«

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> And I must say that Tennessee is such a beautiful state rich in history
> and charm. There's nowhere else in the US where you can go that will
> send you back in time to a simpler era. I even found Bret's ancestral
> birth place that dates back six generations.
>
> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/foothills.htm>
>
>
>
> Rita


Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in a
fur ball her cat chucked up?

"Radical Radish" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>> And I must say that Tennessee is such a beautiful state rich in history
>> and charm. There's nowhere else in the US where you can go that will
>> send you back in time to a simpler era. I even found Bret's ancestral
>> birth place that dates back six generations.
>>
>> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/foothills.htm>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rita
>
>
> Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in a
> fur ball her cat chucked up?

I'd take any fur ball over Reata. I think the real reason she went to TN was
to have sex with Brett. Yeah, that's the ticket.

"George Kerby" <> wrote in message
news:C48E3F15.A797%...
>
>
>
> On 6/30/08 1:42 AM, in article ,
> "Radical
> Radish" <> wrote:
>
>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>> And I must say that Tennessee is such a beautiful state rich in history
>>> and charm. There's nowhere else in the US where you can go that will
>>> send you back in time to a simpler era. I even found Bret's ancestral
>>> birth place that dates back six generations.
>>>
>>> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/foothills.htm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rita
>>
>>
>> Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in a
>> fur ball her cat chucked up?
>>
> What would you expect for someone who post pictures of 'her' dog's
> asshole?

Be careful, she may start posting pix of here face rather than the mutt's
ass, and nobody wants that.

In message news:, Radical Radish
<> done wrote:

> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>> And I must say that Tennessee is such a beautiful state rich in history
>> and charm. There's nowhere else in the US where you can go that will
>> send you back in time to a simpler era. I even found Bret's ancestral
>> birth place that dates back six generations.
>>
>> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/foothills.htm>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rita
>
>
> Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in a
> fur ball her cat chucked up?
>

Rita IS a fur ball her cat chucked up.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:20:59 -0700, John McWilliams
<> wrote:

>Jufi wrote:
>>
>> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
>> news:C48E3F15.A797%...
>
>>>> Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in a
>>>> fur ball her cat chucked up?
>>>>
>>> What would you expect for someone who post pictures of 'her' dog's
>>> asshole?
>>
>> Be careful, she may start posting pix of here face rather than the
>> mutt's ass, and nobody wants that.
>
>I don't understand why anyone would ever go to any link "Rita" posts. At
>some point, one will link to a steaming pile of dogshit, his idea of a
>real 'gotcha', and highly humorous at that. Yes, I bit once, but never
>again.

The humor in an image of a pile of steaming dogshit is roughly on par
with the humor of using "his" to deprecate a female poster whose
efforts one does not appreciate.

Puerile meets puerile.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

<> wrote in message
news:g4au6q$q4i$...
>
>> I don't understand why anyone would ever go to any link "Rita" posts.
>
> Because they frequently ARE good pictures? Is that enough?

I've never seen anything from Reata that would quality as "good." Most are
just very pedestrian snapshots of unknown origin. No EXIF, nothing. If
you've seen one that is good, let me know.

"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:20:59 -0700, John McWilliams
> <> wrote:
>
>>Jufi wrote:
>>>
>>> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
>>> news:C48E3F15.A797%...
>>
>>>>> Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in
>>>>> a
>>>>> fur ball her cat chucked up?
>>>>>
>>>> What would you expect for someone who post pictures of 'her' dog's
>>>> asshole?
>>>
>>> Be careful, she may start posting pix of here face rather than the
>>> mutt's ass, and nobody wants that.
>>
>>I don't understand why anyone would ever go to any link "Rita" posts. At
>>some point, one will link to a steaming pile of dogshit, his idea of a
>>real 'gotcha', and highly humorous at that. Yes, I bit once, but never
>>again.
>
> The humor in an image of a pile of steaming dogshit is roughly on par
> with the humor of using "his" to deprecate a female poster whose
> efforts one does not appreciate.

Yes, the effort to post a pic of a pile of **** is appreciated by some, to
be sure. If you enjoy pictures of ****, more power to you. For some of us,
as much as we dislike pics of ****, they're still preferable to Reata's
face. Whatever it looks like.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:50:18 -0700, John McWilliams
<> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:20:59 -0700, John McWilliams
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Jufi wrote:
>>>> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:C48E3F15.A797%...
>>>>>> Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in a
>>>>>> fur ball her cat chucked up?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What would you expect for someone who post pictures of 'her' dog's
>>>>> asshole?
>>>> Be careful, she may start posting pix of here face rather than the
>>>> mutt's ass, and nobody wants that.
>>> I don't understand why anyone would ever go to any link "Rita" posts. At
>>> some point, one will link to a steaming pile of dogshit, his idea of a
>>> real 'gotcha', and highly humorous at that. Yes, I bit once, but never
>>> again.
>>
>> The humor in an image of a pile of steaming dogshit is roughly on par
>> with the humor of using "his" to deprecate a female poster whose
>> efforts one does not appreciate.
>>
>> Puerile meets puerile.
>
>Ah, tony-the-righteous! FYI, ole "Rita" is male, and I've seen you
>inquiring about how one knows, etc.; I shan't, probably can't, prove it
>to your satisfaction.
>
>But, assuming, ever so hypothetically, that she is a he, do you not find
>some dishonesty in such posing? Along with complete cloaking of self?
>Again, kindly answer the question in its hypothetical form rather than
>going on about how one knows- or really cares- about the gender of "Rita".

No, not really. Just looking at the other names used in posts that
are unread on my screen (I set Agent to not show read posts) I see
"The Kat" and "Jufi" and "Hancock4" and "Dimond Geeza"...all screen
names intended to conceal the owner's identity and all screen names
that do not reveal the sex of the poster. They all completely cloak.

I see "John McWilliams", but I have no assurity that "John McWilliams"
is either male - as "John" would indicate - or truly named
"McWilliams". While there are no unread posts by Annika/Bret, there's
a conflict in those two names. I see no dishonesty in that.

Now, assuming ever-so hypothetically, that Rita would or could prove
beyond the shadow of a doubt that "Rita Berkowitz" is her true name
and that she is actually a "she", would that make her more honest in
your eyes? Would it make the slightest bit of difference in your
appraisal of her or her work?





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Jun 30, 9:07*am, "Jufi" <bow...@work.com> wrote:
>
> I'd take any fur ball over Reata. I think the real reason she went to TN was
> to have sex with Brett. Yeah, that's the ticket.

The cocksucker chose the safest time to visit Tennessee .... when he
knew I'd be in South Carolina.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:59:51 -0700, John McWilliams
<> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:50:18 -0700, John McWilliams
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:20:59 -0700, John McWilliams
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jufi wrote:
>>>>>> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:C48E3F15.A797%...
>>>>>>>> Um, does anyone else think that Rita would find something mystical in a
>>>>>>>> fur ball her cat chucked up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you expect for someone who post pictures of 'her' dog's
>>>>>>> asshole?
>>>>>> Be careful, she may start posting pix of here face rather than the
>>>>>> mutt's ass, and nobody wants that.
>>>>> I don't understand why anyone would ever go to any link "Rita" posts. At
>>>>> some point, one will link to a steaming pile of dogshit, his idea of a
>>>>> real 'gotcha', and highly humorous at that. Yes, I bit once, but never
>>>>> again.
>>>> The humor in an image of a pile of steaming dogshit is roughly on par
>>>> with the humor of using "his" to deprecate a female poster whose
>>>> efforts one does not appreciate.
>>>>
>>>> Puerile meets puerile.
>>> Ah, tony-the-righteous! FYI, ole "Rita" is male, and I've seen you
>>> inquiring about how one knows, etc.; I shan't, probably can't, prove it
>>> to your satisfaction.
>>>
>>> But, assuming, ever so hypothetically, that she is a he, do you not find
>>> some dishonesty in such posing? Along with complete cloaking of self?
>>> Again, kindly answer the question in its hypothetical form rather than
>>> going on about how one knows- or really cares- about the gender of "Rita".
>>
>> No, not really. Just looking at the other names used in posts that
>> are unread on my screen (I set Agent to not show read posts) I see
>> "The Kat" and "Jufi" and "Hancock4" and "Dimond Geeza"...all screen
>> names intended to conceal the owner's identity and all screen names
>> that do not reveal the sex of the poster. They all completely cloak.
>
>Are you *trying* to be obtuse?

>There's a big difference between handles and a carefully made up name,
>complete with umlaut, that announces "female".

No, there really isn't a "big difference". You either use your real
name, a shortening of your real name, or you make up a screen name.
If you make one up, it doesn't make any difference if you use a screen
name that looks like a real name or not. The intent is not to reveal
what you consider to be information too personal to spread over the
net.

As far as being "obtuse", that's a matter of perspective. To you, for
some reason, the name used and the sex indicated makes a difference to
you when you read a post. I have no idea why. It doesn't make a
difference to me, and it evidently doesn't make a difference to some
other readers of this group. There's only a few of you who seem
obsessed with it. Perhaps it has something to do with not being
breast fed as a baby or chewing on lead paint chips when young. I
can't think of a logical reason for it.


>> I see "John McWilliams", but I have no assurity that "John McWilliams"
>> is either male - as "John" would indicate - or truly named
>> "McWilliams". While there are no unread posts by Annika/Bret, there's
>> a conflict in those two names. I see no dishonesty in that.
>
>For those who use handles that are clearly that, I don't either. Or use
>a million different sock puppets but sign their real name.

What assurance can you provide that "John McWilliams" is your real
name? That you are not, in fact, Lucy Fahrquat and a retired bearded
lady from the circus? Or that you *were* Lucy Fahrquat and "John
McWilliams is the name you chose after the operation?

No, never mind. I don't really care.

>As I've said in the past, tony (real name?), "Rita" is exceedingly
>clever, and it's too bad he's turned into such a pest.
>
No, "tony" is not the name on my birth certificate.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida