Re: "Andrea Chen" trolls 'Ugly Boob" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I certainly don't recall being Andrea Chen. And I definitely wasn't
trolling Ugly Bob. 

But I must say, it's probably a waste of time to try to correct
someone who posts in all seriousness to usenet using phrases like "pee
pee brain". You're going to continue using the wrong names for people
because you think it makes you appear to know something.

And in case you weren't aware, which I'm sure you weren't since you
apparently think using "pee pee brain" doesn't automatically mark you
as a feeble minded twit, things like "BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" are, in terms
of sophistication, right up there with an equal number of exclamation
marks.

Please, by all means, use "BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" and "pee pee brain" as
often as you can. This will help prevent people from making the
mistake of taking anything you say seriously.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 03:46:27 GMT, no name <oobie@doobie.com> wrote:

} On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:50:53 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar <targeting@OMCL.mil>
} wrote:
} 
} >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:16:05 -0800, "Ugly Bob"
} ><ugly_bob42@hotmail.com> wrote:
} >
} >} 
} >} Proven liar "Alexa Cameron" <oobie@doobie.com> wrote in message
} >} news:pb26vvcb1h195ftpcocm8e7g6jvecsbnp8@4ax.com...
} >} > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:59:11 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar <targeting@OMCL.mil>
} >} > wrote:
} >} >
} >} > >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:59:21 GMT, no name <oobie@doobie.com> wrote:
} >} > >
} >} > >} On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:57:30 -0500, "Dick Hertz (Hey, who's Dick
} >} Hertz?)"
} >} > >} <me@example.com> wrote:
} >} > >}
} >} > >} >x-no-archive: yes
} >} > >} >
} >} > >} >Alexa "no name" Cameron has a brand new box of crayons:
} >} > >} >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:27:42 -0500, "Dick Hertz (Hey, who's Dick
} >} Hertz?)"
} >} > >} >> <me@example.com> wrote:
} >} > >} >>
} >} > >} >>
} >} > >} >>>x-no-archive: yes
} >} > >} >>>
} >} > >} >>>Doktor DynaSoar wrote:
} >} > >} >>>
} >} > >} >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:03:53 -0700, Phoenix <saddam@spiderhole.NOT>
} >} > >} >>>>wrote:
} >} > >} >>>>
} >} > >} >>>>} In article <g0c3vvg3cr6rambjo72vdpr41sjpn59td2@4ax.com>, Doktor
} >} DynaSoar <targeting@OMCL.mil> wrote:
} >} > >} >>>>}
} >} > >} >>>>} > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:51:59 GMT, Sir Arthur C.B.E.
} >} Wholeflaffers
} >} > >} >>>>} > �.S.�. <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
} >} > >} >>>>} >
} >} > >} >>>>} > } IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL DEBUNKERS AND TROLLS:
} >} > >} >>>>} >
} >} > >} >>>>} > IMPOTENT NAUGHTIES FOR ALL TRUNKERS AND DEBOLLS:
} >} > >} >>>>} >
} >} > >} >>>>} > } As you must all know, your deadline has past and
} >} > >} >>>>} > } all debunkers and trolls can NO LONGER post on these groups.
} >} > >} >>>>} >
} >} > >} >>>>} > Wrong.
} >} > >} >>>>}
} >} > >} >>>>} You believe Art is fallible?
} >} > >} >>>>
} >} > >} >>>>I believe Fart is beable.
} >} > >} >>>>
} >} > >} >>>
} >} > >} >>>I believe Beable won't like hearing this.
} >} > >} >>
} >} > >} >>
} >} > >} >> I believe you're wasting bandwidth.
} >} > >} >>
} >} > >} >I believe you said you were plonking me.  Make up your mind, Alexa.
} >} > >} >Sheesh.  Or is your plonker b0rken again?
} >} > >}
} >} > >} I believe you're wasting bandwidth.
} >} > >
} >} > >I believe you're parroting a long outdated concept which had
} >} > >questionable application even when it was somewhat rational.
} >} > >
} >} > >Due to the glut of fiber optics, the full usenet feed of 200+ GB per
} >} > >day is about 20% of available capacity. Therefore, there is more than
} >} > >ample bandwidth available, and in fact there's a 400% surplus. There
} >} > >is so much surplus pipe under ground that several companies have gone
} >} > >broke.
} >} > >
} >} > >In addition, this message constitutes approximately one part in one
} >} > >hundred million (single digit KB vs. 200 GB) of the current usenet
} >} > >traffic flow. Saying this message is a waste of anything is like
} >} > >saying the water that drips off of you as you exit the ocean and walk
} >} > >onto the beach is wasted because it's not returned to the ocean.
} >} > >
} >} > >When syadmins paid the phone company for hard wired lines to connect
} >} > >their systems, then "bandwidth" was an issue. No longer.
} >} > >
} >} > >If bandwidth is really a concern of yours, then stop using the phone.
} >} > >That uses thousands of times more bandwidth per message than does text
} >} > >on usenet.
} >} > >
} >} > >smoochers.
} >} >
} >} > Yes, Andrea.
} >} 
} >}  Still haven't learned to read headers, eh, Alexa? Not only are
} >} you a whackjob but apparently you're stupid, too.
} >} 
} >}                                                   -Ugly Bob
} >} 
} >
} >Perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps someone has helped me to
} >identify one of my other personalities. As far as I knew before, all
} >of my different personalities were exctly the same.
} >
} >Either that, or you're right.