From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 11:24:13 PDT
Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes: > In my ongoing effort to improve the standards of the Fantasy Rules > Committee I thin it behooves me to seek out the rest of the ne'er do > wells and xpose them four what they ar. Hypocrites and sluts all of > them. Let's go down the list and I defy NE1 to defend themselves > against my biting and incisiv attax! > > Glenn und Chrystal are partners in infamy, notoriuos for slanderous > behaviour. Most of it so hienious it cannot be mentioned here but we > all know what I'm talking about don't we. > > Alan Overby on the otherhand has been doing his evil deeds in secret > for some time now. I have been reluctant to speak out for fear of > reprisals but now, as I am bout to become the indsiputed judge I can > boldly denounce his viscous habits! > > James Wilson! Hah! > > Jonathan V.M. you, (I dunt mind saying so to your face!) are BEYOND > THE BUCKET! How dare you show your face and spout your liblelous lies > in such estimable company. For shame! For shame! > > > All others on the other hand are merely to be chastised for their > underzealous defense of their committee against the villians I've > already mentioned. Perhaps your sluttish behaviour has not actually > brought the committee to it's knees but it's certainly jabbed it > paifully in the shins. > > Jesse Welton, now there's a name for muthrs to fright their children > with. Behave and eat you lima beans little Johnny or Jesse Welton will > slander thee mercilessly in a public forum. How this abombination has > been permitted to run amok ammidst us so long is beyond me to explain. > > Aron Wall? What do you have to say for yourself? Wait, I can answer > for you... NOTHING!! Muhahahahahahahahahahahahah! > > Ed Murphy on the other hand is really quite a pleasant chap and has > been really underated by all you hypocrites. If we could all be more > like Ed Murphy this committee would certainly have a better reputation. > > Last of all, I must not neglect to criticize Rich Holmes the pretender > judge of this round. I think he's been biased and overly officious. > Lacking all sympathy he's allowed himself to be swayed by his own > inhuman nature. I am ashamed to have had a single rule judges valid by > such a travesty of judgeness. > > Oh wait, I nearly forgot to criticize myself, and to show my sincerity > and lack of hypocristy I will mention TWO faults. On one hand I am > exceessively devoted to the cause of justice, love and world piece, > this makes other people feel inadequate; on the othr hand my spelling > sux. > > Becasue of my faults I am afraid that others will attack me unfairly > and try to destroy my self esteem. In the future all rules must > attempt to build my confidence by praising me. To be valid a rule must > describe one or Joshua's better traits. > > Thank you Thank you!!!! > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Movies, Music, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca > > -- > Rule Date: 2002-06-08 15:14:54 GMT > JUDGEMENT: As I suspect Joshua knows fully well, this rule is INVALID due to its failure to obey the restriction of Joshua's previous rule, 185:10. STYLE: At last some decent defamation. But it's very unstylish to violate one's own rule, especially when it's a recently posted one. Wordy too, and I have to wonder why the deliberate spelling errors are there. -2.0. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-06-10 18:24:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST