🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:01:46 -0800, Bret Ripley <rip...@olywa.net>
wrote:

>In article <0jmm7vs6tpe8ap78h...@4ax.com>, 
>br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:50:18 -0800, Bret Ripley <rip...@olywa.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <8o5m7vkih0pbgdbs3...@4ax.com>, 
>> >br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk says...
>> >> On 20 Mar 2003 23:25:09 -0800, bdu_maj...@hotmail.com (MajorFreak)
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >> > You have way too much time on . . .
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > OH NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo................................!
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Another one for the FAQ?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Bret
>> >> >
>> >> >that's right, bitch, bump a pimp of my favorite game one more time.
>> >> 
>> >> Why is it, that even though Major uses the same language as me I never
>> >> understand a word of what he says? Is it just me? Could somebody start
>> >> translating this stuff because i'm sure it's all worthy comment.
>> >
>> >Boy, I sure wish I could help you, br d, but I can't make any sense of 
>> >it either.  Maybe he's speaking Canadananadian?
>> >
>> >As we know, Canadananians are closet Francophiles.  So, I babel-fished 
>> >his quote into French and then back into English.  Here is the result:
>> >
>> >"it is exact, bitch, strike an upholder of my play preferred more 
>> >once." 
>> >
>> >In short, the only thing that seems clear is that Major apparently 
>> >called me a bitch.  The rest is a crap-shoot.
>> >
>> >I don't believe I have ever been referred to as "bitch" before, and I 
>> >don't wish to break etiquette.  Anyway, I am now formulating a measured 
>> >response.  At first I was partial to being "incensed," but now I may be 
>> >leaning towards "righteous indignation."  Anyway, suggestions are most 
>> >welcome.
>> 
>> Courteously deferential?
>
>I thought that was an automobile part.
>
>> Laconically indifferent?
>
>That would be an easy out -- I usually start each day that way anyway.
>
>> Incandescently heterophenominalogical?
>
>Are you Canadian too?
>
>> I think you may be woofing up the wrong sapling anyway, I think
>> calling you a bitch means he fancies you.
>
>Oh.  So perhaps a "Thank You" card is in order?  Or is that too 
>impersonal?

We'll never know will we, because whatever your approach it's unlikely
we'll  understand the reply. The whole things pointless, empty and
hollow, it carries a certain Camusian quality about it.
Call it off Bret, your precious time would be better spent insulting
Zan or Lemming, at least they can occasionally string together a
coherent sentence.

br d