XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, soc.men   
   From: navichuck@huckbuck.org   
      
   Peter wrote:   
   > In message , nav  writes   
   >> Peter Hood wrote:   
   >>> In message , nav  writes   
   >>>> Peter Hood wrote (regarding Frank):   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I think that you prefer to offer ad hominem rants of an unusually ill   
   >>>>>  informed, inarticulate strangled nature.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Really? Are you sure??   
   >>>  No. I don't have a crystal ball.   
   >>   
   >> You don't need one to recognize Frank posts ad hominem rants.   
   >>   
   >>>>> You've offered no evidence to support your claims only simplistic,   
   >>>>> glib ad hominem attacks, something that appears to typify your online   
   >>>>> interactions,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not happy with Frank's evidence, or rather, lack thereof??   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> leading me to question your stability and maturity, to say nothing of   
   >>>>> your intelligence and awareness.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You wouldn't be making an *argumentum ad hominem* now, would you??   
   >>>  I merely question. Were it otherwise then I'd make an assertion.   
   >>   
   >> And your questions beg an affirmative answer.   
   >>   
   >>>> Well, I prefer it this way: Frank is *stoopid*.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Simple, direct, and gets to the point quicker than pretending you're   
   >>>> the   
   >>>> next best thing on usenet to the Oxford Union.   
   >>>  I'm posting in sci.psychology.psychotherapy, a place where   
   >>> scientists tend to congregate/used to.   
   >>   
   >> Then you'd have recognized Frank is no scientist.   
   >>   
   >> By the way, nothing you've posted in this thread gives you away as an   
   >> obvious scientist either.   
   >   
   > And your last remark seems to betray the glimmerings of ill informedness   
   > . It is neither a   
   > necessary nor a sufficient condition of being a scientist that my posts   
   > in any specified thread should 'give me away as a scientist' and,   
   > moreover, any absence of such clues in a post  bright enough to pick up on them> does not mean that I am not such a   
   > creature.   
   >   
   > There is at least one more non sequitur tucked away in your teensy   
   > little sentence. Perhaps you can find it for me, using the lens of your   
   > intellect.   
      
   I don't give two bits what you are.   
   None of your foregoing posts offer anything of value.   
   With idiots like you operating in the British defense establishment,   
   another American Lend-Lease program will have to save your Queen.   
   You are greasy butt-fucking buffoon, deserving of a permanent home   
   in the bin.   
      
   BUH BYE! ~   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)