XM vs SIRIUS stock - SHUT THE FUCK UP

[John Doe]

http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?pg=ch&symb=XMSR&time=3mo&compidx=aaaaa%7E0&comp=SIRI&ma=0&maval=60&freq=1dy&type=64&uf=0&lf=1&ind_compind=

the stocks are both so close it JUST DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

SHUT THE FUCK UP EVERYONE. THE STOCK MARKET DOESN'T CARE. THIS CHART SAYS
IT ALL.

[John Doe]

http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?pg=ch&symb=XMSR&time=1yr&compidx=aaaaa%7E0&comp=SIRI&ma=0&maval=60&freq=1dy&type=64&uf=0&lf=1&ind_compind=

Oh, but the 1 year chart comparision sheds more light on the subject.

[RUL ®]

Doesn't XM have more than twice the subscribers than Sirius? Sounds like
Sirius is failing very badly considering they have Stern.

[John Doe]

http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?pg=ch&symb=XMSR&time=2yr&compidx=aaaaa%7E0&comp=SIRI&ma=0&maval=60&freq=1dy&type=64&uf=0&lf=1&ind_compind=

Boy, and if you bought stocks two years ago, who'd be happier ?

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> the stocks are both so close it JUST DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
>
> SHUT THE FUCK UP EVERYONE. THE STOCK MARKET DOESN'T CARE. THIS CHART
SAYS
> IT ALL.
>

People who understand what is going on with these two companies don't
believe these stocks SHOULD be "close".

[John Doe]

"RUL ®" <iAMsTUPID@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b5FTf.19$yn4.8@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> Doesn't XM have more than twice the subscribers than Sirius? Sounds like
> Sirius is failing very badly considering they have Stern.
>

Not if you look at the stock history I just posted. Go back 3 years and see
which stock you'd rather have.

Sirius is the clear winning on long term stock ownership. I'd be crying if
I had XM stock.

(I don't own either)

[John Doe]

> People who understand what is going on with these two companies don't
> believe these stocks SHOULD be "close".
>
>

That's the difference between perception and reality. The market doesn't
differ between companies. XM is up today based soley on SIRIUS's good news
on subscription. If XM posts sub-forecast numbers for 2006 SIRIUS will
suffer as well. That's reality.

[Rich]

>>>Boy, and if you bought stocks two years ago, who'd be happier ?

Someone who bought them 3 years earlier.

[Ben \Last of a Dying Breed\ Rand]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:25:37 -0500, "John Doe" <divx1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?pg=ch&symb=XMSR&time=3mo&compidx=aaaaa%7E0&comp=SIRI&ma=0&maval=60&freq=1dy&type=64&uf=0&lf=1&ind_compind=
>
>the stocks are both so close it JUST DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
>
>SHUT THE FUCK UP EVERYONE. THE STOCK MARKET DOESN'T CARE. THIS CHART SAYS
>IT ALL.
>
>


WHAT???

[Hoody]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:31:33 -0500, "John Doe" <divx1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"RUL ®" <iAMsTUPID@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:b5FTf.19$yn4.8@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>> Doesn't XM have more than twice the subscribers than Sirius? Sounds like
>> Sirius is failing very badly considering they have Stern.
>>
>
>Not if you look at the stock history I just posted. Go back 3 years and see
>which stock you'd rather have.
>
>Sirius is the clear winning on long term stock ownership. I'd be crying if
>I had XM stock.
>
>(I don't own either)

Keep being proud of what the stock did 3 years ago.

[Boom]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:28:43 -0500, "RUL ®" <iAMsTUPID@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> Doesn't XM have more than twice the subscribers than Sirius? Sounds like
>Sirius is failing very badly considering they have Stern.

Sirius should have been killed. They were getting trounced by XM.
Within a year they've cut XM's market share lead in half and are on
track to cut it to a third. XM could have buried Sirius for good if
they would have signed Stern, but they dropped the ball and now
they're eating doggie ----.

[Hoody]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:06:43 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:28:43 -0500, "RUL ®" <iAMsTUPID@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't XM have more than twice the subscribers than Sirius? Sounds like
>>Sirius is failing very badly considering they have Stern.
>
>Sirius should have been killed. They were getting trounced by XM.
>Within a year they've cut XM's market share lead in half and are on
>track to cut it to a third. XM could have buried Sirius for good if
>they would have signed Stern, but they dropped the ball and now
>they're eating doggie ----.

Howie saved a sinking ship. He can't keep bailing them out forever.
People subscribing for him peaked over Xmas.

Saying that XM should have spent OVER $500,000,000 to get Howie is
absurd. They saved the 500 mil and are still beating Howie.

[Tim Donohoe]

Hoody wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:06:43 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:28:43 -0500, "RUL ®" <iAMsTUPID@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't XM have more than twice the subscribers than Sirius? Sounds like
>>>Sirius is failing very badly considering they have Stern.
>>
>>Sirius should have been killed. They were getting trounced by XM.
>>Within a year they've cut XM's market share lead in half and are on
>>track to cut it to a third. XM could have buried Sirius for good if
>>they would have signed Stern, but they dropped the ball and now
>>they're eating doggie ----.
>
>
> Howie saved a sinking ship. He can't keep bailing them out forever.
> People subscribing for him peaked over Xmas.
>
> Saying that XM should have spent OVER $500,000,000 to get Howie is
> absurd. They saved the 500 mil and are still beating Howie.

They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
move on their part.

[Hoody]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:49:18 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
wrote:

>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
>move on their part.

Nice Howie math.

They could have saved 92 million by spending 500 million.

[Tim Donohoe]

Hoody wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:49:18 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
>>move on their part.
>
>
> Nice Howie math.
>
> They could have saved 92 million by spending 500 million.

this year, try to be less stupid, I can't explain everything to you.

[Hoody]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:55:29 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
wrote:

>Hoody wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:49:18 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>>>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>>>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
>>>move on their part.
>>
>>
>> Nice Howie math.
>>
>> They could have saved 92 million by spending 500 million.
>
>this year, try to be less stupid, I can't explain everything to you.

So they should have spent 500 million on a has-been DJ to meet the
projected goals that they met without him anyway ? Plus right now
they would have to be putting up with his ego and also be sued becuase
of an affiliaion with him.

Some Revolution.

[Tim Donohoe]

Hoody wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:55:29 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hoody wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:49:18 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>>>>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>>>>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
>>>>move on their part.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nice Howie math.
>>>
>>>They could have saved 92 million by spending 500 million.
>>
>>this year, try to be less stupid, I can't explain everything to you.
>
>
> So they should have spent 500 million on a has-been DJ to meet the
> projected goals that they met without him anyway ? Plus right now
> they would have to be putting up with his ego and also be sued becuase
> of an affiliaion with him.
>
> Some Revolution.

Instead of spending 100 million this year on Howard, they wasted 192
million (in one quarter) advertising and Sirius still gained on them.
They could have saved 92 million and Howard and XM could have wiped
Sirius out this year.

[Boom]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:55:02 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
wrote:

>Hoody wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:55:29 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hoody wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:49:18 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>>>>>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>>>>>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
>>>>>move on their part.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nice Howie math.
>>>>
>>>>They could have saved 92 million by spending 500 million.
>>>
>>>this year, try to be less stupid, I can't explain everything to you.
>>
>>
>> So they should have spent 500 million on a has-been DJ to meet the
>> projected goals that they met without him anyway ? Plus right now
>> they would have to be putting up with his ego and also be sued becuase
>> of an affiliaion with him.
>>
>> Some Revolution.
>
>Instead of spending 100 million this year on Howard, they wasted 192
>million (in one quarter) advertising and Sirius still gained on them.
>They could have saved 92 million and Howard and XM could have wiped
>Sirius out this year.

Goddamn right. Sirius would now be called XM if they had signed
Stern. But like most companies run by idiots, the executives thought
they were bigger than the talent. Now it's a whole new ballgame.
Hugh Panero, you are a dumbass.

[Boom]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:08:57 -0500, Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:55:29 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Hoody wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:49:18 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>>>>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>>>>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
>>>>move on their part.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice Howie math.
>>>
>>> They could have saved 92 million by spending 500 million.
>>
>>this year, try to be less stupid, I can't explain everything to you.
>
>So they should have spent 500 million on a has-been DJ to meet the
>projected goals that they met without him anyway ? Plus right now
>they would have to be putting up with his ego and also be sued becuase
>of an affiliaion with him.
>
>Some Revolution.

Translation:
"I CAN DO THINGS, I'M SMART! NOT DUMB, LIKE EVERYBODY THINKS! I'M
SMART, AND I WANT RESPECT!"

[KK]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:06:43 +0000, Boom wrote:

> but they dropped the ball and now
> they're eating doggie ----.

Right. Now they're ... number 1.

[KK]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:55:02 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:

>
> Instead of spending 100 million this year on Howard, they wasted 192
> million (in one quarter) advertising and Sirius still gained on them.

The convoluted horse---- you douchebags dream up to justify the idiotic
spending on that whiny, out-of-touch, old, douchebag never fails to
entertain.

[NoDownTime@gmail.com]

> They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
> Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
> million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
> move on their part.

Oh, bull----. Where did you get that number? It certainly isn't
accurate or even in the ballpark.

[Rich]

>>Where did you get that number? It certainly isn't accurate or even in the ballpark.

I agree Frontmed, it was closer to $220,000,000.

[NoDownTime@gmail.com]

Rich

You're a fucking ignorant ass and couldn't read a set of financial
statements if your life depended on it. Leave it to the pros.

[Dr. Droo]

NoDownT...@gmail.com wrote:
> You're a fucking ignorant ass and couldn't read a set of financial
> statements if your life depended on it. Leave it to the pros.

I suggest you read "Black Like Me: The New Adventures of Pot and
Kettle".

--D

[Tim Donohoe]

KK wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:55:02 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>
>>Instead of spending 100 million this year on Howard, they wasted 192
>>million (in one quarter) advertising and Sirius still gained on them.
>
>
> The convoluted horse---- you douchebags dream up to justify the idiotic
> spending on that whiny, out-of-touch, old, douchebag never fails to
> entertain.

Sounds like you need some time back at base camp to refuel your empty
head with cloneisms and pestfacts

[Tim Donohoe]

NoDownTime@gmail.com wrote:

>>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely. Bad
>>move on their part.
>
>
> Oh, bull----. Where did you get that number? It certainly isn't
> accurate or even in the ballpark.
>

It is accurate

[ThongSmoker]

"Boom" <mmm@nnn.com> wrote in message
news:6gtu129sh0r8n9uif3jfq7mgn50c5o469q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:55:02 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hoody wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:55:29 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hoody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:49:18 GMT, Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>They spent 192 million of that advertising and trying to compete with
>>>>>>Sirius' announcement that Howard was coming. They could have saved 92
>>>>>>million this year by hiring Howard and wiping Sirius out completely.
>>>>>>Bad
>>>>>>move on their part.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice Howie math.
>>>>>
>>>>>They could have saved 92 million by spending 500 million.
>>>>
>>>>this year, try to be less stupid, I can't explain everything to you.
>>>
>>>
>>> So they should have spent 500 million on a has-been DJ to meet the
>>> projected goals that they met without him anyway ? Plus right now
>>> they would have to be putting up with his ego and also be sued becuase
>>> of an affiliaion with him.
>>>
>>> Some Revolution.
>>
>>Instead of spending 100 million this year on Howard, they wasted 192
>>million (in one quarter) advertising and Sirius still gained on them.
>>They could have saved 92 million and Howard and XM could have wiped
>>Sirius out this year.
>
> Goddamn right. Sirius would now be called XM if they had signed
> Stern. But like most companies run by idiots, the executives thought
> they were bigger than the talent. Now it's a whole new ballgame.
> Hugh Panero, you are a dumbass.
>

Stern is a wshed up has-been

[ThirdNormalForm]

> >
> > Oh, bull----. Where did you get that number? It certainly isn't
> > accurate or even in the ballpark.
> >
>
> It is accurate

No, it is NOT. Yes, they increased Q4 spending to counter Stern. But it was
nowhere near $192M more than their normal spend.

If you don't know WTF you're talking about you're better off not commenting.
People expect it from Rich.

[Tim Donohoe]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:

>>>Oh, bull----. Where did you get that number? It certainly isn't
>>>accurate or even in the ballpark.
>>>
>>
>>It is accurate
>
>
> No, it is NOT. Yes, they increased Q4 spending to counter Stern. But it was
> nowhere near $192M more than their normal spend.
>
> If you don't know WTF you're talking about you're better off not commenting.
> People expect it from Rich.
>
>

They spent 192 million, Sirius spent little more than the 100 - 150
million they paid stern. Sirius gained market share with a smaller
investment. XM blew it.

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> They spent 192 million, Sirius spent little more than the 100 - 150
> million they paid stern. Sirius gained market share with a smaller
> investment. XM blew it.

Sirius didn't take any expense at all for Stern in '05.

I see we have another Siriot onboard...

[Hoody]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:26:49 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:

>>
>> They spent 192 million, Sirius spent little more than the 100 - 150
>> million they paid stern. Sirius gained market share with a smaller
>> investment. XM blew it.
>
>Sirius didn't take any expense at all for Stern in '05.

And now they are getting sued.
Add the legal costs (and possibly more) to that $500 million.
Great move.

[Boom]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:16:57 -0500, Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:26:49 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>> They spent 192 million, Sirius spent little more than the 100 - 150
>>> million they paid stern. Sirius gained market share with a smaller
>>> investment. XM blew it.
>>
>>Sirius didn't take any expense at all for Stern in '05.
>
>And now they are getting sued.
>Add the legal costs (and possibly more) to that $500 million.
>Great move.

That's OK. CBS will reimburse them for their legal fees when they
lose.

[KK]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:50:09 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:

>> The convoluted horse---- you douchebags dream up to justify the idiotic
>> spending on that whiny, out-of-touch, old, douchebag never fails to
>> entertain.
>
> Sounds like you need some time back at base camp to refuel your empty
> head with cloneisms and pestfacts

You're not really claiming that Stern's not a whiny, out-of-touch, old
douchebag, are you?

[Boom]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:29:54 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:50:09 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>>> The convoluted horse---- you douchebags dream up to justify the idiotic
>>> spending on that whiny, out-of-touch, old, douchebag never fails to
>>> entertain.
>>
>> Sounds like you need some time back at base camp to refuel your empty
>> head with cloneisms and pestfacts
>
>You're not really claiming that Stern's not a whiny, out-of-touch, old
>douchebag, are you?

Whiny and old, yes. Out of touch? Yeah, that's why you sit in here
and whine about him constantly. If he's so out of touch and
irrelevant, why are you here, stalker fan?

[KK]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:48:12 +0000, Boom wrote:

> Whiny and old, yes. Out of touch? Yeah, that's why you sit in here
> and whine about him constantly. If he's so out of touch and
> irrelevant, why are you here, stalker fan?

"Stalker" is really sticking with you today, huh? First I'm stalking you,
now Stern?

Let me get this right: If someone is discussed by others, it means
they're not "out of touch"? Even you can see that your "logic" doesn't
make any sense.

[Boom]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:11:07 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:48:12 +0000, Boom wrote:
>
>> Whiny and old, yes. Out of touch? Yeah, that's why you sit in here
>> and whine about him constantly. If he's so out of touch and
>> irrelevant, why are you here, stalker fan?
>
>"Stalker" is really sticking with you today, huh? First I'm stalking you,
>now Stern?

You ARE stalking me. Me and the trees on the lot next to me that have
been gone for two years. I guess the trees are gone because you
scared them away with your scary-ass stalking genius, huh?
Congratulations, you're smarter than trees.

>Let me get this right: If someone is discussed by others, it means
>they're not "out of touch"? Even you can see that your "logic" doesn't
>make any sense.

If someone is out of touch, they are not discussed ad infinitum by the
general public, fans and non-fans alike. YOU are out of touch,
because the big news is Stern, not those obscure AIDS patients you
listen to on XM.

You bore me. Get some new arguments or I'm going to plonk you.

[KK]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:22:41 +0000, Boom wrote:

> Congratulations, you're smarter than trees.

That makes one of us.


>
>>Let me get this right: If someone is discussed by others, it means
>>they're not "out of touch"? Even you can see that your "logic" doesn't
>>make any sense.
>
> If someone is out of touch, they are not discussed ad infinitum by the
> general public, fans and non-fans alike.


Wrong. One has nothing to do with the other. If someone's out of touch,
it's *their* perception that's off. Stern used to live in a house, with a
wife, and kids, and commute to the office.

Now he porks a model twenty years younger than him, he rides his limo all
the way up the elevator, and has his own pet --- comb his pubic hair.
*That* is out of touch. Whether or not people talk about him has no
bearing on his being "in touch" with the outside world.



> YOU are out of touch,

Says Bowser. Goodnight, sweetheart indeed.




> because the big news is Stern, not those obscure AIDS patients you
> listen to on XM.
>
> You bore me. Get some new arguments or I'm going to plonk you.

Go ahead! Do you think I give a ----?

[Tim Donohoe]

KK wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:50:09 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>
>>>The convoluted horse---- you douchebags dream up to justify the idiotic
>>>spending on that whiny, out-of-touch, old, douchebag never fails to
>>>entertain.
>>
>>Sounds like you need some time back at base camp to refuel your empty
>>head with cloneisms and pestfacts
>
>
> You're not really claiming that Stern's not a whiny, out-of-touch, old
> douchebag, are you?

I'm not making any claims at all about Stern, are you now asking me for
permission to make strawman arguments?

[Boom]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:42:31 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

>> YOU are out of touch,
>
>Says Bowser. Goodnight, sweetheart indeed.

You can say all the ---- you want about Bowzer. Doesn't bother me in
the least.

>> because the big news is Stern, not those obscure AIDS patients you
>> listen to on XM.
>>
>> You bore me. Get some new arguments or I'm going to plonk you.
>
>Go ahead! Do you think I give a ----?

Yes, I do.

[KK]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:01:12 +0000, Boom wrote:

>>> You bore me. Get some new arguments or I'm going to plonk you.
>>
>>Go ahead! Do you think I give a ----?
>
> Yes, I do.

Then plonk away. I will continue to make fun of you as a Devo fan who is
*so* fucking stupid as to *intentionally* post his name and address on
USENET while calling people names and threatening them in other newsgroups.

[KK]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:19:02 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:

> KK wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:50:09 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The convoluted horse---- you douchebags dream up to justify the idiotic
>>>>spending on that whiny, out-of-touch, old, douchebag never fails to
>>>>entertain.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you need some time back at base camp to refuel your empty
>>>head with cloneisms and pestfacts
>>
>>
>> You're not really claiming that Stern's not a whiny, out-of-touch, old
>> douchebag, are you?
>
> I'm not making any claims at all about Stern, are you now asking me for
> permission to make strawman arguments?

What, did you discover the word "straw man" yesterday? You know,
everything isn't a straw man argument.

[Tim Donohoe]

KK wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:19:02 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>
>>KK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:50:09 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The convoluted horse---- you douchebags dream up to justify the idiotic
>>>>>spending on that whiny, out-of-touch, old, douchebag never fails to
>>>>>entertain.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like you need some time back at base camp to refuel your empty
>>>>head with cloneisms and pestfacts
>>>
>>>
>>>You're not really claiming that Stern's not a whiny, out-of-touch, old
>>>douchebag, are you?
>>
>>I'm not making any claims at all about Stern, are you now asking me for
>>permission to make strawman arguments?
>
>
> What, did you discover the word "straw man" yesterday? You know,
> everything isn't a straw man argument.
>

Just about everything you say is.

[KK]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:13:27 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:

>> What, did you discover the word "straw man" yesterday? You know,
>> everything isn't a straw man argument.
>>
>
> Just about everything you say is.

It's telling that you can't defend anything you say, and instead rely on
ad hominem replies.

[Tim Donohoe]

KK wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:13:27 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>
>>>What, did you discover the word "straw man" yesterday? You know,
>>>everything isn't a straw man argument.
>>>
>>
>>Just about everything you say is.
>
>
> It's telling that you can't defend anything you say, and instead rely on
> ad hominem replies.
>
>

No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.

[KK]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:40:33 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:

> No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
> idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
> you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.

You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
simpleton.

[Boom]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:05:03 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:40:33 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>> No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
>> idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
>> you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.
>
>You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
>simpleton.

But you ARE a simpleton.

[KK]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:17:28 +0000, Boom wrote:

>>You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
>>simpleton.
>
> But you ARE a simpleton.

I thought you were going to plonk me. And I'll repeat, since you're not
sufficiently embarrassed at your own stump-dumb stupidity:

You posted your real name and address on USENET. You post in a Devo fan
group. Your name is "Boom". You're a grown man with children but no job.

You are therefore not qualified to call *anyone* a simpleton.

[j?w?Tch]

----------------------------------------------------

"KK" <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.24.21.04.42.140558@furburger.net...
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:40:33 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>> No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
>> idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
>> you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.
>
> You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
> simpleton.

They can't answer questions on the weekends while the puppet master is away
in the Hamptons ..

[Tim Donohoe]

KK wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:40:33 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>
>>No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
>>idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
>>you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.
>
>
> You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
> simpleton.

I can answer any question, you just never understand the answers because
you are a simpleton.

[Ricky Ticket]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:05:03 -0500, KK wrote
(in message <pan.2006.03.24.21.04.42.140558@furburger.net>):

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:40:33 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>> No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
>> idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
>> you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.
>
> You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
> simpleton.

He can answer, he just can't do it without mentioning O&A. ;o)

--
"Yeah, I overreacted a little to someone blabbing my wife and parents' name
all over the internet." --Boom (explaining his most recent meltdown)

[Ricky Ticket]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:41:47 -0500, Tim Donohoe wrote
(in message <vd1Vf.1740$TV1.1586@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>):

> KK wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:40:33 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
>>> idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
>>> you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.
>>
>>
>> You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
>> simpleton.
>
> I can answer any question,

As long as "scientology" is in the answer. :D



--
"Yeah, I overreacted a little to someone blabbing my wife and parents' name
all over the internet." --Boom (explaining his most recent meltdown)

[Tim Donohoe]

Ricky Ticket wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:41:47 -0500, Tim Donohoe wrote
> (in message <vd1Vf.1740$TV1.1586@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>):
>
>
>>KK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:40:33 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No it is you purposely misunderstanding every idea so you can argue an
>>>>idea that you made up yourself (one that the clones have already given
>>>>you an answer for, I'm guessing) It is the tactic of a simpleton.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can't answer a simple fucking question - so don't call *me* a
>>>simpleton.
>>
>>I can answer any question,
>
>
> As long as "scientology" is in the answer. :D
>
>
>

ADD? or just very stupid? I am guessing a lot of both.