[email hidden] wrote: > On Nov 4, 8:53 am, [email hidden] wrote: >> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>> [email hidden] wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate >>>>> vibration" thread here as well? >>>> >>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears >>>> and your butt! >>> >>> ok, you're back to idiot status. >> >> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting. >> >> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't >> tolerate one gentle wisecrack? > > Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, the way he goes on.
how odd - the [censored] resort to communal bleating!
At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Tradition is the worst rational for action.
[email hidden] wrote: > On Nov 4, 8:53 am, [email hidden] wrote: >> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>> [email hidden] wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate >>>>> vibration" thread here as well? >>>> >>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears >>>> and your butt! >>> >>> ok, you're back to idiot status. >> >> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting. >> >> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't >> tolerate one gentle wisecrack? > > Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, the way he goes on.
how odd - the [censored] resort to communal bleating!
At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Tim McNamara wrote: > [email hidden] wrote: >> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, [email hidden] wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> >>>> [email hidden] wrote: > >>> >>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> >>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate >>>>>> vibration" thread here as well? > >>>> >>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears >>>>> and your butt! > >>> >>>> ok, you're back to idiot status. > >> >>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting. >>> >>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't >>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack? >> >> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible. > > That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim > beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, the way he goes on.
how odd - the [censored] resort to communal bleating!
At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing contests distract from the facts.
Tim McNamara wrote: > [email hidden] wrote: >> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, [email hidden] wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> >>>> [email hidden] wrote: > >>> >>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> >>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate >>>>>> vibration" thread here as well? > >>>> >>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears >>>>> and your butt! > >>> >>>> ok, you're back to idiot status. > >> >>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting. >>> >>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't >>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack? >> >> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible. > > That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim > beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, the way he goes on.
how odd - the [censored] resort to communal bleating!
At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing contests distract from the facts.
Tom Sherman wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: >> [email hidden] wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, [email hidden] wrote: >>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> [email hidden] wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate >>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well? >> >>>> >>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears >>>>>> and your butt! >> >>> >>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status. >> >> >>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting. >>>> >>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you >>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack? >>> >>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible. >> >> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim >> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain. > > One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, > the way he goes on. >
how odd - the [censored] resort to communal bleating!
At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing contests distract from the facts.
How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she refused to reveal his/her name and credentials?
What is "jim beam" afraid of?
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Tom Sherman wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: >> [email hidden] wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, [email hidden] wrote: >>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> [email hidden] wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate >>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well? >> >>>> >>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears >>>>>> and your butt! >> >>> >>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status. >> >> >>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting. >>>> >>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you >>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack? >>> >>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible. >> >> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim >> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain. > > One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, > the way he goes on. >
how odd - the [censored] resort to communal bleating!
At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing contests distract from the facts.
How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she refused to reveal his/her name and credentials?
What is "jim beam" afraid of?
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Tradition is the worst rational for action.
describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you could of course redress the situation, but based on your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Tradition is the worst rational for action.
describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you could of course redress the situation, but based on your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you could of course redress the situation, but based on your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Tradition is the worst rational for action.
"jim beam" wrote: > Tom Sherman wrote: - delete excess text - >> Unlike gratuitous insults? > > describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly > an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you > could of course redress the situation, but based on your track > record, that doesn't seem likely.
I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
Tom Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" wrote: >> Tom Sherman wrote: > - delete excess text - >>> Unlike gratuitous insults? >> >> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly >> an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. >> you could of course redress the situation, but based on your track >> record, that doesn't seem likely. > > I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim". >
really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect one at that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment from you.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Tradition is the worst rational for action.
