On Aug 20, 5:26=A0pm, " krp" <krp24...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:6ce2584f-bd9b-4dd2-804c-36c63ad3979e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Danny you are such a LOSER you DESPERATELY need to believe that!
> > < You claim you've 'been the subject of dozens ofnewspaperarticles
> > < including the New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angles Times, San
> > < Francisco Herald-Examiner, Milwaukee Journal, St. Petersburg Times,
> > < Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, and
> > < others'."
> > <Yet when asked to provide proof of these articles you claim you were
> > < the subject of articles in Playboy and USA Today.
>
> > Yes Danny. GIVE ME A GODDDAMN LINK! I WANT A LINK!YOU MUST GIVE ME
> > LINKS!
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sup****t.child-protective-services/...
>
> > (danny screams stomping his feet and pounding the wall.) I believe
> > the page number for the Artcile by Asa Barber in Playboy was provided.
=
You
> > really ARE getting desperate, aren't ya Danny? The Utah study blew up
i=
n
> > your face you you are trying a NEW ATTACK.
>
> < The name pangborn provides no hits in either magazine.
>
> =A0 =A0 USA Today yopu MORON is aNEWSPAPER.
So the newspaper USA Today had an article in which you were the
SUBJECT, ****bag?
Got a date?
Page number?
> Ypu are LYING about Playboy. I WANT
> A GODDAMMMM LINK! GIMME A FUKKIN LINK! I DEMAND A LINK )Danny screams as
=
he
> stomps his feet and pounds the walls) Telkl me something MISTER
BOBBL:EHE=
AD
> arte yopu REALLY so stupid that you think EVERYTHIING ever written has a
> LINK? Please tell me you are not THAT stupid Danny.
What was the latest publication that had an article in which YOU were
the SUBJECT, ****bag?
Was it?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/12/16/bettie-page-the-pin-up-queen-of-kink-ve=
ry-keen/
"A trial consultant named Ken Pangborn comments, =93Mostly in the 40s
and 50s the women willing to do =91****=92 photos were singularly
unattractive. Betty was petite and cute. She also had enough mammary
development to be interesting and not so much as to be revolting.=94
> <Odd that you were the SUBJECT of the articles as you claim on your
websi=
te.
>
> <So you're giving up on claiming you were the SUBJECT of the articles
> < in Playboy and USA Today.
>
> =A0 =A0 Danny =A0- GET HELP!! =A0QUICK!
>
> > You TRIED
> > to attack me on the Utah study and that didn't work out so well for
you=
..
>
> < It wasn't a study.
>
> =A0 =A0 Oh Danny you are Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo full of
****=
.. Are
> you now admitting you have READ it?
Of course not.
|
