 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff wrote:
Gunner just complained about California IIRC. Will he share his bunker with you? Really? You keep up with Gunner as a rule or are you just infatuated? You floated that air biscuit the same way you declared that six recounts doesn't prove anything. Is it three or four times now you've been proven to be an idiot? What's your next bull**** claim? 50,999,897 - 50,456,002 = 543,895 Too complicated for you? Bush won.....too complictaed fo ryou, idiot? ROFLMAO!!!! ral -- Cliff Learn to post, winger. -- Cliff |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
Reading comprehension issues again? You're the idiot who cited a four year old hoax as gospel and argued with a Usenet bot, idiot LOL ral |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kathy" wrote:
You may be too dense to realize it but you've lost too. Really? ral |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
50,999,897 - 50,456,002 = 543,895 And your point is, idiot? I thought you said you understood the electoral college system? I guess that was bull****, too. ral |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Well, then, shut the hell up and crown him King of Florida, Richard. ROFLMAO!!!!! Sure thing, idiot. ral |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:45:42 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:16:45 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". Bu tyou didn't reply to *that* thread. OK....who changed the "subject" line back to "OT - Cites for Gunner" then? Don't let little things like reality creep in on you ral... If the thread were still "cites for gunner", bobbie, then what the hell did you just reply to? A thread titled, " OT - "Cites" for Gunner." What does your newsreader say in the subject line? Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote: Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... G. But who does the recognition? -- Cliff |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock wrote: Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... G. But who does the recognition? Im thinking maybe we're dealing with yet another bot......... Think it will respond by calling me idiot ??? -- SVL |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:33:39 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock wrote: Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... G. But who does the recognition? Im thinking maybe we're dealing with yet another bot......... Think it will respond by calling me idiot ??? Time may tell G. -- Cliff |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:51:49 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock wrote: Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... G. But who does the recognition? Who was admiting to being an idiot? |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:03:54 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:33:39 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock wrote: Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... G. But who does the recognition? Im thinking maybe we're dealing with yet another bot......... Think it will respond by calling me idiot ??? Time may tell G. I just wish I could tell who you were talking about. The only person to use the term "idiot" has not attribution. I was hoping that time would tell, but it's not looking good here. |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:11:31 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:51:49 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock wrote: Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... G. But who does the recognition? Who was admiting to being an idiot? IIRC The kind folks over in alt.usenet.kooks are running Gunner & another winger up for an award. I've not looked yet to see who won. From alt.usenet.kooks: [ The time has come to choose Christmas presents for your favourite kooks. Nominations are therefore now open for the following special and valuable awards: Fr00tcake - for the nuttiest, fr00tiest net.loon of the year Bag of Coal - for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year ] What way would you vote? HTH -- Cliff |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:03:54 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:33:39 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock wrote: Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... G. But who does the recognition? Im thinking maybe we're dealing with yet another bot......... Think it will respond by calling me idiot ??? Time may tell G. I just wish I could tell who you were talking about. The only person to use the term "idiot" has not attribution. I was hoping that time would tell, but it's not looking good here. Bob, My referance above was in regards to Richard A. Lewis--and hopefully this clears things up a bit. This despite the fact that Cliffy seems to often throw the term about rather loosely, ( as I do even I on occasion ). But, if one looks around himself and all he seems to see is idiots, when he then looks into a mirror, why should you expect to him to see anything different ??? Anyways........... Cheers, -- SVL |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote: On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:45:42 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:16:45 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". Bu tyou didn't reply to *that* thread. OK....who changed the "subject" line back to "OT - Cites for Gunner" then? Don't let little things like reality creep in on you ral... If the thread were still "cites for gunner", bobbie, then what the hell did you just reply to? A thread titled, " OT - "Cites" for Gunner." What does your newsreader say in the subject line? Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... Well ral, has it began to sink in how stupid you are looking yet? I take your inability to reply as a resounding yes. |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:47:47 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:21:57 -0500, Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:45:42 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:16:45 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". Bu tyou didn't reply to *that* thread. OK....who changed the "subject" line back to "OT - Cites for Gunner" then? Don't let little things like reality creep in on you ral... If the thread were still "cites for gunner", bobbie, then what the hell did you just reply to? A thread titled, " OT - "Cites" for Gunner." What does your newsreader say in the subject line? Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral Recognition is the first step to recovery... Well ral, has it began to sink in how stupid you are looking yet? I take your inability to reply as a resounding yes. It's fun while it lasts G. -- Cliff |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard Lewis wrote: Cliff wrote: Were the recounts ever finished? Six of them, with progressively looser criteria for counting, were....and you democrap idiots lost them all. Number seven was stopped. Or are you thinking of all those lawyers on Enron's planes or the Supreme Court? How many precincts were actually fully recounted? All of them? You democrap idiots didn't want ALL of them recounted. You only wanted to recount the ones that might give the democrap candidate more votes....which they didn't. ALL the precincts that the democraps asked for a recount in were recounted multiple times. http://www.google.com/search?num=100...scalia&spell=1 "Bush's lead had shrunk to 154 votes when Justice Scalia intervened with an emergency order claiming that the count could cause "irreparable harm" to George Bush." "So even though the election is not yet decided, the incredible Scalia presupposes Bush won the election, and indeed has a right to win it, and any recount that shows Gore had won threatens irreparable harm to George Bush!" "These five Justices, Bugliosi reminded the crowd, are all ardent Federalists who swear by the principle that state courts interpret state law -- yet they intervened in this case." "The ruling stopping the vote count was issued in the form of a per curium opinion, which Bugliosi said, is almost always used in cases that are uncontroversial. Moreover, these opinions are unsigned and anonymously written." "For instance, he cited the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek as describing how upset Justice O'Connor was at the possibility of a Gore win because she planned to retire and did not want a Democrat appointing her successor. Clarence Thomas' wife works for the conservative Heritage Foundation, which assisted Bush in his transition to power. And two of Scalia's sons work for law firms heavily involved in the Bush campaign. " Good news, eh? -- Cliff |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Nice write up about LEDs | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
