Yes, RAB is dead

Apocalypto has been out two weeks and we have yet to have one question
like:

"Does anyone know where I can get images of the tattoos from
Apocalypto? I've been wanting a tattoo all my life and wanted to get
one that had meaning to me.

Please e-mail your response to loser@aolme.com (yank me to reply)"

or

"I want to have a mid-nose piercing just like the guys in Apocalypto.
Where can I get one done?"

Yes, RAB is dead.

Kavin

KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
Kgc> Apocalypto has been out two weeks and we have yet to have one question
Kgc> like:
Kgc> "Does anyone know where I can get images of the tattoos from
Kgc> Apocalypto? I've been wanting a tattoo all my life and wanted to get
Kgc> one that had meaning to me.
Kgc> or
Kgc> "I want to have a mid-nose piercing just like the guys in Apocalypto.
Kgc> Where can I get one done?"

you won't get those questions, kav. waaaaay too few spelling &
punctuation errors. plus politeness!

all you've proved is that the old, smarter rab is dead. you know,
the one that existed before every dumbshit with a web browser could
access usenet.

lish "who the hell are you
crank@got.net & why are you talking to me?" -pm
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
[...]

> <snip> the old, smarter rab is dead. you
> know, the one that existed before every dumbshit
> with a web browser could access usenet.

You mean so-called dumbshits like Jon aka jau204 and seemingly
countless others who've received "the old, smarter rab" treatment?

Right.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> [...]
>
>> <snip> the old, smarter rab is dead. you
>> know, the one that existed before every dumbshit
>> with a web browser could access usenet.
>
> You mean so-called dumbshits like Jon aka jau204 and seemingly
> countless others who've received "the old, smarter rab" treatment?
>
> Right.
>

She means you.




-----yttrx



--
http://www.yttrx.net

Curt James wrote:
> i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> [...]
>
ity> > <snip> the old, smarter rab is dead. you
ity> > know, the one that existed before every dumbshit
ity> > with a web browser could access usenet.

<snip>

Curt, she didn't really need your reply to prove her point.

But thanks anyway. You really are so helpful.


Kavin

<KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166795026.982343.129550@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Curt James wrote:
> > i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> ity> > <snip> the old, smarter rab is dead. you
> ity> > know, the one that existed before every dumbshit
> ity> > with a web browser could access usenet.
>
> <snip>
>
> Curt, she didn't really need your reply to prove her point.
>
> But thanks anyway. You really are so helpful.
>
>
> Kavin
>
Bwaaahahahaha

Curt James wrote:
> i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> [...]
>
ity> > <snip> the old, smarter rab is dead. you
ity> > know, the one that existed before every dumbshit
ity> > with a web browser could access usenet.
>
cj> You mean so-called dumbshits like Jon aka jau204 and seemingly
cj> countless others who've received "the old, smarter rab" treatment?
>
cj> Right.

Yeah, Curt, she meant RAB changed two weeks ago. Way to make YOUR
point.


Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
> > i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> ity> > <snip> the old, smarter rab is dead. you
> ity> > know, the one that existed before every dumbshit
> ity> > with a web browser could access usenet.

> cj> You mean so-called dumbshits like Jon aka jau204
> cj> and seemingly countless others
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> cj> who've received "the old, smarter rab" treatment?
> >
> cj> Right.
>
> Yeah, Curt, she meant RAB changed two weeks ago.
> Way to make YOUR point.

Kavin, you're really not very good at this.

The words "and seeming countless others" would, oh, just maaaaaybe,
indicate a time factor that exceeds a two-week limitation.

You feeling okay? Take a shot with another volleyball recently?

> Kavin

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James wrote:

> The words "and seeming countless others" would, oh, just maaaaaybe,
> indicate a time factor that exceeds a two-week limitation.

So you ask people "Didn't I see you and seemingly countless others?"
when you're asking if you've seen them maybe a few years ago.

A few others would be, what, 6 months ago?

A room full of people could be a century?

Poor usage on your part. Just admit it.

You should brush up on your 7-week journalism course work.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
>
> > The words "and seeming countless others" would, oh,
> > just maaaaaybe, indicate a time factor that exceeds a
> > two-week limitation.
>
> So you ask people

Why your underoos are in a bunch?

Nah, I don't really care, Kavin.

[...]

> Poor usage on your part.

Poor comprehension on your part.

Hth. You know, with that whole unconscious incompetence thing you've
got going on.

> Just admit it.

Unnecessary.

Can you count?

How do you define seeming or seemingly countless others? Five posters,
ten? Sheesh, Kavvy, you're saying you can't count at all?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps unwisely, and state
that, yes, you recognize, or can count to, say, one thousand as a good
ball park figure. I've been around for, what, eight, nine years? A few
years away, but from initial hello to current day there've been a
number of visitors to this newsgroup, right? Nevertheless, you're
talking about two weeks to cover my mention of seeingly countless
others? HA!

Again, can you count?

There've been about 170 posts this month. Is that the definition that
you'd characterize as "seemingly countless others," Kavin? A
buck-seventy?

Right.

> You should brush up on your 7-week journalism course work.

Here's something I just read, Kavin. Yes, long after my Navy journalism
course work was completed.

"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean
you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
Edward R. Murrow

Again, thought that might help you wrt that unconscious incompetence
thing you're so obviously troubled by.

Consider it an early Christmas gift. ;o)

> Kavin

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James wrote:

<snipped all>

Here's my present to you:

Verbosity does not equal veracity.

Kavin

Curt James wrote:

> Why your underoos are in a bunch?
>
> Nah, I don't really care, Kavin.

For someone who really doesn't care about Kavin's 'underoos':

Curt James wrote:
>Still, and, yeah, again, your underoos-inna-bunch-edness

Curt James wrote:
>What, that your underoos are in a bunch? I'll pass.

Curt James wrote:
>Still, and, yeah, again, your underoos-inna-bunch-edness

Curt James wrote:
>Because yer underoos are in a bunch.

Curt James wrote:
>I mean other than your underoos all inna bunch again?

Curt James wrote:
>Yer cute when your underoos are inna bunch, Kavvy

Curt James wrote:
>Pull your underoos out of your ever-so-tightly-clenched CRACK!

Curt James wrote:
>seemingly panties-inna-bunch impaired

Curt James wrote:
> Your panties are in a bunch.

Curt James wrote:
>Panties... in... a... bunch.

Curt James wrote:
>Some have their panties in a bunch

Curt James wrote:
> Funny, too, how your panties are all inna bunch. ;o)

Curt James wrote:
>your current seemingly panties-in-a-bunch state?

Curt James wrote:
>your panties are in a bunch about SOMETHING

Curt James wrote:
>I mean, your panties, tighty whities, underoos, boxers, what-have-you always seem in a bit of a bunch

Curt James wrote:
>a word that's often gotten panties in a bunch

Curt James wrote:
>heh Kavin's panties were often in a bunch

Curt James wrote:
>Ray's panties are inna bunch.

Curt James wrote:
>how long until your panties fall out of that bunch they're in?

Curt James wrote:
>So, you're wearing panties? Cool. I've worn them on my head.

Curt James wrote:
>A real panties-in-a-bunch

... you really can't shut up about them (and several other people on
RAB, too, by the look of it).

But of course:

Curt James wrote:
>their panties and however much they're in a bunch are not my concern.


--

scandump@gmail.com wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
>
> > Why your underoos are in a bunch?
> >
> > Nah, I don't really care, Kavin.
>
> For someone who really doesn't care about
> Kavin's 'underoos':

I don't.

However, choosing to - more often than not - avoid name calling and
cursing, hey, I'm left with the underoos. Meh.

> Curt James wrote:
> >Still, and, yeah, again, your underoos-inna-
> >bunch-edness
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >What, that your underoos are in a bunch?
> >I'll pass.
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >Still, and, yeah, again, your underoos-inna-
> >bunch-edness
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >Because yer underoos are in a bunch.
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >I mean other than your underoos all inna bunch
> >again?
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >Yer cute when your underoos are inna bunch,
> >Kavvy
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >Pull your underoos out of your ever-so-tightly-
> >clenched CRACK!
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >seemingly panties-inna-bunch impaired
>
> Curt James wrote:
> > Your panties are in a bunch.
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >Panties... in... a... bunch.
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >Some have their panties in a bunch
>
> Curt James wrote:
> > Funny, too, how your panties are all
> > inna bunch. ;o)
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >your current seemingly panties-in-a-
> >bunch state?
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >your panties are in a bunch about
> >SOMETHING
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >I mean, your panties, tighty whities,
> >underoos, boxers, what-have-you always
> >seem in a bit of a bunch
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >a word that's often gotten panties in a
> >bunch
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >heh Kavin's panties were often in a
> >bunch
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >Ray's panties are inna bunch.
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >how long until your panties fall out of that
> >bunch they're in?
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >So, you're wearing panties? Cool. I've
> >worn them on my head.

Ha ha! That one was from about two years ago. Sweet. Saturday, January
29, 2005.

> Curt James wrote:
> >A real panties-in-a-bunch
>
> .. you really can't shut up about them (and
> several other people on RAB, too, by the
> look of it).

Did your search string include panties or bunch? ;o)

> But of course:
>
> Curt James wrote:
> >their panties and however much they're in
> >a bunch are not my concern.

Naturally.

Thanks for the retrospective, scandump. How'd this one not make the
list?

"CALLING DOCTOR LOOOOOOVE!!!!! Stat! There's a patient here with their
panties in a bunch." From:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...8de92dea276614

And proving that panties in a bunch can be used in a variety of ways:

"Also, FAQs and her = lightning rod of disapproval around this
newsgroup. A real panties-in-a-bunch topic."

Say, if your search string had been _curt, bunch_ then, perhaps
you'd've noticed the following:

Art critics don't know everything. What you have
on your arm is a work of art whether it meets a
technician's standards or not.

There will always be someone out there with a tattoo
that has straighter lines, brighter colors, a more
realistic rendering, but this fact does not negate
or make less the beauty of the tattoo that you, he,
she, your pet, or other is wearing.

Ray's mention of a starter tattoo is wonderful, but
the line blurs, for me, when it comes to what is to
be considered professional or not.

Art is subjective and ever will be. What you like I
may detest and the other way around, of course.

Learn, but don't lose sight of what you enjoy and
the art that appeals to you rather than the art
you're told is somehow better.

It's unnecessary for any panties or boxers to rise
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
into a bunch. This is my opinion and by offering it
I'm not stating that anyone else's opinion is to be
ignored or discounted. /From:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...8c0bd462de7529

Panties OR boxers. Hey, I'm lingerie inclusive.

Btw, what's YOUR definition of happiness?

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
>
> <snipped all>

Redundant much, Kav? I mean, it's fairly clear that it's all been
snipped. D'OH! Of course, as with "seemingly countless others"
elsewhere, you, apparently, need things spelled out for you.

> Here's my present to you:

Ah!!! My not-so-secret Santa!

> Verbosity does not equal veracity.

True, however, it doesn't automatically negate it either.

> Kavin

Merry Christmas, big guy. Win some loot in Biloxi. Perhaps it'll
improve your disposition.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James wrote:
> Kavin Taylor wrote:

kt(or is this redundant? I mean, almost anyone who's used usenet can
probably follow the pattern)> > Verbosity does not equal veracity.
>
cj> True, however, it doesn't automatically negate it either.

In your case, it does. Almost always.


cj> Merry Christmas, big guy. Win some loot in Biloxi. Perhaps it'll
cj> improve your disposition.

Yeah, Curt, that's how it works. People pointing out your mistakes
means they "have their underoos in a bunch." But, again you are wrong.
And lots of time will agree with me.


Kavin