Two things hacker, 1st, note who the reply is to and the topic. 2nd, I knew going in that the subject matter was *way* over your head and I don't even read your retarded top posting pal or mommas boy from Florida. So much for who was interested, Capiche?
Read the full reply
I fished and posted what I thought was a thought provoking piece with
> a compelling link. Did you notice "Coultergeist and Scalia: Dumb and
> Dumber?" 10/12 7:02 on my reader. Forgot the OT.
This is such a lame attempt for you to get some attention on a topic you posted that no one was interested in. Not one reply!
Two things hacker, 1st, note who the reply is to and the topic. 2nd, I knew going in that the subject matter was *way* over your head and I don't even read your retarded top posting pal or mommas boy from Florida. So much for who was interested, Capiche?
There was no replies for you to read! No replies, not even from your own kind.
Your attempt to get some attention for your topic at the expense of someone else's topic is rather pitiful. Maybe you should stick to looking silly elsewhere, like deep down the discussion tree instead of at the top!
See, you just proved what I said. It was over your head. Stick to missing two footers for 50 cents, chump. I'll at least give you this..., you price your mind reading exactly right. Maybe 'attention getting' comes to mind so quickly for a reason, try looking in the mirror.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required