XPost: soc.culture.british, rec.arts.drwho, uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
From: Bill@btinternet.com
In message , The Doctor
writes
>In article ,
>Psychotic Chicken wrote:
>>In message , The Doctor
>> writes
>>>In article ,
>>>Psychotic Chicken wrote:
>>>>In message , The Doctor
>>>> writes
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>Psychotic Chicken wrote:
>>>>>>In message , The Doctor
>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>Psychotic Chicken wrote:
>>>>>>>>In message , The Doctor
>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>Psychotic Chicken wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In message , The Doctor
>>>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <+rvlOOBu08NVFwCB@btinternet.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>Psychotic Chicken wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>In message , The Doctor
>>>>>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>><1304999053451375521.152209mike-xenocyte.com@news.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mike M wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language cleaned up for appropriate audiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corrected newsgroup line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Got to say, Dave, I'm surprised at you embracing your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>inner rebel so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To post something that is so in favour of gay sex, so full of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>obscene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>language you usually elide or bowdlerise, that embraces public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>buggery so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enthusiastically (even if it is with Carole Ann Ford).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you READ this little unholy marriage between Viz and The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Onion? Or did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you just read the header line and assume, quite spectacularly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrongly, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it supported your paranoid delusions about RTD?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oi! Let the cowards not get away!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Which cowards are you referring to Dave?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Those that post in soc.cultjure and do not let the drwho'ers not
know
>>>>>>>>>>>their view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Interesting statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So are you saying they aren't entitled to their opinions or that we
>>>>>>>>>>would be horrified at their opinions and be forced to act on our
>>>>>>>>>>disgust.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I guess the latter seeing as you obviously don't agree with their
>>>>>>>>>>opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Whatever the case, let the truth be made known
>>>>>>>>>and do not hide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dave, what do you think is going to happen based on the other times you
>>>>>>>>have done this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Either confront or run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You forgot ... and I think this is the most likely option ... ignore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That falls under the run category.
>>>>>
>>>>I doubt if the people ignoring the message would see it that way.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ignoring is like running / retreating.
>>
>>And you never ignore posts that you would have difficulty answering
>>then?
>>
>
>I might reteat. Key word is might.
>
So is that what you do when somebody asks you a question and you ignore
it?
--
sychotic hicken
bill is man. you: are not. :|
mikeythearchangel
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
