You sound like a "scientist" who would rather change the subject than
The Marines have an air base in Fel Ching. It's on the
Non-intoxicating beer is not the same as near beer.
Is that why the Marines were the most reluctant of all the services to
Oh, I don't know...
Sure, make up your own terms and criticize people when they don't
A "scientist" who can't bring himself to admit when he's mistaken."Bryan wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:07 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 25, 5:58 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:00 pm, "William Sommerwerck" ?grizzledgee...@comcast.net?
wrote:
? ?? There was a short-lived low-carb beer in the late 60s,
? ?? long before low-carb became a trend. I remember
? ?? seeing the ads in New York, but I don't remember
? ?? the name.
? ? Some states allowed the sale of 3.2% alcohol beer to
? ? 18 year olds, while you had to be 21 to buy 6%. It was
? ? commonly referred to as 'Near beer'.
?
? True, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
3.2 beer is not the same as near beer. Why do people blow out their
asses? Near beer has less than 0.5% alcohol.
Do you have proof that it wasn't referred to 'near beer' by kids in
parts of the US 50 years ago, or is your head up your ass and you need
your glass belly button to see your keyboard?
Really stupid kids can call a sheep a goat, and that doesn't make it
so. In Missouri, the only beer you could buy on Sundays was that 3.2
junk. I drank my share of it. When the piece of shit John Ashcroft
finally left office, the laws against Sunday sales were repealed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/near+beer
It sounds like you've drank enough to kill most of your brain cells.
You sound like a "scientist" who would rather change the subject than
accept the null hypothesis.
I do accept that you are null. And void.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
Not me. Search the web (Google) for "near beer." You're the one who
On Dec 26, 6:55 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:07 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 25, 5:58 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:00 pm, "William Sommerwerck" ?grizzledgee...@comcast.net?
wrote:
? ?? There was a short-lived low-carb beer in the late 60s,
? ?? long before low-carb became a trend. I remember
? ?? seeing the ads in New York, but I don't remember
? ?? the name.
? ? Some states allowed the sale of 3.2% alcohol beer to
? ? 18 year olds, while you had to be 21 to buy 6%. It was
? ? commonly referred to as 'Near beer'.
?
? True, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
3.2 beer is not the same as near beer. Why do people blow out their
asses? Near beer has less than 0.5% alcohol.
Do you have proof that it wasn't referred to 'near beer' by kids in
parts of the US 50 years ago, or is your head up your ass and you need
your glass belly button to see your keyboard?
Really stupid kids can call a sheep a goat, and that doesn't make it
so. In Missouri, the only beer you could buy on Sundays was that 3.2
junk. I drank my share of it. When the piece of shit John Ashcroft
finally left office, the laws against Sunday sales were repealed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/near+beer
It sounds like you've drank enough to kill most of your brain cells.
You sound like a "scientist" who would rather change the subject than
accept the null hypothesis.
I do accept that you are null. And void.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
A "scientist" who can't bring himself to admit when he's mistaken."
Eleven
It's only even mildly amusing if you are a scientist. If you're not aBryan wrote:
On Dec 26, 6:55 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:07 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 25, 5:58 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bryan wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:00 pm, "William Sommerwerck" ?grizzledgee...@comcast.net?
wrote:
? ?? There was a short-lived low-carb beer in the late 60s,
? ?? long before low-carb became a trend. I remember
? ?? seeing the ads in New York, but I don't remember
? ?? the name.
? ? Some states allowed the sale of 3.2% alcohol beer to
? ? 18 year olds, while you had to be 21 to buy 6%. It was
? ? commonly referred to as 'Near beer'.
?
? True, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
3.2 beer is not the same as near beer. Why do people blow out their
asses? Near beer has less than 0.5% alcohol.
Do you have proof that it wasn't referred to 'near beer' by kids in
parts of the US 50 years ago, or is your head up your ass and you need
your glass belly button to see your keyboard?
Really stupid kids can call a sheep a goat, and that doesn't make it
so. In Missouri, the only beer you could buy on Sundays was that 3.2
junk. I drank my share of it. When the piece of shit John Ashcroft
finally left office, the laws against Sunday sales were repealed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/near+beer
It sounds like you've drank enough to kill most of your brain cells.
You sound like a "scientist" who would rather change the subject than
accept the null hypothesis.
I do accept that you are null. And void.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
A "scientist" who can't bring himself to admit when he's mistaken."
Posted by an idiot who doesn't recognize humor in a sig file.
--Bryan
For the last time, I'm not short.
Is it true that heterosexually challenged individuals prefer lite beer?