Evelynvogtgamble

Hatunen wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:22:18 +0200, "Mediteraneum Nostrum"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > ><cup crap>
    > >
    > >You are an opsessive nut with an inferiority complex, or you
    > >wouldn't be spitting this non sense and calling others morons
    > >in rec.travel.europe.
    > >Take your pill, it'll be allright.
    >
    > Here's one of those places where leaving in a bit of the post
    > being responded to, as well as the poster's name, would have been
    > helpful to the rest of us.

Too true - but perhaps this thread has attracted more than one troll?

    >
    > ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
    > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
    > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

jbk

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:46:49 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Richard wrote:
    >>
    >> I didn't vote for GW, and just for the record,not everyone in the US
    >> agrees with the idiot's policies.I read an article about a French and
    >> an American reporter attending a press conference,the French reporter
    >> turns to the American and asks"how did this guy get to be president?".
    >> I loved it...
    >There are quite a few Americans wondering the same thing!

No one with a brain. He won because he got more electoral votes,
just like every other President in US history.

Magda

On 15 Aug 2003 14:52:44 -0700, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] (Marcus
Andersson) arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :


... I see you have no knowledge about the world of the manual laborer...
... I happen to have a job in which more or less everyone who works for
... years gets problems with their bodies. Especially ruined knees.

Well, I can't say that working with a computer ruined my eyes - I was myope well before
being hired there. Does it count ?

Miguel Cruz

John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > No one with a brain. He won because he got more electoral votes,
    > just like every other President in US history.

May we assume, then, that you've never heard of Thomas Jefferson or John
Quincy Adams?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Marie Lewis

In article <[email protected]>, Hatunen
<[email protected]> writes
    >It's considered bad form to criticise spelling errors and typos.


Not by me! It is my mission in life to try to help all those who have
problems with their orthography and grammar :-)
--
Marie Lewis

jbk

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:34:24 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    >John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> No one with a brain. He won because he got more electoral votes,
    >> just like every other President in US history.
    >May we assume, then, that you've never heard of Thomas Jefferson or John
    >Quincy Adams?
    >miguel

True, but I was speaking about modern history and the point was how
Bush won, which, as I said, was because he got a majority of the
electoral votes. 271 to 266.

jbk

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:31:57 +0100, Marie Lewis
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Hatunen
    ><[email protected]> writes
    >>It's considered bad form to criticise spelling errors and typos.
    >Not by me! It is my mission in life to try to help all those who have
    >problems with their orthography and grammar :-)

Not too arrogant an ass is she?

Johnt

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:34:24 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> No one with a brain. He won because he got more electoral votes,
    > >> just like every other President in US history.
    > >
    > >May we assume, then, that you've never heard of Thomas Jefferson or John
    > >Quincy Adams?
    > >
    > >miguel
    > True, but I was speaking about modern history and the point was how
    > Bush won, which, as I said, was because he got a majority of the
    > electoral votes. 271 to 266.

"Modern History" is, surely an Oxymoron! It isn't as if Miguel was
referring to events in the days of Archimedes or Augustus Caesar. He was
referring to relatively recent happenings.

JohnT

Hatunen

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:31:57 +0100, Marie Lewis
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Hatunen
    ><[email protected]> writes
    >>It's considered bad form to criticise spelling errors and typos.
    >Not by me! It is my mission in life to try to help all those who have
    >problems with their orthography and grammar :-)

We're well aware of your pushy, unsolicited pedantry, but,
nevertheless, it has been a tenet of the Internet from it's
earliest days that it is considered gauche to criticize spelling
errors and typos. Criticising minor lapses of grammar is only
slightly less gauche.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:35:56 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:31:57 +0100, Marie Lewis
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>In article <[email protected]>, Hatunen
    >><[email protected]> writes
    >>>It's considered bad form to criticise spelling errors and typos.
    >>Not by me! It is my mission in life to try to help all those who have
    >>problems with their orthography and grammar :-)
    >Not too arrogant an ass is she?

She thinks the smiley makes it OK, but it doesn't; it makes it
worse.

Though why someone as devoted to correct writing feels a need to
use smileys is beyond me. Perhaps she feels inept at conveying
her meaning.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:52:58 -0600, Hatunen <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:31:57 +0100, Marie Lewis
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>In article <[email protected]>, Hatunen
    >><[email protected]> writes
    >>>It's considered bad form to criticise spelling errors and typos.
    >>Not by me! It is my mission in life to try to help all those who have
    >>problems with their orthography and grammar :-)

    >We're well aware of your pushy, unsolicited pedantry, but,
    >nevertheless, it has been a tenet of the Internet from it's

Let me fix it before you get ot it: "its", not "it's".

    >earliest days that it is considered gauche to criticize spelling
    >errors and typos. Criticising minor lapses of grammar is only
    >slightly less gauche.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:21:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:51:26 +0100, "JohnT"
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...
    >>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:34:24 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>> >John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> >> No one with a brain. He won because he got more electoral votes,
    >>> >> just like every other President in US history.
    >>> >
    >>> >May we assume, then, that you've never heard of Thomas Jefferson or John
    >>> >Quincy Adams?
    >>> True, but I was speaking about modern history and the point was how
    >>> Bush won, which, as I said, was because he got a majority of the
    >>> electoral votes. 271 to 266.
    >>"Modern History" is, surely an Oxymoron! It isn't as if Miguel was
    >>referring to events in the days of Archimedes or Augustus Caesar. He was
    >>referring to relatively recent happenings.
    >Only to a moron. And as I said, the question was about Bush won, but
    >you probably can't read either.

You said that he wond by winning the majority of the electoral
votes like all the other presidents, apparently ignorant that not
all the presidents who ran in elections won with a majority of
the electoral college. Jefferson was presented as an example.

If you didn't want your ignorant comment to be commented on by
others you shouldn't have made it. Perhaps if you hadn't said it
so knowingly...

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

jbk

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:51:26 +0100, "JohnT"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:34:24 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> >John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> No one with a brain. He won because he got more electoral votes,
    >> >> just like every other President in US history.
    >> >
    >> >May we assume, then, that you've never heard of Thomas Jefferson or John
    >> >Quincy Adams?
    >> >
    >> >miguel
    >> True, but I was speaking about modern history and the point was how
    >> Bush won, which, as I said, was because he got a majority of the
    >> electoral votes. 271 to 266.
    >"Modern History" is, surely an Oxymoron! It isn't as if Miguel was
    >referring to events in the days of Archimedes or Augustus Caesar. He was
    >referring to relatively recent happenings.
    >JohnT

Only to a moron. And as I said, the question was about Bush won, but
you probably can't read either.

Evelynvogtgamble

Marie Lewis wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, Hatunen
    > <[email protected]> writes
    > >It's considered bad form to criticise spelling errors and typos.
    >
    > Not by me! It is my mission in life to try to help all those who have
    > problems with their orthography and grammar :-)

And it's depressing to notice how many of them there are, among those of
us for whom English is (theoretically) the native tongue. (Some of them
college graduates, too, which is even MORE depressing!)

jbk

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:15:58 -0600, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:21:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:51:26 +0100, "JohnT"
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:34:24 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>>> >John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> >> No one with a brain. He won because he got more electoral votes,
    >>>> >> just like every other President in US history.
    >>>> >
    >>>> >May we assume, then, that you've never heard of Thomas Jefferson or John
    >>>> >Quincy Adams?
    >>>> True, but I was speaking about modern history and the point was how
    >>>> Bush won, which, as I said, was because he got a majority of the
    >>>> electoral votes. 271 to 266.
    >>>"Modern History" is, surely an Oxymoron! It isn't as if Miguel was
    >>>referring to events in the days of Archimedes or Augustus Caesar. He was
    >>>referring to relatively recent happenings.
    >>Only to a moron. And as I said, the question was about Bush won, but
    >>you probably can't read either.
    >You said that he wond by winning the majority of the electoral
    >votes like all the other presidents, apparently ignorant that not
    >all the presidents who ran in elections won with a majority of
    >the electoral college. Jefferson was presented as an example.

And if you read my followup post, you would know that I was thinking
about the modern times not going back to the founding of the Republic.
And I also said that the thread was about how Bush won, which, as I
said, was by winning the Electoral vote. You should well understand
by now that this is all really about the lefties carping about Florida
being handed to Bush by the Supreme Court. As opposed to having it
handed to Gore by the Florida Supreme Court stacked with Democrats,
which it wouldn't have done anyway because on every basis that Gore
was trying to contest the election it was later determined that Bush
would have won anyway. And nevermind the fact that before the
election when Gore thought HE was going to lose the popular vote HE
was the one saying the it was only the Electoral vote that mattered.
Rapidly changed his tune, didn't he, when it turned out the other way
around? So if you and others want to carp about a couple of flukes in
US electoral history that had nothing to do with the issue at hand,
because you can't deny the issue at hand, feel free to waste your time

    >If you didn't want your ignorant comment to be commented on by
    >others you shouldn't have made it. Perhaps if you hadn't said it
    >so knowingly...

As if I care about a bunch of pedantic asses whose only defense to
their stupid comments is to harp on spelling, grammer and ancient US
history to deflect THEIR ignorance on real issues so you won't know
how partisan and stupid they are.