Skip to main content
news

Re: WINDOWS 8 - ANOTHER MS ...

Sandman
SubjectRe: WINDOWS 8 - ANOTHER MS WINNER
FromSandman
Date03/13/2013 17:39 (03/13/2013 17:39)
Message-ID<mr-BCDE6D.17391713032013@News.Individual.NET>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.sys.mac.advocacy
FollowsFlint
FollowupsFlint (15m) > Sandman
Rollo (2h & 11m)

In article <khq9pq$adr$1@dont-email.me>, Flint <agent001@section-31.net>wrote:

Flint
On 3/13/2013 9:26 AM, Sandman wrote:

Sandman
In article <slrnkk0tpk.hme.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>wrote:

Lewis
In message <mr-742220.08174313032013@News.Individual.NET> Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <khnsdq$d37$1@dont-email.me>, Flint <agent001@section-31.net>wrote:

Flint
although unable to provide any cites of said rules.

Sandman
I did. here:

<mr-AA51C0.10344212032013@News.Individual.NET>

Flint
An email address link? Teeheeheheee! :)

Sandman
HAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lewis
:)

Sandman
Flint thinks this is an EMAIL ADDRESS!!!!

Amazing - this has GOT to be the single largest failed comeback in the HISTORY of CSMA!!!!

Lewis
It's certainly right up there.

Sandman
I am saving this for the archives - generations to come will look upon this and laugh and laugh!!!!!

Hahahahahahah!!!!!!!!

Lewis
I'd add it to my sigs, but I don't know that it would have the full impact...

Sandman
Yeah, we've seen trolls fail massively here before, but I can't remember anything as profound as this for a LONG time. Something Edwin might have done perhaps.

Or probably Tom Elam, he has made some massive nose dives in the past. But that was years ago, now he just posts as much nonsense as possible.

Flint
I already stated to Alan I was just playing with you, but yeah, if it makes you feel better, you and Lewis both being latecomers in responding in a timely probably do indeed feel in need of a circle-jerk...

Have at it Swedish swish... either way, you LOSE as you still have evaded the original point with yet another diversion.

Hahahaha!!! What - didn't you use that "broken email address" to see my substantiation - I mean, you were just "playing" with me when you said - no INSISTED, that it was a broken email address!? I mean - you were "playing" *me* when you insisted *to Alan* that it was not a Message-ID, right? I mean, damn, that was such good fun play! Hahahah!!!

Surely now you are going to shove that back into my face here and now and follow/use/whatever that "broken email address" and disprove my substantiation? Surely?? Haha!!!

-- Sandman[.net]

Flint (15m) > Sandman
Rollo (2h & 11m)