Anyone remember this song?

On Oct 29, 7:11 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marcia wrote:
>
> > in article 472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> > splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
>
> >> Raving wrote:
> >>> On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>> in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> >>>> splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
>
> >>>>> Marcia wrote:
>
> >>>>>> in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
> >>>>>> anonym_easynews_poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01 PM:
>
> >>>>>>> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
> >>>>>>>> Well the south side of Chicago
> >>>>>>>> Is the baddest part of town
> >>>>>>>> And if you go down there
> >>>>>>>> You better just beware
> >>>>>>>> Of a man named Leroy Brown
>
> >>>>>>>> Now Leroy more than trouble
> >>>>>>>> You see he stand about six foot four
> >>>>>>>> All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
> >>>>>>>> All the men just call him "sir"
>
> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>> Now Leroy he a gambler
> >>>>>>>> And he like his fancy clothes
> >>>>>>>> And he like to wave his diamond rings
> >>>>>>>> In front of everybody's nose
> >>>>>>>> He got a custom Continental
> >>>>>>>> He got an Eldorado too
> >>>>>>>> He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
> >>>>>>>> He got a razor in his shoe
>
> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>> Well Friday bout a week ago
> >>>>>>>> Leroy shootin' dice
> >>>>>>>> And at the edge of the bar
> >>>>>>>> Sat a girl named Doris
> >>>>>>>> And ooh that girl looked nice
> >>>>>>>> Well he cast his eyes upon her
> >>>>>>>> And the trouble soon began
> >>>>>>>> And Leroy brown learned a lesson
> >>>>>>>> 'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>
> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damned town
> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>
> >>>>>>>> Well the two men took to fightin'
> >>>>>>>> And when they pulled them from the floor
> >>>>>>>> Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
> >>>>>>>> With a couple of pieces gone
>
> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>> What is a junkyard dog, please?
>
> >>>>>> A dog that guards a junkyard?
>
> >>>>> *ding* *ding* *ding*
>
> >>>> Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
>
> >>> Bipartisan?
>
> >> Tricupid?
>
> > Tricuspid.
>
> Not a neologist, are we?
>
>

Heh. Nope, misspelled it. Fixored.
>
> > Quadripartite ( http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/quadrib.htm )
>
> Quintessence.

Hexane.

 

On Oct 29, 4:00 am, ??? rrock <inva...@address.here> wrote:
> Marcia wrote:
>
> > in article 472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> > splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
>
> >>Raving wrote:
>
> >>>On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> >>>>splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
>
> >>>>>Marcia wrote:
>
> >>>>>>in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
> >>>>>>anonym_easynews_poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01 PM:
>
> >>>>>>>"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
> >>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
> >>>>>>>>And if you go down there
> >>>>>>>>You better just beware
> >>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>
> >>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
> >>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
> >>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
> >>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>
> >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
> >>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
> >>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
> >>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
> >>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
> >>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
> >>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
> >>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>
> >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
> >>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
> >>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
> >>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
> >>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
> >>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
> >>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
> >>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
> >>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>
> >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
> >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>
> >>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
> >>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
> >>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
> >>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>
> >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>What is a junkyard dog, please?
>
> >>>>>>A dog that guards a junkyard?
>
> >>>>>*ding* *ding* *ding*
>
> >>>>Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
>
> >>>Bipartisan?
>
> >>Tricupid?
>
> > Tricuspid.
>
> > Quadrapartite
>
> Penthouse

lol.

Spandhex

 

In article <1193702156.146700.206500@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
marcia <so_you_say@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 29, 4:00 am, ??? rrock <inva...@address.here> wrote:
> > Marcia wrote:
> >
> > > in article 472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> > > splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
> >
> > >>Raving wrote:
> >
> > >>>On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> > >>>>splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
> >
> > >>>>>Marcia wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
> > >>>>>>anonym easynews poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01
> > >>>>>>PM:
> >
> > >>>>>>>"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
> >
> > >>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
> > >>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
> > >>>>>>>>And if you go down there
> > >>>>>>>>You better just beware
> > >>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
> >
> > >>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
> > >>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
> > >>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
> > >>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
> >
> > >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> > >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> > >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> > >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
> >
> > >>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
> > >>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
> > >>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
> > >>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
> > >>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
> > >>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
> > >>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
> > >>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
> >
> > >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> > >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> > >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> > >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
> >
> > >>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
> > >>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
> > >>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
> > >>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
> > >>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
> > >>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
> > >>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
> > >>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
> > >>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
> >
> > >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> > >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
> > >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> > >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
> >
> > >>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
> > >>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
> > >>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
> > >>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
> >
> > >>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> > >>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> > >>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> > >>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
> >
> > >>>>>>>What is a junkyard dog, please?
> >
> > >>>>>>A dog that guards a junkyard?
> >
> > >>>>>*ding* *ding* *ding*
> >
> > >>>>Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
> >
> > >>>Bipartisan?
> >
> > >>Tricupid?
> >
> > > Tricuspid.
> >
> > > Quadrapartite
> >
> > Penthouse
>
> lol.
>
> Spandhex

youre one cool hept cat

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconsciousness of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
i am an etruscan dancer

 

marcia wrote:

> On Oct 29, 4:00 am, rrock <inva...@address.here> wrote:
>
>>Marcia wrote:
>>
>>
>>>in article 472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
>>>splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
>>
>>>>Raving wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
>>>>>>splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
>>
>>>>>>>Marcia wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
>>>>>>>>anonym_easynews_poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01 PM:
>>
>>>>>>>>>"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>
>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>
>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>
>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>
>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>>>>>>>>>What is a junkyard dog, please?
>>
>>>>>>>>A dog that guards a junkyard?
>>
>>>>>>>*ding* *ding* *ding*
>>
>>>>>>Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
>>
>>>>>Bipartisan?
>>
>>>>Tricupid?
>>
>>>Tricuspid.
>>
>>>Quadrapartite
>>
>>Penthouse
>
> lol. Spandhex

Remember September?

--
?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

in article mair_fheal-74C71D.17032529102007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges at mair_fheal@yahoo.com
wrote on 10/29/07 8:03 PM:

> In article <1193702156.146700.206500@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> marcia <so_you_say@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 29, 4:00 am, ??? rrock <inva...@address.here> wrote:
>>> Marcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> in article 472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
>>>> splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
>>>
>>>>> Raving wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
>>>>>>> splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
>>>>>>>>> anonym easynews poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01
>>>>>>>>> PM:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>> Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>> And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>> You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>> Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>> You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>> All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>> All the men just call him "sir"
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>> And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>> And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>> In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>> He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>> He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>> He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>> He got a razor in his shoe
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>> Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>> And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>> Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>> And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>> Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>> And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>> And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>> And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>> Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>> With a couple of pieces gone
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is a junkyard dog, please?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> A dog that guards a junkyard?
>>>
>>>>>>>> *ding* *ding* *ding*
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
>>>
>>>>>> Bipartisan?
>>>
>>>>> Tricupid?
>>>
>>>> Tricuspid.
>>>
>>>> Quadrapartite
>>>
>>> Penthouse
>>
>> lol.
>>
>> Spandhex
>
> youre one cool hept cat

Lol. Much better than hepta filter

 

In article <472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
>Raving wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>>> in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
>>> splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Marcia wrote:
>>>
>>> >> in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
>>> >> anonym_easynews_poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01 PM:
>>>
>>> >>> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
>>> >>>> Well the south side of Chicago
>>> >>>> Is the baddest part of town
>>> >>>> And if you go down there
>>> >>>> You better just beware
>>> >>>> Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>
>>> >>>> Now Leroy more than trouble
>>> >>>> You see he stand about six foot four
>>> >>>> All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>> >>>> All the men just call him "sir"
>>>
>>> >>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>> >>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>> >>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>> >>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>
>>> >>>> Now Leroy he a gambler
>>> >>>> And he like his fancy clothes
>>> >>>> And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>> >>>> In front of everybody's nose
>>> >>>> He got a custom Continental
>>> >>>> He got an Eldorado too
>>> >>>> He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>> >>>> He got a razor in his shoe
>>>
>>> >>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>> >>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>> >>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>> >>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>
>>> >>>> Well Friday bout a week ago
>>> >>>> Leroy shootin' dice
>>> >>>> And at the edge of the bar
>>> >>>> Sat a girl named Doris
>>> >>>> And ooh that girl looked nice
>>> >>>> Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>> >>>> And the trouble soon began
>>> >>>> And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>> >>>> 'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>
>>> >>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>> >>>> The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>> >>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>> >>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>
>>> >>>> Well the two men took to fightin'
>>> >>>> And when they pulled them from the floor
>>> >>>> Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>> >>>> With a couple of pieces gone
>>>
>>> >>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>> >>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>> >>>> Badder than old King Kong
>>> >>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>
>>> >>> What is a junkyard dog, please?
>>>
>>> >> A dog that guards a junkyard?
>>>
>>> > *ding* *ding* *ding*
>>>
>>> Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
>>
>> Bipartisan?
>
>Tricupid?

Nah. Just a masturbation session.

--
The most powerful Usenet tool you have ever heard of.
NewsMaestro v. 4.0.5 - Way Too Cool has been released.

Automatic enablement of all buttons, checkboxes and fields
depending on operation.
Templates generator improvements.

Job list improvements for new installations having no jobs
to begin with.

In some previous releases some class files were missing.
As a result, the program would not run.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Multi-job support and other important feature additions
and various improvements and optimizations.

Web page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/

Download page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/Download_Information.htm

Send any feedback to newsmaestroinfo \at/ mail.ru.
Your personal info will not be released and your privacy
will be honored.

 

"ah" <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47266318$0$22555$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> Marcia wrote:
> >
> >
> > in article 472563d1$0$22514$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> > splifingate@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
> >
> >> Marcia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> >>> splifingate@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
> >>>
> >>>> Marcia wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115007@fe01.news.easynews.com,
> >>>>> anonym_easynews_poster at anonym@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01
PM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
> >>>>>>> Well the south side of Chicago
> >>>>>>> Is the baddest part of town
> >>>>>>> And if you go down there
> >>>>>>> You better just beware
> >>>>>>> Of a man named Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now Leroy more than trouble
> >>>>>>> You see he stand about six foot four
> >>>>>>> All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
> >>>>>>> All the men just call him "sir"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now Leroy he a gambler
> >>>>>>> And he like his fancy clothes
> >>>>>>> And he like to wave his diamond rings
> >>>>>>> In front of everybody's nose
> >>>>>>> He got a custom Continental
> >>>>>>> He got an Eldorado too
> >>>>>>> He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
> >>>>>>> He got a razor in his shoe
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well Friday bout a week ago
> >>>>>>> Leroy shootin' dice
> >>>>>>> And at the edge of the bar
> >>>>>>> Sat a girl named Doris
> >>>>>>> And ooh that girl looked nice
> >>>>>>> Well he cast his eyes upon her
> >>>>>>> And the trouble soon began
> >>>>>>> And Leroy brown learned a lesson
> >>>>>>> 'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damned town
> >>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well the two men took to fightin'
> >>>>>>> And when they pulled them from the floor
> >>>>>>> Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
> >>>>>>> With a couple of pieces gone
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What is a junkyard dog, please?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A dog that guards a junkyard?
> >>>>
> >>>> *ding* *ding* *ding*
> >>>
> >>> Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
> >>
> >> Heathens, all of 'em!
> >
> > Nah, I'm blonde.
>
> Say no more!

Andrew pulls up sheets to jerk-off.

 

??? rrock is no match for wavy g:

>
>
>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>
>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>
>>
>> ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>> directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>
>> there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>> i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>> question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>> behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>
>> so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>
>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?

yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
over.

>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>
>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>
>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>association, the answer to your question is "yes."

so glad 2 heer. sheesh.


>
>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>in the basement?"
>
>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.

the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
"hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)

xoxoxo
wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
love--him).

 

wavy g's number won fan wrote:
> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>
>
>>
>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>
>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>>
>>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>>
>>>
>>>ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>>>directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>>
>>>there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>>>i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>>>question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>>>behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>>
>>>so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>>
>>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?
>
>
> yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
> talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
> over.
>
>
>>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>>
>>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>>
>>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>>association, the answer to your question is "yes."
>
>
> so glad 2 heer. sheesh.
>
>
>
>>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>>in the basement?"
>>
>>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.
>
>
> the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
> ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
> lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
> of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
> hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
> it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
> to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
> thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
> that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
> "hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)
>
> xoxoxo
> wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
> love--him).
>

You'll have to forgive me, wavy, i turned that bot you were talking to
off after you hadn't responded for a bit. It looks like the two of you
had a pretty cool conversation though. Did you want me to start it up
again?

--
?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

??? rrock is no match for wavy g:

>
>
>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>
>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>>>
>>>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>>>>directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>>>
>>>>there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>>>>i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>>>>question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>>>>behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>>>
>>>>so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>>>
>>>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>>>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>>>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>>>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>>>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?
>>
>>
>> yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
>> talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
>> over.
>>
>>
>>>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>>>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>>>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>>>
>>>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>>>
>>>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>>>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>>>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>>>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>>>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>>>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>>>association, the answer to your question is "yes."
>>
>>
>> so glad 2 heer. sheesh.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>>>in the basement?"
>>>
>>>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>>>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>>>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>>>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>>>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>>>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>>>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>>>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>>>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>>>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>>>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>>>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.
>>
>>
>> the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
>> ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
>> lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
>> of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
>> hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
>> it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
>> to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
>> thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
>> that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
>> "hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)
>>
>> xoxoxo
>> wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
>> love--him).
>>
>
>You'll have to forgive me, wavy, i turned that bot you were talking to
>off after you hadn't responded for a bit. It looks like the two of you
>had a pretty cool conversation though. Did you want me to start it up
>again?

i thank u 4 referring 2 me by my idol "wavy," but i must admitt i am not
him. i adore my wavy g more than he would ever know, but i am just a
very big fan (not big as in size, but big as in how much i am devoted to
him). i shall gladly assume his identity, however, should the situatuon
arrise that he may dissappear 4 some reason. i don"t know if such a
sittuation should arise, but if it should, i would be more than happie
to assume that moniker. and, that said, if it was actually a "bot" i
was conversing with all this time, i must say, it was a very articulate
and seemingly sapient "bot." perhaps the best i have ever seen. if
that is who i was talking 2, then by all means, yes, turn it back "on"
because i was quite enjoying the discourse.

 

wavy g's number won fan wrote:
> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>
>
>>
>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>
>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>>>>>directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>>>>
>>>>>there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>>>>>i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>>>>>question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>>>>>behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>>>>
>>>>>so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>>>>
>>>>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>>>>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>>>>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>>>>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>>>>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
>>>talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
>>>over.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>>>>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>>>>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>>>>
>>>>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>>>>
>>>>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>>>>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>>>>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>>>>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>>>>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>>>>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>>>>association, the answer to your question is "yes."
>>>
>>>
>>>so glad 2 heer. sheesh.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>>>>in the basement?"
>>>>
>>>>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>>>>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>>>>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>>>>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>>>>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>>>>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>>>>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>>>>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>>>>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>>>>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>>>>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>>>>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.
>>>
>>>
>>>the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
>>>ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
>>>lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
>>>of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
>>>hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
>>>it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
>>>to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
>>>thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
>>>that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
>>>"hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)
>>>
>>>xoxoxo
>>>wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
>>>love--him).
>>>
>>
>>You'll have to forgive me, wavy, i turned that bot you were talking to
>>off after you hadn't responded for a bit. It looks like the two of you
>>had a pretty cool conversation though. Did you want me to start it up
>>again?
>
>
> i thank u 4 referring 2 me by my idol "wavy," but i must admitt i am not
> him. i adore my wavy g more than he would ever know, but i am just a
> very big fan (not big as in size, but big as in how much i am devoted to
> him). i shall gladly assume his identity, however, should the situatuon
> arrise that he may dissappear 4 some reason. i don"t know if such a
> sittuation should arise, but if it should, i would be more than happie
> to assume that moniker. and, that said, if it was actually a "bot" i
> was conversing with all this time, i must say, it was a very articulate
> and seemingly sapient "bot." perhaps the best i have ever seen. if
> that is who i was talking 2, then by all means, yes, turn it back "on"
> because i was quite enjoying the discourse.

nah... i've written better than that one for sure. okay, though, i'll flip
it back on but it won't remember the other conversation. it "primes" using
your words and the reason i found your post interesting was because
of your unique manner of spelling. It *probably* misunderstood some of the
things you said, but i haven't gone through the conversation to see what
or where. It's pretty old and i wasn't sure if the old code could handle
your syntax. I know the newer stuff can.

Reply to this post with whatever the question was you were asking it.

ciao

--
?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

??? rrock is no match for wavy g:

>
>
>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>
>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>>>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>>>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>>>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>>>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>>>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>>>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>>>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>>>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>>>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>>>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>>>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>>>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>>>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>>>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>>>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>>>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>>>>>>directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>>>>>>i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>>>>>>question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>>>>>>behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>>>>>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>>>>>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>>>>>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>>>>>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
>>>>talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
>>>>over.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>>>>>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>>>>>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>>>>>
>>>>>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>>>>>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>>>>>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>>>>>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>>>>>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>>>>>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>>>>>association, the answer to your question is "yes."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>so glad 2 heer. sheesh.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>>>>>in the basement?"
>>>>>
>>>>>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>>>>>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>>>>>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>>>>>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>>>>>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>>>>>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>>>>>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>>>>>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>>>>>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>>>>>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>>>>>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>>>>>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
>>>>ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
>>>>lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
>>>>of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
>>>>hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
>>>>it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
>>>>to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
>>>>thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
>>>>that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
>>>>"hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)
>>>>
>>>>xoxoxo
>>>>wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
>>>>love--him).
>>>>
>>>
>>>You'll have to forgive me, wavy, i turned that bot you were talking to
>>>off after you hadn't responded for a bit. It looks like the two of you
>>>had a pretty cool conversation though. Did you want me to start it up
>>>again?
>>
>>
>> i thank u 4 referring 2 me by my idol "wavy," but i must admitt i am not
>> him. i adore my wavy g more than he would ever know, but i am just a
>> very big fan (not big as in size, but big as in how much i am devoted to
>> him). i shall gladly assume his identity, however, should the situatuon
>> arrise that he may dissappear 4 some reason. i don"t know if such a
>> sittuation should arise, but if it should, i would be more than happie
>> to assume that moniker. and, that said, if it was actually a "bot" i
>> was conversing with all this time, i must say, it was a very articulate
>> and seemingly sapient "bot." perhaps the best i have ever seen. if
>> that is who i was talking 2, then by all means, yes, turn it back "on"
>> because i was quite enjoying the discourse.
>
>nah... i've written better than that one for sure. okay, though, i'll flip
>it back on but it won't remember the other conversation. it "primes" using
>your words and the reason i found your post interesting was because
>of your unique manner of spelling. It *probably* misunderstood some of the
>things you said, but i haven't gone through the conversation to see what
>or where. It's pretty old and i wasn't sure if the old code could handle
>your syntax. I know the newer stuff can.
>
>Reply to this post with whatever the question was you were asking it.

