Let's Fight!

On Aug 4, 7:25*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Andres Muro wrote: ...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.

Ah yes, the proponent of "Lets you and him fight".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Hey, I have no quarrel with either one of you. I haven't been called a
lightweight, a retard, f..g stupid or anything like that. Otherwise,
I'll be the first to challenge him to a duel at dawn.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:12:34 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:25*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Andres Muro wrote: ...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.

Ah yes, the proponent of "Lets you and him fight".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Hey, I have no quarrel with either one of you. I haven't been called a
lightweight, a retard, f..g stupid or anything like that. Otherwise,
I'll be the first to challenge him to a duel at dawn.

Dear Andres,

I, for one, am willing to swear unconditional loyalty to the theories
(no matter how silly) of all combatants who remain standing after the
formal discharge of cow chips at ten paces.

I'm sure that's how Einstein won the Nobel Prize, so it ought to be
good enough to settle disputes among grown men about trivial bicycle
matters.

Of course, a video will be required.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.

I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
"beam world".


you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters
would still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it would
simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't understand, but
the socio-pathological? they understand. it would be fascinating.

Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.

As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable
for damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence.
But since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe
he does not understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign
deliverables (doing so would be criminal fraud).


you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.

How can one slander a sock puppet? What would the slander be anyhow?
When asked in the past if he had professional credentials, "jim"
ducked the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not.

APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!

Did the Supreme Court of the United States of American grant sock
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?


Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?

By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously.

you can prosecute anonymously though.

Where? Guantanamo Bay?

Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander victim
is illogical.

if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot, would
you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only a
lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their
opponent's capabilities.

How can a sock hold a pistol?


do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your eligibility
for a darwin award.

Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.�

aka Andres Muro wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:31 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in "beam
world".



you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters would
still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it would simply be
darwin for the stupid because they don't understand, but the
socio-pathological? they understand. it would be fascinating.
Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.

As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have prepared
all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable for damages if
there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence. But since "jim"
(apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe he does not
understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign deliverables (doing
so would be criminal fraud).


What do u mean that he doesn't sign deliverables? He clearly signs
millions more than you. His named after him and consumed all over the
world.

Whiskey is a product, not a deliverable.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.

I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
"beam world".


you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters
would still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it
would simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't
understand, but the socio-pathological? they understand. it
would be fascinating.

Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.

As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable
for damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence.
But since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe
he does not understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign
deliverables (doing so would be criminal fraud).


you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.

How can one slander a sock puppet? What would the slander be anyhow?
When asked in the past if he had professional credentials, "jim"
ducked the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not.

APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!

Did the Supreme Court of the United States of American grant sock
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?

eh? go back to how we came upon the word "slander", then try to figure
out how you may have committed it.





Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?

By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously.

you can prosecute anonymously though.

Where? Guantanamo Bay?

dmca. mpaa. riaa.



Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander victim
is illogical.

how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
illogical.



if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only
a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their
opponent's capabilities.

How can a sock hold a pistol?


do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your eligibility
for a darwin award.

Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.


ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!

"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or
maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.

I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
"beam world".


you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters
would still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it
would simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't
understand, but the socio-pathological? they understand. it
would be fascinating.

Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.

As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable
for damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence.
But since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe
he does not understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign
deliverables (doing so would be criminal fraud).


you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.

How can one slander a sock puppet? What would the slander be anyhow?
When asked in the past if he had professional credentials, "jim"
ducked the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not.

APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!

Did the Supreme Court of the United States of American grant sock
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?

eh? go back to how we came upon the word "slander", then try to figure
out how you may have committed it.

Now "jim" is not making sense or having trouble understand the written
English language.


Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?

By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously.

you can prosecute anonymously though.

Where? Guantanamo Bay?

dmca. mpaa. riaa.

But could those organizations prosecute as "John Doe" being the plaintiff?

Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander
victim is illogical.

how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
illogical.

Since a sock puppet is not a legal entity with rights, how can it sue
for damages?

if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only
a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their
opponent's capabilities.

How can a sock hold a pistol?


do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your
eligibility for a darwin award.

Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.


ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!

[Yawn] "jim" is all bark.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.�

Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or
maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.

I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
"beam world".


you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters
would still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it
would simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't
understand, but the socio-pathological? they understand. it
would be fascinating.

Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.

As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable
for damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of
consequence. But since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed
professional, maybe he does not understand that? And no, sock
puppets can not sign deliverables (doing so would be criminal
fraud).


you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.

How can one slander a sock puppet? What would the slander be
anyhow? When asked in the past if he had professional credentials,
"jim" ducked the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not.

APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!

Did the Supreme Court of the United States of American grant sock
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?

eh? go back to how we came upon the word "slander", then try to
figure out how you may have committed it.

Now "jim" is not making sense or having trouble understand the written
English language.

[wriggle. squirm.]

tom, you're a lightweight.





Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?

By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously.

you can prosecute anonymously though.

Where? Guantanamo Bay?

dmca. mpaa. riaa.

But could those organizations prosecute as "John Doe" being the plaintiff?

Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander
victim is illogical.

how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
illogical.

Since a sock puppet is not a legal entity with rights, how can it sue
for damages?

[wriggle. squirm.]

"it" can't, but that doesn't mean you didn't slander. lightweight.



if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment?
only a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of
their opponent's capabilities.

How can a sock hold a pistol?


do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your
eligibility for a darwin award.

Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.


ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!

[Yawn] "jim" is all bark.

[wriggle. squirm.]

you were barking big boy. be a man - stand(*) behind your threat.


* - that means you can't lie down on the job.

On Aug 6, 6:49 am, jim beam wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or
maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.

I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
"beam world".

you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters
would still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it
would simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't
understand, but the socio-pathological? they understand. it
would be fascinating.

Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.

As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable
for damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of
consequence. But since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed
professional, maybe he does not understand that? And no, sock
puppets can not sign deliverables (doing so would be criminal
fraud).

you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.

How can one slander a sock puppet? What would the slander be
anyhow? When asked in the past if he had professional credentials,
"jim" ducked the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not.

APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!

Did the Supreme Court of the United States of American grant sock
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?

eh? go back to how we came upon the word "slander", then try to
figure out how you may have committed it.

Now "jim" is not making sense or having trouble understand the written
English language.

[wriggle. squirm.]

tom, you're a lightweight.





Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?

By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously.

you can prosecute anonymously though.

Where? Guantanamo Bay?

dmca. mpaa. riaa.

But could those organizations prosecute as "John Doe" being the plaintiff?

Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander
victim is illogical.

how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
illogical.

Since a sock puppet is not a legal entity with rights, how can it sue
for damages?

[wriggle. squirm.]

"it" can't, but that doesn't mean you didn't slander. lightweight.





if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment?
only a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of
their opponent's capabilities.

How can a sock hold a pistol?

do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your
eligibility for a darwin award.

Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.

ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!

[Yawn] "jim" is all bark.

[wriggle. squirm.]

you were barking big boy. be a man - stand(*) behind your threat.

* - that means you can't lie down on the job.

Are you guys sure you are not third grade schoolmates or little
brothers. I think you need to go to your corners for a time out,right
about now and you cannot go out and play.

The only one who gets to go out and play is Jobst.

aka Andres Muro wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:49 am, jim beam wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or
maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
"beam world".
you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters
would still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it
would simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't
understand, but the socio-pathological? they understand. it
would be fascinating.
Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.
As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable
for damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of
consequence. But since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed
professional, maybe he does not understand that? And no, sock
puppets can not sign deliverables (doing so would be criminal
fraud).
you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.
How can one slander a sock puppet? What would the slander be
anyhow? When asked in the past if he had professional credentials,
"jim" ducked the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not.
APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!
Did the Supreme Court of the United States of American grant sock
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?
eh? go back to how we came upon the word "slander", then try to
figure out how you may have committed it.
Now "jim" is not making sense or having trouble understand the written
English language.
[wriggle. squirm.]

tom, you're a lightweight.





Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?
By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously.
you can prosecute anonymously though.
Where? Guantanamo Bay?
dmca. mpaa. riaa.
But could those organizations prosecute as "John Doe" being the plaintiff?
Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander
victim is illogical.
how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
illogical.
Since a sock puppet is not a legal entity with rights, how can it sue
for damages?
[wriggle. squirm.]

"it" can't, but that doesn't mean you didn't slander. lightweight.





if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment?
only a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of
their opponent's capabilities.
How can a sock hold a pistol?
do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your
eligibility for a darwin award.
Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.
ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!
[Yawn] "jim" is all bark.
[wriggle. squirm.]

you were barking big boy. be a man - stand(*) behind your threat.

* - that means you can't lie down on the job.

Are you guys sure you are not third grade schoolmates or little
brothers. I think you need to go to your corners for a time out,right
about now and you cannot go out and play.

Hey Andres,

I am arguing with "beam" solely for YOUR PERSONAL entertainment [1].

The only one who gets to go out and play is Jobst.

I think I see Jobst:
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&ll=46.532591,10.447397&spn=0.013758,0.0276 37&t=k&z=15.

[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/26ab0819a819b28e?hl=en&dmode=source.


--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Aug 6, 6:53 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Andres Muro wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:49 am, jim beam wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
...
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or
maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
"beam world".
you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bull****ters
would still bull**** if there were tangible consequences. it
would simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't
understand, but the socio-pathological? they understand. it
would be fascinating.
Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.
As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable
for damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of
consequence. But since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed
professional, maybe he does not understand that? And no, sock
puppets can not sign deliverables (doing so would be criminal
fraud).
you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.
How can one slander a sock puppet? What would the slander be
anyhow? When asked in the past if he had professional credentials,
"jim" ducked the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not.
APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!
Did the Supreme Court of the United States of American grant sock
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?
eh? go back to how we came upon the word "slander", then try to
figure out how you may have committed it.
Now "jim" is not making sense or having trouble understand the written
English language.
[wriggle. squirm.]

tom, you're a lightweight.

Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?
By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously.
you can prosecute anonymously though.
Where? Guantanamo Bay?
dmca. mpaa. riaa.
But could those organizations prosecute as "John Doe" being the plaintiff?
Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander
victim is illogical.
how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
illogical.
Since a sock puppet is not a legal entity with rights, how can it sue
for damages?
[wriggle. squirm.]

"it" can't, but that doesn't mean you didn't slander. lightweight.

if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment?
only a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of
their opponent's capabilities.
How can a sock hold a pistol?
do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your
eligibility for a darwin award.
Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.
ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!
[Yawn] "jim" is all bark.
[wriggle. squirm.]

you were barking big boy. be a man - stand(*) behind your threat.

* - that means you can't lie down on the job.

Are you guys sure you are not third grade schoolmates or little
brothers. I think you need to go to your corners for a time out,right
about now and you cannot go out and play.

Hey Andres,

I am arguing with "beam" solely for YOUR PERSONAL entertainment [1].

The only one who gets to go out and play is Jobst.

I think I see Jobst:
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&ll=46.532591,10.447....

[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/26ab0819a819b28e....

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

I know that I want entertainment but this is what it amounts too now.

Tom: Stop barking!
whiskey boy: no, you started
Tom: no, you did
whiskey boy: no, you did
Tom: you did!

Actually, I have to admit that it is fun to see adults arguing like
this.