Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com Google Groups
Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 01:12PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
> puppet...never. The last thing I am is a hypocrite. I've done my
> best to keep our private situation apart from RSG but I think it just
> isn't worth it. You're the one who is two faced.
 
So let me get this right. Bert has a problem with a server, gets
different ID. Sockpuppet. Bobby has probem with hard drive, gets new
name. Not sockpuppet. LOL!!!
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Oct 15 11:55AM -0700

On 2014-10-15 18:12:08 +0000, MNMikew said:
 
 
> So let me get this right. Bert has a problem with a server, gets
> different ID. Sockpuppet. Bobby has probem with hard drive, gets new
> name. Not sockpuppet. LOL!!!
 
Sorry, Bobby, but Mike has a point here.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 02:01PM -0500


>>> But continue on with your King of RSG fantasy.
 
>> Go fuck yourself.
 
>LOL! Touched a nerve it appears.
 
Yes you did.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 02:03PM -0500


>So let me get this right. Bert has a problem with a server, gets
>different ID. Sockpuppet. Bobby has probem with hard drive, gets new
>name. Not sockpuppet. LOL!!!
 
I'll get you straight. I'm calling Bert a liar. You've called me a
liar and a hypocrite. That crosses the line with me.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 02:05PM -0500

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:55:47 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
 
>> different ID. Sockpuppet. Bobby has probem with hard drive, gets new
>> name. Not sockpuppet. LOL!!!
 
>Sorry, Bobby, but Mike has a point here.
 
Sorry Alan, but if you'll read my post in it's entirety you'll see
that my name is on every post I send. Not so on Bert's. He was
trying to post under another name to make it look like someone else
agreed with him.
 
Mike doesn't have a point there.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 03:09PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
> that my name is on every post I send. Not so on Bert's. He was
> trying to post under another name to make it look like someone else
> agreed with him.
 
You are delusional.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 03:10PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
>> name. Not sockpuppet. LOL!!!
 
> I'll get you straight. I'm calling Bert a liar. You've called me a
> liar and a hypocrite. That crosses the line with me.
 
In this instance, yes, you are being hypocritical. What exactly do you
think Bert is lying about?
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 03:22PM -0500

>> trying to post under another name to make it look like someone else
>> agreed with him.
 
>You are delusional.
 
I'm not the only one that thought that Mike.
 
You're a two faced asshole. I can't abide being called a super nice,
thoughtful guy in private then a liar and hypocrite in public.
That crosses the line. Your personal issue really did concern me but
I'm through. You and Bert the Simple deserve each other.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 03:24PM -0500


>> I'll get you straight. I'm calling Bert a liar. You've called me a
>> liar and a hypocrite. That crosses the line with me.
 
>In this instance, yes, you are being hypocritical.
No I'm not.
>What exactly do you think Bert is lying about?
 
I told you. You ignored it and I really don't give a shit anymore.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 03:34PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
>>> agreed with him.
 
>> You are delusional.
 
> I'm not the only one that thought that Mike.
 
Who else did? Nobody I saw.
> thoughtful guy in private then a liar and hypocrite in public.
> That crosses the line. Your personal issue really did concern me but
> I'm through. You and Bert the Simple deserve each other.
 
When did I call you a liar? As I said, in THIS instance, yes you are
being hypocritical. You really need to grow some skin.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 03:37PM -0500

>> I'm through. You and Bert the Simple deserve each other.
 
>When did I call you a liar? As I said, in THIS instance, yes you are
>being hypocritical. You really need to grow some skin.
 
Calling me a hypocrite when I explained my change of name, and the
fact that Bert didn't make it clear that his post was from him is
calling me a liar.
 
I have some very tough skin with those that I trust. That has
changed.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 03:35PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
> No I'm not.
>> What exactly do you think Bert is lying about?
 
> I told you. You ignored it and I really don't give a shit anymore.
 
So Bert created that supposed "sock" to reply to his own post eh? A sock
called BRobb? Horevath isn't even that dumb.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 04:05PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
 
> Calling me a hypocrite when I explained my change of name, and the
> fact that Bert didn't make it clear that his post was from him is
> calling me a liar.
HUH? That doesnt even make sense.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 04:11PM -0500

>>> What exactly do you think Bert is lying about?
 
>> I told you. You ignored it and I really don't give a shit anymore.
 
>So Bert created that supposed "sock" to reply to his own post eh?
 
