"Joseph Littleshoes"
isp.com> wrote in message
news:1956f$48c23442$4396fe4a$30455@DIALUPUSA.NET...> "Tom" wrote:
>
>>
>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote
>>> "Tom" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Any honest supplier of occult supplies would not be offering anonymous
>>>>> 'spells' from non affiliated sources.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Your* favorite site for occult trinkets does.
>>>
>>>
>>> My, according to you, 'favorite site' only sells their own, and not
>>> others whom they have no knowledge of ... you anatomical orifice.
>>
>>
>> You didn't say "selling". You said "offering",
>
> I said 'anonymous' a google advert on the lucky site?
No, you didn't say "google advert". You said "anonymous 'spells' from
non-affiliated sources". Try to keep straight the difference between what
you actually wrote and what you merely imagine that you've written.
I agree that your idols don't often advertise others' products on their
website. At least not for free...
>> and yes, they do offer anonymous spells on their site. As for the
>> authorship of the spells they *do* sell, many of those are allegedly
>> "traditional" spells whose authorship is anonymous. Your huckster
>> friends are *not* selling only spells that they have created themselves.
>
> Oy! yes they sell the 'spells' they make, or endorse from known sources
> you anatomically correct eliminatory orifice.
Traditional sources are almost entirely from anonymous authors. Ergo, they
are not "known sources", despite your dog-like faith in the omnipotence and
perfect righteousness of your masters. You do realize that even they think
you're a twit, don't you?
>> I comprehend the difference between the word "offer" and the word "sell",
>
> And you just ignore 'unaffiliated.'
"Unaffiliated source" does not mean "google advert", either. There are all
sorts of affiliations. Perhaps if you actually know what the words you were
using mean, you would be less likely to choose yours so poorly. One word
you should definitely look up is "sycophancy".
