If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:32:58 -0800, miguel wrote:
wrote: miguel a écrit : NO POOPYTALK! "John of Aix" wrote: miguel wrote: Daedalus wrote: Why weren't the French involved in this conversation? Probably because they speak poopytalk. Pauvre con avec ton langage enfantin. Toi, évidemment, tu ne piges rien que l'amerloque et, sans doute, t'exprime comme un crétin dans cette 'langue', ainsi tu te sens obligé de montrer à quel point tu es inculte avec l'utilisation des mots qu'on laisse tomber après la crèche. C'est un anglais qui te parle, car ici on Europe on considère la culture d'être une bonne chose. Usenet would be generally improved if all poopytalkers like John of Aix would Remove Themselves Altogether. Usenet would improve if assholes like you would fade away..!!! Go back to your trailers park, don't forget to get your meds and have a good sleep..!!! I'd sleep a lot better of you poopytalkers would Remove Your Poopytalk from Usenet Altogether. miguel PS: I don't suppose you poopytalking morons have ever figured out why the BIBLE is in ENGLISH, not French Poopytalk. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Mar 4, 6:36 pm, miguel wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:32:58 -0800, miguel wrote: wrote: miguel a écrit : NO POOPYTALK! "John of Aix" wrote: miguel wrote: Daedalus wrote: Why weren't the French involved in this conversation? Probably because they speak poopytalk. Pauvre con avec ton langage enfantin. Toi, évidemment, tu ne piges rien que l'amerloque et, sans doute, t'exprime comme un crétin dans cette 'langue', ainsi tu te sens obligé de montrer à quel point tu es inculte avec l'utilisation des mots qu'on laisse tomber après la crèche. C'est un anglais qui te parle, car ici on Europe on considère la culture d'être une bonne chose. Usenet would be generally improved if all poopytalkers like John of Aix would Remove Themselves Altogether. Usenet would improve if assholes like you would fade away..!!! Go back to your trailers park, don't forget to get your meds and have a good sleep..!!! I'd sleep a lot better of you poopytalkers would Remove Your Poopytalk from Usenet Altogether. miguel PS: I don't suppose you poopytalking morons have ever figured out why the BIBLE is in ENGLISH, not French Poopytalk. That would be Hebrew and Greek, miguel. That's an English name, isn't it -- miguel? Dan |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
Dan wrote:
miguel wrote: miguel wrote: Some poopytalker: miguel a écrit : NO POOPYTALK! "John of Aix" wrote: miguel wrote: Daedalus wrote: Why weren't the French involved in this conversation? Probably because they speak poopytalk. Pauvre con avec ton langage enfantin. Toi, évidemment, tu ne piges rien que l'amerloque et, sans doute, t'exprime comme un crétin dans cette 'langue', ainsi tu te sens obligé de montrer à quel point tu es inculte avec l'utilisation des mots qu'on laisse tomber après la crèche. C'est un anglais qui te parle, car ici on Europe on considère la culture d'être une bonne chose. Usenet would be generally improved if all poopytalkers like John of Aix would Remove Themselves Altogether. Usenet would improve if assholes like you would fade away..!!! Go back to your trailers park, don't forget to get your meds and have a good sleep..!!! I'd sleep a lot better of you poopytalkers would Remove Your Poopytalk from Usenet Altogether. PS: I don't suppose you poopytalking morons have ever figured out why the BIBLE is in ENGLISH, not French Poopytalk. That would be Hebrew and Greek, miguel. It's good it was translated from its original English into Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrewers and Greeks ought to know about God too. That's an English name, isn't it -- miguel? 100% american, thank you. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
miguel wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:32:58 -0800, miguel wrote: wrote: miguel a écrit : NO POOPYTALK! "John of Aix" wrote: miguel wrote: Daedalus wrote: Why weren't the French involved in this conversation? Probably because they speak poopytalk. Pauvre con avec ton langage enfantin. Toi, évidemment, tu ne piges rien que l'amerloque et, sans doute, t'exprime comme un crétin dans cette 'langue', ainsi tu te sens obligé de montrer à quel point tu es inculte avec l'utilisation des mots qu'on laisse tomber après la crèche. C'est un anglais qui te parle, car ici on Europe on considère la culture d'être une bonne chose. Usenet would be generally improved if all poopytalkers like John of Aix would Remove Themselves Altogether. Usenet would improve if assholes like you would fade away..!!! Go back to your trailers park, don't forget to get your meds and have a good sleep..!!! I'd sleep a lot better of you poopytalkers would Remove Your Poopytalk from Usenet Altogether. miguel PS: I don't suppose you poopytalking morons have ever figured out why the BIBLE is in ENGLISH, not French Poopytalk. Well, it was in Latin long before it was in English and Latin is way closer to French than English... |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
Jim Stewart wrote:
miguel wrote: miguel wrote: Some poopytalker wrote: miguel a écrit : NO POOPYTALK! "John of Aix" wrote: miguel wrote: Daedalus wrote: Why weren't the French involved in this conversation? Probably because they speak poopytalk. Pauvre con avec ton langage enfantin. Toi, évidemment, tu ne piges rien que l'amerloque et, sans doute, t'exprime comme un crétin dans cette 'langue', ainsi tu te sens obligé de montrer à quel point tu es inculte avec l'utilisation des mots qu'on laisse tomber après la crèche. C'est un anglais qui te parle, car ici on Europe on considère la culture d'être une bonne chose. Usenet would be generally improved if all poopytalkers like John of Aix would Remove Themselves Altogether. Usenet would improve if assholes like you would fade away..!!! Go back to your trailers park, don't forget to get your meds and have a good sleep..!!! I'd sleep a lot better of you poopytalkers would Remove Your Poopytalk from Usenet Altogether. miguel PS: I don't suppose you poopytalking morons have ever figured out why the BIBLE is in ENGLISH, not French Poopytalk. Well, it was in Latin long before it was in English and Latin is way closer to French than English... I don't know where you get your information, but the very first version of the Bible was the King James Version. miguel |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Mar 4, 7:18 pm, miguel wrote:
I don't know where you get your information, but the very first version of the Bible was the King James Version. miguel Wrong. There were at least six English versions of the Bible before the KJV: Anglo-Saxon manuscript -- 995 AD Wycliff -- 1380 AD Tyndale --1534 AD Great Bible -- 1539 AD Geneva -- 1557 AD Rheims -- 1582 AD And then the 1st Edition of the King James, published in 1611. Anything else you need to be corrected on? Dan |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Mar 4, 7:00 pm, miguel wrote:
It's good it was translated from its original English into Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrewers and Greeks ought to know about God too. You mean the Jews? They wrote the books of the Law and the Prophets which were included in the Bible as the Old Testament. The common language of the Roman world was Greek, thus the language of choice for most writers of the New Testament. Only much later was this entire collection translated into other languages (since they did not exist at the time of the original manuscripts), such as English. Dan |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:27:28 -0800 (PST), Dan
wrote: On Mar 4, 7:18 pm, miguel wrote: I don't know where you get your information, but the very first version of the Bible was the King James Version. miguel Wrong. There were at least six English versions of the Bible before the KJV: Anglo-Saxon manuscript -- 995 AD Wycliff -- 1380 AD Tyndale --1534 AD Great Bible -- 1539 AD Geneva -- 1557 AD Rheims -- 1582 AD And then the 1st Edition of the King James, published in 1611. Anything else you need to be corrected on? Obviously somebody has fed you some very bad information (probably Satan). |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
miguel wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote: miguel wrote: miguel wrote: Some poopytalker wrote: miguel a écrit : NO POOPYTALK! "John of Aix" wrote: miguel wrote: Daedalus wrote: Why weren't the French involved in this conversation? Probably because they speak poopytalk. Pauvre con avec ton langage enfantin. Toi, évidemment, tu ne piges rien que l'amerloque et, sans doute, t'exprime comme un crétin dans cette 'langue', ainsi tu te sens obligé de montrer à quel point tu es inculte avec l'utilisation des mots qu'on laisse tomber après la crèche. C'est un anglais qui te parle, car ici on Europe on considère la culture d'être une bonne chose. Usenet would be generally improved if all poopytalkers like John of Aix would Remove Themselves Altogether. Usenet would improve if assholes like you would fade away..!!! Go back to your trailers park, don't forget to get your meds and have a good sleep..!!! I'd sleep a lot better of you poopytalkers would Remove Your Poopytalk from Usenet Altogether. miguel PS: I don't suppose you poopytalking morons have ever figured out why the BIBLE is in ENGLISH, not French Poopytalk. Well, it was in Latin long before it was in English and Latin is way closer to French than English... I don't know where you get your information, but the very first version of the Bible was the King James Version. Google Vulgate |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Mar 4, 7:51 pm, miguel wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:27:28 -0800 (PST), Dan wrote: On Mar 4, 7:18 pm, miguel wrote: I don't know where you get your information, but the very first version of the Bible was the King James Version. miguel Wrong. There were at least six English versions of the Bible before the KJV: Anglo-Saxon manuscript -- 995 AD Wycliff -- 1380 AD Tyndale --1534 AD Great Bible -- 1539 AD Geneva -- 1557 AD Rheims -- 1582 AD And then the 1st Edition of the King James, published in 1611. Anything else you need to be corrected on? Obviously somebody has fed you some very bad information (probably Satan). Must be so. I'll ask him... Miguel? Is it so?? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off-topic, but in need of help | Alan Erskine | Aviation Photos | 20 | January 5th 07 06:21 AM |
Off-topic, but in need of help | dennis | Aviation Photos | 0 | January 4th 07 10:40 PM |
Almost on topic... | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 22 | January 30th 06 06:55 PM |
French but on topic... | ArVa | Military Aviation | 2 | April 16th 04 01:40 AM |
off topic | Randall Robertson | Simulators | 0 | January 2nd 04 01:29 PM |