On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:35:37 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Neil Larson wrote:

manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.

Last thing you need is thick seamen all over the place.... ;-)



eeewwwwww!!!!

Gunner

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:34:12 -0500, "Neil Larson"
wrote:

- Final and best was when he needed to drill a small hole in a short board.
He didn't have a vise in the part of the shop he was in so he put the board
on his lap. He was sitting on one of those old military cloth covered
stools. He put his weight on the 1/2 " drive drill, and the bit went thru
the board, his pants, his underwear, his scrotum, back out thru all of them
then into the bottom of the stool. As any of you that have tried to drill
thru cloth know, it likes to twist up on the bit. The Chief corpsman and I
were walking by and heard him scream. After he analyzed the problem. the
Chief corpsman gave me the choice, hold the mans scrotum in place or
manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.


"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by
legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being
stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the
sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out
automatically and without pity".
Robert A. Heinlein,

Yup. One of my favourites.

John Rumm wrote:

Neil Larson wrote:

manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe
how much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in
a scrotum nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was
discharged for the good of the navy.


Last thing you need is thick seamen all over the place.... ;-)

After reading that, I am still persuading my nuts to come back down from
my neck :-(

Dave

Neil Larson wrote:

About 20 years ago, when I was in the US Navy, I was stationed on a LSD
(Landing Ship Dock). We had a yound machinest that had a string of stupid
mistake, and one too many.

- He was trying to cut a wrag in half by pulling the knife towards him,
knife went thru the rag and slipped into and through his right nostril. Nice
fillet job.

- Next, he used the same knife to attempt tochang a fuze to the power source
for a piece of machinery he was trying to operate. He used it to pry out the
440V 20A fuze and welded the knife and the fuze panel together.

- Final and best was when he needed to drill a small hole in a short board.
He didn't have a vise in the part of the shop he was in so he put the board
on his lap. He was sitting on one of those old military cloth covered
stools. He put his weight on the 1/2 " drive drill, and the bit went thru
the board, his pants, his underwear, his scrotum, back out thru all of them
then into the bottom of the stool. As any of you that have tried to drill
thru cloth know, it likes to twist up on the bit. The Chief corpsman and I
were walking by and heard him scream. After he analyzed the problem. the
Chief corpsman gave me the choice, hold the mans scrotum in place or
manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.



In his case, it sounds like a 'Self Lobotomy', because he certainly
didn't have any brains in his other head.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

raden wrote:

In message , Morris Dovey
writes
willshak wrote:

| Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
| weapons ownership?

Because it does (in the last fourteen words of what you've quoted
below.)

| Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
| read it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
| "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
| state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
| infringed".

That first clause is the rationale for what follows. If you don't
understand the motivation, a review of colonial history will
contribute to your appreciation of the principles involved. You might
find a review of the grievances listed in the Declaration of
Independence illuminating. The authors of the Constitution ensured
that citizens would be empowered to say "No!" to tyranny - both from
outside and from within our borders.

If you want to rebut by pointing out that there is no tyranny, then I
give you my very happiest smiley. :-)

One of our political comedians offered three thousand pounds ( the
proceeds from an article he wrote) to anyone who killed George Bush, and
as a true patriot, you should all be leaping at the chance


I can hear the sound of splintering wood and breaking glass now!
And the wan and pitiful sound of someone who is about to disappear forever
screaming that they have rights.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:51:03 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , clifto
The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in
today's world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

Pure guesswork. You can make no such assumption with a nominative absolute
construction. You need to know the context, and there is no context.

The way I read it is, "Since it is necessary that the militia be
well-regulated, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

What this means that it is the duty of the well-armed citizenry to
keep the militia from turning itself into a police state. In other
words, it's the duty of the citizens to do the actual regulating.

For example, when the militia man shows up with his squad and
says, "We're going to confiscate all of your guns and burn all of
your subversive books", you can lock and load, aim, look him in
the eye, and say, "Guess again, bucko!"

