Google| Subject | Re: An embedded "@" makes it a broken email |
| From | Flint |
| Date | 03/14/2013 18:52 (03/14/2013 13:52) |
| Message-ID | <kht2lp$fif$1@dont-email.me> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (19m) |
On 3/14/2013 10:10 AM, Sandman wrote:
SandmanThere's no grammatically authoritative source cited in that message. Boy are you stupid, or >what<?!
In article <khsi1e$dh0$1@dont-email.me>, Flint <agent001@section-31.net>wrote:SandmanFlintSandmanAlan BakerFlint
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036>
Yes, we see you can't resist creaming your jeans. You're too dense to see I was simply playing with Sandflea
You sure played me here:
<kho9fj$31k$1@dont-email.me> "Wrong, Ailin Bellyacher . An embedded "@" makes it a broken email link, moron. "
That comment was directed to Alan, not you, therefore you were not 'played', sandy... you weren't even addressed as i was awaiting a response from you. Secondly, when inserted into the body of message text it DOES make it a broken email link.
Hahahah!!!! Message-ID's in the body of a message are not Message-ID's - they magically become broken email links!! :-DSandmanAnd here:Flint
"Just because you fangurlz expect the rest of the world's usenet newsreader software to follow some non-standard MT-Newswatcher convention for creating broken links, don't assume such links are proper."
And my god, did you ever "play" me here:
"An email address link? Teeheeheheee! :)"
Hahaha!!!
Yes, too bad you're too dimwitted to see the silliness of posting a message ID in a body of text when a simple excerpt of your own cite-blathering would have been more direct.
But boy have it been MILES more fun, to see your complete ignorance about usenet :-DFlintSandman
That said, your doing so was to refute my claim that you failed to provide a cite of authoritative source to back *your* claim.
Been there, done that. It's here:
<mr-AA51C0.10344212032013@News.Individual.NET>
Now, what to do with this "broken email adress", Flint? :-D
What is the matter sandflea? Can't find one?
Look Jubelidiot, a 'definition' wasn't required nor asked for. A grammatically authoritative source as evidence or justification of your munged sentences was what was required. I realize the difference appears subtle and hence lost on you, but your cite is irrelevent.FlintSandman
However, the message you referenced does not contain a grammatically authoritative source, but simply a *dictionary*.
Yes, we all know dictionaries, especially Merriam Webster, are widely disregarded when it comes to the definition of words... Haha!! :)
You can't find one, can you?
Consider your nonsensical argument utterly *destroyed*.
The hell it didn't. It specifically addressed, and verified exactly what I said. If I were you, mountain monkey, I'd give up pretending to understand English. It's obviously waaaaaaaay over your head, you efterbliven dumskalleFlintSandman
A authoritative grammatical source is what is required for determining a sentence is valid(proper) or not.
And Flints submission there was... wikianswers... Which didn't even support him! :)
I have an explanation. The space between your ears was once best described by Einstein as containing "limitless" or infinite stupidity. That's why only you can see only stupidity.FlintHahahaha! You just became DUMBER! How is this POSSIBLE????
(Hint: there are different rules as to what one-word sentences are valid whenSandman
spoken< as opposed to being >written< or >typed<.)
Congrats. You disproved the infinite monkey theorem AND Einstein's axiom of infinite stupidity, all in one usenet thread! A TWO-FER, by golly! :)
-- MFB
03/06/2013-
