From: petrolcan on
In article <hesmc59qsaa0n0bquuia8neqfp8fk53l0c(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >You mean my most recent neg? That buyer was expecting something that was
> >> >> >not listed or pictured. He was a fuckwit.
> >> >>
> >> >> They were positives.
> >> >
> >> >They were? The only one I can think of is the buyer of the camera box.
> >>
> >> Odd that you replied to one of them. Perhaps you did this without
> >> noticing?
> >
> >I assume it was a while ago. I didn't bother checking.
>
> Perhaps your son replied to it while you weren't looking?

It was only a matter of time before you tried this approach again. It
really speaks volumes about your *claimed* morals.




From: petrolcan on
In article <5c2nc55lh7ofbb0k73c2h0nri29asghc7l(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> >In article <haf1mj$o1i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> There is absolutely no point using Recorded
> >> >> >> >> under the normal compensation limit.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >In your opinion, the same opinion I give no credence to.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because he's foreign?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because he has stated anti-racist views?
> >> >
> >> >No.
> >>
> >> He likes the wrong god?
> >
> >You're now saying there is a *wrong* god?
>
> From your perspective there must be, otherwise you wouldn't use
> someone's choice of god as an insult.

I haven't used anyones choice of god as an insult. That would be your
interpretation in order to prove some kind of point.

> Is this the correct answer then?

No.

> I notice it didn't get a "no".

You didn't get an answer because it was a stupid question. You have
taken my lack of an answer to be an insult against fran. Just remember
that I am not the one who has said there is a *wrong* god, that was you.
From: petrolcan on
In article <MPG.25364f16fc14300e9898ea(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>,
petrolcan says...
>
> In article <qa6nc5th91ciq204jvt760aeh6rnalsa9a(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
> >
> > Jim Brittin <pedigreeZZZZ(a)ZZZZoperamail.com [wake up to reply]> wrote:
>
> > >> Something just like this:
> > >>
> > >> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/petrolcan/Tokina2035mm?
> > >> authkey=Gv1sRgCJP4sdHUsLXfNg&feat=directlink
> > >>
> > >>It really couldn't be any clearer.
> > >
> > >
> > >Attractive cat, yours?
> >
> > The cat looks like Hitler. No surprise that he would choose it and
> > that you would find it attractive.
>
> Hang on a mo, a few posts ago you were claiming that you couldn't see
> the pictures yet now you have. Not only that you play the race card out
> of nowhere yet again.
>
> Dear old spacker, you could at least *try* to be consistent in your
> lies.

<bad form and all that>

I've also just remembered all those google links I posted that you
claimed weren't working. I guess that was lies too.
From: The Older Gentleman on
petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I've also just remembered all those google links I posted that you
> claimed weren't working. I guess that was lies too.

I see from quoted text we're getting the religious card played, too,
these days. Where on earth did that come from?


--
BMW K1100LT & K100RS Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
From: Fran on

"petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25364e2992355a739898e8(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...

> My contempt for fran is due to the fact that he jumps on your bandwagon
> quite a bit. Its why I have reasoned that you two are in fact the same
> person.
>

Why do you find it incredible that more than one person opposes certain
behaviours?