Unfortunately, these days it seems that too many people are willing
to throw away their Liberty in exchange for the illusion of security.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:56:28 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
....
I have some definitions of nominative absolute that may help but I hope
the examples clear it up.

It won't do any good - the confiscators, neosocialist and neonazi alike,
simply want absolute power, and are incapable of reason.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:58:06 +0000, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:58:06 +0000, top-posted:

They have a blade with the stop jambed in it at the local Woodcraft store
signed by an ukulele maker who got to keep all his fingers, so I'd say it
works. I'd still be just as carefull as I would with any other table saw.
Karl


According to "Ask This Old House", you also have to push your work with
a weiner. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich



On Sep 15, 10:06 am, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:47:40 -0400, willshak wrote:
on 9/10/2007 2:11 PM Ed Huntress said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
on 9/9/2007 11:18 AM Shawn Hirn said the following:
Ken wrote:

What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or
handywoman accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone
you know, or saw it happen to, got to experience) and please
elaborate on what unfortunately went wrong.

I'm not going to read anymore of this thread. I'm afraid to go into
my work shed or pick up a tool!

I'm with you. It's scaring the pants off of me.

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair
cut short...

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long. The one
tool that I use that I have the most respect for (read scared of) is
the radial arm saw, especially when ripping. Somehow, the blade over
the table is more respected (read scared of) than one under the table.
The others, I'm just merely careful.

Would you trust one of these?http://www.sawstop.com/

Cheers!
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:51:03 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , clifto
The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in
today's world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

Pure guesswork. You can make no such assumption with a nominative
absolute
construction. You need to know the context, and there is no context.

The way I read it is, "Since it is necessary that the militia be
well-regulated, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

What this means that it is the duty of the well-armed citizenry to
keep the militia from turning itself into a police state. In other
words, it's the duty of the citizens to do the actual regulating.

For example, when the militia man shows up with his squad and
says, "We're going to confiscate all of your guns and burn all of
your subversive books", you can lock and load, aim, look him in
the eye, and say, "Guess again, bucko!"

Unfortunately, these days it seems that too many people are willing
to throw away their Liberty in exchange for the illusion of security.

I suppose that's as good an interpretation as any. One of the beauties of
the 2nd, and of many such sentences, is that you can read into it what you
want -- and it's clear that people do just that.

Taking into account what the FFs were trying to accomplish with the Bill of
Rights, I firmly believe that the 2nd was intended to be ambiguous, while,
at the same time, drawing attention to what was then the most uniformly
agreed upon argument in favor of a right to bear arms. After the
Revolutionary War, no state legislature would argue the point, and that was
the desired result.

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Terrific. And take it off all the other off-topic groups, as well. Let's
see, that would leave, uh, um, alt.idiotic.flagwavers as your only
appropriate group.

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize
on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate
over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

Well, don't be too hard on yourself. I wouldn't say you're stupid, just
crude and unimaginative.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 22, 8:07 am, geoff wrote:
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this

--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

--
geoff

Would you please trim the "rec." groups from your rants, hypocrite t?

Thanks.

Slater

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

In message .com,
writes
On Sep 22, 8:07 am, geoff wrote:
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this

--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

--
geoff

Would you please trim the "rec." groups from your rants, hypocrite t?

FFS **** off you window lickers

you reply including uk.d-i-y in your header, I'll reply back with abuse

OK ?

now **** off

--
geoff

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

Not really good with words are you ?

now as I said

"can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts
thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this"

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Would you please trim the "rec." groups from your rants, hypocrite t?

FFS **** off you window lickers

you reply including uk.d-i-y in your header, I'll reply back with abuse

OK ?

Oh, we don't doubt that, Geoff. From your first little sniveling drips of
snotty sarcasm, it's been obvious that's what you do. You're a little wimpy
at it but you're consistent.

