A Holes on Parade

Originally Posted by Road Dog

Your huffing and puffing does not impress me, and your childish name calling and insults don't really offend me. As for my mental abilities, I test out at 145 on a bad day. Your analogy inolving Don Quixote gets a "C" at best. And I strongly suspect you dont get laid much.

My guess is you meant 14.5 as in POINT, as in not QUITE 15 which is slightly LESS than 16.

I have seen many braggarts boast of how high their IQs are and have yet to meet a braggart that actually had bragging rights.

I'm curious though, just what criteria do you use to determine the frequency with which someone COMPLETLEY unknown to you has occasion to "get laid"?
AND, even more importantly, WHY is it important to you, not to mention how is it even REMOTELY relevant to this thread, which has turned out be about just how STUPID YOU really are.

Next it will be homophobic rhetoric, then the you guys don't know anything, then it'll be the I just came here to help a friend and look how mean you were to me it's no wonder my friend won't come back and on and on and on.

Jeez puppydawg, you are SOOOOOOO original.

NOT.

Can anyone say DUMBASS?

Originally Posted by Road Dog

Your huffing and puffing does not impress me, and your childish name calling and insults don't really offend me. As for my mental abilities, I test out at 145 on a bad day. Your analogy inolving Don Quixote gets a "C" at best. And I strongly suspect you dont get laid much.

Today must be a real bad day then. You'd think that someone with an IQ of 145 would know that "inolving" is spelled involving and that dont has an apostrophe between the "n" and the "t" (don't). Not knowing about an apostrophe would probably mean a decimal would be beyond your grasp as well. I think Wes' statement of 14.5 sounds closer to the mark.

I guess the lil pup just likes the rolled up newspaper traetment. Sick lil pup.

You are the one who brought up the subject of my mental abilities, not me.

Here's the criteria I use to determine the frequency at which someone gets laid:

(W+E+S)(R)= dosen't get laid Where R= # of Star Trek conventions/year

Just for the record, you are also the one who brought up the homophobic stuff, not me.
I am not homophobic, but I wonder what Freud would say about you pulling that out of left field. mmmmmmmmmmm

Enough's enough. While I like to see new registrations, I'm not keen on a user having multiple accounts.

"Road Dog," I'm not going to publicly out who you are at this time, unless you continue posting under a pseudonym.

And just so you don't think I'm bluffing... you're from MI, you're a paid participant here, you used your sbcglobal.net email address to register your other account, and your last post with that account was on 4/28.

The beautiful thing about the moderator control panel that was implemented a few months back is that I can easily resolve ip addresses between users. Also, posts from both accounts were made within a very short time frame a few days ago, which would refute any argument that the overlap would be due to SBC Ameritech issuing dynamic ip addresses to their dsl customers.

Regards

Originally Posted by Ken Harbart

Enough's enough. While I like to see new registrations, I'm not keen on a user having multiple accounts.

"Road Dog," I'm not going to publicly out who you are at this time, unless you continue posting under a pseudonym.

And just so you don't think I'm bluffing... you're from MI, you're a paid participant here, you used your sbcglobal.net email address to register your other account, and your last post with that account was on 4/28.

The beautiful thing about the moderator control panel that was implemented a few months back is that I can easily resolve ip addresses between users. Also, posts from both accounts were made within a very short time frame a few days ago, which would refute any argument that the overlap would be due to SBC Ameritech issuing dynamic ip addresses to their dsl customers.

Regards

You know, it's guys like this that make me consider getting a membership that would allow me to check IPs as well.

Hmmmmm, have to give that some thought.

Ken, are you sure you don't want to let us in on poundpuppy's real identity?

Ken, You are correct, I have other identities here. As you request, I'll quit posting under this name. "Jack"

So is Road Dog's other name Street Bitch? I guess you're not as smart as you thought or claimed you were.

Well gee whiz, what do you know. Along with being a total jerk, he's also a LIAR.

Why oh why am I NOT surprised?

So, poundpuppy, who are ya really?

If you're not askeered to tell us your real name, you know, like ALL THE REST OF US USE?

buk buk buckaw

Originally Posted by wilomn

I'm curious though, just what criteria do you use to determine the frequency with which someone COMPLETLEY unknown to you has occasion to "get laid"?

Maybe he thought you were married?

Wes, I placed the ball in his court regarding posting to his identity. As he's chosen to agree to my request, I'll keep my word and not expose his actual identity.

Different situations require different approaches. Some warrant a tactful approach, wheras others might merit an over-the-top style. The original poster never impressed me as being of questionable character, and tact is far more apt to yield positive results in this situation.

I can't say that I disagree with his basic premise, if I understand it correctly. His methodology was what I took issue with. Many of us, myself included at times, are too quick to lash out with testosterone-charged ad hominem attacks when a calmer approach would be far more appropriate. This causes what may have first been a simple misunderstanding to spiral into something worthy of HELL.

Take, for example, the cited thread regarding shipping a savannah monitor. It's very likely that the original poster in that thread merely went to a shipper's website and copied and pasted an entire line of pricing info, and was not actually offering 2nd day as an option. However, that person was immediately put on the defensive and attacked on the assumption that they would ship the animal that way to save costs.

Miscommunication is one of the pitfalls of the internet. While we can see thewords in front of us plain as day, the tone is often harder to discern.

Anyways, let's move on.