From: Richard Smith
To: Dan Ceppa
Date: Mar 1 1998 12:06:42 am
Subject: Case #5
Parent message · Link to this message · Link to this thread ·
More messages from this author · Toggle pseudo-headers
. . . on 02-20-98  19:36 Dan Ceppa muttered to Richard Smith
about Case #5 saying . . .

wp> I will not reply to your posts with
wp> that kind of profanity!
GD> What kind of profanity will you reply to?
wp> All you have seen me fail to respond to.
RS> I've read that two line exchange several times, and it
RS> STILL doesn't make sense to me . . . how about you?
DC> Absolutely none.  I love it when people attempt to
DC> define profanity and won't provide the words that they
DC> term are "profane".

As if we'd just know what they meant!  Heeeeesssshhhh . . . !

wp> nonsensical, and generally a put-down and ad hominin in
wp> nature.
RS> In other words, he'll use just about any excuse to duck
RS> out on posts that ask questions he can't answer, and is
RS> merely lying about the why and wherefore . . .
DC> As you note, based on his non-description of 'profane',
DC> he doesn't have to respond to a thing.


RS> Not a surprize, is it?  Who'd have thought we could
RS> control William that easily?  <G>
DC> It's time we preface all messages with 'Fuck you,
DC> Putnam'.  Then, we can safely talk about the fucking
DC> asshole behind his back.

Actually, he says he still reads them all, just doesn't
respond.  That's probably because he's so busy masturbating
while reading all the dirty bits . . .

So we get to be vocal about him, and he can't do a thing
about it without breaking his word, like he did with Judith.

Helping  \/tian
To Stop  /\tortion

Richard Smith

... William Putnam: I'll respond only to profanity I won't respond to.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: Fidei Defensor Infidelium (1:203/9046)
SEEN-BY: 12/12 218/890 1001 221/100 270/101 396/1 3615/50 51 3804/180
PATH: 203/9046 1102 3333 396/1 3615/50 218/1001