XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, soc.men   
   From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
   I've read your post and you keep reiterating the same old crap, yet you   
   discount my post when I embellish a little over something that totally   
   flew over your head.   
      
   You choose to be blind, I cannot help you out on that. I waited to see   
   if you or Peter would actually go back to the docs in question and look   
   at it from a different perspective. Neither has chosen to do so. All the   
   things I pointed out were blithely dismissed due to your perspective   
   from the lofty towers of laziness, prejudice, and a self perceived image   
   that you or Peter were "intellectual".   
      
   My dear, even if you wrote with flowery words and fine phrases you could   
   not be an intellectual. You stonewall others thoughts, and dismiss them   
   in your trite little ways rather than consider any of them. You seem to   
   think that you can do the very same thing I do, but yours is   
   intellectual? ROTFL.   
      
   You have no insight, you have no free thought, you don't even have   
   questions, and my dear, those that don't have questions can never be   
   considered intellectual. I'd consider you gullible, probably one of   
   those who believes in the destruction of the world via global warming,   
   or concerned about the destruction of the earth via the destruction of   
   the ozone layer.   
      
   I have no respect for you, a jaundiced hypocrite, projected educated   
   one, and a person who sits in a judgment seat that was self chosen and   
   not appointed nor voted on. So it is not an intellectual I despise, but   
   the hypocritical prejudiced one behind the mask.   
      
   "Kali"  wrote in message   
   news:ftlnio$81$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   > In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   >>   
   >>"Kali"  wrote in message   
   >>news:fthmft$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.   
   >   
      
   Showing your background perhaps, the statement sounds like one that   
   comes from someone that lives in a hollow, as in W. Virginia or some   
   other hick area that I've never been a part of. Your suspicions are   
   incorrect, if you need proof of that or certs, then too bad.   
      
   >>>: 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.   
   >   
      
   Geez, just how lame can you get? Written after your statement about   
   whether or not I get out much.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Tit for tat.   
      
   > If it doesn't work the first several times, repeat.   
   >   
      
   Your recipe no doubt as evidenced by your posts.   
      
   >>>: 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.   
   >   
      
   Pretend your an intellectual, Kali it was a quote of yours. just look up   
   a few lines.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   No he didn't. He parroted hearsay.   
      
   >> 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?   
   >   
      
   I know you'll never reread the threads, and I know you'll justify every   
   attack you made, along with Peter, but I did not start off on the   
   attack. I can go through the statement again at the risk of being   
   repititive regarding the hearsay doc, based on a slanted report, but   
   why, you are too busy being ignorant and calling it being intellectual.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   I am familiar with your twists, dumb as a stump you just injected a   
   twist on your original statement,   
   I told you what you used was slang I was not familiar with. Your seeming   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)