All you had to do was ask nicely. I assure you that no one posted to you
intentionally, as no one wants to converse with a dull and snarling ****
like you. So go back to your gluepot and finish whatever you were
doing-it-yourself -- or do it to yourself, if you wish, and see if it helps
you relax a bit.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 7, 11:52 pm, Ken wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

Not exactly handman accident - but witnessed campfire surrounded by
half dozen folks, do-ggooder decides to stoke fire with coleman
lantern fuel by sloshing it out of gallon can. Can catches fire - he
drops can - then decides it might explode or something crazy - he
kicks the can away from the fire - he explodes into very pretty bluish
and orange flame. Quickly he is wrapped in sleeping bag by on-lookers
once able to catch him ...still 40% burned..took ambulance 45 minutes
to get there - a horrible 45 minutes to watch anyone endure.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:53 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

Not really good with words are you ?

Im not particularly conversant with Cockney Rhyming Slang, but isnt
the term you ****s use for the US..."septic" + tank rhymes with Yank?

So you stupid Turds (I did get the connection correct, did I not?)
are now going to get all ****y and upset about it?

now as I said

"can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts
thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this"

Intelligent enough, of course. On the other hand, ****ing off arrogant
sniveling little Turds is fun.

The DIY shall remain. In fact, I may subscribe to the group, just to
view how the semi intelligent manage to fumble**** their way through
hanging wallpaper or whatever buffoonish tasks it is that your lot is
having difficulty with. Advanced bridge building using popsicle
sticks perhaps?

I anticipate your Turdish response.

Gunner

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:53 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

Not really good with words are you ?

Im not particularly conversant with Cockney Rhyming Slang, but isnt
the term you ****s use for the US..."septic" + tank rhymes with Yank?

So you stupid Turds (I did get the connection correct, did I not?)
are now going to get all ****y and upset about it?

now as I said

"can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts
thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this"

Intelligent enough, of course. On the other hand, ****ing off arrogant
sniveling little Turds is fun.

The DIY shall remain. In fact, I may subscribe to the group,

DIGAF - I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,

Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?

I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff

geoff wrote:


DIGAF -


Yes, you do give a ****, or you wouldn't have posted your pathetic
drivel.


I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,


May you give a lion indigestion.


Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?


WHy can't you faggots say what you mean, instead of using a six year
olds innuendo? Do they castrate all of you at six years old? Or all of
you so bad at D.I.Y. that it's self inflicted? You make the French look
good.


I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff


That's what we think about all of you stupid "Eurosheep'. It's really
sad though, that 99.9% of you make the rest look bad.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
geoff wrote:


DIGAF -


Yes, you do give a ****, or you wouldn't have posted your pathetic
drivel.


I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,


May you give a lion indigestion.


Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?


WHy can't you faggots say what you mean, instead of using a six year
olds innuendo? Do they castrate all of you at six years old? Or all of
you so bad at D.I.Y. that it's self inflicted? You make the French look
good.


I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff


That's what we think about all of you stupid "Eurosheep'. It's really
sad though, that 99.9% of you make the rest look bad.


I shall miss you window lickers ...

--
geoff

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:23:43 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:53 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

Not really good with words are you ?

Im not particularly conversant with Cockney Rhyming Slang, but isnt
the term you ****s use for the US..."septic" + tank rhymes with Yank?

So you stupid Turds (I did get the connection correct, did I not?)
are now going to get all ****y and upset about it?

now as I said

"can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts
thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this"

Intelligent enough, of course. On the other hand, ****ing off arrogant
sniveling little Turds is fun.

The DIY shall remain. In fact, I may subscribe to the group,

DIGAF - I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,

Really? I understand young boys are cheap there. Enjoy your
predilections. Just watch out for the "slims". With luck..the latest
ebola outbreak will catch you first.

Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?

I mentioned he liked beagles?

I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

Im sure the Pakis agree with you.

Gunner

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:47:49 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
geoff wrote:


DIGAF -


Yes, you do give a ****, or you wouldn't have posted your pathetic
drivel.


