XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, soc.men   
   From: kali@powder.keg   
      
   In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)