What was validated... that you are a sad 35 year old living in your mothers
basement? Or you have nothing to worry about but the latest klingon
dictionary and who posts where?

Sorry got to go, big people stuff to do and all!!


"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-B10A96.18032526102007@individual.net...
> *illiterate top post reformatted as a courtesy to readers*
>
> In article
> <vKsUi.280602$ax1.199081@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
>> > In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
>> >> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> >>
>> >> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> >> >> > ignorant.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
>> >> >> asshole.
>> >> >
>> >> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
>> >> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
>> >> > evaluation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is
>> >> >> shortsighted
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> close-minded.
>> >> >
>> >> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
>> >> >> pretentious
>> >> >> jerk.
>> >> >
>> >> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
>> >> > jerk?"
>> >> >
>> >> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
>> >> prick
>> >> know it all.
>> >
>> > don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
>> > perhaps, you can begin to correct them
>> >
>> >> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
>> >> someone's
>> >> posting method until
>> >
>> > which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
>> >
>> > run along.
>>
>> daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight
>> over
>> how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?
>>
>> And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
>> your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume
>> for
>> the Trekkie convention?
>
> thus, my comments are validated. *smirk*
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
>
>