On Aug 19, 8:20 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
>
> > Could it possibly be more obvious that I am not and never have used the "Google
> > Usenet interface."
>
> That would require viewing of current and past headers.
>
Is your life that empty? Are you such a clueless wacko, such a lameass
loser that you spend your time "viewing current and past headers" of
posts to a Usenet group?
Ozark Bicycle - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude [1]" - wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:20 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>> Could it possibly be more obvious that I am not and never have used the "Google
>>> Usenet interface."
>> That would require viewing of current and past headers.
>>
>
> Is your life that empty? Are you such a clueless wacko, such a lameass
> loser that you spend your time "viewing current and past headers" of
> posts to a Usenet group?
>
> Sad..........
No Zarkie, just a statement of fact that it is generally not possible to
tell where a Usenet post comes from without looking at the header.
[1] That's saved for Usenet.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels
On Aug 20, 5:24 pm, "Tom "Oldest male virgin on Usenet" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude [1]" - wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 8:20 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> RonSonic wrote:
>
> >>> Could it possibly be more obvious that I am not and never have used the "Google
> >>> Usenet interface."
> >> That would require viewing of current and past headers.
>
> > Is your life that empty? Are you such a clueless wacko, such a lameass
> > loser that you spend your time "viewing current and past headers" of
> > posts to a Usenet group?
>
> > Sad..........
>
> No Zarkie, just a statement of fact that it is generally not possible to
> tell where a Usenet post comes from without looking at the header.
>
Just think, Tommy, maybe one day you'll actually get laid; then, you
can worry about how long it will take you to get it up again, instead
of worrying about "where a Usenet post comes from".
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:24 pm, "Tom "Oldest male virgin on Usenet" Sherman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude [1]" - wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 8:20 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> RonSonic wrote:
>>>>> Could it possibly be more obvious that I am not and never have used the "Google
>>>>> Usenet interface."
>>>> That would require viewing of current and past headers.
>>> Is your life that empty? Are you such a clueless wacko, such a lameass
>>> loser that you spend your time "viewing current and past headers" of
>>> posts to a Usenet group?
>>> Sad..........
>> No Zarkie, just a statement of fact that it is generally not possible to
>> tell where a Usenet post comes from without looking at the header.
>>
>
> Just think, Tommy, maybe one day you'll actually get laid; then, you
> can worry about how long it will take you to get it up again, instead
> of worrying about "where a Usenet post comes from".
>
[Yawn]
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:56:45 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Just think, Tommy, maybe one day you'll actually get laid; then, you
>can worry about how long it will take you to get it up again,
At his age, no doubt *very much faster* than you.
>instead
>of worrying about "where a Usenet post comes from".
That can be seen with one key-stroke on most newsreaders.
