Snit wrote:
Tim Adams stated in post

on 12/4/10 12:58 PM:

In article ,
Snit wrote:

Tim Adams stated in post

on 12/4/10 6:27 AM:

In article ,
Snit wrote:

Anne Onime stated in post
on 11/8/10 2:51 PM:

Steve Carroll was stupid enough to say:

Having an exclusive on one item you sell doesn't mean you sell
that item exclusively

You are so ****ing brilliant to figure this out! ASSHOLE.

Steve is the one who first talked about this crazy idea of an
exclusive preventing the selling of other products.

More LIES by michael glasser. So typical

Steve's first comment " Having an exclusive on one item you sell
doesn't mean
you sell that item exclusively, dunce" showing Steve knows phone
companies
sell MORE than one brand/line of phone.

And this was the first time anyone talked about it meaning to sell
an item exclusively. As I said. And as you claimed was a lie.

What part of "doesn't mean" do you not understand? Of course you
failed to mention the _original poster_ used the word "exclusive" in
his very first post so how is it that Steve was the "first to bring
it up"? IOW, your post was a LIE, just like I stated it was.


Steve's Second comment "You read the word "exclusive" and got
confused, dunce." merely supports his first, pointing out the
confusion of "Clavicus Vile" (a snit wantabe apparently*)

He *accused* someone of something.

NO - he clearly pointed out the persons confusion regarding the term
"exclusive". Something you apparently don't understand either.


Steve's third comment "Your total defeat is accepted, dunce"
merely pointed
out how wrong "Clavicus Vile" was.

Ah, Steve cannot understand what he reads,

Yet it is you that claimed (a LIE) that Steve first used the term
"exclusive" and jumped all over Steve when your sock dragged your
name into the conversation. so typical of you.


*Of course, with "Clavicus Vile" forging quotes to bring snit into
a thread,
it is very likely that "Clavicus Vile" is merely another one of
michael glasser sock's trying to get the snit circus started again.

Being that I do not use socks,

Yet again more LIES, easily provem since you've admitted using
several in the NG
in the past.

Your empty accusations, illiteracy and mindless snipping is boring.
Do better if you want responses other than my noting how stupid your
.sig is.

--
"A non-powered hub that will only support non-powered devices. IOW,
basically useless." -- Tim Adams

If you thought he was boring you would not give him 100% of your attention.
His signiture ****es you off because you know is true.

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:

If you thought he was boring you would not give him 100% of your
attention. His signiture ****es you off because you know is true.


Hi, Snit! Following up to yourself now?

--
[tv]

President and CEO, Trollus Amongus LLC

Chuck Norris once ate an entire bottle of sleeping pills. They made him
blink.

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Snit wrote:
Tim Adams stated in post

on 12/4/10 12:58 PM:

In article ,
Snit wrote:

Tim Adams stated in post

on 12/4/10 6:27 AM:

In article ,
Snit wrote:

Anne Onime stated in post
on 11/8/10 2:51 PM:

Steve Carroll was stupid enough to say:

Having an exclusive on one item you sell doesn't mean you sell
that item exclusively

You are so ****ing brilliant to figure this out! ASSHOLE.

Steve is the one who first talked about this crazy idea of an
exclusive preventing the selling of other products.

More LIES by michael glasser. So typical

Steve's first comment " Having an exclusive on one item you sell
doesn't mean
you sell that item exclusively, dunce" showing Steve knows phone
companies
sell MORE than one brand/line of phone.

And this was the first time anyone talked about it meaning to sell
an item exclusively. As I said. And as you claimed was a lie.

What part of "doesn't mean" do you not understand? Of course you
failed to mention the _original poster_ used the word "exclusive" in
his very first post so how is it that Steve was the "first to bring
it up"? IOW, your post was a LIE, just like I stated it was.


Steve's Second comment "You read the word "exclusive" and got
confused, dunce." merely supports his first, pointing out the
confusion of "Clavicus Vile" (a snit wantabe apparently*)

He *accused* someone of something.

NO - he clearly pointed out the persons confusion regarding the term
"exclusive". Something you apparently don't understand either.


Steve's third comment "Your total defeat is accepted, dunce"
merely pointed
out how wrong "Clavicus Vile" was.

Ah, Steve cannot understand what he reads,

Yet it is you that claimed (a LIE) that Steve first used the term
"exclusive" and jumped all over Steve when your sock dragged your
name into the conversation. so typical of you.


*Of course, with "Clavicus Vile" forging quotes to bring snit into
a thread,
it is very likely that "Clavicus Vile" is merely another one of
michael glasser sock's trying to get the snit circus started
again.

Being that I do not use socks,

Yet again more LIES, easily provem since you've admitted using
several in the NG
in the past.

Your empty accusations, illiteracy and mindless snipping is boring.
Do better if you want responses other than my noting how stupid your
.sig is.

--
"A non-powered hub that will only support non-powered devices. IOW,
basically useless." -- Tim Adams

If you thought he was boring you would not give him 100% of your
attention. His signiture ****es you off because you know is true.

(crickets chirping)

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch