What's really wrong with Fanboys

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam Albright
  • Start date Start date
In article <e#iTR6GyIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
xfile <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>I didn't bother to read you codes since your logics are clearly flawed so
>the codes won't be anything better.
>


You want logic? Try this, pinhead.

Included context is either necessary to understand new comments
or it is not. If included context is necessary and it is attached AFTER
the new comments then the reader will NOT understand the new comments since
she has NOT seen the included context. If included context is NOT necessary
then why are you including it at all?

Therefore, the only logical order is to attach included context and
then FOLLOW that included context with new comments.

Top posters suck.
 
>If included context is necessary and it is attached AFTER
> the new comments then the reader will NOT understand the new comments
> since
> she has NOT seen the included context.


Your assumption is only valid when the person(s) jumped to the message or
post without reading previous one(s) which is just ONE scenario and not a
normal one out of the many in the real life.

I guess that is the base and logic when you design software )

You come up one scenario and determine it is the ONLY one and provide ONLY
ONE solution and demand the whole world to use that solution based on your
limited views.

Also, I was reluctant to mention but since you asked for it..

> I absolutely HATE those assinine 200 page Outlook emails [...]


200-page emails using Outlook or any other email client shouldn't happen in
the first place. Please ask your management or yourself to understand what
means by effective communication and how to conduct proper email
communications. The incompetency of your work environment, as also
demonstrated by your choice of words, does not necessary represent the rest
of the world.

Have a good day and I certainly let you have the last words :)


"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g2fil2$va$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <e#iTR6GyIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> xfile <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>I didn't bother to read you codes since your logics are clearly flawed so
>>the codes won't be anything better.
>>

>
> You want logic? Try this, pinhead.
>
> Included context is either necessary to understand new comments
> or it is not. If included context is necessary and it is attached AFTER
> the new comments then the reader will NOT understand the new comments
> since
> she has NOT seen the included context. If included context is NOT
> necessary
> then why are you including it at all?
>
> Therefore, the only logical order is to attach included context and
> then FOLLOW that included context with new comments.
>
> Top posters suck.
>
 
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:36:16 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:

>>If included context is necessary and it is attached AFTER
>> the new comments then the reader will NOT understand the new comments
>> since
>> she has NOT seen the included context.

>
>Your assumption is only valid when the person(s) jumped to the message or
>post without reading previous one(s) which is just ONE scenario and not a
>normal one out of the many in the real life.


It would be simpler if you just admit you are a typical no nothing top
posting jackass. The "adult" equivalent of snotty nose, little baby
with spittle running down it's chin not getting its way and thinking
having another temper tantrum bawling his eyes out will get him/her
the attention you desperately crave.

You see it is abundantly clear if some unimportant loser like you
followed normal rules of etiquette you would be fearful whatever
mindless crap you wanted to say would more likely than not skipped
over if you placed it at the bottom of the stack verse the top which
you naturally feel is the rightful place for whatever slop you wrote.

Heck if you can't follow rules, lack common sense, prefer to just be
noticed such poor behavior seems to work for Frank, this newsgroup's
resident ding dong. So go ahead, just continue to play the role of a
fool, it will guarantee you a small degree of notoriety which seems to
be what you're really looking for. However you should be aware no
matter how goofy you act it will most often get lost among the other
kook's antics that call this place home.

Meanwhile the adult world will pass you by little noting or caring
what another hot head, non conformist smart ass needs to do for
self-gratification ignoring rules established long along for proper
writing before anyone thought of newsgroups. Because as hard as you
and other top posters try to make top posting an acceptable
alternative all you're really doing is screaming I'm a jackass, that
doesn't give a rat's ass about anybody, hey look at me.
 
Re: What's really wrong with mr drunken pig...!

By PowerUser:
"Licentious. Obnoxious. Anti-democratic. In case you can't tell, I'm
making a direct reference to Mr. Adam Albright. Before I launch into my
main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) Failure to
recognize this salient point will result in Adam's getting free reign to
enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth, and (2) as a result of
that, my observations are perhaps unique. Now that you know where I
stand on those issues, I can safely say that wily cutthroats like Adam
are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may
be, Adam acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is
astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. He truly believes that he
defends the real needs of the working class. It is just such
counter-productive megalomania, muddleheaded egoism, and intellectual
aberrancy that stirs Adam to carve out space in the mainstream for
ungrateful politics.

I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that
Adam and his gofers are wolves in sheep's clothing who will create
profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue
eventually, and the second is that the justification he gave for seeking
to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of
their character was one of the most addlepated justifications I've ever
heard. It was so addlepated, in fact, that I will not repeat it here.
Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite
clearly: Adam keeps telling everyone within earshot that honesty and
responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. I'm
guessing that Adam read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More
reliable sources generally indicate that he isn't as smart as he thinks
he is. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to
Adam. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll
find that if he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit
that he has no evidence or examples to back up his point. Still, I
recommend you check out some of his commentaries and draw your own
conclusions on the matter. Adam teaches workshops on clericalism.
Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist
re-education camp. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to
repeat it. Of course, if Adam had learned anything from history, he'd
know that I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that
proposes that we ought to worship feckless mountebanks as folk heroes.
It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.


We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic
principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the
most self-satisfied spouters I've ever seen to compose paeans to
irrationalism. Didn't Adam tell his comrades that he wants to make
people suspicious of those who speak the truth? Did he first give any
thought to what would happen if he did? Of course, that question is
ridiculous -- as ridiculous as his gormless platitudes. None but the
grotesque can deny that he says that the sun rises just for him. What he
means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to threaten the
existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. I understand
that I become truly impatient with people who refuse to recognize the
key role that he is playing in the destruction of our civilization, but
from the fog and mist of his disquisitions rises the leering grimace of
nihilism. An equal but opposite observation is that I and Adam part
company when it comes to the issue of quislingism. He feels that
those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness,
should be shunned, should starve, while I suspect that he needs to stop
living in a fool's paradise. But there's the rub his idea of mutinous
autism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of
hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of
an irascible blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a doctrinaire and pagan
religion that incites its worshipers to an infernal frenzy and then
prompts them to precipitate riots.


Adam does not merely undermine the current world order. He does so
consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. His undertakings
were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing
for the "innocents". Rather, someone has been giving Adam's brain a very
thorough washing, and now Adam is trying to do the same to us. Several
things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement
of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something
to the effect of how he is a refined gentleman with the soundest
education and morals you can imagine. Forgive me for boring you with all
the gory details, but Adam's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least
discerning among us can see right through it.


It's easy to tell if Adam's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.
Although Adam demonstrates a great deal of ignorance and presumption
when he says that he commands an army of robots that live in the hollow
center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like
shaking things up a bit on the surface, the fact remains that in order
to convince us that he has the authority to issue licenses for
practicing heathenism, Adam often turns to the old propagandist trick of
comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Now that
you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a complete
surprise that there can be no argument that when I first realized that
Mr. Adam Albright is a proponent of "paternalism" -- a term Adam uses
catachrestically in place of "Pyrrhonism" -- a cold shudder ran down my
back. However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the
words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would violate
the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. I am referring, of
course, to the likes of Adam Albright."

Want to read more about this failed drunken accountant and big mouth
lying pig?
For your reading pleasure!

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tYag3woAAABrYFiZuwWGCKzw8oMmJKS7

Enjoy!
I know I did!...LOL!
Frank
 
Re: What's really wrong with mr drunken pig...!

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:24:39 +0200, Alias
<iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote:

>What is it with the MS fanboys and sheep?


Sheep are traditionally seen as docile, low intelligent, heard
animals. That fits with fanboys. We all know they're sure dumb, their
bark is worse then their bite and they all think alike... willingly
and easily being brainwashed following the pied piper Ballmer off the
cliff.

Here we have a dog easily corralling a few wayward sheep. Left to
right they're named Bill, Frank, SpankydeMonkey and Donald.

http://www.eyeonkansas.org/images/northwest/osborne/0603RoweWorkingDog.jpg
 
:)

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:nekn44hmis9h1usl237gc16kko226thbpc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:36:16 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>If included context is necessary and it is attached AFTER
>>> the new comments then the reader will NOT understand the new comments
>>> since
>>> she has NOT seen the included context.

>>
>>Your assumption is only valid when the person(s) jumped to the message or
>>post without reading previous one(s) which is just ONE scenario and not a
>>normal one out of the many in the real life.

>
> It would be simpler if you just admit you are a typical no nothing top
> posting jackass. The "adult" equivalent of snotty nose, little baby
> with spittle running down it's chin not getting its way and thinking
> having another temper tantrum bawling his eyes out will get him/her
> the attention you desperately crave.
>
> You see it is abundantly clear if some unimportant loser like you
> followed normal rules of etiquette you would be fearful whatever
> mindless crap you wanted to say would more likely than not skipped
> over if you placed it at the bottom of the stack verse the top which
> you naturally feel is the rightful place for whatever slop you wrote.
>
> Heck if you can't follow rules, lack common sense, prefer to just be
> noticed such poor behavior seems to work for Frank, this newsgroup's
> resident ding dong. So go ahead, just continue to play the role of a
> fool, it will guarantee you a small degree of notoriety which seems to
> be what you're really looking for. However you should be aware no
> matter how goofy you act it will most often get lost among the other
> kook's antics that call this place home.
>
> Meanwhile the adult world will pass you by little noting or caring
> what another hot head, non conformist smart ass needs to do for
> self-gratification ignoring rules established long along for proper
> writing before anyone thought of newsgroups. Because as hard as you
> and other top posters try to make top posting an acceptable
> alternative all you're really doing is screaming I'm a jackass, that
> doesn't give a rat's ass about anybody, hey look at me.
>
 
Adam,

You wrote four paragraphs for something Frank could have done it with one
sentence :)

> It would be simpler if you just admit you are a typical no nothing top
> posting jackass.


It would be simpler for you since you have no counter argument but still
want to insult. I understand that :)

> Heck if you can't follow rules, [...]


When a person has nothing to add except repeating that this is a rule, this
person has already lost the argument, or he/she could elaborate for why the
rules have been defined, under what circumstances, and for what expected
results. In addition, this person will provide if those circumstances are
still valid so those rules may or may not apply.

I understand that it's a bit difficult for you, so all you can say is, it's
a rule. I understand that also :)

> Meanwhile the adult world will pass you by little noting or caring
> what another hot head, [...]


Actually, an adult will be mature and considerate enough to adjust for the
best possible results based on then circumstance, even that is not always
possible. An immature person (hint: like you) will insist that there is
only one way. I also understand that :)

If you have nothing to add but wish to insult, use one sentence is
sufficient enough :)



"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:nekn44hmis9h1usl237gc16kko226thbpc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:36:16 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>If included context is necessary and it is attached AFTER
>>> the new comments then the reader will NOT understand the new comments
>>> since
>>> she has NOT seen the included context.

>>
>>Your assumption is only valid when the person(s) jumped to the message or
>>post without reading previous one(s) which is just ONE scenario and not a
>>normal one out of the many in the real life.

>
> It would be simpler if you just admit you are a typical no nothing top
> posting jackass. The "adult" equivalent of snotty nose, little baby
> with spittle running down it's chin not getting its way and thinking
> having another temper tantrum bawling his eyes out will get him/her
> the attention you desperately crave.
>
> You see it is abundantly clear if some unimportant loser like you
> followed normal rules of etiquette you would be fearful whatever
> mindless crap you wanted to say would more likely than not skipped
> over if you placed it at the bottom of the stack verse the top which
> you naturally feel is the rightful place for whatever slop you wrote.
>
> Heck if you can't follow rules, lack common sense, prefer to just be
> noticed such poor behavior seems to work for Frank, this newsgroup's
> resident ding dong. So go ahead, just continue to play the role of a
> fool, it will guarantee you a small degree of notoriety which seems to
> be what you're really looking for. However you should be aware no
> matter how goofy you act it will most often get lost among the other
> kook's antics that call this place home.
>
> Meanwhile the adult world will pass you by little noting or caring
> what another hot head, non conformist smart ass needs to do for
> self-gratification ignoring rules established long along for proper
> writing before anyone thought of newsgroups. Because as hard as you
> and other top posters try to make top posting an acceptable
> alternative all you're really doing is screaming I'm a jackass, that
> doesn't give a rat's ass about anybody, hey look at me.
>
 
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 04:27:01 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:

>Adam,
>
>You wrote four paragraphs for something Frank could have done it with one
>sentence :)
>
>> It would be simpler if you just admit you are a typical no nothing top
>> posting jackass.

>
>It would be simpler for you since you have no counter argument but still
>want to insult. I understand that :)


Oh, you want brevity? OK, you just did it again. Thanks for proving my
point.
 
On Jun 6, 9:03 pm, Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:44:28 -0700 (PDT), spankydemon...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 6, 5:38 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In future, when using the word "bandwidth," please abbreviate it as
> >> "bndwth," thereby saving precious bndwth.

>
> >> Thnks.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> >That is an excellent idea. We need to save bndwth.  Now if we could
> >only get rid of Adam Albright!  That would save billions and billions
> >of bits.

>
> You being some idiot that spends a lot of time spanking the monkey
> (that's engaging is excessive masturbation for those that don't know),
> if I was the idiot you are I'd be more worried about all the billions
> and billions of brain cells you obviously already lost.


Funny you mention billions and billions of brain cells. Obviously you
wouldn't know about that. You only have about 200 left and most of
them are severly handicapped.
 
Back
Top