On 3/23/2012 11:27 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/21/2012 3:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/20/2012 3:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it
and
read some of it.

"I haven't read the book." -- Hawke-Ptooey


I haven't.

So, you don't know your ass from your face - as usual.

The question is what does that make you? You say **** about me for not
having read the book and you haven't either.

I didn't claim any particularly keen knowledge about it merely from
having glanced at the jacket; you did.

The hell I did. All I said was I had looked it over.

You said you "knew" from it that Bob Dole committed unethical or illegal
acts as a senator and became rich from them, merely as a result of
having fondled the book in the library.


You also wrote, "But it was written...by someone who was on his staff
for a long time." The author of the hatchet job, Stanley Hilton,
wrote
that he worked as an aide to Dole "...back in 1979 and 1980." That's
not a long time, and he was not in any position to see how Dole made
his money.

Says who?

How would he have been?


I'd say being on someone's staff more than two years

It *wasn't* more than two years, you plodding drooling ****.


is a long time. What is a short time? Whatever you say it is. The
author
was an aide to Dole for years.

Less than two, long before he wrote the book.

That's a long time,

It's not a long time, and it was 15 years before he scrawled out his hit
piece, you stupid ham hock.


It's plenty of time to know what your boss is like as a person.

He didn't witness *anything* Dole did between 1980 and 1995. He was not
in a position to witness anything.


Once again, you reveal your slovenliness and reckless disregard for
facts.

And you again reveal you are only out to find trivial bull**** to nit
pick.

It's not trivial. It goes to the very core of your character, which we
can see is pure ****.

You can't see anything.

We all can see that your character is ****.

What we see is

....that your character is ****.


Why don't you refute the accusations about Dole?

What accusations? All you've put out there is innuendo; not a single
concrete accusation.

You mean like you do about me?

No, not like those at all.


You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything
about
the
book.

I don't see where he is making claims on what the book says, but
even
if he did, I guess if he has also seen the cover, that would put
you
on equal footing.

We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands

What the ****...you can absorb the text through the palms of your
hands?
You stupid flabby douchebag.

The stupidity is that you can't even grasp that having found the
book in
the library, taken down from the shelf, looked it over, read some
passages from it, and got a real idea what it's about, puts me

...in the toilet, again.

Puts me far ahead of you in knowing anything about that book.

You don't know the details of the book. In particular, you don't know
any specific allegation the disgruntled, about-to-be-disbarred fired
aide said about Dole.

There you go again telling everyone how little I know about the book
when we both know you know even less.

As before, this is about what you *DON'T* know. You don't know any
specific allegations of impropriety, but you're acting as if you do.

Name one, you ****: name a specific act of impropriety that disbarred
hatchet artist Hilton made against Dole.

You can't.



You didn't see a single concrete accusation in your slovenly perusal of
the book. You read the jacket; no more.

Well, there you go again, Jr. Making it up as you go. You go on and on
about my sloppiness and here you are just plain making up outright lies.

You didn't see a single concrete accusation in your slovenly perusal of
the book. You read the jacket; no more.


And how exactly would you know that?

We all know it. You can't cite a single specific allegation the
smearing con man Hilton made against Dole; all you saw was the title.