Thread: Some folks blame me for a horse.

"Anonymous" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
> it. It's good to have a horse. A horse warns of impending
> danger. For instance, the other day I was walking along main
> street when my horse shied up. I stopped and looked for the
> danger. Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
> knives and looking for scruff. I could have been kilt if it
> weren't for my horse. Had I been blindly walking along they
> could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.
>

LOL! About a 5 on the humor scale.

On Jul 26, 3:58*pm, "Cheryl" <jlhsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anonymous" <cri...@ecn.org> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]..
>
> > I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
> > it. *It's good to have a horse. *A horse warns of impending
> > danger. *For instance, the other day I was walking along main
> > street when my horse shied up. *I stopped and looked for the
> > danger. *Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
> > knives and looking for scruff. *I could have been kilt if it
> > weren't for my horse. *Had I been blindly walking along they
> > could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.
>
> LOL! *About a 5 on the humor scale.

You're being generous.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:55:35 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
>it. It's good to have a horse. A horse warns of impending
>danger. For instance, the other day I was walking along main
>street when my horse shied up. I stopped and looked for the
>danger. Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
>knives and looking for scruff. I could have been kilt if it
>weren't for my horse. Had I been blindly walking along they
>could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.

You are an enema, a verbal one.

"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:55:35 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
>>it. It's good to have a horse. A horse warns of impending
>>danger. For instance, the other day I was walking along main
>>street when my horse shied up. I stopped and looked for the
>>danger. Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
>>knives and looking for scruff. I could have been kilt if it
>>weren't for my horse. Had I been blindly walking along they
>>could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.
>
> You are an enema, a verbal one.

Why so abusive, Stu? It was just a story. Nothing bad about it, and not
even remotely realistic. Not on topic, but that's no reason to be so mean.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:46:33 -0400, "Cheryl" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]. .
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:55:35 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
>>>it. It's good to have a horse. A horse warns of impending
>>>danger. For instance, the other day I was walking along main
>>>street when my horse shied up. I stopped and looked for the
>>>danger. Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
>>>knives and looking for scruff. I could have been kilt if it
>>>weren't for my horse. Had I been blindly walking along they
>>>could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.
>>
>> You are an enema, a verbal one.
>
>Why so abusive, Stu? It was just a story. Nothing bad about it, and not
>even remotely realistic. Not on topic, but that's no reason to be so mean.
>
>

Just a normal post coming off a remailer, sure it was all in fun. You
Charlotte are naive.

Cheryl replied to Chester:

>>> I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
>>> it. It's good to have a horse. A horse warns of impending
>>> danger. For instance, the other day I was walking along main
>>> street when my horse shied up. I stopped and looked for the
>>> danger. Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
>>> knives and looking for scruff. I could have been kilt if it
>>> weren't for my horse. Had I been blindly walking along they
>>> could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.
>>
>> You are an enema, a verbal one.
>
> Why so abusive, Stu? It was just a story. Nothing bad about it, and not
> even remotely realistic. Not on topic, but that's no reason to be so mean.

You think *that* was abusive, you ought to see how he "disciplines" any kid
who has the misfortune to fall into his clutches!

Bob

On Jul 27, 3:43*am, "Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz>
wrote:
> Cheryl replied to Chester:
>
> >>> I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
> >>> it. *It's good to have a horse. *A horse warns of impending
> >>> danger. *For instance, the other day I was walking along main
> >>> street when my horse shied up. *I stopped and looked for the
> >>> danger. *Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
> >>> knives and looking for scruff. *I could have been kilt if it
> >>> weren't for my horse. *Had I been blindly walking along they
> >>> could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.
>
> >> You are an enema, a verbal one.
>
> > Why so abusive, Stu? It was just a story. Nothing bad about it, and not
> > even remotely realistic. Not on topic, but that's no reason to be so mean.
>
> You think *that* was abusive, you ought to see how he "disciplines" any kid
> who has the misfortune to fall into his clutches!

I think that Stu could use some disciplined reeducation in the use of
the humble comma.
>
> Bob

--Bryan

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Food Snob®
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jul 27, 3:43*am, "Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz>
>wrote:
>> Cheryl replied to Chester:
>>
>> >>> I walk around town with my horse and some people blame me for
>> >>> it. *It's good to have a horse. *A horse warns of impending
>> >>> danger. *For instance, the other day I was walking along main
>> >>> street when my horse shied up. *I stopped and looked for the
>> >>> danger. *Sure enough two hombres fell out of a bar both with
>> >>> knives and looking for scruff. *I could have been kilt if it
>> >>> weren't for my horse. *Had I been blindly walking along they
>> >>> could have bumpbed into me and taken me for enema.
>>
>> >> You are an enema, a verbal one.
>>
>> > Why so abusive, Stu? It was just a story. Nothing bad about it, and not
>> > even remotely realistic. Not on topic, but that's no reason to be so mean.
>>
>> You think *that* was abusive, you ought to see how he "disciplines" any kid
>> who has the misfortune to fall into his clutches!
>
>I think that Stu could use some disciplined reeducation in the use of
>the humble comma.
>>
>> Bob
>
>--Bryan

see you in court Bobby

Chester wrote:

> see you in court Bobby

When and where, Chester? You keep spouting off that bull****, but if you
REALLY had an attorney you surely would have disclosed who that attorney is.
What possible reason could there be for failing to disclose that
information? It cannot be at the advice of said attorney, because no
attorney would give such horrible and bad-for-business advice. See,
attorneys work for money. And the more people who know about their services,
the more potential clients they'll have, and the more money they can charge
each client. So it would be crazy for an attorney to tell you *not* to
broadcast his or her firm's name far and wide.

Since you don't have an attorney, the only possibility left is that you are
hoping to bring legal action representing YOURSELF. Problem is, you're too
stupid to successfully bring any such action forward.

But you just keep plugging away, boyo! I'm getting some great laughs out of
this, and while you're busy "working the case" you're not out on the streets
with a rubber-lined overcoat and a box of bon-bons!

Bob

In article <4c4ee335$0$4842$[email protected]>,
"Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote:

> Chester wrote:
>
> > see you in court Bobby
>
> When and where, Chester? You keep spouting off that bull****, but if you
> REALLY had an attorney you surely would have disclosed who that attorney is.
> What possible reason could there be for failing to disclose that
> information? It cannot be at the advice of said attorney, because no
> attorney would give such horrible and bad-for-business advice. See,
> attorneys work for money. And the more people who know about their services,
> the more potential clients they'll have, and the more money they can charge
> each client. So it would be crazy for an attorney to tell you *not* to
> broadcast his or her firm's name far and wide.

It's really quite simple, Bob. Now, I'm just speculating (as are you),
since we don't really know. But Stu has a really big mouth. By his own
admission, his lawyer has told him to stop posting here, as it
potentially provides ammunition against him. That's very standard
advice, which Stu has admitted not following. If *I* was Stu's lawyer,
I would tell him not to post anything at all about the case or anything
remotely related to it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:55:35 -0700, Dan Abel <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <4c4ee335$0$4842$[email protected]>,
> "Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote:
>
>> Chester wrote:
>>
>> > see you in court Bobby
>>
>> When and where, Chester? You keep spouting off that bull****, but if you
>> REALLY had an attorney you surely would have disclosed who that attorney is.
>> What possible reason could there be for failing to disclose that
>> information? It cannot be at the advice of said attorney, because no
>> attorney would give such horrible and bad-for-business advice. See,
>> attorneys work for money. And the more people who know about their services,
>> the more potential clients they'll have, and the more money they can charge
>> each client. So it would be crazy for an attorney to tell you *not* to
>> broadcast his or her firm's name far and wide.
>
>It's really quite simple, Bob. Now, I'm just speculating (as are you),
>since we don't really know. But Stu has a really big mouth. By his own
>admission, his lawyer has told him to stop posting here, as it
>potentially provides ammunition against him. That's very standard
>advice, which Stu has admitted not following. If *I* was Stu's lawyer,
>I would tell him not to post anything at all about the case or anything
>remotely related to it.

I haven't posted anything in the last month Dan, and I won't. As for
Bob, he's killfiled.

Dan wrote:

> It's really quite simple, Bob. Now, I'm just speculating (as are you),
> since we don't really know. But Stu has a really big mouth. By his own
> admission, his lawyer has told him to stop posting here, as it
> potentially provides ammunition against him. That's very standard
> advice, which Stu has admitted not following. If *I* was Stu's lawyer,
> I would tell him not to post anything at all about the case or anything
> remotely related to it.

Come to think of it, if I were his lawyer I probably wouldn't want that fact
to be widely known either.

Bob

Chester lied:

> I haven't posted anything in the last month Dan, and I won't.

....except for all those times you posted as "nfw", you mean. You didn't fool
anybody with that ****, you know. And what about all these you even posted
as YOURSELF?

7/2/10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

7/5/10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

7/6/10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

7/7/10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

7/9/10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

7/11/10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

7/12/10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>


Christ, it's like you've been taking courses from Pussy in how to spout
easily-debunked lies. Got any more?

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
Stu <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:55:35 -0700, Dan Abel <[email protected]> wrote:

> > If *I* was Stu's lawyer,
> >I would tell him not to post anything at all about the case or anything
> >remotely related to it.
>
> I haven't posted anything in the last month Dan, and I won't. As for
> Bob, he's killfiled.

Not that I'm supporting your case, but I certainly agree that your
course of action is in your best interest. And, as a byproduct, I think
it is best for this group, also.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]

Stu <stu@foodf[email protected]> wrote:

> see you in court Bobby

LMAO! Yet another dimbulb "lawyering up" on Usenet? How can there be so many
kooks on one little planet?

<plonk Stu, and the starship he rode in on>

Bob Terwilliger <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote:

<clipped>
Bob,
Some states give recourse against plaintiffs and their laywers who file suit
or even just substantially threaten otheers on frivolous or malicious
grounds. Of course, if you were to actually go after Stu, then that would
make you yet another internet kook, lawyering up over Usenet posts.

Life's a bitch, eh?

;-)

MartyB in KC

Stu wrote:
>
> see you in court Bobby

If you don't win in court, that means all of the allegations
are true.

Marty wrote:

> Some states give recourse against plaintiffs and their laywers who file
> suit or even just substantially threaten otheers on frivolous or malicious
> grounds. Of course, if you were to actually go after Stu, then that would
> make you yet another internet kook, lawyering up over Usenet posts.
>
> Life's a bitch, eh?

I'm not worried about it. Well, let me amend that: I'm a *little* worried
about it. My concern ranks right up there with my worry that the sun will
turn into a gigantic sentient axolotl, and devour all the planets in what is
now the solar system.

Bob

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:49:58 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Marty wrote:
>
>> Some states give recourse against plaintiffs and their laywers who file
>> suit or even just substantially threaten otheers on frivolous or malicious
>> grounds. Of course, if you were to actually go after Stu, then that would
>> make you yet another internet kook, lawyering up over Usenet posts.
>>
>> Life's a bitch, eh?
>
> I'm not worried about it. Well, let me amend that: I'm a *little* worried
> about it. My concern ranks right up there with my worry that the sun will
> turn into a gigantic sentient axolotl, and devour all the planets in what is
> now the solar system.
>
> Bob

i heard about that on the news!

your pal,
blake