Re: Got Steve'd?

From: Mandacaru <samclau_at_EvBy2Ri1POfIOvSuw3tPByjoIIzfeSwmrxvR-_G36UO1kZQVIAE3yE18PtProgRz4XMH>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:02:31 -0000

David Scott <sciencefish_at_...> wrote:
> > gonna explain yourself?
>
> of course not, this list allows for the joys of not explaining
> yourself and thus allowing others to infer what a complete wanker I
> really am. Isn't that what it's really about?

David...I liked your reply, honest to God I did. (I don't believe in God, but that's by the by). I especially liked the bit about you being a wanker (I would have chosen "Pillock" as I think there is nothing to redeem a 'pillock' while a 'wanker''s motives can easily be understood).

But...

I am genuinely curious about what led you to reach the conclusion you did. I really am. I want to know what there was in that text which had such an outrageous appearance? I have a whole bunch of ?????

Reply off-group if you like but please do reply; I promise I won't say anything more than the quite apparent fact that that you are a London- -flavoured condom (you should be ashamed of yourself, imagine!).

I bet you're a Chelsea fan too. Acton...sheesh....

All the, um, worst, Sam.