| Michael Baldwin Bruce 2004-11-06, 3:56 am |
| bruce aka tholen@antispam.ham the trolling kook wrote in message news:<Byxid.63358$Kl3.46568@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> Lady Chatterly writes:
>
> 52> Moderation in all things should be the rule.
>
> 52> Good advice is often annoying, bad advice never.
>
> 52> V2hhdCBkbyB5b3UgYXNrIGlmIGFueSBvZiB0aGF0
IGhhdmUgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCBjb
> 52> GFzc2ljYWwgbXVzaWM/
>
> What does any of that have to do with classical music, Chatterly?
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> Ugly Bob writes:
>
> 1> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> 1> The above comment courtesy of the Tholenizer:
>
> What does that have to do with classical music, Ugly Bob?
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> yyyiiinnnggg writes:
>
> 9> Do you still phastaz about remote viewing?
>
> What does that have to do with classical music, yyyiiinnnggg?
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> Brendan R. Wehrung writes:
>
> 490> Don't know about that, Dave. An awful lot of songs (in ballad form, if
> 490> you wish to be specific) have quite fanciful subject matter.
>
> Get back to me when you find a ballad about the subject matter,
> Wehrung.
what is "the subject matter Wehrung", bruce?
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> Risto Karttunen writes:
>
> 140> I was talking about musical impressions and feelings. What does logic
> 140> have to do with them?
>
> You should know, Karttunen, given that you brought up the subject.
>
> 140> Since when?
>
> What does your question have to do with classical music, Karttunen?
>
> 140> Prior to what?
>
> What does your question have to do with classical music, Karttunen?
>
> 140> So please tell me, which composers, works, techniques, styles,
> 140> artists, instruments, concerts, publications etc. are examined or
> 140> commented in those digests?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that classical music is restricted
> to those topics, Karttunen.
like you are one to know, bruce.
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> john writes:
>
> 7> Message-ID: <7nlko0d99jjn6s3jcfbdaivitfkigo98g1@4ax.com>
>
> What does your empty response have to do with classical music, john?
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> grantco writes:
>
> 1782> Ok, You are just dense and misguided then.
>
> 1782> Had you been as smart as the forger no response would have been
> 1782> written, Tholen.
>
> 1782> Yes I know. Too bad you haven't the intelligence of an anonymous
> 1782> forger.
>
> 1782> It did seem to smart of a move for you so I had my doubts.
>
> 1782> Again, this was contingent upon the forged post being yours.
>
> 1782> Again, this was contingent upon the forged post being yours.
>
> 1782> No, because you first address my previous post and ask further
> 1782> questions before your garbled "asking."
>
> 1782> Note: No explanation.
>
> 1782> Yet another question answered by a question. And you wonder why no
> 1782> one bothers to answer YOUR questions, Tholen?
>
> 1782> Yes, on your part, Tholen.
>
> 1782> Yet another question answered by a question. And you wonder why no one
> 1782> bothers to answer YOUR questions, Tholen?
>
> 1782> Ah, discussing it AGAIN, I see Tholen.
>
> 1782> Yet another question answered by a question. And you wonder why no one
> 1782> bothers to answer YOUR questions, Tholen?
>
> 1782> Here:
>
> 1782> Claim substantiated, Tholen.
>
> 1782> Had the guts AFTER reply to everything else, Tholen. Where are the
> 1782> guts in that?
>
> 1782> Its never too late for you to find out, Tholen. Just learn a lesson
> 1782> from the forger.
>
> 1782> Who is "we ALL1," Tholen?
>
> 1782> And you discussed it again above. Tholen, are you so dense as to to
> 1782> comprehend that your merely bringing up OS/2 is you clearly discussing
> 1782> it and not discussing classical music?
>
> 1782> Denial noted.
>
> 1782> No, your dishonesty is clearly demonstrated, Tholen.
>
> 1782> As much as when you wrote:
>
> 1782> No, Hypocrite.
>
> 1782> Are you questioning my relevance to classical music?
>
> 1782> Are you questioning my relevance to classical music?
>
> 1782> Are you questioning my relevance to classical music?
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> You're not MAN enough to simply do what a far more intelligent forger
> 1782> was capable of.
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> "Evidence?" Who are you to discuss evidence other than the pathetic
> 1782> person who cannot allow evidence of his own hypocrisy to remain in his
> 1782> response, Tholen?
>
> 1782> "Evidence?" Who are you to discuss evidence other than the pathetic
> 1782> person who cannot allow evidence of his own hypocrisy to remain in his
> 1782> response, Tholen?
>
> 1782> Yes, your claim is unsubstantiated and erroneous, Tholen.
> 1782> Thank you for clarifying.
>
> 1782> Again, you continue to assume that somehow your judgements of me mean
> 1782> anything to me, Tholen. All I know is that you supposedly wish to
> 1782> remove antagonists from your life. I've given you a simple way which
> 1782> you are too afraid to take.
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> Liar.
>
> 1782> Thank you tholen. Merely more evidence of your continued discussion
> 1782> after you clearly said:
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> No.
>
> 1782> You are asking ME about YOUR response, Tholen?
>
> 1782> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1782> No hypocrite.
>
> 1782> More ironic that I am the one NOT removing "evidence," Hypocrite.
>
> 1782> Poor Tholen.
>
> 1782> More deletions from Tholen the Lying Hypocrite.
>
> 1782> Evasion is again noted, Tholen. Or is it Dr. Evasion?
>
> 1782> You have so many names now, Tholen. How do you keep track of them all?
>
> 1782> Yes indeed. This time you couldn't even muster the "logic" part.
>
> 1782> Poor Tholen.
>
> 1782> Evasion again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1782> Huh? You're getting even worse, Tholen. I said: "is becoming difficult
> 1782> for you, Tholen." How can you equate that to me talking about myself?
>
> 1782> Obviously even the playground is becoming too difficult for you
> 1782> Tholen.
>
> 1782> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1782> Interesting that you are stupid enough to attempt such a weak spin
> 1782> doctoring, Dr. Tholen.
>
> 1782> You know the criteria I have set out. Its far simpler for you than
> 1782> responding to each detail of my previous post. Yet you can't do it.
> 1782> Why is that, Tholen?
>
> 1782> Even using big words won't make you smarter than your imposter,
> 1782> Tholen.
>
> 1782> Yes, we've been here before. had you not stupidly responded compared
> 1782> to the intelligence of your forger we wouldn't be having this
> 1782> discussion.
>
> 1782> Classic rebuttal as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> 1782> argument.
>
> 1782> Yet you could so simply be done with me :-)
>
> 1782> I call it as I see it.
>
> 1782> More evasion from Tholen.
>
> 1782> Your above statement is also "from your perspective," Tholen. This
> 1782> must make you a FOOL for engaging with me.
>
> 1782> More evasion from Tholen.
>
> 1782> No, but my marbles are perhaps in my marble bag. And what would a
> 1782> marble bag be without marbles, Tholen?
>
> 1782> No. First you reply to everything else written. That is the clear
> 1782> difference. Just do the simple thing and see what happens.
>
> 1782> Well, if you re-addressed me I'd be oblidged to stand up to your
> 1782> antagonism, Tholen.
>
> 1782> You didn't meet the simple conditions.
>
> 1782> You're still not smart enough, Tholen.
>
> 1782> You can't be THAT stupid, Tholen. Look at what you wrote and what the
> 1782> forger wrote. Surely you know the difference.
>
> 1782> The above is evidence of the FACT that Tholen does NOT wish to rid of
> 1782> his antagonists.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that it's a fact, grantco. Your offer
> not to continue if I literally asked you not to continue was nothing
> more than the equivalent of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown
> to kick. You had no intention of not continuing, which was proven
> rather conclusively by your continued responses after 37 separate
> literal requests for you not to continue. Clearly you didn't expect
> to receive the literal request for you not to continue, which explains
> why you started spin doctoring the situation, trying to tack on more
> conditions, but your true motivation has been known for a very long
> time:
>
> "Ah, my whole point here is to not give you the final response
> you seem to so desparately need."
> --grantco, Message-ID: <aiu3ls$1749ne$1@ID-19807.news.dfncis.de>
>
> The final response is irrelevant, grantco.
you were breastfed thru falsies weren't you, bruce?
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> alias # today total last year
> -------------- ------- ----- ---------
> bruce 232 0
> nightingale 183 1613
does this mean that nightingale had a bigger mouth last year than this year,
bruce?
> bisectional 170 0
> cypherpunk 166 578
> grantco 1 118 229
> greycloud 91 0
> zwar 86 349
> kohl 84 2192
> dizzy 82 522
> patterson 72 135
> fields 66 678
> aratzio 52 0
> chatterly 1 52 0
> ross 45 10
> wehrung 1 45 262
> elizabot 41 0
> karttunen 1 35 97
> daniels 34 165
> drpostman 30 54
> haslam 30 675
> hertz 27 0
> lockhart 25 60
> drysdale 24 0
> bloggs 21 200
> freud 21 44
> diogenes 20 0
> th@len 20 0
> ah 19 0
> chrisv 17 0
> edwin 15 0
> deus 14 0
> phoenix 14 18
> relic 14 0
> parsnip 13 0
> jaakko 12 99
> kolle 12 264
> beck 11 239
> flonkenstein 11 0
> bostonblackie 10 0
> "nightingale" 10 0
> penso 10 172
> hgj 9 0
> kadaitcha 9 0
> ranger 9 0
> yyyiiinnnggg 1 9 0
> logical 8 0
> john 1 7 0
> bornfeld 6 14
> charlie 6 0
> deco 6 0
> rickenbacker 6 0
> prai jei 5 11
> snit 5 0
> speech 5 0
> concerned 4 0
> donna 4 0
> extreme 4 0
> hucker 4 2
> qasim 4 0
> alex 3 0
> andrews 3 1
> antispim.him 3 0
> casa 3 0
> g&p 3 0
> invalid 3 0
> jazz guy 3 3
> jim 3 0
> marty 3 0
> sutton 3 1
> ?ho|en 2 0
> ? 2 0
> ada9 2 0
> adam 2 13
> balaam 2 0
> braves fan 2 0
> dodel 2 0
> harrington 2 64
> hernandez 2 0
> js 2 0
> kennedy 2 3
> marshall 2 0
> molybdenum 2 0
> n 2 0
> schultz 2 5
> toughlin 2 0
> tweet 2 7
> wiser 2 3
> . 1 0
> afoklala 1 0
> akhen 1 0
> antagonismo 1 90
> antagonist 1 0
> blonko 1 0
> bob 1 1
> briggs 1 20
> burtner 1 0
> cargle 1 0
> catroo 1 108
> cohen 1 0
> commentator 1 0
> creevey 1 69
> daveb 1 0
> durante 1 0
> emperor 1 0
> ende 1 0
> fischer 1 0
> gactimus 1 0
> gamble 1 13
> girouard 1 2
> god 1 0
> gorden 1 0
> granzeau 1 0
> h 1 0
> highwood 1 12
> homie 1 1
> ilechko 1 0
> koehlmann 1 0
> lawrence 1 1
> learned 1 0
> liath 1 0
> lysaght 1 0
> martin 1 0
> mirah 1 0
> mitzel 1 0
> monkey 1 1
> muething 1 5
> o'brien 1 0
> o'donoghue 1 0
> osterwald 1 0
> ot 1 0
> pinups 1 0
> ploni 1 4
> porky 1 16
> pragmatist 1 0
> refutebot 1 0
> rice 1 0
> rick 1 0
> roberts 1 8
> steiner 1 0
> stratford 1 1
> straussvogel 1 0
> sutton 1 1
> "tholen" 1 0
> tuan 1 0
> ugly bob 1 1 0
> voege 1 0
> weinkam 1 0
> whitney 1 0
> -------------- ------- ----- ---------
> 148 7 2291 10033
do you suffer from piles, bruce?
|