I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,


May you give a lion indigestion.


Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?


WHy can't you faggots say what you mean, instead of using a six year
olds innuendo? Do they castrate all of you at six years old? Or all of
you so bad at D.I.Y. that it's self inflicted? You make the French look
good.


I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff


That's what we think about all of you stupid "Eurosheep'. It's really
sad though, that 99.9% of you make the rest look bad.


I shall miss you window lickers ...


Thats a new one. Whats it mean in Turdish?

Gunner

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:56:33 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:47:49 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
geoff wrote:


DIGAF -


Yes, you do give a ****, or you wouldn't have posted your pathetic
drivel.


I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,


May you give a lion indigestion.


Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?


WHy can't you faggots say what you mean, instead of using a six year
olds innuendo? Do they castrate all of you at six years old? Or all of
you so bad at D.I.Y. that it's self inflicted? You make the French look
good.


I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff


That's what we think about all of you stupid "Eurosheep'. It's really
sad though, that 99.9% of you make the rest look bad.


I shall miss you window lickers ...


Thats a new one. Whats it mean in Turdish?

Gunner

From the "Urban Dictionary":
1. window licker

A retard who sits in the back of the sunshine bus, licking the window
whilst staring at you


2. window licker

A mentally challenged person riding on "the short bus".

aka: Adams or Negative Waves

The window lickers on the short bus have faces pressed against the
window with their tongues hanging out.


3. window licker

(derogatory) ~ sl.: euphemism for a person of mentally challenged
status. Etymology: C20 - Derived from the stereotyped behaviour of
mentally challenged people, observed to place their open mouths into
prolongued contact with the external windows of public or private
transport on which they are seated.

It is offensive and wrong to name a person people who is mentally
challenged a 'window licker' or a 'retard'.




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

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:47:55 -0400, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:56:33 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:47:49 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
geoff wrote:


DIGAF -


Yes, you do give a ****, or you wouldn't have posted your pathetic
drivel.


I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,


May you give a lion indigestion.


Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?


WHy can't you faggots say what you mean, instead of using a six year
olds innuendo? Do they castrate all of you at six years old? Or all of
you so bad at D.I.Y. that it's self inflicted? You make the French look
good.


I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff


That's what we think about all of you stupid "Eurosheep'. It's really
sad though, that 99.9% of you make the rest look bad.


I shall miss you window lickers ...


Thats a new one. Whats it mean in Turdish?

Gunner

From the "Urban Dictionary":
1. window licker

A retard who sits in the back of the sunshine bus, licking the window
whilst staring at you


2. window licker

A mentally challenged person riding on "the short bus".

aka: Adams or Negative Waves

The window lickers on the short bus have faces pressed against the
window with their tongues hanging out.


3. window licker

(derogatory) ~ sl.: euphemism for a person of mentally challenged
status. Etymology: C20 - Derived from the stereotyped behaviour of
mentally challenged people, observed to place their open mouths into
prolongued contact with the external windows of public or private
transport on which they are seated.

It is offensive and wrong to name a person people who is mentally
challenged a 'window licker' or a 'retard'.


Wow! A great new discription of American Liberals!

Added to my overflowing dictionary!

Thanks!

Humm...I didnt know the Urban Dictionary translated into Turdish.

Cool!

Gunner

geoff wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
geoff wrote:


DIGAF -


Yes, you do give a ****, or you wouldn't have posted your pathetic
drivel.


I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,


May you give a lion indigestion.


Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?


WHy can't you faggots say what you mean, instead of using a six year
olds innuendo? Do they castrate all of you at six years old? Or all of
you so bad at D.I.Y. that it's self inflicted? You make the French look
good.


I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff


That's what we think about all of you stupid "Eurosheep'. It's really
sad though, that 99.9% of you make the rest look bad.


I shall miss you window lickers ...


So, you missed the bus, AGAIN? They need a stronger leash for you
retards.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida