On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.

So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic?

Saying that the title of the book makes the case is idiotic, you ****ing
cheeselog.

You're the first to say the title of a book makes the case. I never said
that. I said a book title tells you what the book is about. Can't you
get anything right? And do you always have to make up a lie?



You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably
cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

Do you ever remember him giving you a good reason why what I said was
not true?

Because it's not established. It's nothing but an allegation.

What the **** is wrong with you, bitch? You think when you make some
wild, irresponsible and essentially slanderous charge, that it is
considered true until someone disproves it? Not the way it works, bitch.
*YOU* have to make the case that it's true, with verifiable evidence,
and until you do, it's considered "not proved."


You're taking the other side of the question. When you deny an
allegation is true you're taking a position. If I say Dole was out to
use his position to gain financially and you deny it then you are saying
he did not do that.

Are you saying that Dole did not use his position to gain financially? I
don't have to prove an allegation any more than you have to prove it's
false. It is what it is, an allegation. I've seen evidence that it is
true. How about you? Do you have any information about the issue at all?
No? I thought not.


The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who
better
to write about someone?


In fact the title merely imply's he was for sale, NOT that he was
bought and paid for.

Right, and when you drive down the street and see a car parked there
with a sign on it that says "for sale" that doesn't mean that car
is for
sale.

It doesn't mean a sale has happened, you stupid ****.

Nobody said that it meant that. What was said is that a car with a for
sale sign on it is for sale. That's all it means. Same as when you say a
senator is for sale. He's available to be purchased. It means he's
crooked too. Funny that you are so ****ing stupid you can't understand
something so simple.


A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

Now you're getting the same disease that Pimpleton has, exceptionitis.

Now he's simply pointing out that you're full of **** - illogical,
irrational and full of ****.

No he's not, he's trying to avoid facing the plain fact, which is when a
car has a for sale sign on it that means someone is wanting to sell that
car. It doesn't mean a sale is pending, or the sign is on the car by
mistake, or that the car has been sold. It means the simple meaning.
That care is currently for sale. You can dance around it all you want
but that is what it means. The only way someone wouldn't understand what
the sign on the care means is if they are mentally ill.

Hawke