AlpineK Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Martlet sidestepped a comment I made in another thread. I hear Martlet voted for Clinton; at least that's what IG told me. If this is true then Martlet gets my vote for the two faced piece of shit of the year award. ...that isn't a bad thing IMO. Quote
Distel32 Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 his name is also on the donated to Kerry list..... Quote
scott_harpell Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 No... It means he is not a bipartisan slave jerk-off and has a mind of his own rather than the collective mind of your typical Seattle dem or your Mississippi repub. Methinks that is a good thing. Quote
Beck Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 martlet is someone's alter-avatar, methinks... what a ballbuster! Quote
klenke Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 I know some facts on Martlet, but why divulge them here and ruin the fun? Martlet won't have time to vote because he'll be too busy spraying here (if 330 posts in 12 days is any indication). Quote
Dru Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 330 posts in 12 days? why that's only about 29 posts a day, anyone can run up a tally like that Quote
klenke Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Dudes, I post maybe 6 times a day on average (depending on the day) and feel like I'm posting too much. Multiply that by 5 and it's basically five times as long...is it not? It's not just about posting. It's also about monitoring the threads you've posted in, reading responses, scanning new threads, looking at the gallery, and so on. For every post, there's probably twice as much time required. So, for one post that took five minutes to write, it takes an additional five minutes to monitor and read responses in it (the thread in question). And I'm not even talking about the downtime doing nothing just waiting for someone to respond (especially when you know they will). Yes sir, 18000 posts --> I can only imagine the number of hours Dru has spent staring at this website. YOU are so suck. Quote
Martlet Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Dudes, I post maybe 6 times a day on average (depending on the day) and feel like I'm posting too much. Multiply that by 5 and it's basically five times as long...is it not? It's not just about posting. It's also about monitoring the threads you've posted in, reading responses, scanning new threads, looking at the gallery, and so on. For every post, there's probably twice as much time required. So, for one post that took five minutes to write, it takes an additional five minutes to monitor and read responses in it (the thread in question). And I'm not even talking about the downtime doing nothing just waiting for someone to respond (especially when you know they will). Yes sir, 18000 posts --> I can only imagine the number of hours Dru has spent staring at this website. YOU are so suck. It just takes you 5 times as long to read and form a thought as it does me. Quote
klenke Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Agreed. I'm one of the dumbest, most slow-witted posters here. I use to be smart and quick on the wit, but that was before 7/03/01. Quote
Martlet Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Martlet sidestepped a comment I made in another thread. I hear Martlet voted for Clinton; at least that's what IG told me. If this is true then Martlet gets my vote for the two faced piece of shit of the year award. ...that isn't a bad thing IMO. Quote
AlpineK Posted May 17, 2004 Author Posted May 17, 2004 You spend all day on the internet doing crap like this I'm impressed...no really I am Quote
Martlet Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 I figured since you spend all day thinking up things to write about me when you get back from the soup kitchen, the least I could do is have a retort ready. Quote
AlpineK Posted May 17, 2004 Author Posted May 17, 2004 There is one big reason Bush hasn't rid himself of Rumsfeld yet. While it's obvious that he is incompetent and has us fighting a war with no end in sight, much unlike we were originally told. Getting rid of him would be to much like saying we were wrong to go into Iraq to begin with. And Bush would never risk admitting that. So instead, they are asking us to shell out an additional $25 Billion to fight the war in Iraq, and are promising to ask for more in the future. What future? What is their current timeline on fighting the war in Iraq? How long will our troops be there and what are our current objectives? What do we gain by being there? The questions are mounting, and an election is coming. For the sake of all you republicans out there, I hope Bush comes up with some answers, and for the sake of all our troops over there, I hope he comes up with some fast. I've only briefly browsed your web site, but this quote jumps out at me. Quote
Martlet Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 There is one big reason Bush hasn't rid himself of Rumsfeld yet. While it's obvious that he is incompetent and has us fighting a war with no end in sight, much unlike we were originally told. Getting rid of him would be to much like saying we were wrong to go into Iraq to begin with. And Bush would never risk admitting that. So instead, they are asking us to shell out an additional $25 Billion to fight the war in Iraq, and are promising to ask for more in the future. What future? What is their current timeline on fighting the war in Iraq? How long will our troops be there and what are our current objectives? What do we gain by being there? The questions are mounting, and an election is coming. For the sake of all you republicans out there, I hope Bush comes up with some answers, and for the sake of all our troops over there, I hope he comes up with some fast. I've only briefly browsed your web site, but this quote jumps out at me. What about it? Quote
AlpineK Posted May 17, 2004 Author Posted May 17, 2004 Well it's hardly pro bush administration. Quote
Martlet Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Well it's hardly pro bush administration. It's also written by my brother, not me, moron. See where it says "posted by"? How's that GED working for you? Quote
AlpineK Posted May 17, 2004 Author Posted May 17, 2004 Oh I know it's not you, but you let him put it on your site. Quote
Martlet Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Oh I know it's not you, but you let him put it on your site. I didn't "let" him do anything. Since I changed domains, he's free to post whatever he wants. He's a liberal. I wanted an opposing view on my site. Unlike here. If you'd read further, you'd have seen where that's all spelled out for you. Quote
scott_harpell Posted May 17, 2004 Posted May 17, 2004 Oh I know it's not you, but you let him put it on your site. but...but... that would be free speech! OUTRAGE!!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.