XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, soc.men   
   From: kali@powder.keg   
      
   In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   >   
   >"Kali"  wrote in message   
   >news:fthmft$cpn$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   >In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   >>   
   >>"Kali"  wrote in message   
   >>news:ftdjnl$env$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   >>In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   >>: : English, and use of words that you know not of?   
   >>:   
   >>: Poor Frank. Too stump dumb to know when he's been bested.   
   >>:   
   >>: Well that's a new expression to me, "Too stump"?   
   >>   
   >>>Read the sentence again.   
   >>   
   >>Guess I'm not educated enough, still makes no sense. Must be slang   
   >>indigenous to your locale.   
   >   
   >>You're not educated enough to understand the term "stump dumb"?   
   >   
   >LOL, "educated" was used in sarcasm. This is a slang term and to have   
   >proper perspective on it one must be familiar with its usage and locale   
   >historical usage. I am not, so I could only jump to conclusions all of   
   >which might be incorrect.   
      
   Thus you confirm my suspicion that you don't get out much.   
      
   >>: You see what you want to see, you glow in your perception of what   
   >>: someone else did based on your desires.   
   >>   
   >>>Frank consults his Crystal Ball and once again sees his   
   >>>reflection.   
   >>   
   >>Well that was another lamer.   
   >   
   >>You do not possess enough knowledge about me to formulate an   
   >>opinion like that. It comes from one place only: your brain.   
   >   
   >Odd, you feel as if you know me and my "Crystal Ball"   
      
   No... you feel as if you know *me* with your crystal ball,   
   Peewee.   
      
   > and a few other   
   >derisive terms yet feel you sit in a catbirds seat and believe I cannot   
   >draw my own conclusions based on what you've wrote?   
   >It is true I know little about you in most any sense of the word but it   
   >is easy to see thus far that it is a difficult chore for you to make   
   >wise choices.   
      
   Argumentum ad nauseum.   
      
   If it doesn't work the first several times, repeat.   
      
   >>: Take away all the lame flames and you have nothing.   
   >>: He attempted to shift course by changing the goal posts after the   
   >>fact,   
   >>: another lamer move.   
   >>: He questioned my authority yet injected his own baseless authority,   
   >>yet   
   >>: he did eventually acknowledge that I was correct in seeing the   
   >>medical   
   >>: problem while adding way too much verbiage.   
   >>   
   >>>Check: reasoning about an issue is "verbiage" and "nothing".   
   >>   
   >>Are you a bufoon? Do you lack reading comprehension? I did not call   
   >>what   
   >>Peter said "reasoning",   
   >   
   >>Where did I say you did?   
   >   
   >Wow, "Check: reasoning about an issue is "verbiage" and "nothing". Your   
   >sarcasism said so, not me.   
      
   Strive for comprehension, Frank.   
      
   > In fact I never inferred it not on Peters   
   >part nor yours. In Peters part I held him to the same loose standard as   
   >he sought to put upon me. He used hearsay based on a report that had a   
   >clear agenda then added very little of his own thinking, unless you call   
   >restating original thought.   
      
   He reasoned quite well about the evidence, as you continued to   
   blatantly assert your position.   
      
   > There was not attempt at reasoning, in fact   
   >he blew it with his unreasoned anger. It is pointless to consider what   
   >he wrote and especially the hearsay when those that wrote both the   
   >original doc and the ones who commented on it were not here to defend or   
   >embellish their own statements.   
      
   Embellish their statements? I would hope not. But what was   
   published can be considered critically and discussed on its   
   merits, without any person having to defend himself. Unless that   
   person is being attacked. But attacking the person in order to   
   distract from the argument is your specialty, isn't it?   
      
   > For Peter to put a 3rd generation   
   >comment on it was ludicrous, especially since he has nothing of merit   
   >that I am familiar with.   
      
   You're not familiar with much, though. Like the phrase "dumb as   
   a stump", facts about pre-existing condions, procedures for the   
   treatment of prostate cancer, the fact of racism in American   
   society, etc.   
      
   It's humorous that you would try to degrade his argument by   
   saying "nothing of merit that I am familiar with". Gosh, it's so   
   easy to look up answers to avoid looking like a fool.   
      
   >>Bufoon?   
   >LOL, reduced to spelling lames?   
      
   No, something else.   
      
   >> and since it was mixed in with vulgarities it   
   >>appeared to be lame verbiage intended to belittle another.   
   >>   
   >>Here is a clue for you re: verbiage   
   >>1 : a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content >tangled maze of evasive verbiage as a typical party platform - Marcia   
   >>Davenport> 2 : manner of expressing oneself in words : diction   
   >>   
   >   
   >Thanks!   
   >   
   >>You seem to defend the fellow and I know not why?   
   >   
   >>We've been acquainted for ten years. We've enjoyed many topical   
   >>discussions in spp with other scientists, psychologists,   
   >>academics, students, and clients of psychotherapy over the   
   >>years, before the group was taken over by trolls and kooks and   
   >>became unusable.   
   >>   
   >   
   >This is it safe to say that you consider yourself and Peter to be   
   >"scientists, psychologists,   
      
   Both of us, by credentials.   
      
   >academics, students, and clients of psychotherapy"? Peter appeard to   
   >deny at least the scientist part to NAV in a post.   
   >   
   >>: He lost his cool, and properly discounted his arrogant attitude with   
   >>: gutter language and personal attacks. I've no clue what got under his   
   >>: skin to cause such a reaction, but stable he is not.   
   >>:   
   >>: If you want to grade it on volume then he wins hands down.   
   >>   
   >>>LOL More there than a Dr. Seuss book.   
   >>   
   >>wow, that surely makes a lot of sense. Guess there must be some hidden   
   >>humor to that statement. Sorry, I never read Dr. Seuss.   
   >   
   >>No wonder you're so grumpy.   
   >   
   >Me grumpy? LOL. pulling wings off flies, tails off lizards, setting   
   >fires to ants does not mean I'm grumpy.   
      
   So you gratuitously admit to sociopathic tendencies.   
      
   >>: However, all that aside, if you figure he has bested me so be it.   
   >>Your   
   >>: world is made up of the things you choose to be in it, the things   
   >>that   
   >>: you feel makes you happy. That is fine by me.   
   >>:   
   >>: In any event this is the Usenet, after all, so I'm sure this is world   
   >>: shaking event will change everything.   
   >>   
   >>>What do you have against intellectuals, Frank?   
   >>   
   >>At this point I suppose you will have to define "intellectuals" before   
   >>I   
   >>can comment on that.   
   >   
   >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual   
   >>   
   >>An intellectual is one who tries to use his or her intellect to   
   >>work, study, reflect, speculate, or ask and answer questions   
   >>about a wide variety of different ideas.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Hmmm, nothing special there, even people with downs syndrome do that.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)