XPost: talk.bizarre, misc.misc   
   From: b@p.h   
      
   Kent Paul Dolan   wrote:   
   >Blair P. Houghton  wrote:   
   >> Kent Paul Dolan   wrote:   
   >   
   >>> So, you're confessing you simply aren't smart   
   >>> enough to figure out the logistical problems on   
   >>> your own? I just want you to say so, in public,   
   >>> so I can smear egg on your face gleefully   
   >>> thereafter.   
   >   
   >> No, I'm exposing you yet again for a blithering   
   >> idiot, K*nt.   
   >   
   >Bwahahaha.   
   >   
   >Repeated recourse by you to insults to try to   
   >provoke me into giving you the answer before you   
   >admit you can't produce it on your own, are just you   
      
   I gave you the answer, K*nt.  The insults   
   are because you're ignoring that.   
      
   >demonstrating that you really, really _are_ *STUPID*   
   >enough to try to insult a retired submariner, a task   
   >which you, as a civilian puke, are well known to be   
   >entirely incapable of accomplishing.   
      
   You're still underwater, and you're talking to a "retired"   
   soldier, so go pound sand at the bottom of the ocean, Squiddly.   
      
   >That isn't you providing any demonstrations of your   
   >claimed intelligence, at all; exactly the opposite.   
      
   I'm watching you melt down rather than back up your nonsense   
   with fact.  So is everyone else.   
      
   >So, no, you'll get the answer exactly and only just   
   >as soon as you directly admit that you simply aren't   
   >able to produce it for yourself, from pure lack of   
   >intellectual prowess.   
      
   For pure lack of brain damage and psychosis, you mean.  I don't   
   have your facility for making up things that don't exist, K*nt.   
      
   You know, like a justification for your idiotic claim that   
   having 6 helicopters in the same quarter-mile square is   
   better "logistically" than pooling footage is.   
      
   >I have no problem giving you that answer, I wrote it   
   >out long ago.   
   >   
   >I'm just waiting for you to put yourself abjectly at   
   >my mercy, based purely on your own demonstrated AND   
   >ADMITTED inability to think the situation through.   
      
   Why would I admit to something that isn't true?   
      
   I already told you why your supposition is impossible.   
   You're the one not admitting that I nailed your moronic   
   ass to the wall.   
      
   >That way, I'll never have to abide your pretensions   
   >of being capable of intelligent thought, again, nor   
   >will anyone else here currently watching you squirm.   
      
   Blah de blah blah.  Here, have a sardine:  ><>   
      
   >So, you don't have the guts to post: "no, Kent, I'm   
   >not smart enough to think rationally about the   
   >logistical problems and so I cannot figure out why   
   >my suggestion won't work"?   
      
   That wouldn't take guts, it would take an abandonment of   
   the truth.   
      
   >I'll wait until you post that, before spelling out   
   >the incredibly obvious problems with your suggestion   
   >for you.   
      
   "Incredibly obvious problems" with having fewer aircraft   
   in the air and splitting a newsfeed to several broadcasters?   
      
   There are none, K*nt.  You've simply lost your mind   
   and are refusing to admit it.   
      
   >I'm waiting for exactly that admission, Blear, so   
   >you can't later come back with some lame, "oh, I   
   >knew that all along" when the simple and obvious   
   >answer is handed to you on a silver platter.   
   >   
   >You're the one who claims to be smart, Blear, figure   
   >the situation out, or admit you can't. It's a   
   >problem in binary logic, make your choice clear and   
   >obvious.   
      
   Binary logic doesn't have much to do with this, as your   
   brain doesn't deal in logic at all.   
      
   >Your weaseling attempts to do anything but admit you   
   >are unable to solve the problem, exactly matches   
   >your well known lack of a spine, but it isn't   
   >earning you any points, and it's certainly directly   
   >contradicting your claims of being intelligent.   
      
   I'm not weaseling at all.  I'm calling a psychotic, lying spade a   
   psychotic, lying spade.   
      
   You're the one doing the weaseling by refusing to post your   
   reasoning and hiding behind this false characterization of me.   
      
   >Instead, you're just that same old fuzzy-minded   
   >Blear we all know and ridicule.   
      
   Note to readers: That statement came from North America's   
   largest consumer of Thorazine.   
      
   >How nice to have you in a "Blear can't win"   
   >situation!   
      
   I won a long time ago.  You just refuse to post any proof   
   because you know it proves I won.   
      
   >Even if you do eventually stall long enough to   
   >blunder your way to the obvious answer, I still get   
   >to say "What took you so long, loser?"   
      
   I forget about you within seconds of hitting 'send', K*nt.   
      
   Everyone does.   
      
   				--Blair   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)