
came up in the discussion IRT *your* inflexibility not mine. I realize
having a "christmas attitude" doesn't necessarily mean that one is into
religion. But such was the stimulus for my response.

>: Sure we are, we are Manitobans!
>
>Should we be impressed?

: I am, why not you?

'Cause I don't know anything about Manitobans and what has been presented 
to me so far is not impressive.

>: Unfortunately, no amount of pleading or using common sense with Amaro
>: will stop the news groups bombarding of her insistent posting. This is
>: all this woman lives for. I believe that she is now caught up in her (
>: only in her mind fantasy) fame, that she feeds off the attention. Take
>: that away and she would shrivel up and disappear. The same can be said
>: for her counter part Steiger or whomever.
>
>IOW Michelle is having a pout because she wasn't getting any attention.
>Nobody was replying to her posts ... not even "Amaro".

: Wrong, you badmouthed Manitoba. That breaks one of my rules.

Michelle, you're the one who seems right some concerned about "attention".
And I'll bet you have a lot of rules and that you're right some inflexible,
i.e. rules are not to broken. And seemingly you are confused. When you
jumped into the flame game, I had not badmouthed Manitoba. I had
badmouthed a few Manitobans. *8-)

>: Now for a Manitoba topic. Do you think we will have any snow for
>: Christmas?

:>Oh... so that's what Manitobans like to talk about ... the weather.
>
:>So, Michelle, who shovels the snow in your family? You or your male
:>"protector", kids, hired help?

: Oh my hubby just loves it when it snows. He gets to play on his little
: tractor and move snow around and drink beer. It makes him happy, so
: what the hell.

Just what every woman should aspire to attain. (g)

:>I know who shovels the shit.

: Oh really, looking in a mirror I guess. You know, I have read some of
: your posts, and I fear if I went walking through your gene pool, I
: would not need rubber boots.

Well, I can see what Michelle likes to do. What took ya so long?

:>Might I suggest that you check out the following newsgroups:
>
>alt.talk.weather
>bc.weather
>ott.weather
>ne.weather  (There's a thread called **** THINK SNOW ****)

: Fair enough, I suggested a service for you.

One that's not needed *8-) Perhaps you should reflect on your SHOUTING
over-reaction to me, a woman, mentioning your panties - a remark that
had absolutely nothing to do with what you've got in them.