Viking wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2005 19:08:56 -0700, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>
> >> Read your own post if you can stop the drool enought to do it; you
> >> were chattering on in your usual way about "bitter boys".
> >
> >Are you a bitter boy?  Bitter boys exist dear; they are insecure
little
> >men-toads that want to control women.  If the shoe fits...wear it.
If
> >you are not a bitter boy, no need to feel offended.
>
> Seeing as you call every man around a "bitter boy," that's totally
> ingenuous.

Nonsense; there have been men on this very NG I have not called a
bitter boy.  And in THIS POST I'm talking about bitter pharmacists.  Is
that clear.

>
> >> >> Wrong, you brain-damaged neurotic. How I live my life has
> >everything
> >> >> to do with "prevailing" or not.
> >> >
> >> >Ah, so YOU are a bitter pharmicist?  Because that's what THIS
post
> >is
> >> >about.
> >>
> >> Hyperdung, you're not even rational. Your attack was on men, aka
> >> "Bitter boys". Now you've got this garbage going.
> >
> >The name of the post is not "bitter boys" dearie; it's
"bitter
pharmys"
>
> As usual, being unable to sustain a thought, you took if off-topic
> with your "And you bitter boys are not prevailing." attack.

I can address you bitter boy, without leaving the topic of bitter
pharmys dear.

> Take your own advice, moron:
>
> "The name of the post is not "bitter boys" dearie; it's
"bitter
> pharmys" what is it about male and female pharmacists you don't
> understand?"

Wouldn't it be nice if he were able to follow things?  :-)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 5:00:55 AM ---