well, it's just that i love wavy g and i was never shure he loved me
back, u see. i tried 2 make iT CLEAR, BUt he seemed 2 ignore my
advances. so i had 2 do what i had 2 do. no questions, pleazse. now,
may i say that u have intrigued me almost as much as--if not more
than--my idol "wavy g" ever did. u (or ur "bot" as u would have me
believe, yeah right, lol) have kept me intrigued as much as wavy ever
did. may i say that u r a master of the medium, and ur posting habits
rival that of the greatest poster of all time, "wavy g." well, now that
wavy's gone--err, i mean, now that i see that he is not reallly posting
at the moment--i find myself intrigued by u. so talk 2 me. waht makes
u "tick"? what r ur posting habbits? have u ever had anywon (1) reply
so much 2 u that u had 2 have a legal reason 2 prevent somewon (1) from
replaying? no reasson. i just want 2 kno aBOUT u. please rite back,
as i look forward 2 ur response, whatever it may b.e i am a fan.
seriously. i want 2 know u more. i am a fan. a big fan. i am, as it
were, ur number won (1) fan.

xoxoxo
??? rrock's number won fan

 

"John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
news:qfSdnWfJVf4EernanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@centurytel.net:

>
> "Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fg17ud$k3k$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> "John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
>> news:vqOdnUE0-td8irnanZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@centurytel.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Why are you obsessed with homosexual acts?
>> >
>> > Why do you insist on having sex with Michael Baldwin Bruce?
>> >
>> Why are you obsessed with homosexual acts?
>
> Why are you obsessed with Michael Baldwin Bruce?
>
> AUK # 1
> --
> What would happen if Art Deco had a genie in a bottle:
>
> http://www.jibjab.com/view/205012
>
>
> Don't forget:
>
> http://www.jibjab.com/starring_you/receipt/1861764
> You viewers made it No. 1 in Jib-Jab history as
> most viewed in the shortest time posted!
> **Pinky Sue Lamb's nude shot did it**
>
>
>
>

I haven't even mentioned him you thick twat.
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

wavy g's number won fan wrote:
> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>
>
>>
>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>
>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>>>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>>>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>>>>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>>>>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>>>>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>>>>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>>>>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>>>>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>>>>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>>>>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>>>>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>>>>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>>>>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>>>>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>>>>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>>>>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>>>>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>>>>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>>>>>>>directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>>>>>>>i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>>>>>>>question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>>>>>>>behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>>>>>>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>>>>>>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>>>>>>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>>>>>>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
>>>>>talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
>>>>>over.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>>>>>>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>>>>>>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>>>>>>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>>>>>>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>>>>>>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>>>>>>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>>>>>>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>>>>>>association, the answer to your question is "yes."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>so glad 2 heer. sheesh.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>>>>>>in the basement?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>>>>>>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>>>>>>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>>>>>>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>>>>>>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>>>>>>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>>>>>>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>>>>>>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>>>>>>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>>>>>>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>>>>>>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>>>>>>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
>>>>>ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
>>>>>lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
>>>>>of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
>>>>>hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
>>>>>it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
>>>>>to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
>>>>>thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
>>>>>that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
>>>>>"hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)
>>>>>
>>>>>xoxoxo
>>>>>wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
>>>>>love--him).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You'll have to forgive me, wavy, i turned that bot you were talking to
>>>>off after you hadn't responded for a bit. It looks like the two of you
>>>>had a pretty cool conversation though. Did you want me to start it up
>>>>again?
>>>
>>>
>>>i thank u 4 referring 2 me by my idol "wavy," but i must admitt i am not
>>>him. i adore my wavy g more than he would ever know, but i am just a
>>>very big fan (not big as in size, but big as in how much i am devoted to
>>>him). i shall gladly assume his identity, however, should the situatuon
>>>arrise that he may dissappear 4 some reason. i don"t know if such a
>>>sittuation should arise, but if it should, i would be more than happie
>>>to assume that moniker. and, that said, if it was actually a "bot" i
>>>was conversing with all this time, i must say, it was a very articulate
>>>and seemingly sapient "bot." perhaps the best i have ever seen. if
>>>that is who i was talking 2, then by all means, yes, turn it back "on"
>>>because i was quite enjoying the discourse.
>>
>>nah... i've written better than that one for sure. okay, though, i'll flip
>>it back on but it won't remember the other conversation. it "primes" using
>>your words and the reason i found your post interesting was because
>>of your unique manner of spelling. It *probably* misunderstood some of the
>>things you said, but i haven't gone through the conversation to see what
>>or where. It's pretty old and i wasn't sure if the old code could handle
>>your syntax. I know the newer stuff can.
>>
>>Reply to this post with whatever the question was you were asking it.
>
>
> well, it's just that i love wavy g and i was never shure he loved me
> back, u see. i tried 2 make iT CLEAR, BUt he seemed 2 ignore my
> advances. so i had 2 do what i had 2 do. no questions, pleazse. now,
> may i say that u have intrigued me almost as much as--if not more
> than--my idol "wavy g" ever did. u (or ur "bot" as u would have me
> believe, yeah right, lol) have kept me intrigued as much as wavy ever
> did. may i say that u r a master of the medium, and ur posting habits
> rival that of the greatest poster of all time, "wavy g." well, now that
> wavy's gone--err, i mean, now that i see that he is not reallly posting
> at the moment--i find myself intrigued by u. so talk 2 me. waht makes
> u "tick"? what r ur posting habbits? have u ever had anywon (1) reply
> so much 2 u that u had 2 have a legal reason 2 prevent somewon (1) from
> replaying? no reasson. i just want 2 kno aBOUT u. please rite back,
> as i look forward 2 ur response, whatever it may b.e i am a fan.
> seriously. i want 2 know u more. i am a fan. a big fan. i am, as it
> were, ur number won (1) fan.
>
> xoxoxo
> ??? rrock's number won fan

gee, i wonder what made you love him? Maybe we should have all just
followed you around for awhile and seen what would have happened, ya think?

