Andre Jute FAQ

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 1:31 pm, samvaknin wrote:
Cyber Narcissist

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html

LOL. I don't imagine even Shmuel Vaknin and
) would sink so low as to enter
the stalker Peter Howard's threads merely to promote his {self-
published) book. Howard is a wannabe writer who will never be
published; he has been stalking me for a decade or more. His
motivation is the same envy that ensures he will never be publishable.
snip

Ya gotta larf. I've never ever claimed to have any aspirations to writing a book
or being published. I have a real job and interests that keep me fully occupied
and satisfied. Poking Jute with a sharp stick is just a hobby. In any case, how
could I possibly be envious of a corpus of published work that is uniformly bad?
No cigar, Monsieur Juteau. Try harder.
PH

Peter Howard wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 1:31 pm, samvaknin wrote:
Cyber Narcissist

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html

LOL. I don't imagine even Shmuel Vaknin and
) would sink so low as to enter
the stalker Peter Howard's threads merely to promote his {self-
published) book. Howard is a wannabe writer who will never be
published; he has been stalking me for a decade or more. His
motivation is the same envy that ensures he will never be publishable.
snip

Ya gotta larf. I've never ever claimed to have any aspirations to
writing a book or being published. I have a real job and interests that
keep me fully occupied and satisfied. Poking Jute with a sharp stick is
just a hobby. In any case, how could I possibly be envious of a corpus
of published work that is uniformly bad?
[...]

Vanity publications by the remittance man?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

Still Just Me wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 05:57:43 -0700, jim beam wrote:

samvaknin wrote:
Cyber Narcissist

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html
awesome post!

It's about you too - but you're too much of a narcissist to realize
it.

maybe you should look up that word in a dictionary?

Still Just Me wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2009 21:30:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:

Still Just Me wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:24:15 -0700, jim beam wrote:

Still Just Me wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 05:57:43 -0700, jim beam wrote:

samvaknin wrote:
Cyber Narcissist

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html
awesome post!
It's about you too - but you're too much of a narcissist to realize
it.
maybe you should look up that word in a dictionary?
Why? I don't need to see your picture right now, and it's there next
to the word in Webster's.
idiot.

Predictable response.

so you couldn't resist being stupid? [rhetorical]

Still Just Me wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 19:10:19 -0700, jim beam wrote:

Still Just Me wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2009 21:30:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:

Still Just Me wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:24:15 -0700, jim beam wrote:

Still Just Me wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 05:57:43 -0700, jim beam wrote:

samvaknin wrote:
Cyber Narcissist

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html
awesome post!
It's about you too - but you're too much of a narcissist to realize
it.
maybe you should look up that word in a dictionary?
Why? I don't need to see your picture right now, and it's there next
to the word in Webster's.
idiot.
Predictable response.
so you couldn't resist being stupid? [rhetorical]

So you're still to lazy to press the shift key? (pragmatic)


er, i'm not lazy at all - you're just too dim to understand.

but feel free to send me the money anyway. i'll email you pictures of
the results.

Still Just Me wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:16:31 -0700, jim beam wrote:

er, i'm not lazy at all - you're just too dim to understand.

I understand just fine. There's a very a limited number of reasons
someone would consistently not use the shift key:

1. Too lazy
2. Too stupid

Take your pick.

er, no. it's been explained, by others, not just me. but apparently
you're either too stupid or too dishonest to go there.

now you stand by your word and go ahead and send me your money - i'll
show you what i do with it.

"jim beam" wrote:
Still Just Me wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:16:31 -0700, jim beam wrote:

er, i'm not lazy at all - you're just too dim to understand.

I understand just fine. There's a very a limited number of reasons
someone would consistently not use the shift key:
1. Too lazy
2. Too stupid

Take your pick.

er, no. it's been explained, by others, not just me. but apparently
you're either too stupid or too dishonest to go there.

now you stand by your word and go ahead and send me your money - i'll
show you what i do with it.

Provide a valid street address and I will send you a keyboard.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:28:04 -0400, Still Just Me
wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:16:31 -0700, jim beam wrote:

er, i'm not lazy at all - you're just too dim to understand.

I understand just fine. There's a very a limited number of reasons
someone would consistently not use the shift key:

1. Too lazy
2. Too stupid

Take your pick.

3. Indifference to legibility and convenience of readers.
4. Affectation
5. e.e. cummings

RonSonic wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:28:04 -0400, Still Just Me
wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:16:31 -0700, jim beam wrote:

er, i'm not lazy at all - you're just too dim to understand.
I understand just fine. There's a very a limited number of reasons
someone would consistently not use the shift key:

1. Too lazy
2. Too stupid

Take your pick.

3. Indifference to legibility and convenience of readers.
4. Affectation
5. e.e. cummings


6. c.l.i. capability

RonSonic aka Ron Bales wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:28:04 -0400, Still Just Me
wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:16:31 -0700, jim beam wrote:

er, i'm not lazy at all - you're just too dim to understand.
I understand just fine. There's a very a limited number of reasons
someone would consistently not use the shift key:

1. Too lazy
2. Too stupid

Take your pick.

3. Indifference to legibility and convenience of readers.
4. Affectation
5. e.e. cummings


No. 5 is more applicable to gene daniels than "jim beam".

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll