NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/flame/19289

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 4.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!warwick!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Mr J S Graley)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Girls & alt.flame
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:38:35 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Katherine Merle Mason) writes:
|You want to play spelling flames, jerry-reject.  Fine with me.  I have avoided
|flaming your spelling ability Mr-"embarissing", because I can sypathize with
|fellow spelling-morons.  But remember, you started it.

Sure did, missy. An I'm a-gonna finish it too.

|[e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:
|
|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Katherine Merle Mason) writes:
|>|
|>|If axiom and oxymoron are "impressive" words, I'd like to take you on
|>|at scrabble.  I've never seen anyone in the red on that that game
|>|before.
|>|
|>|OOOH, a spelling flame.  Maybe I don't want to to take you on at
|>|scrabble after all.  It's true I have the spelling ability of Pakistani
|>|mountain goat, but since, from what I hear, there is no Scand_I_navian
|>|alive with enough intellegence to spell it right, I'm not to worried
|>|about it.
|
|>Hmm. Typical woman. Tries to have her cake and eat it. Let's see:
|
|>(1) Someone rightly points out to her that showing off using words like
|>    axiom and oxymoron. She responds by frigging off her little ego and
|>    going on about scrabble.
|
|How about grammar flames too.  You might try writing in complete sentences,
|or ones that make sense.  But of course even your complete senteces don't
|make sense, so it's a hopeless cause to start off with.r

Of course, grammar flames are far more mature than spelling flames.
You sad hypocrite (the clitorially retarded should see below for explaination).

|>(2) She stupidly makes a spelling mistake. Someone is kind enough to point
|>    it out to her, and she replies with a stupid winge about spelling
|>    flames.
|
|Where, where?  I don't say any "winge" about spelling flames in the comments
|you quoted.  I confess to not being the spelling-bee champion of the world.

I quote: 'OOOH a spelling flame'

This is a winge if ever I heard one. Seems you just can't take the heat, missy.

|So.  What's your point.

My point is you are hypocritical. You say one thing, and then another. You
try to have your cake and eat it.

First you make a vocabulary flame - criticising somebody for calling words like
'oxymoron' and 'axiom' impressive.

Second, you criticise someone (was it the same person? I can't remember) for
directing a spelling flame in your direction. But you see there isn't much
difference in the intelligence of a spelling flame and a vocabulary flame, is
there? So you do something, and then criticise someone else for doing virtually
the same thing, and both in the same post!

And even now, after having been warned of your folly, you attempt to direct
a grammar flame at me. This is the final nail in the coffin. You now have a
reputation for being inconsistent to the point of gross stupidity.

Have you understood my point yet?

|>Kathy, ever used the word 'hypocrite' in a game of scrabble?
|I may not be able to spell, but at least I can count.  Scrabble words can
|only constist of 7 leters, or they must be compound words.  This is
|neither.

Yes it is. Have you ever heard of the word 'rite'? Four letters. Add 'hypoc',
in a later turn, and you have 'hypocrite'.

Let's face it : youre stupid.

Now let's watch Kathy wank her ego over a simple matter which she has got
completely wrong...

|            How about if I "SPELL" it out for you.

Go ahead, feel free...

|                                                  Maybe then your protozoan

Protazoan? Remarkable...

|brain will registeri it.

Registeri? Even more remarkable...

|
|               H   Y   P   O   C   R   I   T   E
|               1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
|

err yeh... I follow you up to the '4', but it gets a bit hazy after that...

|And I thought I was bad at aritmatic.

Let's put it this way... Either one, or both, of us is doing a degree in
pure maths.

|>~THE GREAT NAME
|
|>PS
|>You may wish to correct the two spelling mistakes in the section of your
|>posting I have quoted.
|
|>PPS
|
|>|On the serious side, Happy Chinese New Year to everyone.
|
|>On the serious side, I have soaked all your tampons in superglue.
|
|You don't have to flame me for saying Happy Chinese New Year just because
|it's a bad year for you.  I'm sure we all understand how humiliated
|you must feel in the year of the cock.

Did I flame you? Awwww I'm _sooooo_ sorry.

fuck off and get a life, you sad bitch.

~THE GREAT NAME
--
    Don't worry,
     Its like in the comic books...
      ITS NOT REAL!