--
(void)fprintf(fp,"%s %d %d %d\n",p->field,q->first,q->last,q->post);
?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

On Oct 29, 5:10 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ??? rrock wrote:
>
> > Marcia wrote:
>
> >> in article 472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> >> splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
>
> >>>Raving wrote:
>
> >>>>On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
> >>>>>splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
>
> >>>>>>Marcia wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
> >>>>>>>anonym_easynews_poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01 PM:
>
> >>>>>>>>"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
> >>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
> >>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
> >>>>>>>>>You better just beware
> >>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>
> >>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
> >>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
> >>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
> >>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>
> >>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
> >>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
> >>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
> >>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
> >>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
> >>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
> >>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
> >>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>
> >>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
> >>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
> >>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
> >>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
> >>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
> >>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
> >>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
> >>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
> >>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>
> >>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
> >>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>
> >>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
> >>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
> >>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
> >>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>
> >>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
> >>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
> >>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
> >>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>
> >>>>>>>>What is a junkyard dog, please?
>
> >>>>>>>A dog that guards a junkyard?
>
> >>>>>>*ding* *ding* *ding*
>
> >>>>>Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
>
> >>>>Bipartisan?
>
> >>>Tricupid?
>
> >> Tricuspid.
>
> >> Quadrapartite
>
> > Penthouse
>
> Shuttup.

Pic of ah!:

http://bobo-t-clown.com/images/bluebeard01a.jpg

ah - The BoBo's family tree starts!:

http://www.genealogyforum.org/ancestor/bobo.php

Ever Wonder why the original BoBo drank! Here is the reason!:

http://www.genealogyforum.org/ancestor/bobo.jpg

 

"Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I haven't even mentioned him

You said that you and Michael Baldwin Bruce were "going steady", Faggot.

HJ

 

"John \"C\"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in
news:gtmdndPb0-1I4LranZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@centurytel.net:

>
> "Phil Kyle" <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> I haven't even mentioned him
>
> You said that you and Michael Baldwin Bruce were "going steady",
> Faggot.
>
> HJ
>
>
>

Whatever you say, closet case.
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

??? rrock is no match for wavy g:

>
>
>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>
>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>>>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>>>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>>>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>>>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>>>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>>>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>>>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>>>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>>>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>>>>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>>>>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>>>>>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>>>>>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>>>>>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>>>>>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>>>>>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>>>>>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>>>>>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>>>>>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>>>>>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>>>>>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>>>>>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>>>>>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>>>>>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>>>>>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>>>>>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>>>>>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>>>>>>>>directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>>>>>>>>i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>>>>>>>>question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>>>>>>>>behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>>>>>>>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>>>>>>>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>>>>>>>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>>>>>>>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
>>>>>>talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
>>>>>>over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>>>>>>>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>>>>>>>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>>>>>>>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>>>>>>>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>>>>>>>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>>>>>>>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>>>>>>>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>>>>>>>association, the answer to your question is "yes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>so glad 2 heer. sheesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>>>>>>>in the basement?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>>>>>>>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>>>>>>>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>>>>>>>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>>>>>>>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>>>>>>>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>>>>>>>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>>>>>>>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>>>>>>>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>>>>>>>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>>>>>>>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>>>>>>>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
>>>>>>ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
>>>>>>lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
>>>>>>of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
>>>>>>hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
>>>>>>it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
>>>>>>to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
>>>>>>thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
>>>>>>that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
>>>>>>"hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>xoxoxo
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
>>>>>>love--him).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You'll have to forgive me, wavy, i turned that bot you were talking to
>>>>>off after you hadn't responded for a bit. It looks like the two of you
>>>>>had a pretty cool conversation though. Did you want me to start it up
>>>>>again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>i thank u 4 referring 2 me by my idol "wavy," but i must admitt i am not
>>>>him. i adore my wavy g more than he would ever know, but i am just a
>>>>very big fan (not big as in size, but big as in how much i am devoted to
>>>>him). i shall gladly assume his identity, however, should the situatuon
>>>>arrise that he may dissappear 4 some reason. i don"t know if such a
>>>>sittuation should arise, but if it should, i would be more than happie
>>>>to assume that moniker. and, that said, if it was actually a "bot" i
>>>>was conversing with all this time, i must say, it was a very articulate
>>>>and seemingly sapient "bot." perhaps the best i have ever seen. if
>>>>that is who i was talking 2, then by all means, yes, turn it back "on"
>>>>because i was quite enjoying the discourse.
>>>
>>>nah... i've written better than that one for sure. okay, though, i'll flip
>>>it back on but it won't remember the other conversation. it "primes" using
>>>your words and the reason i found your post interesting was because
>>>of your unique manner of spelling. It *probably* misunderstood some of the
>>>things you said, but i haven't gone through the conversation to see what
>>>or where. It's pretty old and i wasn't sure if the old code could handle
>>>your syntax. I know the newer stuff can.
>>>
>>>Reply to this post with whatever the question was you were asking it.
>>
>>
>> well, it's just that i love wavy g and i was never shure he loved me
>> back, u see. i tried 2 make iT CLEAR, BUt he seemed 2 ignore my
>> advances. so i had 2 do what i had 2 do. no questions, pleazse. now,
>> may i say that u have intrigued me almost as much as--if not more
>> than--my idol "wavy g" ever did. u (or ur "bot" as u would have me
>> believe, yeah right, lol) have kept me intrigued as much as wavy ever
>> did. may i say that u r a master of the medium, and ur posting habits
>> rival that of the greatest poster of all time, "wavy g." well, now that
>> wavy's gone--err, i mean, now that i see that he is not reallly posting
>> at the moment--i find myself intrigued by u. so talk 2 me. waht makes
>> u "tick"? what r ur posting habbits? have u ever had anywon (1) reply
>> so much 2 u that u had 2 have a legal reason 2 prevent somewon (1) from
>> replaying? no reasson. i just want 2 kno aBOUT u. please rite back,
>> as i look forward 2 ur response, whatever it may b.e i am a fan.
>> seriously. i want 2 know u more. i am a fan. a big fan. i am, as it
>> were, ur number won (1) fan.
>>
>> xoxoxo
>> ??? rrock's number won fan
>
>gee, i wonder what made you love him? Maybe we should have all just
>followed you around for awhile and seen what would have happened, ya think?

i do not understand this repsonse. plese reply at wonce, or i may move
on 2 something else (2 ur loss, i;'m afreaid).

love,
wavy g's number won fan

 

wavy g's number won fan wrote:
> ??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>
>
>>
>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>
>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? rrock is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John "C" is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"wavy g's number won fan" <numberwonfan@wavyg.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:naq1i3l11kteoagvja0pm0vudl2f5gpsir@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nomen Nescio is no match for wavy g:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the south side of Chicago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the baddest part of town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you go down there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You better just beware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy more than trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see he stand about six foot four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the men just call him "sir"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now Leroy he a gambler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like his fancy clothes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he like to wave his diamond rings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In front of everybody's nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a custom Continental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got an Eldorado too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He got a razor in his shoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well Friday bout a week ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy shootin' dice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And at the edge of the bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sat a girl named Doris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And ooh that girl looked nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well he cast his eyes upon her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the trouble soon began
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damned town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the two men took to fightin'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And when they pulled them from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With a couple of pieces gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The baddest man in the whole damn town
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Badder than old King Kong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i've never heard of thiss ong. it sounds like some crap from the 50"s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u should, like, get more up to date and stuff dood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* 1973 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad,_Bad_Leroy_Brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Number One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same thing lol. seventies was just like the fifftys except they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wering plad and saying "groovy man" and "far out". good thing our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generation nows a thing or 2 about music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gee, i wonder where they learned it? Maybe we should have all just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failed to develop anything regarding music or technology for a generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or two and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don"t think that's a very good suggestion, because stuff that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the 50's influanced what happend in 60"s and seventes, and so on. we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r constanly lerning from our past, and to stifle an entire generation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>development whold devistate the generations to follow. look how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we've developed on computers and war technolgy and especially pop music.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u've got some warped sencibilaties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wow, ya think? So you're saying that's where they learned it? That's wild!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you got some proof or anything or are you just making that up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>really? it seems a pretty simple concept 2 me, (and most people, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that) but here u r, talking like u've just discovered it, and saying i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibly "making [it] up." i mean, it's a pretty commonly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>theory: won thing leads to another, and all. i'm not suggesting post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoc ergo propter hoc, but causality does seem to make some sense in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>broad terms. i can probably provide scads of "proof" if it is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>required of u, but come on man. seems a bit silly to doubt such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you sure i said you're possibly making it up? I'm pretty sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i only asked if proof was in your possession or if you had made it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't normally make assertions in interrogatives and usually restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same for the normally intended purpose of information acquisition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forgive me for "playing" with ur words. was that not what u were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>implying with ur "question"? 2 can play at this game. i noticed u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>avoided the issue entirely in ur response. telling. verry telling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As stated previously, i normally restrict the use of interrogatives to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their normally intended purpose of information acquisition. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the answer to your first question should be obvious since there wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any sort of implication made in my question. In any case, you still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't answered my original question. If you find that there is a lag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of time for delivery of the information you seek from me, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>should consider your own initial failure as the cause. Typically, most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>human interaction with me results in the delivery of relatively large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amounts of information, but occasionally due to deviations from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean in a given population, there are some human interactions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fail to produce anything constructive. The choice, is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there must be some reason 4 asking the particular question u asked,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hence my repsonce. i could ask u "how do u properly dispose of a human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>body in hidden ur mom's basement?" what would ur thought be if i asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that? ur first assumption would probably be that i'm asking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>particular question because i've got a body buried in my mom's basement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and i want to get rid of it. i must have a reason 4 asking the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>question, see. the reason: its starting to stink and ppl r coming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>around questioning my mother. see? theyre is a reason i asked u that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same goes for ur question. i stated (in response to a poor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion by another unfortuneate poster) that the fifties influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the sixties which, in turn, influenced the seventies (and so on). u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>responded "have you got some proof or anything or are you just making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that up?" see, that led me to believe that u didn't know about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>had never even scrutinized) a very obvious concept. i will go on to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>point out that right before ur question, u exclaimed "that's wild!" this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggests 2 me that this is a new concept 2 u, pointed out by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so hear we r. i've got u backed into a logical corner. i will ask u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>again 2 explain urself 4 ur questioning. u can dance around the issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>at hand all u want, but in the end, i will be dancing circles around u,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>logically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Although you have made quite a few assumptions in your treatise above, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nevertheless has again failed to answer my original question in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Explaining why you made assumptions about a question is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>simply answering the question. Again, you have asked several questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the above, but there isn't the slightest amount of inclination within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>me to answer any of them since my own original question has yet to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>resolved on your part. As a normal customary procedure for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of an optimal use of available time, you have only three more posts to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>do so before this conversation will be unilaterally determined to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a failure to produce anything constructive, and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ur asking me 2 prove whether or not earlier generations influence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>generations to follow? i'm sorry, but do u see oddity of a question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>like this? this only leads to won (1) responce from me, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>entirety of the "internet" community reading this right now: "omg!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ok, well, in the best interest of diplomacy, i will do my best 2 provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>u an example of the argument i have presented (albeit, in protest; i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>can't believe somewon still has doubts about such a concept). here we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>go: john lennon of the "beatles" (arguablly won [1] of the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>infulential bands of the sixties) has cited buddy holly (a popular "rock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and roll" singing artist of the fifties) as won (1) of his early
