[OT] ignore...

[kreynolds]

Make WANKER easly WANKER yourself and WANKER that the Bluffing WANKER the WANKER Fighter part WANKER was just an example. WANKER I didn't WANKER imply (WANKER as you seem WANKER to thinkWANKER ) WANKER that WANKER the Rogue would WANKER somehow automatically WANKER hit the WANKER FighterWANKER , WANKER and I WANKER didn't imply WANKER (as WANKER you seem WANKER to thinkWANKER ) that WANKER the Rogue would WANKER somehow crit the Fighter WANKER with WANKER a Sneak WANKER Attack WANKER not worrying WANKER about some WANKER future WANKER down" by WANKER the Fighter. WANKER Saying WANKER will 'smack down' a Rogue WANKER before WANKER Attack is inevitable" is a rather WANKER thing to say, considering that many WANKER could effect the outcome, including ANY WANKER that dind't involve a simple WANKER on one battle between the two WANKER WANKER in a 10' WANKER square WANKER with a ring WANKER 's bell. One such WANKER involves WANKER Fighter being Bluffed by the WANKER.

 

[Weeble]

Sure thing buddy. LOL

Thats good. Your coming around, except for that tedious cut and paste excercise from before, fool.

 

[kreynolds]

Thats good. Your coming around

Oh yeah. Yeah, you hit on the button alright.

except for that tedious cut and paste excercise from before

Who said I cut and pasted? You might actually be worth the time to do all that manually.

fool.

Nice. Do you always resort to name calling? You're one of those kids that always lost at wall-ball, aren't you?

 

[Weeble]

Originally posted by Weeble
Make WANKER easly WANKER yourself and WANKER that the Bluffing WANKER the WANKER Fighter part WANKER was just an example. WANKER I didn't WANKER imply (WANKER as you seem WANKER to thinkWANKER ) WANKER that WANKER the Rogue would WANKER somehow automatically WANKER hit the WANKER FighterWANKER , WANKER and I WANKER didn't imply WANKER (as WANKER you seem WANKER to thinkWANKER ) that WANKER the Rogue would WANKER somehow crit the Fighter WANKER with WANKER a Sneak WANKER Attack WANKER not worrying WANKER about some WANKER future WANKER down" by WANKER the Fighter. WANKER Saying WANKER will 'smack down' a Rogue WANKER before WANKER Attack is inevitable" is a rather WANKER thing to say, considering that many WANKER could effect the outcome, including ANY WANKER that dind't involve a simple WANKER on one battle between the two WANKER WANKER in a 10' WANKER square WANKER with a ring WANKER 's bell. One such WANKER involves WANKER Fighter being Bluffed by the WANKER.

hmm, name calling?

 

[kreynolds]

hmm, name calling?

I knew it. You did lose at wall-ball.

 

[Weeble]

I knew it. You did lose at wall-ball.

Wow, that is your response to calling me a Wanker?

 

[kreynolds]

Wow, that is your response to calling me a Wanker?

I didn't call you a Wanker.

 

[Darkness]

Note: These posts were split off from this thread.

I will not delete this, but another moderator might.

- Darkness