|
Post by Queenie on May 7, 2005 21:46:44 GMT -5
To the person thta chose to use my name, did you enjoy your meager attempt? You know what is so nice, though you tried to play devils advocate, you actually got it right. you mock me, you mock the father!!! KNOW WHY??? I actually do try to live right. Anything that is right in me, is from the FATHER. If you would've stay a banned member, none one will have mock you or the mock the father. Just IMO...
|
|
Inthewingsgonosense
Guest
|
Post by Inthewingsgonosense on May 7, 2005 22:25:39 GMT -5
nobody want to be associate with yo stank HORSYass. you come ova here tryin to dictate. you deserve to be cussed the fuck ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut. stupid lowlife bitch
|
|
|
Post by BeesNVMe on May 7, 2005 22:33:46 GMT -5
Andy who ever you may be, You are right, you are also wrong. Take a look at the definition. Dear Andy, what is so sad here, this is a saying with most Southern people. I AM MAD AT YOU, NOT I AM ANGRY AT YOU.... Main Entry: (angry) Part of Speech: adjective Definition: (mad) Synonyms: affronted, annoyed, antagonized, bitter, chafed, choleric, convulsed, cross, displeased, enraged, exacerbated, exasperated, ferocious, fierce, fiery, fuming, furious, galled, hateful, heated, hot, huffy, ill-tempered, impassioned, incensed, indignant, inflamed, infuriated, irascible, irate, ireful, irritable, irritated, (maddened), nettled, offended, outraged, passionate, piqued, provoked, raging, resentful, riled, sore, splenetic, storming, sulky, sullen, tumultuous, turbulent, uptight, vexed, wrathful Point of correction: It's "I am angry WITH you...not AT." You don't use 'at' (in this context) when you are referring to a person.
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on May 7, 2005 22:34:08 GMT -5
I am not, nor have I been a member. Which shall stay that way. Who wants to associate with filthy mouthed people like the ones I have encountered this evening? Take care of yourselves. Happy Mother's Day... Jody you are busted!! "Inthewings" damn I am laughing.. You are funny...
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on May 7, 2005 22:36:33 GMT -5
Point of correction: It's "I am angry WITH you...not AT." You don't use 'at' (in this context) when you are referring to a person. In other words Jody Mae, STFU... LMAO!!
|
|
molly
Ultimate Ruffness
Posts: 7,446
|
Post by molly on May 7, 2005 22:39:21 GMT -5
Point of correction: It's "I am angry WITH you...not AT." You don't use 'at' (in this context) when you are referring to a person. Take her dumb azz to school Bees.
|
|
|
Post by EmergingRuffian on May 7, 2005 22:40:00 GMT -5
Point of correction: It's "I am angry WITH you...not AT." You don't use 'at' (in this context) when you are referring to a person. KABOOM!!
|
|
|
Post by TheCapricornPrince on May 8, 2005 1:12:06 GMT -5
Who asked you? BTW Did any of your relatives run in the Kentucky Derby today? This is just ill. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by TheCapricornPrince on May 8, 2005 1:15:24 GMT -5
8-)If you were a good investigator, you would never ask such a stupid question. It shows you don't understand how to ask questions with the skill demanded of an investigator. A true professional would never ask if someone were "mad". They would ask if someone were "angry". The difference between "mad" and "angry" is so basic to all worthwhile, clear thinking investigators that your inability to ask proper questions confirms your lack of skill. A living thing that is "mad" has lost its mind. Think "mad dog". I am merely angry. You, Drex, are a truely mad amateur. I'm impressed Counselor. Very well stated. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on May 8, 2005 6:49:32 GMT -5
8-)If you were a good investigator, you would never ask such a stupid question. It shows you don't understand how to ask questions with the skill demanded of an investigator. A true professional would never ask if someone were "mad". They would ask if someone were "angry". The difference between "mad" and "angry" is so basic to all worthwhile, clear thinking investigators that your inability to ask proper questions confirms your lack of skill. A living thing that is "mad" has lost its mind. Think "mad dog". I am merely angry. You, Drex, are a truely mad amateur. In other words Andy, Drex don't have snowball chance in solving this case? Drex, Andy is giving you a taste of what is store for you if you continue with your line of questions. My question is what will satisfy you to wrap up your theories and say I've reach conclusion DER accidental O.D.
|
|
|
Post by Drex on May 8, 2005 9:05:16 GMT -5
In other words Andy, Drex don't have snowball chance in solving this case? Drex, Andy is giving you a taste of what is store for you if you continue with your line of questions. My question is what will satisfy you to wrap up your theories and say I've reach conclusion DER accidental O.D. Go for it - but that's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by LuvinDR on May 8, 2005 10:22:20 GMT -5
I'm Lost But anyway, I believe that Mr. Ruffin overdosed for sure. But, I thought the question of this investigation was to try to find out: 1. If David even had the money 2. If so, was it in the briefcase or did he leave it somewhere else? 3. Did someone take it or was it already spent? 4. Who took it, even if it were just the travelers checks? Or maybe I am just not comprehending well. I have been working long hours, so maybe I should get a little more sleep :slpy:
|
|
|
Post by Andy on May 8, 2005 12:12:19 GMT -5
My good friend Andy is upset. I have never seen him post in such a manner. :DI didn't know you had it in you. Each of us has different aspects to his or her own personality. Each of us displays this at different times. The test is whether the display is appropriate under the circumstances or not. Just like your display of an aspect of your personality against a past member amused me ( people who seem to be always calm or always volitile are unstable) I hope you are amused and accept this aspect of me. That is what friends do. They accept each other, so please don't think too badly of me for being angry at that mad dog.
|
|
|
Post by Drex on May 8, 2005 12:24:34 GMT -5
Each of us has different aspects to his or her own personality. Each of us displays this at different times. The test is whether the display is appropriate under the circumstances or not. Just like your display of an aspect of your personality against a past member amused me ( people who seem to be always calm or always volitile are unstable) I hope you are amused and accept this aspect of me. That is what friends do. They accept each other, so please don't think too badly of me for being angry at that mad dog. "that mad dog" (((ruff ruff))) sorry, I couldn't help myself
|
|
|
Post by EmergingRuffian on May 8, 2005 12:46:25 GMT -5
Go for it - but that's not going to happen. Queenie, there is your answer. She will never stop. It seems to me that there is definitely another agenda. An agenda that does not involve solving the case.
|
|