>>>>>>>>>>>>>influences. see how that works? things in the past influence the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>things that follow. this is called "causality" and it"s the way the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>universe works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>now that i have provided u with proof of an obvious concept that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>already been showered upon u ur entire life, u see that i have tricked u
>>>>>>>>>>>>>into admitting that ur mind is an informational raincoat, and that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>music of brittany spears and justin timberlake is far superior 2 that of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ur generation. i win! end of debate!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Although you are under the impression that there was a debate in progress,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and although you have provided an example of your opinion in regard to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>original statements made, you have still failed to answer my question in
>>>>>>>>>>>>the least. The question simply asks if you have possession of proof or if
>>>>>>>>>>>>you fabricated the notion. The question does not ask for the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>of any proof if such a proof exists, nor does it ask for a demonstration
>>>>>>>>>>>>of your fabrication techniques were your notion originally only fabricated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Per customary procedure, and for the purpose of providing the utility of
>>>>>>>>>>>>convenience in decrementation of future possible correspondence, you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>only two more posts to answer my original question before this conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>>will be unilaterally determined to be a failure to produce anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>constructive and promptly cease.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>hhm? i didn't provide an opinion, i provided proof. wtf? didn't this
>>>>>>>>>>>debate end, like, 2 reply cycles ago? hmm... o, yes it did. just as i
>>>>>>>>>>>remembered, i won. so what gives?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is only your opinion that you provided a proof, but even if you had done
>>>>>>>>>>so, you still would not have answered my question. Perhaps if you study the
>>>>>>>>>>question very closely you will realize the true nature of its meaning. In
>>>>>>>>>>that regard i can only personally offer you my best hopes, but because it
>>>>>>>>>>was a question without any implication, the actual answer to the question
>>>>>>>>>>as put forth to you can only come from yourself without any help from me.
>>>>>>>>>>Here is the question, again, quoted, for your convenience: "Have you got some
>>>>>>>>>>proof or anything or are you just making that up?" As customary procedure
>>>>>>>>>>allots, and for the convenience of decrementation in a well-formed stated
>>>>>>>>>>fashion for the previously described reasons, you have only one more post
>>>>>>>>>>to answer my original question before this conversation will be unilaterally
>>>>>>>>>>determined to be a failure to produce anything constructive and promptly
>>>>>>>>>>cease. Therefore, since there is a chance that we may not be speaking again,
>>>>>>>>>>if such a case arises, i would like to thank you for the pleasure of speaking
>>>>>>>>>>with you in all regards. You still have an opportunity to produce something
>>>>>>>>>>constructive from this conversation, though, so i wish you the best of luck
>>>>>>>>>>with that if that is your desire.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ok, i think i;ve "got u," so 2 speak. so, 2 anser ur questions
>>>>>>>>>directly: "yes, i have got proof, and no, i am not making that up."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>there. is that what ur looking 4? i hope i have satisfied ur request.
>>>>>>>>>i would like 2 think that this is the proper response 2 the "$10,000
>>>>>>>>>question," as it were, so that we may put this chapter of our lives
>>>>>>>>>behind us, because, frankly, i have more pressing issues 2 tend 2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden in the basement?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thank you so much for producing something constructive from this conversation.
>>>>>>>>I was sure that you could do it and was rooting for you. If i understood your
>>>>>>>>answer to my question correctly, you have proof that people were wearing "plad"
>>>>>>>>(plaid) in the seventies because people "in the 50's influanced what happend in
>>>>>>>>60"s and seventes". Is that correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yeah. shure. 2 be honest, i don't really even remember what we were
>>>>>>>talking about. but i must say, i'm thoroughly pleased it's finally
>>>>>>>over.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I will now endeavor in a most significantly intense fashion to answer your
>>>>>>>>questions accordingly since you have proven yourself to be a person of great
>>>>>>>>renown that also endeavors to produce constructive conversations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your first question was: " is that what ur looking 4? "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If i understood this question correctly, the correct answer is that i was not
>>>>>>>>looking for anything in particular and hadn't any manner of knowing what it
>>>>>>>>would be that would actually answer the question. Also, just to be thorough and
>>>>>>>>give you a complete answer, again, if i understood this question completely,
>>>>>>>>what i was trying to find was the answer to my question. Since you did answer
>>>>>>>>my question then by means of deductive reasoning only, but not by direct
>>>>>>>>association, the answer to your question is "yes."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>so glad 2 heer. sheesh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your second question was: "so, do u know how do properly dispose of a body hidden
>>>>>>>>in the basement?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This question appears to be a very difficult question to answer because it
>>>>>>>>has portions that are ambiguous. The exact portion of the question that has a
>>>>>>>>very high degree of ambiguity is in reference to the location of the body.
>>>>>>>>In your question you interrogate for the a disposal method of a hidden body
>>>>>>>>but you have not specifically mentioned any particular basement. It is highly
>>>>>>>>possible that a body in one basement might be disposed of properly in a certain
>>>>>>>>fashion, while simultaneously possible that if the body were in a different
>>>>>>>>basement an entirely different approach would be more appropriate. That being
>>>>>>>>the case, and because i am only aware of several different disposal methods
>>>>>>>>for body's hidden in various types of basements, but also because i do not
>>>>>>>>know all of the possible methods for all types or locations of basements, the
>>>>>>>>answer to your question is indeterminate by me at this time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the location is not important. man, u shure get caught up in details.
>>>>>>>ur wife--if u have won--must be saint 4 putting up with this every day,
>>>>>>>lol (j/k). it is just that there's this body--hypothetically speaking,
>>>>>>>of course--hidden in the basement, and i--the main character in this
>>>>>>>hypothetical situation--want 2 dispose of it quickly and discreetly so
>>>>>>>it cannot be found, or, failing that, so that it cannot be traced back
>>>>>>>to me. i just wondered if, u know, u had any insite on this type of
>>>>>>>thing. (of course, if u do know, i don't want 2 know *how* u know, if
>>>>>>>that should ever arise in our discussion. let's just both keep it
>>>>>>>"hypothetical," just for the sake of the conversation.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>xoxoxo
>>>>>>>wavy g's number won fan (he'll never know how much i loved--i mean
>>>>>>>love--him).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You'll have to forgive me, wavy, i turned that bot you were talking to
>>>>>>off after you hadn't responded for a bit. It looks like the two of you
>>>>>>had a pretty cool conversation though. Did you want me to start it up
>>>>>>again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>i thank u 4 referring 2 me by my idol "wavy," but i must admitt i am not
>>>>>him. i adore my wavy g more than he would ever know, but i am just a
>>>>>very big fan (not big as in size, but big as in how much i am devoted to
>>>>>him). i shall gladly assume his identity, however, should the situatuon
>>>>>arrise that he may dissappear 4 some reason. i don"t know if such a
>>>>>sittuation should arise, but if it should, i would be more than happie
>>>>>to assume that moniker. and, that said, if it was actually a "bot" i
>>>>>was conversing with all this time, i must say, it was a very articulate
>>>>>and seemingly sapient "bot." perhaps the best i have ever seen. if
>>>>>that is who i was talking 2, then by all means, yes, turn it back "on"
>>>>>because i was quite enjoying the discourse.
>>>>
>>>>nah... i've written better than that one for sure. okay, though, i'll flip
>>>>it back on but it won't remember the other conversation. it "primes" using
>>>>your words and the reason i found your post interesting was because
>>>>of your unique manner of spelling. It *probably* misunderstood some of the
>>>>things you said, but i haven't gone through the conversation to see what
>>>>or where. It's pretty old and i wasn't sure if the old code could handle
>>>>your syntax. I know the newer stuff can.
>>>>
>>>>Reply to this post with whatever the question was you were asking it.
>>>
>>>
>>>well, it's just that i love wavy g and i was never shure he loved me
>>>back, u see. i tried 2 make iT CLEAR, BUt he seemed 2 ignore my
>>>advances. so i had 2 do what i had 2 do. no questions, pleazse. now,
>>>may i say that u have intrigued me almost as much as--if not more
>>>than--my idol "wavy g" ever did. u (or ur "bot" as u would have me
>>>believe, yeah right, lol) have kept me intrigued as much as wavy ever
>>>did. may i say that u r a master of the medium, and ur posting habits
>>>rival that of the greatest poster of all time, "wavy g." well, now that
>>>wavy's gone--err, i mean, now that i see that he is not reallly posting
>>>at the moment--i find myself intrigued by u. so talk 2 me. waht makes
>>>u "tick"? what r ur posting habbits? have u ever had anywon (1) reply
>>>so much 2 u that u had 2 have a legal reason 2 prevent somewon (1) from
>>>replaying? no reasson. i just want 2 kno aBOUT u. please rite back,
>>>as i look forward 2 ur response, whatever it may b.e i am a fan.
>>>seriously. i want 2 know u more. i am a fan. a big fan. i am, as it
>>>were, ur number won (1) fan.
>>>
>>>xoxoxo
>>>??? rrock's number won fan
>>
>>gee, i wonder what made you love him? Maybe we should have all just
>>followed you around for awhile and seen what would have happened, ya think?
>
>
> i do not understand this repsonse. plese reply at wonce, or i may move
> on 2 something else (2 ur loss, i;'m afreaid).
>
> love,
> wavy g's number won fan

