Viking wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2005 14:05:39 -0700, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>
> >> When you start calling names and say men aren't "prevailing,"
> >> insulting them with names, then, yes, I take an attack as an
attack.
> >>
> >What are you on about?  I wasn't calling you a name.  In fact, I
wasn't
> >calling men a name either since women are also pharmys.  :-)
>
> 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.
>
> >> 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"
what is it about male and female pharmacists you don't understand?

 Then you start> thinking everyone has to be a pharmacist! Jesus, what
is your mental> issue??? What you NEED is a pharmacist.

You are the one with the issues, nutter.  I was ONLY talking about
pharmacists who are bitter; you're too stupid to be a pharmacist so
obviously, it doesn't apply to you.  You're just stupid all on your
own.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 1:00:47 AM ---