CHOKE on this!

I'm not going anywhere. You are the only one participating in this group
(where I'm reading it) who has posted nothing but off topic posts. You may
be reading it in a different group, but you are cross posting it all over
the place. I have no doubt that in most of the groups you are posting to,
you never posted anything on topic at all.

 

At the risk of getting off topic, there are some groups that do not allow
off topic posts, as stated in their FAQ. Some are moderated. Moderators
tend to be intolerant of posts that are off-topic or in some cases that do
not address the topic appropriately. For example, they may reject a post
that merely says, "What sort of zipzap should I buy?" They will say that a
proper post should list the qualities one expects from a zipzap, etc.

Of course, the same moderators will accept off topic posts from regulars,
but that's another story.

Now can we get back to the topic of smoking?

 

Another possibility is to take the gm group off the list and hope he doesn't
continue going tit for tat because of it.

 

*ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas*

See below:

I know - but to chastise someone for cross-posting and being off-topic then
doing the same is just plain dumb.

I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you care
to discuss it further, that's where I'll be (I'm not subscribed to any of
these other NGs anyway)

Natalie, ducking out to go back to her home turf

 

Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the
topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary
wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced around
the web since the early '90's.

It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing
great :^)

 

If I lived there, I would *not* be cruising the whole state looking for a
smoke-free spot. I was working in Phoenix regularly, and found the same
level of discomfort in almost every restaurant I went to. If I would have
had to have limited myself to certain places, that would have made it to
smoky for my likings.

I did not generalize one bit. I talked about my likings, and not whether
it's too smoky for anybody else, or right for anybody else. You seem to be
the one who is generalizing here by applying my comments to anything but
what I said.

If you can give a drop of evidence to show that I didn't find it too smoky
for my likings, then by all means chime in. Or perhaps you are generalizing
to the point that you think that everybody's tastes are like yours or that
everybody is like you.

 

LMAO!!! Good one Hag!

 

It's easy to see why you, Hag and Brad were off on a tangent about cigarette
smoke in an automotive NewsGroup. We seem to have just proven that you are
easily thrown off topic. It's like an illness Nat. I threw the three of you
so far off your OT discussion that you became frustrated and bailed to
frienlier environs.

If I may offer some friendly advice, Nat, have you not heard of e-mail? Why
don't you, Hag and Brad simply e-mail each other, since you are the only
ones interested in this topic? Duh@Nat! Or start a new NG devoted to the
non-smoking bandwagon. Then you can hovel in your element. I'm gonna miss
you though Nat. Call me crazy, but I was enjoying experiencing your
hyperventilation! Now Nat, take a deep breath and relax.

 

Like I said, Arizona is a big state Hag. What else is there to say?

 

Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an
example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults
that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."? Hmmmmm, . . .
doesn't that make you guilty of doing what you profess to dislike? You seem
confused Brad. You seem to have taken an extraordinary length of time to
respond to that last message. Are your meds kicking in dear? R U okay Brad?

 

Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last
ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^)

You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you
"StingRay"? ha ha ha!

 

WE NEED a Federal government funded study! The test vehicle(s) must be of
the latest diesel technology, the purest of European pump fuels (and of
course we must have a parallel biodiesel fuel study), and we must cull from
the Death Row prison population some extra worthy shreds of human debris to
smoke both cigarette and diesel exhausts. We can then hack out their lungs
on the cafeteria counter, thereby reducing study costs.

 

I'll get right on that Brad! Ha, Ha!

Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when in
the same sentence you say "cite", when clearly, the proper word is "site"?
If I may quote the village idiot: "You're not one of the more astute people
in this world....are you"?
We'll let the group decide just who the dumbass is, but I think that by
opening your mouth, you have just removed all doubt! Still LMAO!!! Way to go
Brad!!!

 

StingRay wrote:

[...]

I think he meant cite, as in "provide a citation"...

'tis an easy task



A

 

Quite.

 

Now we have a mind reader amongst us! "I think he meant cite, as in "provide
a citation"... ". Just one problem. Brad said "cite", not "provide a
citation". It seems that you have just joined the dumbass ranks Al. (May I
call you Al?) Go back and read Brad's comment. No. Let me cut and paste it:
"Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
single cite showing that phrase ...". Even in the U.K., "cite" is not a
noun. It is a verb. Look it up. You're right Al . . . " 'tis an easy task ".
;-)

 

Ric, (May I call you Ric?) this stupidity thing is spreading fast! Now turn
around and go back and read what Brad said, not what you think he meant to
say. Then if you still agree with Al, bend your legs around behind your back
and kick your ass for being so silly!

 

StingRay wrote:

[...]

StiR, (may I call you StiR?) had you corrected "cite" to "citation" you
would have had a point...

....but you didn't.


A

 

Al, you seem to have missed the relevent post where I responded directly to
your comments. Let me repeat it here:

"Now we have a mind reader amongst us! "I think he meant cite, as in
"provide a citation"... ". Just one problem. Brad said "cite", not "provide
a citation". It seems that you have just joined the dumbass ranks Al. (May
I call you Al?) Go back and read Brad's comment. No. Let me cut and paste
it: "Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
single cite showing that phrase ...". Even in the U.K., "cite" is not a
noun. It is a verb. Look it up. You're right Al . . . " 'tis an easy task ".
;-) " Even those of you from the Serene Republic of Leith should now
understand the matter under discussion. Perhaps you and Ric would now like
to apologise (I spelled it that was in deference to your country of
reference.) and kick each other in the ass. ;-)

 

Stingray,

I have not read half the posts in this thread but ISTM that you are the one
perpetuating this thread by not letting it die. Your protestation about
another is like a pot calling a kettle black. We all can the that both are
the same apart from one bleating like a wounded sheep while still
crossposting to all and sundry.
Generally this is the behaviour of a low-life TROLL.

Huw