Re: Welcome to the Big Time, Bourdais

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:06:08 -0600, "." <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>"Mike P" <privacy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:64a457F2atirmU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "." <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:5APDj.32258$yk5.14864@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > "Mike P" <privacy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> > news:649d76F2a86dlU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> <big snip to make this more readable
>> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I suspect you will counter that by saying that Seabass never
beat
>> >> >> > anyone
>> >> >> > good in Champcar... which is just the same as AGR in the IRL
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Mike P
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Wow, what a truly pathetic attempt at a rebuttal, and it
>> >> > only took two attempts and at least an hour and forty
>> >> > six minutes at that. Btw, I don't remember Wendlinger
>> >> > being all that fat or whining (the one thing that chumps
>> >> > truly are champions at).
>> >>
>> >> Unlike you Mr Dot, I have a life outside usenet, hence it took me so
>long
>> > to
>> >> reply.
>> >
>> > That's of course total crap and meant as a dodge, you're
>> > an exceptionally egregious and failed bull**** artist. The
>> > "big snip" was of course a pathetic attempt to conceal
>> > that glaringly conspicuous fact, which of course also
>> > miserably failed.
>> >
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.s****t.cart/msg/c716dcd1694d8211
>> >
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.s****t.cart/msg/fc65106c44eb3e93
>> > You know goddamned good and well that you had
>> > already responded to that post and that it took you
>> > nearly two hours to conceive and compose even
>> > more of your inimitable (then again, who'd want to
>> > copy it) brand of deception in another reply.about
>> > it. Just who in the hell do you think you're kidding?
>>
>>
>> Oddly, I have no idea what the **** you are on about.
>
>I don't find it at all odd that someone who doesn't know what
>the **** he's talking about has a reading comprehension problem.
>
>>23:04 UK time, I
>>went
>> to bed shortly after. With my wife. You know, a woman!! Have you seen
>> one?ever? 8:35am UK time, I'm having breakfast, and just decided to see
>what
>> ****e you had come up with. The usual repetetive toss by the looks of
>> things.
>>
>> As far as I can see, the snip was to make it easier to read. My
newsreader
>> keeps things in threads, I just got sick of reading down it.
>
>Really?! That unable to read and accurately interpret the
>spoonfed google links I provided are you?
>
>The earlier:
>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:05:19 -0600
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.s****t.cart/msg/32b5cdeda0f74b97
>
>Your reply:
>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:18:04 -0000
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.s****t.cart/msg/c716dcd1694d8211
>
>Your next reply nearly two hours later to the very same
>post with absolutely nothing whatsoever newly appended,
>prepended or in any manner edited by me or anyone else
>in the interim:
>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:04:52 -0000
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.s****t.cart/msg/fc65106c44eb3e93
>
>> If you are so
>> sad as to still use google groups, that's not my problem.
>
>If you could successfully read and interpret headers, you'd
>realize that I don't use google groups either for reading or
>replying to posts. Now see if you can go and figure out
>that which wouldn't begin to flummox a retarded 10 year
>old in a hurry.
>
>There, is that now sufficient spoonfeeding or will baby
>bull**** artist require even more (that he won't receive)?
>
>Again, just who in the hell is it that you think you're kidding?
>
When was the last year you had an original thought?