Re: Att: Employers-Guy Macon - Slackware

This is a discussion on Re: Att: Employers-Guy Macon - Slackware ; Dan C wrote: > He's not cruel, he's just ignorant and can't interact well with other > people.**He's*a*social*misfit,*and*has*multiple*pe rsonalities.**When*he > stays on his medication, he's only a minor irritant.**I'd*guess*lately > he's run out of medicine.**Hopefully*when*the*next*unemployment/welfare > check arrives, he'll get ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: Re: Att: Employers-Guy Macon

  1. Re: Att: Employers-Guy Macon

    Dan C wrote:

    > He's not cruel, he's just ignorant and can't interact well with other
    > people.**He's*a*social*misfit,*and*has*multiple*pe rsonalities.**When*he
    > stays on his medication, he's only a minor irritant.**I'd*guess*lately
    > he's run out of medicine.**Hopefully*when*the*next*unemployment/welfare
    > check arrives, he'll get some more and quiet down again.


    From the volume of his posting here, I wonder if he even takes time outto
    eat. He obviously has no life outside of his keyboard.

    --
    It's turtles, all the way down.

  2. Re: Att: We are bored with GM

    Larry Blanchard trolled:
    >Dan C wrote:


    >> He's not cruel, he's just ignorant and can't interact well with
    >> other people.He's a social misfit,and has multiple personalities.
    >> When he stays on his medication, he's only a minor irritant. I'd
    >> guess lately he's run out of medicine. Hopefully when the next
    >> unemployment/welfare check arrives, he'll get some more and quiet
    >> down again.


    >From the volume of his posting here, I wonder if he even takes time
    >out to eat. He obviously has no life outside of his keyboard.


    We are a really fast typist. Lots of hands.

    Let's get Macon's name out of the subject line, ok, guys? Oh, and
    if you are going to followup troll Dan C, you're going to find
    yourself killfiled by the more interesting posters. Like us.

    Killfiled for 28 days.

    cordially, as always,

    rm
    --
    http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/R...lishments.html


  3. Re: Att: We are bored with RM

    On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:17:08 +0000, Roger Manyard trolled:

    > Let's get Macon's name out of the subject line, ok, guys? Oh, and


    Why, because you want it so? Bugger off, troll.

    > if you are going to followup troll Dan C, you're going to find
    > yourself killfiled by the more interesting posters. Like us.


    Har! That's rich. Even the newcomers around here can tell immediately
    who the Head Troll and Resident Moron (rm) is... To be killfiled by such
    an idiot as you is a compliment to the poster.

    > cordially, as always,


    Smeg off, troll.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  4. Re: Att: We are bored with RM

    On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:31:36 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > Har! That's rich. Even the newcomers around here can tell immediately
    > who the Head Troll and Resident Moron (rm) is... To be killfiled by such
    > an idiot as you is a compliment to the poster.


    That appears to be the case in for me.
    Or maybe, you and guy are just brilliant trolls making rm look bad?

    stonerfish

    --
    Forced Relaxation

  5. Re: Att: We are bored with RM

    On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:42:06 +0000, jellybean stonerfish wrote:

    >
    >
    >


    Sorry rm, in my excitement I forgot that I made a deal to stay out of this
    argument.

    sf

  6. Re: Att: We are bored

    jellybean stonerfish trolled:
    >On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:31:36 -0500, Dan C wrote:


    >> Har! That's rich. Even the newcomers around here can tell
    >> immediately who the Head Troll and Resident Moron (rm) is... To
    >> be killfiled by such an idiot as you is a compliment to the
    >> poster.


    >That appears to be the case in for me. Or maybe, you and guy are
    >just brilliant trolls making rm look bad?


    From now on, we are going to killfile anyone who responds to a Dan C
    post. We expect that there will be a flurry of kneejerk types with
    double-digit IQs responding to Dan C just to piss us off. But these
    people will not be killfiled. Only those who are stupid enough to
    respond to Dan C in good faith will be killfiled.

    And that policy begins with you.

    28 days.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  7. Re: Att: We are bored with GM

    Roger Manyard wrote:

    > We are a really fast typist. *Lots of hands.


    Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  8. Re: Att: We are bored

    Two Ravens trolled:
    >Roger Manyard wrote:


    >> We are a really fast typist. ?Lots of hands.


    >Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*


    No. There is only one of us.

    cordially, as always,

    rm
    --
    http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/R...lishments.html


  9. Re: Att: We are bored

    Roger Manyard wrote:

    > Two Ravens trolled:
    >>Roger Manyard wrote:

    >
    >>> We are a really fast typist. ?Lots of hands.

    >
    >>Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*

    >
    > No. There is only one of us.


    ....but with multiple personalities, thus the 'we'.
    >
    > cordially, as always,
    >
    > rm


    --
    humjohn AT aerosurf DOT net

  10. Re: Att: We are bored

    HJohnson trolled:
    >Roger Manyard wrote:


    >> Two Ravens trolled:
    >>>Roger Manyard wrote:

    >>
    >>>> We are a really fast typist. ?Lots of hands.

    >>
    >>>Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*

    >>
    >> No. There is only one of us.


    >...but with multiple personalities, thus the 'we'.


    No. We use the so-called "editorial plural." This is neither
    unusual, nor very important, so we don't understand the dismay of
    yourself and others.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  11. Re: Att: We are bored

    Roger Manyard wrote:

    > HJohnson trolled:
    >>Roger Manyard wrote:

    >
    >>> Two Ravens trolled:
    >>>>Roger Manyard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> We are a really fast typist. ?Lots of hands.
    >>>
    >>>>Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*
    >>>
    >>> No. There is only one of us.

    >
    >>...but with multiple personalities, thus the 'we'.

    >
    > No. We use the so-called "editorial plural." This is neither
    > unusual, nor very important, so we don't understand the dismay of
    > yourself and others.
    >

    uhh....O.K. What have you published (besides trolls on newsgroups)?

    > cordially, as always,
    >
    > rm


    --
    humjohn AT aerosurf DOT net

  12. Re: Att: We are bored with GM

    On 2007-07-17, Two Ravens wrote:
    > Roger Manyard wrote:
    >
    >> We are a really fast typist. *Lots of hands.

    >
    > Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*


    No, I think it should read 'We are a really *fat* typist'.

    Abdrew

    --
    Andrew's Corner
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/homer.html

  13. Re: Att: We are bored with GM

    andrew trolled:
    > Two Ravens wrote:
    >> Roger Manyard wrote:


    >>> We are a really fast typist. ?Lots of hands.


    >> Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*


    >No, I think it should read 'We are a really *fat* typist'.


    Think so, eh? Perhaps you know something we don't?

    cordially, as always,

    rm
    --
    Guy Bacon's new resume can be found here:

    http://guybacon.boldlygoingnowhere.org/

  14. Re: Att: We are bored

    HJohnson trolled:
    >Roger Manyard wrote:


    >> No. We use the so-called "editorial plural." This is neither
    >> unusual, nor very important, so we don't understand the dismay of
    >> yourself and others.


    >uhh....O.K. What have you published (besides trolls on
    >newsgroups)?


    Is there something wrong with publishing articles on usenet?

    How about Guy Bacon's new Resume?

    http://guybacon.boldlygoingnowhere.org/

    cordially, as always,

    rm
    --
    http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/R...lishments.html

  15. Re: Att: We are bored

    On 2007-07-17, Roger Manyard wrote:
    > HJohnson trolled:
    >>Roger Manyard wrote:

    >
    >>> No. We use the so-called "editorial plural." This is neither
    >>> unusual, nor very important, so we don't understand the dismay of
    >>> yourself and others.

    >
    >>uhh....O.K. What have you published (besides trolls on
    >>newsgroups)?

    >
    > Is there something wrong with publishing articles on usenet?
    >
    > How about Guy Bacon's new Resume?
    >
    > http://guybacon.boldlygoingnowhere.org/


    It might be churlish to note the 39 validation errors on your
    otherwise well-researched and well-illustrated page.

    Andrew

    --
    Andrew's Corner
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/homer.html

  16. Re: Att: We are bored

    andrew trolled:
    >On 2007-07-17, Roger Manyard wrote:
    >> HJohnson trolled:
    >>>Roger Manyard wrote:


    >>>> No. We use the so-called "editorial plural." This is neither
    >>>> unusual, nor very important, so we don't understand the dismay
    >>>> of yourself and others.


    >>>uhh....O.K. What have you published (besides trolls on
    >>>newsgroups)?


    >> Is there something wrong with publishing articles on usenet?


    >> How about Guy Bacon's new Resume?


    >> http://guybacon.boldlygoingnowhere.org/


    >It might be churlish to note the 39 validation errors on your
    >otherwise well-researched and well-illustrated page.


    We'll get right on that.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  17. Re: Att: We are bored with GM

    On 2007-07-17, andrew wrote:
    > On 2007-07-17, Two Ravens wrote:
    >>
    >> Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*

    >
    > No, I think it should read 'We are a really *fat* typist'.
    >
    > Abdrew

    ^^

    I guess so. ;-)

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  18. Re: Att: We are bored

    Roger Manyard wrote:
    >>Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*

    >
    > No. There is only one of us.


    Ah, I think I finally figured it out. They are the Borg.


    He should have said that 'resistance is futile' at the beginning so that
    people don't have to bother to reply to his messages

    --
    Milan Babuskov
    http://www.firebirdfaq.org

  19. Re: Att: We are bored

    Roger Manyard wrote:
    > HJohnson trolled:
    >> Roger Manyard wrote:

    >
    >>> Two Ravens trolled:
    >>>> Roger Manyard wrote:
    >>>>> We are a really fast typist. ?Lots of hands.
    >>>> Should that not read, We are really fast *typists*
    >>> No. There is only one of us.

    >
    >> ...but with multiple personalities, thus the 'we'.

    >
    > No. We use the so-called "editorial plural." This is neither
    > unusual, nor very important, so we don't understand the dismay of
    > yourself and others.


    The implication is that you speak for the group. Since I am a long-time
    lurker, I have seen that this is clearly not the case.

    It also gives the impression to those that read your posts that you are
    an effete snob. To use an English colloquialism, you're a bit of a wanker.

    Me Now.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  20. Re: Att: We are bored

    Me Now trolled:
    >Roger Manyard wrote:


    >> No. We use the so-called "editorial plural." This is neither
    >> unusual, nor very important, so we don't understand the dismay of
    >> yourself and others.


    >The implication is that you speak for the group. Since I am a
    >long-time lurker, I have seen that this is clearly not the case.


    No, the implication is that we speak for _a_ group. And most
    certainly that group claims many lurkers amongst its membership.

    >It also gives the impression to those that read your posts that you
    >are an effete snob. To use an English colloquialism, you're a bit
    >of a wanker.


    Effete?

    effetely, as always,

    rm
    --
    Guy Bacon's new resume can be found here:

    http://guybacon.bounceme.net

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast