On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:00:47 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:43 -0400, Dave W wrote:

|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:47:57 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:

|ROTFLMAO!
|
|"what Pete lead this thread into"
|
|Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience
|riding a Bow Ti comment on how they really ride, rather than letting
|some inaccurate assumptions stand.
|
|WOW I am impressed. You really are someone with experience. Did it
|require your particular "patented" Fagerlin response? Abusive bull****
|doesn't illustrate your points worth a ****.

LOL! "abusive bull****"?

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more idiotic, you come up
with this.

The point remains, you are an overly abusive person. No need to be so
defensive about it. Realise it!

Are you this fragile in real life?

Hardly, but then I am fortunate enough not to be associated with the
likes of you. If I had you as a friend, I might try being a serial
killer or something...


I appreciated the links
|you provided for Mr Stocker, really, it was a learning experience. But
|we could do without your lame ass MTBR diatribes here. But this IS an
|ALT group, and you're free to "color" your responses any way you want.
|But as you do, be expecting a reply from someone like me.

I always anticipate relies from thin-skinned hypocritical delicate
flowers, but thanks for the useless advice anyway

There's the point I was making. If you wouldn't be so freakin negative
you wouldn't have to anticipate any responces.

p.s. "diatribe"? If you view a discussion of the relative merits of
various URts to be a diatribe, you need to go grab a dictionary.

You still don't get it do you? I said nothing about the context of
your discussion, just your posting style. Why must you be so
defensive?

Dave (Guilty consciance?)