No you idiot. There was no post for him to answer. It was only to use
a phrase about anger and hatred, to be from someone else. And no way
I buy that crap about problems with having to change his Usenet
client. Why go back later? BS.
 
> A sock called BRobb? Horevath isn't even that dumb.
 
I'm realizing that you are. This is obviously over your head because
you just jump in with BS without knowing what actually took place.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Oct 15 11:56AM -0700

On 2014-10-15 18:13:35 +0000, MNMikew said:
 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/10/15/the-absurd-claim-that-only-republicans-are-to-blame-for-cuts-to-ebola-research/
 
How has something this recent become a "meme" in your eyes?
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 03:11PM -0500

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2014-10-15 18:13:35 +0000, MNMikew said:
 
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/10/15/the-absurd-claim-that-only-republicans-are-to-blame-for-cuts-to-ebola-research/
 
> How has something this recent become a "meme" in your eyes?
 
Unlike you, I pay attention.
golfbum18 <golfbum18@gmail.com>: Oct 22 12:03PM -0700


> This signature is now the ultimate
 
> power in the universe
 
See now that's why you're the pisspot you are. This is a golf group and a golf thread and there you are talking politics....but then again, you're hardly qualified to talk about either. But then again, NOT taking "credit" for what you wrote shows us the cowardly wuss-boy you really are. Indisputable fact there, case close, QED, roger that, and over and out.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 22 06:17PM -0500

>humorous
>? to be dead and buried:
 
>You missed the "humorous" classification of the phrase.
 
There is no humor in wishing someone six feet under.
But then you don't have a very good understanding of English.
BAR <screw@you.too>: Oct 22 07:44AM -0400

In article <do4e4a5gstgk2fcecjlu6d2tp3jqvfe9l7@4ax.com>,
bknight@Conramp.net says...
 
> Little asshole simpleton doesn't understand that there are legalities
> involved.
 
> Actually, he doesn't understand very much at all.
 
The current occupant of the White House doesn't care about legalities
and that attitude cascades through the federal government.
 
Your belief that just because a law exists that all will follow it is
unrealistic, immature and beyond belief. Carbs should be chiming in and
admonishing you for not seeing the gray areas.
BAR <screw@you.too>: Oct 22 06:36PM -0400

In article <inbf4apt01pabfrt9aspqb2solrjkkpkv7@4ax.com>,
bknight@Conramp.net says...
 
> >Your belief that just because a law exists that all will follow it is
> >unrealistic, immature and beyond belief.
 
> Proving, again, that you're a complete moron.
 
What is it like to have your entire world falling down around your
ankles? Are you having flashbacks to 2000?
 
> > Carbs should be chiming in and
> >admonishing you for not seeing the gray areas.
 
> Nope, Carbon has something that you don't....a brain.
 
You should discuss with Carbs your problem with seeing everything in
black and white, he can talk you down from your hate filled and
unrealistic view of the world.
BAR <screw@you.too>: Oct 22 06:56PM -0400

In article <m297m2$e68$1@speranza.aioe.org>, MNMiikkew@aol.com says...
 
> Your theory is falling apart
 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
 
> http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/new-information-released-on-michael-brown-case/
 
I might have to un-Bozo Bin Baker to see his response.
BAR <screw@you.too>: Oct 22 07:01PM -0400

In article <mk1b4alh20opr490jf2pbip8009034p53q@4ax.com>,
bknight@Conramp.net says...
 
> Absolutely no one will believe this crap you're spewing.
> You don't have to admit it because it's there in black and white.
 
> You're a lying piece of shit and will never change.
 
English definition of ?be six feet under?
be six feet under
humorous
? to be dead and buried:
 
You missed the "humorous" classification of the phrase.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Oct 15 08:04AM -0700

> Perfect Impact and David Laville in the swing outfit he represented.
> Many might think of the word diatribes, more fitting...:) (The
> political debates here pale in comparison!)
 
Oh!
 
I vaguely recall it now.
 
:-)
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 22 04:30PM -0500

Your theory is falling apart
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
 
 
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/new-information-released-on-michael-brown-case/
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Oct 22 02:40PM -0700

On 2014-10-22 21:30:46 +0000, MNMikew said:
 
 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
 
> http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/new-information-released-on-michael-brown-case/
 
Nope.
 
Not in the slightest.
 
All that does is verify that there was a struggle at the door of
Wilson's vehicle.
 
It doesn't tell us who initiated that struggle, nor does it contradict
any of the eyewitness accounts that report that Brown was shot with his
hands above his head and at a distance.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com Google Groups
Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: Oct 22 04:09PM -0700

+1
"InsideOut" <mehico@wahaca.net>: Oct 23 12:36AM +0100

> APPENDICITUS
 
Appenditicis. Typical - Brit media don't know their own language.<g>
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Oct 15 09:40AM -0800


> Yeah, Lendl is too busy jerking off
 
Didn't need that image :/
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Oct 15 09:50AM -0800


> I don't think Lendl wants to coach any more.
 
Well, he was a great success on his first big-name attempt... I'm sure
he'd rather improve on these results... if that's true Berdych is
definitely not the way to go :)
 
Maybe Kyrgios? I think Kyrgios needs to be channeled/focused if he
wants to win a slam and Lendl might be the right guy for that. The
big risk would be whether Lendl would encourage him to take an overly
clinical approach to the game.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Oct 15 09:39AM -0800


> Apparently he will still play Basel and Paris. Strange. Must be a
> financial decisionl.
 
Once he's done playing tennis and goes into poker full-time, I expect
we'll see him pulling out of tournaments due to RSI issues related to
tossing chips and flipping cards.
Fednatic <fednatic@gmail.com>: Oct 15 08:54PM +0800

Will it actually take an Ebola outbreak to turn his minions against
him? Some of them are so brainwashed by O, I'm convinced they could
lose their entire families and still follow him off a cliff.
 
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110423080352AAZrUxu
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Oct 15 09:35AM -0800


> There was already free health care before 2008.
 
Why yes! Just go to your local church and receive some "prayer
healing", right trr?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Oct 15 09:35AM -0800


> maybe if he still give us free health care
 
No such thing
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: Oct 22 04:16PM -0700

Head shot v. Body view. Fair?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Oct 22 02:24PM -0700

Oh yes she does look like a young Michelle Pffiefer...very average! :D
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Oct 23 12:34AM +0300

22.10.2014 20:45, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> Of course it has. Homosexuality is basically a narcisstic disorder.
> Wanting to have a (large) cock, transforms you into cock-seeeker thus making
> you craving for one in order to massage your weak ego.
 
What a bunch of baloney.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Oct 23 12:41AM +0300

22.10.2014 20:53, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> Bouchard gives me bigger hardon than her.
 
Until you hear her talk... veeeery annoying personality, dumb as hell
and full of herself. A true bimbo.
 
Speaking of annoying people I was just thinking the other day how
annoying Diane Keaton is. Incredibly annoying and I'm not even sure why.
All her film characters are very annoying as well. There's just
something in her persona that annoys. I'm sure I'm not the only one...
 
Also Woody Allen annoys greatly. So the film "Annie Hall" is not for me...
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Oct 23 12:57AM +0300

22.10.2014 21:19, Court_1 kirjoitti:
 
> Doesn't she look like a young Michelle Pfeiffer to you? She does to me.
 
> http://instagram.com/p/t5l82cSOeA/?modal=true
 
> http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/88/d1/a2/88d1a2913f25ae2eb734c46dd33825fd.jpg
 
Not really imo. You just found a pic of Pfeiffer (what kind of weird
name is that anyway?) which reminds the other pic very slightly.
 
Speaking of Finnish beauties... a former beauty pageant Johanna Raunio
reminds Pfeiffer a bit more imo...
 
http://static.iltalehti.fi/viihde/raunio_juttu7_2312TM_503_vi.jpg
http://www.kouvolansanomat.fi/f/f/f6/big_raunio.jpg
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Oct 23 01:09AM +0300

22.10.2014 21:24, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
> young Sigourney Weaver and Jodie Foster beautiful as well
 
Guess that depends on how young.
 
Jodie Foster looked terrible...
 
http://i2.cdnds.net/13/03/618x959/movies-freaky-friday.jpg
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: Oct 22 03:26PM -0700

So who do you replace her with in Godfather?
guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Oct 22 03:44PM -0700

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
> So who do you replace her with in Godfather?
 
Meryl Streep?
guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Oct 22 03:46PM -0700

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
> So who do you replace her with in Godfather?
 
Meryl Sreep?
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Oct 23 01:49AM +0300

23.10.2014 1:26, Scott kirjoitti:
> So who do you replace her with in Godfather?
 
Jar Jar Binks
Fednatic <fednatic@gmail.com>: Oct 15 09:12PM +0800

Speculation Abounds That Ebola Will Be Used As Excuse To Implement
Martial Law
 
http://www.westernjournalism.com/speculation-abounds-ebola-will-used-excuse-implement-martial-law/
Fednatic <fednatic@gmail.com>: Oct 15 08:44PM +0800

Hatred for Obama and his band of incompetent idiots will grow with
each new case of Ebola. Even blacks will be polishing their rakes and
pitchforks as outraged mobs finally descend upon the White House in a
last-gasp attempt at personal survival in Africa's first North
American colony.
Fednatic <fednatic@gmail.com>: Oct 15 08:16PM +0800

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:15:36 +0800, Fednatic <fednatic@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>There isn't a government institution unsullied by these America hating
>liberals.
 
>http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/ap_ab3cd5a9b32c450aa5a13e1a4a14c60e
 
Wait just a minute! 0bama said that ebola had no chance of coming to
the US. Period. So obviously this article is a lie, because you are
all racists that hate women and brown people. Or something ...
Fednatic <fednatic@gmail.com>: Oct 15 08:15PM +0800

There isn't a government institution unsullied by these America hating
liberals.
 
http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/ap_ab3cd5a9b32c450aa5a13e1a4a14c60e
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Oct 22 12:34PM -0700

keskiviikko, 22. lokakuuta 2014 13.56.32 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
 
> > Three times I have asked you (2008, 2010, 2011) what would you give if you were Fed for removing Nadal h2h burden from his legacy...and you have said each time "not even single AO". Shows the real importance of this issue?
 
> Does the improved h2h v Rafa include a calendar slam or 2? He would
> have won 2 calendar slams in a row 2006/2007 if he beat Rafa in FO finals.
 
No, I was carefully and used all possible disclaimers each time. No extra stuff for Fed, just the scenario: what would he give for removing Nadal h2h burden from his legacy.
 
And three times, three different years.....each time your answer was "not a single AO".
 
.mikko
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Oct 23 12:29AM +0300

22.10.2014 19:53, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> The key tactic in Rafa's strategy against Federer is quite obviously feeding Fed high-kicking backhands that keep him pinned on one side. Attacking Fed's strength with weaker shots definitely would not result in a higher winning percentage.
 
Well I think it definitely would.
 
The problem with Rafa's tactics against Fed has normally been that he
hits too much at Fed's backhand... which allows Fed to just camp there...
With more dtl shots to Fed's fh Rafa would actually open up the court
and put Fed's bh in much more severe trouble since Fed couldn't just
stand there waiting. Actually Rafa has lost a few matches by simply
sticking to his tactic of bh exploitation... when Fed was hitting his bh
well. So yes, stupidity.
 
Actually Rafa has recently hit more at fed's fh, because that is the
tactic he has to use against Djokovic. This has made Fed even more
helpless against Rafa... Rafa beating him at Cincy&WTF etc.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Oct 23 01:00AM +0300

22.10.2014 22:34, MBDunc kirjoitti:
 
> No, I was carefully and used all possible disclaimers each time. No extra stuff for Fed, just the scenario: what would he give for removing Nadal h2h burden from his legacy.
 
> And three times, three different years.....each time your answer was "not a single AO".
 
> .mikko
 
Well how many AO's does he have? My answer is all but one.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 2 topics

rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com Google Groups
Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 01:13PM -0500

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/10/15/the-absurd-claim-that-only-republicans-are-to-blame-for-cuts-to-ebola-research/
Horvath1758@net.net: Oct 22 08:54AM -0400

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:07:29 -0400, BAR <screw@you.too> wrote this
crap:
 
 
>> You can't receive a card unless you meet the requirements. So it's a
>> lie either way.
 
>Little mister black and white rears his absolutist head again.
 
Just because reality doesn't match his version of liberaltopia he
denies the truth. Why would anyone lie about being on Medicaid? If
he thinks I'm just trying to make him look bad, he's wrong. I don't
have to try.
 
 
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 22 08:20AM -0500

>and that attitude cascades through the federal government.
 
>Your belief that just because a law exists that all will follow it is
>unrealistic, immature and beyond belief.
 
Proving, again, that you're a complete moron.
 
 
 
> Carbs should be chiming in and
>admonishing you for not seeing the gray areas.
 
Nope, Carbon has something that you don't....a brain.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 22 08:23AM -0500

>denies the truth. Why would anyone lie about being on Medicaid? If
>he thinks I'm just trying to make him look bad, he's wrong. I don't
>have to try.
 
 
Looking bad is someone that claims to be wealthy but can't afford
health insurance and needs Medicaid.
How's that working out for you? LOL.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Oct 15 08:05AM -0700

On 2014-10-15 11:17:14 +0000, Nashton said:
 
 
>>> :-)
>> I got a bunch of pics of fat guys and a baby.
 
> LOL!
 
Thanks for replying Nicolas.
 
Now you can't claim to have missed it.
 
:-)
Horvath1758@net.net: Oct 15 12:05PM -0400

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:10:32 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote this crap:
 
>> the US Army that is a combat support unit and not a combat arms unit.
 
>And you think scouting ahead of the main force isn't being in front of
>the lines...
 
Of course it is.
 
>...and that because you're not SUPPOSED to engage means you always get
>to have it come out that way?
 
Engaging the enemy is NOT part of their mission.
 
>LOLOOLOLOLOLOL
 
>What did you even STUDY at Fort Lewis, Lieutenant Liar?
 
I learned to kill people.
 
 
Oh, I also learned leadership.
 
 
 
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 11:43AM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
 
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/08/poll_more_say_obamacare_hurts_them_rather_than_helps_124226.html
 
> LOL. Real Clear horseshit. Read it closely and you'll see what you
> always refer to as pure spin.
 
It's always spin if its news you don't like.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 11:45AM -0500

BAR wrote:
 
> have voted for Romney.
 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/obamacare-website-wont-
> reveal-insurance-costs-for-/
 
Most of them (the ones with brains) already have buyers remorse.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 11:46AM -0500

Carbon wrote:
 
> income bedrock Republicans find out how much they stand to benefit from
> the ACA. To state the obvious, what keeps the Republican hierarchy up at
> night isn't that Obama will be a failure, but that it will be a success.
 
You true believers are too funny.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 11:47AM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
>> How much has it cost?
 
> Hey BRobb. :-)
 
> Another stupid question. You could find the answer for yourself.
 
And you would bitch about it.
> respect when you're viewed as a joke? You ask others to explain
> simple concepts with details and examples?.as if you would understand
> them. Why not just go away?
 
Ever think people look at you the same way?
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 11:52AM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
>> first name and the first 4 characters of my last name. Again, get over
>> yourself.
 
> Do yourself a favor...go away.
 
Tell me, have you always used the bobbyK sockpuppet or did you at one
time use another name?
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 22 06:15PM -0500


>> >> Actually, he doesn't understand very much at all.
 
>> >The current occupant of the White House doesn't care about legalities
>> >and that attitude cascades through the federal government.
 
If he had done anything illegal he'd have been thrown out of office,
dickhead.
 
>> >Your belief that just because a law exists that all will follow it is
>> >unrealistic, immature and beyond belief.
 
>> Proving, again, that you're a complete moron.
 
Anyone knows that there are those who aren't going to follow some
laws, but I was referring to a nut job who claims to be a super
American with a background in the military. One who should know right
from wrong. One who says that he's a leader.
 
Now what leader would deign to even accept a healthcare card meant for
the poor whether he uses it or not? Then he brags about all of his
wonderful holdings? Anyone honorable person would report such a
mistake to the proper authorities.
 
One you look up to as a leader.
 
So much for your lame-brained comprehension problem.
 
Oh, he's also the prick who has boasted about voting twice in an
election.
 
One you look up to as a leader.
 
>What is it like to have your entire world falling down around your
>ankles? Are you having flashbacks to 2000?
 
Hilarious. My world couldn't be better and I couldn't be happier.
 
>You should discuss with Carbs your problem with seeing everything in
>black and white, he can talk you down from your hate filled and
>unrealistic view of the world.
 
Unrealistic? You don't have a smidgen of realism in your mind, what
little there is of it. I also don't hate anyone, I do feel sorry for
some and sickened over their outlook on life...you especially. A born
loser.
 
You're going to have to try harder to harass me Bert. Not enough
ammunition, comprehension and gray matter, and always coming up short
in all three areas.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 12:23PM -0500


>> LOL. Real Clear horseshit. Read it closely and you'll see what you
>> always refer to as pure spin.
 
>It's always spin if its news you don't like.
 
I'll remind you of that in the future.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 12:24PM -0500


>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/obamacare-website-wont-
>> reveal-insurance-costs-for-/
 
>Most of them (the ones with brains) already have buyers remorse.
 
As poor as things have been Romney would've been worse IMO.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 12:26PM -0500

>> the ACA. To state the obvious, what keeps the Republican hierarchy up at
>> night isn't that Obama will be a failure, but that it will be a success.
 
>You true believers are too funny.
 
ACA will eventually turn out to be a boon to the middle class, against
the will of blind followers of ultra conservatism.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 12:31PM -0500

>> simple concepts with details and examples?.as if you would understand
>> them. Why not just go away?
 
>Ever think people look at you the same way?
 
Really lame Mike and you know it.
 
Nope I've never experienced those things. When have I endured
ridicule, and by whom? How many here regard me as a joke? When have I
asked stupid questions that I could answer myself?
 
If I, or you, had the amount of laughter laid on him from so many
here I'd never post again. Neither would you.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 12:36PM -0500


>> Do yourself a favor...go away.
 
>Tell me, have you always used the bobbyK sockpuppet or did you at one
>time use another name?
 
It changed with the hard drive failure, and never was a sock puppet as
you well know. Any of my posts use my real name. At the top of every
header is says:
From: BobbyK (or whatever the handle is)<bknight@Conramp.net>
That eliminates any of them being a sock puppet.
 
So you're 0 for 2 today.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 12:51PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
>> time use another name?
 
> It changed with the hard drive failure, and never was a sock puppet as
> you well know.
 
LOL!!!! You are such a fucking hypocrite.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Oct 15 10:53AM -0700

>>> on my wall is dated June 1978.
 
>> How is it you have more than one? Did you rejoin the military after retiring?
 
> You claim to have been in the reserves. How is it you don't know?
 
How is it /I/ don't know the details of /YOUR/ alleged military service?
 
Are you seriously asking that question?
 
I can make some assumptions, but why not simply tell us the truth,
Lieutenant Liar?
 
And here's a more specific question, when did you first join the army
and when did you first retire?
 
 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Oct 15 10:51AM -0700


>> ...and that because you're not SUPPOSED to engage means you always get
>> to have it come out that way?
 
> Engaging the enemy is NOT part of their mission.
 
Failure to answer the question...
 
 
>> LOLOOLOLOLOLOL
 
>> What did you even STUDY at Fort Lewis, Lieutenant Liar?
 
> I learned to kill people.
 
With what weapons? Be specific.
 
 
> Oh, I also learned leadership.
 
So you'd already learned lying, or did you work that out later?
 
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 12:54PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
>> Ever think people look at you the same way?
 
> Really lame Mike and you know it.
 
Why is that?
> asked stupid questions that I could answer myself?
 
> If I, or you, had the amount of laughter laid on him from so many
> here I'd never post again. Neither would you.
 
So many? LOL! There are only about a half dozen here. But continue on
with your King of RSG fantasy.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 12:57PM -0500


>> It changed with the hard drive failure, and never was a sock puppet as
>> you well know.
 
>LOL!!!! You are such a fucking hypocrite.
 
Fuck you Mike. You know damned well that I never used a sock
puppet...never. The last thing I am is a hypocrite. I've done my
best to keep our private situation apart from RSG but I think it just
isn't worth it. You're the one who is two faced.
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>: Oct 15 12:59PM -0500


>>> Ever think people look at you the same way?
 
>> Really lame Mike and you know it.
 
>Why is that?
 
On the face of it. Are you actually saying that you think highly of
Bert? You've thrown some barbs yourself.
 
>> If I, or you, had the amount of laughter laid on him from so many
>> here I'd never post again. Neither would you.
 
>So many? LOL! There are only about a half dozen here.
 
The past included a host of others.
 
 
>But continue on with your King of RSG fantasy.
 
Go fuck yourself.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 01:01PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
>> You true believers are too funny.
 
> ACA will eventually turn out to be a boon to the middle class, against
> the will of blind followers of ultra conservatism.
 
You true believers are too funny.
MNMikew <MNMiikkew@aol.com>: Oct 15 01:10PM -0500

BobbyK wrote:
 
>> Why is that?
 
> On the face of it. Are you actually saying that you think highly of
> Bert? You've thrown some barbs yourself.
 
I have no issue with Bert whatsoever.
 
 
> The past included a host of others.
 
>> But continue on with your King of RSG fantasy.
 
> Go fuck yourself.
 
LOL! Touched a nerve it appears.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.