"Andrea Chen" trolls 'Ugly Boob" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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I believe you're parroting a long outdated concept which had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.