NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/flame/19352

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 7.9 KB | 207 lines

Newsgroups: alt.flame
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!katherim
From: [e-mail] (Katherine Merle Mason)
Subject: Re: Girls & alt.flame
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:40:32 GMT
Lines: 195

[e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:

>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.

Another Grisley threat.  I'm worried now.

>|[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.
If you say so Grisley.  I certainly didn't.

>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'

That is not a winge, Grisley.  Unlike you, I do not resort to cowardly
one-line flames.

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

Trust me, no heat EVER eminates from any of your lames.  The only way you
could make your intended victim a "feel the heat" is by standing next to
them with an open flame.

>|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.

There is a concept here you don't get.  It's called sportsmanship.  If I
have a weakness, I will admit it.  I have the spelling ability of a
Pakistani mountain goat, and I admit it.  If this is hypocritical, then
I am not sorry.

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

I did not make a vocabulary flame.  The person who said that those words were
made a vocabulary flame.  You were just too stupid to understand what was
happening.

>Second, you criticise someone (was it the same person? I can't remember) for
>directing a spelling flame in your direction.
No criticism Grisley, an admission.  I cannot spell.  I obviously find
spelling flames as "impressive" as this person finds vocabulary like
"oxymoron" and "axiom".

Biut 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!

As I have stated above, I did not direct a vocabulary flame at anyone, one
was directed at me, for using words that were too "impressive".  A spelling
flame was also directed at me.   So, I responded in kind.  It's not my fault
your stupid, pea-sized ignorant, oatmeal-instead-of-grey-matter brain cannot
understand the exchange.

>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.
The grammar flame comes from a spelling-flame war that YOU started.  I would
not have done technicality flaming otherwise.  I have left your spelling
alone until now, and I must say it's even worse than mine.  Perhaps a
spell-checker would be a good investment for both of us.

>Have you understood my point yet?

Let me help you out here.  A point = a fact, idea, or detail that is
_relevent to the discussion at hand_.  Since your idiocy is clearly
not relevent to the discussion at hand - you have no point.

>|>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'.

Okay, I confess, I was mistaken.  But you have no creativity.  Someone
pointed it out in an earlier post and you took their idea, without even
giving them credit.  Or are you going to claim that you thought it up
all by your lonesome?  Still, as I said to the other guy, I would hope
I would never play in a game against someone who would use RITE.  Four
measly points and gets rid of three letters.  Useless word.

Or would that be a "standard get-out clause"?

>Let's face it : youre stupid.

Still bitter about that aren't you?  In your face bud.

>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...

A spelling mistake.  I'm so offended that you noticed.  I confess to not
being able to spell.  What's your excuse.  Or shall I say "youre" excuse.
>|brain will registeri it.

>Registeri? Even more remarkable...

I do not apologize for that.  I had just finished talking to Michele
and had developed an Italian typing style.
>|
>|               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 arithmatic.

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

Now I really do feel sorry for you.  Get a subject.  No, just get a life.

>|>~THE GREAT NAME
>|
>|>PS
>|>You may wish to correct the two spelling mistakes in the section of your
>|>posting I have quoted.
>|
i>|>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.

You should be.  When I said Happy Chinese New Year to everyone, I meant
even to you.  You retort with a flame.  Not even a content flame, but
a personal flame that you probably got from reading Camilla and Charles
tabloids.

>fuck off and get a life, you sad bitch.

Is this meant to offend me?  I've got news for you Grisley, it is a
kind of flame even unworthy of Michele.

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