On 3/20/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

No way did I insist it was correct for a dozen posts.

You did.

Show them.

...says the slovenly fainéant who can never be bothered to post a
citation for anything.

So then our resident pimp does the same thing he accuses me of. Someone
as awesome as you should be able to show the exact dozen posts where I
made my supposed mistake. Not 11 not 13 but exactly one dozen posts.
That's what you said. You show the "dozen" posts okay? Then if it isn't
exactly one dozen then you have made a huge error like you accuse me of
and it means you are also guilty of slovenliness and sloppiness.



What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth
Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

Just like you do. Like when you said I ****ed up a dozen posts. But that
isn't true is it? You don't know how many it was. But you said you did
anyway.


The only person it matters to is you.

It matters to most people. I don't speak "for" anyone else, but I know
I'm saying the same thing that others have said.

Dumb ****, you just wrote it matters to most people. Really? Got the
proof, no. And you don't "know" you are saying the same thing others
have said. You're making that up because you want it to be true. You
don't know it though.


You can characterize it any way you want to.

I characterize it as your characteristic slovenliness and carelessness
with fact, proving you don't have the sharp mind you claim.

That's fine with me.

Good.

You're full of opinions. I haven't found many that are worth a damn.


Only a **** would act like that.

Your elderly infirm mother must be so proud of you.

You have no idea.


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

Yes it does.

How the **** would you know? You didn't read it, ****stain.

I perused it. So **** yourself. I looked at the thing in the library.
You haven't. It's an expose of a crooked politician. Most people would
know that from the title. You have to be a moron not to.


It says he made a lot of money before the book was written
and that was in 1995.

No, it doesn't. You wouldn't know - you didn't read it.

The accusations about Dole were during his time in the senate so that is
the time he is alleged to have cashed in.


There is no suggestion in it that Dole personally benefited.


You would really know when if you read the book.

*You* try reading it, ****wit.

The problem is you're so damn dumb you think I'm like you and that the
only thing I know about Bob Dole is from one book I've only looked at
very casually. The truth is I know all kinds of things about Bob Dole
from when he was in the senate. I have heard from numerous sources that
Dole was out to get rich and he did just that by using his political
connections and his office. It's clear your knowledge about Dole is
miniscule. If you don't even know of his reputation in congress as
someone who can be bought then you don't know the first thing about him.

I haven't read the book.

I know that.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

He'll always be "senator" Dole.

He's an ex-senator. Calling him "Senator" is a term of respect. He isn't
a senator, and hasn't been for over a 15 years.

Now we're getting into your domain, trivial and insignificant. He's a
senator for as long as he lives. But he's not currently a member of the
senate. So is he a senator? Some say yes. Some disagree. It's a really
minor point. No wonder it is of such interest to you.


If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole".

He's an ex-senator.

That will

He's an ex-senator.

But he's still senator Dole, isn't he?


To the best of your knowledge, he earned his "wealth" after he left the
Senate.

My information is that he was making a lot of money from his position in
the senate for decades.

You don't have one ****ing shred of "information".

Yes I do. You are just so ill informed that you thing that only thing I
have ever heard about Dole being venal is from one book. The problem
with that is I had heard things about Dole for years. Way before he left
the senate. He may well have made a lot more after he left office but
that is not my accusation and the books. Both of us say he was using his
office to rake it in for many years while a serving senator. But you
know nothing of that. You were too busy thinking about economics, right?



You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Do not.

You do.

Don't.


Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things.

No. You have a general and well-deserved reputation for slovenliness and
utter disregard for accuracy.

Total hogwash,

You have a reputation for that, too.

You have the bad reputation.

Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to
detail.

No you don't.

Yes, I sure do.

Acting like an overscrupulous

"Overscrupulous"? First, it's not a word. Second, it figures that a
thoroughly unscrupulous political dilettante like you would denigrate
the idea of scruples.


Not a word, huh? There's another **** up for you to add to the growing
list. It is a word. Want cites? The Free Dictionary and Dictionary.com
both have definitions for the word. What do you say about that? They are
stupid too?

I wouldn't denigrate the word scruples by putting it in the same
sentence with your name. Even if you read the word you have no idea what
it means. You're the type that knows the price of everything and the
value of nothing. You're a bot.

Hawke