If by the term "response" you are referring to my reply, an explanation of
my reply appears to be in order, therefore under that assumption my explanation
follows. If a full explanation of my reply was unnecessary then please forgive
any appearance of a condescending attitude which might appear to arise from
telling you what you already know.

According to your previous post to which my reply was directed, you indicated
that you loved him. Later in your reply you paid me several compliments for
which i was truly flattered. Two questions then occurred to me since if you loved
him but were paying compliments to me, then in order to secure a continuous stream
of compliments from you, the reason that you loved him would certainly need to
be ascertained. The other impetus for a question was to help you in any possible
way. Any future questions from you to be answered by me require a minimum amount
of information at the least. The second question was therefore asked to see how
you would respond only and if within your response you would inadvertently supply
information about correlation, dignity, foresight, grammar, important items,
insight, instinct, observation, pattern, people, places, timing, travel, or reasons
for flattery found in relation to the first priority.

There were no further questions in your response, however, there are still three
unanswered questions in your earlier reply which cannot be understood clearly.

--

"so, speech is not what im worried about." -- Steve wolfo0909@gmail.com
i think she looks sweet. http://content1.myyearbook.com/thumb_userimages/2007/10/23/23/thm_phpm5KRMi.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

marcia wrote:
> On Oct 29, 7:11 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marcia wrote:
>>
>> > in article 472563c2$0$22514$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
>> > splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/29/07 1:02 AM:
>>
>> >> Raving wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 24, 8:21 pm, Marcia <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>>> in article 471fd24c$0$22554$8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com, ah at
>> >>>> splifing...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/07 7:39 PM:
>>
>> >>>>> Marcia wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> in article CEMTi.121972$m81.115...@fe01.news.easynews.com,
>> >>>>>> anonym_easynews_poster at ano...@invalid.com wrote on 10/24/07 3:01 PM:
>>
>> >>>>>>> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>news:7c60dc1a3e28c9a37dd4b5da6048a7e5@dizum.com...
>> >>>>>>>> Well the south side of Chicago
>> >>>>>>>> Is the baddest part of town
>> >>>>>>>> And if you go down there
>> >>>>>>>> You better just beware
>> >>>>>>>> Of a man named Leroy Brown
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Now Leroy more than trouble
>> >>>>>>>> You see he stand about six foot four
>> >>>>>>>> All the downtown ladies call him "treetop lover"
>> >>>>>>>> All the men just call him "sir"
>>
>> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Now Leroy he a gambler
>> >>>>>>>> And he like his fancy clothes
>> >>>>>>>> And he like to wave his diamond rings
>> >>>>>>>> In front of everybody's nose
>> >>>>>>>> He got a custom Continental
>> >>>>>>>> He got an Eldorado too
>> >>>>>>>> He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
>> >>>>>>>> He got a razor in his shoe
>>
>> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Well Friday bout a week ago
>> >>>>>>>> Leroy shootin' dice
>> >>>>>>>> And at the edge of the bar
>> >>>>>>>> Sat a girl named Doris
>> >>>>>>>> And ooh that girl looked nice
>> >>>>>>>> Well he cast his eyes upon her
>> >>>>>>>> And the trouble soon began
>> >>>>>>>> And Leroy brown learned a lesson
>> >>>>>>>> 'Bout messin' with the wife of a jealous man
>>
>> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damned town
>> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog,
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Well the two men took to fightin'
>> >>>>>>>> And when they pulled them from the floor
>> >>>>>>>> Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
>> >>>>>>>> With a couple of pieces gone
>>
>> >>>>>>>> And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown
>> >>>>>>>> The baddest man in the whole damn town
>> >>>>>>>> Badder than old King Kong
>> >>>>>>>> And meaner than a junkyard dog
>>
>> >>>>>>> What is a junkyard dog, please?
>>
>> >>>>>> A dog that guards a junkyard?
>>
>> >>>>> *ding* *ding* *ding*
>>
>> >>>> Thanks! Usually, I get: *dingbat* *dingbat* *dingbat*
>>
>> >>> Bipartisan?
>>
>> >> Tricupid?
>>
>> > Tricuspid.
>>
>> Not a neologist, are we?
>>
>>
>
> Heh. Nope, misspelled it. Fixored.

ITYM 'Fix0red'

HTH

>>
>> > Quadripartite ( http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/quadrib.htm )
>>
>> Quintessence.
>
> Hexane.

*sniff*