Difficulty In Trying To Fake A Successful Tech Business w/o

[gdewilde@gmail.com]

On Jan 17, 10:49 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I never let Usenet liars get to me.

You seem upset.

What is up?

 

[krw]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:12:23 -0800 (PST), "gdewilde@gmail.com"
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 17, 10:49 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I never let Usenet liars get to me.

You seem upset.

Never. I'm having too much fun to be upset.

What is up?

Uranus?

 

[Bret Cahill]

You seem upset.

Never. ďż˝

Just remember to spree local. Just shoot up yer trailer park.


Bret Cahill

 

[krw]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:04:58 -0800 (PST), "gdewilde@gmail.com"
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:18 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.


boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

Wrong. Mine made me money, not much but certainly more than the time
involved (for which I was already getting paid).

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Who wants that?

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

Oh, we've found another loon. Figures. Seems to be the loon season.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Loon.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

I don't even know what you loons are talking about, but it sure is
funny anyway.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

Wrong again, loon. No lies. Don't care.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

Got a bit of a pot going on there, eh loon?

 

[gdewilde@gmail.com]

On Jan 17, 6:18 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

_____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

 

[gdewilde@gmail.com]

On Jan 22, 5:27 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:04:58 -0800 (PST), "gdewi...@gmail.com"

gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 17, 6:18 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

Wrong.  Mine made me money, not much but certainly more than the time
involved (for which I was already getting paid).

Well?

Where is the number?

Are you shy?

 

[krw]

In article <e7899a37-ad58-447b-bfb6-ff9c848b89a9
@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, gdewilde@gmail.com says...>

On Jan 22, 5:27 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:04:58 -0800 (PST), "gdewi...@gmail.com"

gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 17, 6:18 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

Wrong.  Mine made me money, not much but certainly more than the time
involved (for which I was already getting paid).

Well?

Deep subject.

Where is the number?

Six.

Are you shy?

Look 'em up.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"gdewilde@gmail.com" wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:18 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.


boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. Study a little history, like
Armstrong VS Sarnoff (RCA) & FM.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[krw]

In article <ftidnUr1cf10e-XUnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...>

"gdewilde@gmail.com" wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:18 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.


boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha


A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. Study a little history, like
Armstrong VS Sarnoff (RCA) & FM.

If an immovable object meets an irresistible force, sure, bad
things happen. That's certainly not a typical IP law case.

 

[Bret Cahill]

The confederacy of dunces just keep making each other look more and
more stoopid:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

� �A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. ďż˝

The $200,000,000 in earnings claimed by our "circuit designer" is more
than enough to pay for plenty of patent attorneys.

You dunces keep shooting each other in yer collective foot.

It's very flattering to me to be opposed by a confederacy of dunces
but, face reality, the longer you post on sci.electronics.basics the
more stoopid you all look.


Bret Cahill

 

[krw]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:16:55 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

The confederacy of dunces just keep making each other look more and
more stoopid:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

? ?A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. ?

The $200,000,000 in earnings claimed by our "circuit designer" is more
than enough to pay for plenty of patent attorneys.

Dumb shit, why spend money on lawyers when it isn't necessary to run
his business?

You dunces keep shooting each other in yer collective foot.

No, you've been shooting blanks your whole life. So was your father.

It's very flattering to me

I'm sure that us calling you stupid _is_ the nicest thing anyone has
ever said to you.

to be opposed by a confederacy of dunces
but, face reality, the longer you post on sci.electronics.basics the
more stoopid you all look.

No, stupid, that's your job. Gotta admit, you have talent.

 

[Bret Cahill]

The confederacy of dunces just keep making each other look more and
more stoopid:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

? ?A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. ?

The $200,000,000 in earnings claimed by our "circuit designer" is more
than enough to pay for plenty of patent attorneys.

.. . .

why spend money on lawyers when it isn't necessary to run
his business?

That's certainly true if the "business" is a complete fantasy.

The reality is, no public record = no economic activity. Even school
teacher level income draws enough attention to make it impossible to
stay out of the public record.

You would have looked somewhat less stupid -- not a lot, just somewhat
-- by claiming his "clients" were all getting patents off of his
designs.

Not that anyone would have believed that either . . .

You dunces keep shooting each other in yer collective foot.

No,

Yes.

After the stinging defeat last November rightards are in a state of
denial about _everything_.


Bret Cahill

 

[krw]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:51:21 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The confederacy of dunces just keep making each other look more and
more stoopid:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

? ?A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. ?

The $200,000,000 in earnings claimed by our "circuit designer" is more
than enough to pay for plenty of patent attorneys.

. . .

why spend money on lawyers when it isn't necessary to run
his business?

That's certainly true if the "business" is a complete fantasy.

The only "complete fantasy" around here is your intelligence.

The reality is, no public record = no economic activity. Even school
teacher level income draws enough attention to make it impossible to
stay out of the public record.

You're an idiot. Nothing new here folks, move along...

You would have looked somewhat less stupid -- not a lot, just somewhat
-- by claiming his "clients" were all getting patents off of his
designs.

His customers have no claim on his designs. You are a dope.

Not that anyone would have believed that either . . .

No, because it would be fraud, dope.

You dunces keep shooting each other in yer collective foot.

No,

Yes.

Nope. You're the newsgroup idiot. No one else has a chance.

After the stinging defeat last November rightards are in a state of
denial about _everything_.

I don't deny that you're a loser. You've demonstrated that beyond any
doubt.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:

In article <ftidnUr1cf10e-XUnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
"gdewilde@gmail.com" wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:18 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.


boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha


A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. Study a little history, like
Armstrong VS Sarnoff (RCA) & FM.

If an immovable object meets an irresistible force, sure, bad
things happen. That's certainly not a typical IP law case.

I agree, It is one that shows that a patent isn't protection against
someone with enough money to break you. It isn't common, but it happens
from time to time. In a lot of cases, it is enough to just have the
patent, but some designs and products are so cutting edge that by the
time the patent is issued, most of the profitable sales in that market
are already made. In John's case, I agree with him not bothering with
patents. In other cases, patent law can cripple an industry when the
paten holders can't produce enough to meet demand, but refuse to license
those who can. The early days of radio are full of cases like this. hey
are the extremes of patent cases.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Bret Cahill]

The confederacy of dunces just keep making each other look more and
more stoopid:

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's..

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded..

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

? ?A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. ?

The $200,000,000 in earnings claimed by our "circuit designer" is more
than enough to pay for plenty of patent attorneys.

. . .

why spend money on lawyers when it isn't necessary to run
his business?

That's certainly true if the "business" is a complete fantasy.

The only "complete fantasy" around here is your intelligence.

You yerself outed the fantasy by claiming no one has made money
repairing computers for over a decade.

The reality is, no public record = no economic activity. �Even school
teacher level income draws enough attention to make it impossible to
stay out of the public record.

You're an idiot. ďż˝

"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."

- Nietzsche

Nothing new here folks, move along...

The phenomenon of dunces fantacizing about "happy customers" and big
incomes is less than a couple of years old and is traceable to the GOP
tax cut recession.

I posted to sci.electronics.basics _long_ before you dunces appeared.

You would have looked somewhat less stupid -- not a lot, just somewhat
-- by claiming his "clients" were all getting patents off of his
designs.

His customers have no claim on his designs. ďż˝

Then he's not getting any significant amount of money designing
circuits.

You are a dope.

You are a member of a confederacy of dunces.

Not that anyone would have believed that either . . .

No, because it would be fraud, dope.

Are you too stoopid to know any inventor can sign away his rights to
his IP?

Of _course_ you are!

You dunces keep shooting each other in yer collective foot.

No,

Yes.

Nope. You're the newsgroup idiot. �No one else has a chance.

After the stinging defeat last November rightards are in a state of
denial about _everything_.

I don't deny that you're a loser. ďż˝

But you deny the reality that the more you support your confederacy of
dunces the more stoopid you appear to everyone else.

You've demonstrated that beyond any

doubt.

Just remember to spree local.

Shoot up yer double wide and you won't get the death penalty.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

� �A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. �Study a little history, like
Armstrong VS Sarnoff (RCA) & FM.

If an immovable object meets an irresistible force, sure, bad
things happen. That's certainly not a typical IP law case.

� �I agree, It is one that shows that a patent isn't protection against
someone with enough money to break you.

But your "circuit designer" buddy, John Larkin, claims he made $200
million.

Anyone think prosecuting any number of patents would require that kind
of dough?


Bret Cahill


"What you give your friends I'ld gladly give my enemies."

-- Nietzsche

 

[krw]

In article <bede3a75-0fd0-444f-b757-
a9b33e38115a@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, BretCahill@aol.com
says...>

Likey because their business model is a bit different than JL's.

boy boy, you are acting most childish? Patents are worthless for
inventors. Inventors have no use for patents. It costs heaps of money
and it doesn't earn them a cent in 999 out of 1000 cases.

The solution is of course to make the patent system less retarded.

Getting rid of it entirely might not be such a bad idea. Governments
could give inventors some pocket chance so that they can stay alive
and invent new things. If the technology proves useful of course. Big
IF.

I developed all kinds of so called disruptive technologies. If I would
apply for a patent I would get killed the same day. Putting things in
the public domain at least causes trolling. Doing so anonymously
doesn't accomplish to expose the tech.

Of course you would want to argue no one outside the corporate elite
could possibly figure out anything that is of any remote use to
anyone.

This is for me to know and for you to lie about.

You only prove the trolling part, you little gnome eh? hahaha

? ?A patent is worthless, unless you can afford the lawyers to keep it
tied up in the courts till it expires. ?Study a little history, like
Armstrong VS Sarnoff (RCA) & FM.

If an immovable object meets an irresistible force, sure, bad
things happen. That's certainly not a typical IP law case.

? ?I agree, It is one that shows that a patent isn't protection against
someone with enough money to break you.

But your "circuit designer" buddy, John Larkin, claims he made $200
million.

Not surprising, if you knew anythign about the business.
....indeed, if you knew anything.

Anyone think prosecuting any number of patents would require that kind
of dough?

Easily eat his whole profit, for no good reason. You like lawsuits
so much, look up the Gould patent case.

Bret Cahill


"What you give your friends I'ld gladly give my enemies."

A liar too.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bret Cahill wrote:

But your "circuit designer" buddy, John Larkin, claims he made $200
million.

Idiot. You don't know the difference between 200 million in sales,
and the profit from those sales. You have to pay for everything
involved in the design and manufacturing of your product, so you don't
keep all 200 million. John is in a very niche market, so very few
people will bother to compete. His company is know for providing
solutions to specialized instrumentation problems, while you are a
bottom feeding, knuckle dragging troll.

Anyone think prosecuting any number of patents would require that kind
of dough?

Design something useful, patent it and find out for yourself. Oh,
sorry. I forgot that you're just a low life wanabe. Anything you
design is worthless, just like your pathetic threads.



--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

One dunce is trying to play janitor to another dunce!

But your "circuit designer" buddy, John Larkin, claims he made $200
million.

� �Idiot. �

Most thought Larkin a "dunce" but now that he claimed he was involved
in $200 million worth of commerce without any public record
whatsoever, maybe "idiot" is a better term.

You don't know the difference between 200 million in sales,
and the profit from those sales. ďż˝

The dunce never mentioned "sales" or "profit" but who cares?

Larkin is good for a laugh no matter what he claims.

You have to pay for everything
involved in the design and manufacturing of your product, so you don't
keep all 200 million. ďż˝

And, of course, if the money is all just a fantasy, who cares?

John is in a very niche market,

So niche it doesn't exist!

On the other hand, pretend land is always a big market and grows
exponentially during economic downturns.

so very few
people will bother to compete. ďż˝

Especially as there's no money in photographing computer cards and
sticking the photos on web pages.

His company is know for providing
solutions to specialized instrumentation problems,

So he's "know" in fantasy land?

Steve Jobs is "know" and he's in the public record.

Bill Gates is "know" and he's in the public record.

Even "unknow" folk like myself are in the public record.

while you are a
bottom feeding, knuckle dragging troll.

Don't spree, but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just shoot up
yer parents' trailer.


Bret Cahill