On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:58:30 +0100, "nick"
<pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
>
>> |>> |>> >> >When did the Afghans and Iraqis declare war on you?
>> |>> |>> >>
>> |>> |>> >> When did the Japanese declare war on us?
>> |>> |>> >
>> |>> |>> >When they bombed your base on the stolen island of Hawaii.
>> |>> |>>
>> |>> |>> No declaration of war. Look it up.
>> |>> |>
>> |>> |>You don't think their message was clear?
>> |>>
>> |>> More of the poo-shuffle. Claim one extreme, then claim the other as
>> |>proof.
>> |>
>> |>So there was no war with Japan?
>>
>> The question was, "When did the Japanese declare war on us?".
>
>When they bombed your stolen base, do I need to explain everything to you?
So, there was no declaration of war, then?
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (leehrsn@no-spam
"Christopher Morton" <chris01@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >When did the Afghans and Iraqis declare war on you?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> When did the Japanese declare war on us?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >When they bombed your base on the stolen island of Hawaii.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No declaration of war. Look it up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't think their message was clear?
> >> >>
> >> >> So then there was no declaration of war?
> >> >
> >> >The bombs didn't give it away?
> >>
> >> So then there was no declaration of war?
> >
> >Perhaps they wrote it on the side of one of the bombs they droped on your
> >base.
>
> Then it was destroyed and there was in fact no declaration of war.
See surprise attack.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:58:30 +0100, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
|>
|>> |>> |>> >> >When did the Afghans and Iraqis declare war on you?
|>> |>> |>> >>
|>> |>> |>> >> When did the Japanese declare war on us?
|>> |>> |>> >
|>> |>> |>> >When they bombed your base on the stolen island of Hawaii.
|>> |>> |>>
|>> |>> |>> No declaration of war. Look it up.
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>You don't think their message was clear?
|>> |>>
|>> |>> More of the poo-shuffle. Claim one extreme, then claim the other as
|>> |>proof.
|>> |>
|>> |>So there was no war with Japan?
|>>
|>> The question was, "When did the Japanese declare war on us?".
|>
|>When they bombed your stolen base, do I need to explain everything to you?
That was an ACT of war, not a DECLARATION of war. The words have two separate
and distinct meanings, poo-boy.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:38:51 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, nobody
<nobody@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>In article <3cnrfv4tcvksoes5irdfqr6gp23b5a48v7@no-spam>,
|> Little John <jammin1@no-spam> wrote:
|>
|>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:04:23 +0100, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
|>> once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
|>> "nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>>
|>> |>
|>> |>"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
|>> |>
|>> |>> |>> >> >When did the Afghans and Iraqis declare war on you?
|>> |>> |>> >>
|>> |>> |>> >> When did the Japanese declare war on us?
|>> |>> |>> >
|>> |>> |>> >When they bombed your base on the stolen island of Hawaii.
|>> |>> |>>
|>> |>> |>> No declaration of war. Look it up.
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>You don't think their message was clear?
|>> |>>
|>> |>> More of the poo-shuffle. Claim one extreme, then claim the other as
|>> |>proof.
|>> |>
|>> |>So there was no war with Japan?
|>>
|>> The question was, "When did the Japanese declare war on us?". You cited an
|>> act
|>> of war as a declaration of war, then tried to do the usual poo-shuffle to
|>> cover
|>> for your idiocy.
|>
|>There is no cover for his idiocy.
True. That's why I said the tried. Succeeding is a whole nuther kettle o'
fish, and beyond his rather limited abilities.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!