PDA

View Full Version : Even Whoopi is pissed off



bobroberts
08-02-2010, 01:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfrmXgoJ80M&feature=related

LWW
08-02-2010, 02:58 PM
Welcome back Bob.

LWW

hondo
08-02-2010, 08:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Welcome back Bob.

LWW </div></div>

Yes. It appears he wore out his welcome on AZ.

Qtec
08-03-2010, 04:18 AM
I wonder why?

Q

Qtec
08-03-2010, 04:21 AM
How many of the taxes that Whoopi was complaining about were <u>introduced</u> by Obama?

Q

hondo
08-03-2010, 06:31 AM
Most didn't believe his explanation for the 9/11 picture.

Sev
08-03-2010, 06:35 AM
Nope.
Still in good standing.

hondo
08-03-2010, 06:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nope.
Still in good standing. </div></div>

Good. We all need a second chance.
I was just guessing as to why he came slithering back over here.

I did feel that slide rule made a bigger fool of himself in that thread than Roberts did.

slide trying to match wits with Mikey is about like Steve trying to match wits with me. Too big a gap in intellect.

Plus, him continuing to defend Roberts long after Roberts had the good sense to run was stupid.
Did you notice Mikey picked up on every snide nuance in slide's posts and called him on it? Great stuff.

pooltchr
08-03-2010, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of the taxes that Whoopi was complaining about were <u>introduced</u> by Obama?

Q
</div></div>

Did anybody suggest that they were???

We're all waiting for cap and trade before we start blaming him for new taxes.

Steve

LWW
08-03-2010, 08:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We all need a second chance.</div></div>

You had one ... how'd that all work out?

LWW

hondo
08-03-2010, 01:12 PM
The first time I was booted for complaining about you and your mob
calling me a klansman.
The second time for complainig about the boys attacking me with personal insults.

I found that while on AZ it's a one way street.

So, to answer your question, not very well.
I wouldn't have changed a thing, however.

The nice thing is that none of you guys would ever have
the nerve to say those things to me personally.
It's easy to be a tough guy hiding behind a keyboard.
Wouldn't you agree, Larry?

LWW
08-03-2010, 03:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The first time I was booted for complaining about you and your mob
calling me a klansman.</div></div>

Are you channeling Robert Cornelius Calvin Sales Byrd Junior again?

I have always been mystified at how you take accusing an admitted klansman of being a klansman as accusing you of being a klansman?

If anyone has ever protested too much, that is the case.

Or, is this simply another manifestation of your desire to be a martyr?

LWW

hondo
08-03-2010, 09:46 PM
Sweet petootie, if I ever get back on there and my PMs haven't been removed I'll post Punter's and Mrs LWW PMs to me.
How would that be?
I"ve actually done that before and you had a hissy fit.

Truth vs. truthyness.

LWW
08-04-2010, 04:07 AM
Well ... first off even if they did, that doesn't back up your lie that I did.

Second off, what I busted your chops for is "POSTING" PM's ... which by definition are "PRIVATE MESSAGES." At the very least, posting PM's without the sender's consent is a dishonest act. Since they cannot be verified by links they are also quite easily forged. That makes any unapproved posting of PM's completely unreliable data ... which explains why you can't make your "CASE" without them.

LWW

hondo
08-04-2010, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... first off even if they did, that doesn't back up your lie that I did.

Second off, what I busted your chops for is "POSTING" PM's ... which by definition are "PRIVATE MESSAGES." At the very least, posting PM's without the sender's consent is a dishonest act. Since they cannot be verified by links they are also quite easily forged. That makes any unapproved posting of PM's completely unreliable data ... which explains why you can't make your "CASE" without them.

LWW </div></div>

I posted your "wife's" PMs after you challenged me to prove that she had ever said those things.
You then soiled your diapers and cried like a baby about
privacy after I did it.
I do understand, Larry. It must have been very humiliating for you.