On 3/23/2012 4:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's something a person with superior reading comprehension, such as I,
can extract from your posts even if the words aren't literally there.

That's good. You can't come up with a cite because you lied when you
said I "announced I'm incapable of critical thinking"

No, I didn't lie. You did announce it. You didn't know you were
announcing it, but you were.

So now you're resorting to comedy? Like anyone is not going to laugh at
the preposterous piece of **** you just lied about and got caught? You
keep making claims and they're all bogus.


I told you already that this book is not what I know about Bob Dole.

Right, because you haven't read it. All you know is the book title.

Must you lie in every post? I have known about Bob Dole from his
days in
WWII when he got wounded,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?

Because I've seen documentaries about him and his WWII experiences.

No, you ****wit - writing "I have known about Bob Dole from his days in
WWII when he got wounded" implies that you were *there*, you clumsy
plodding idiot.

Any normal person can understand exactly what I meant. A dimwit, no.



Your writing skills are atrocious.

Your reading comprehension is what sucks.


to his election in Kansas to the senate, to
his retirement and presidential run. I was a witness to his entire
political career.

Cut the ****. You had a below-average layman's awareness of him. You may
- *may* - have heard a little about him during Watergate. More likely,
your first real awareness of him was when he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976. After that, you stopped paying attention, just as everyone
else did.

He was Nixon's senate henchman. You didn't know that? Dole was a well
known senator back then just like John McCain or Lindsay Graham is now.
Only people disinterested in politics wouldn't know who Dole was. People
like you.



Now you are making one unsubstantiated claim after another.

The claims are correct. You were not a scoff "witness" chortle to
his career, you ****ing mullet.

Just like I witnessed Clinton's career I did the same for Dole. He was
one of America's most prominent senators during my lifetime. For me as a
someone interested in politics not to know of him would make me an idiot
like you.


Cut the bull**** about being a highly attuned political observer - you
just aren't. You never had any reason to be.

None other than that was my primary and lifelong interest.

Oh, so being a tennis instructor, paralegal, pickle-packer and whatever
other money grubbing things you did were just the dabbling of a
dilettante? That figures.

I never dabbled in anything. The first thing that made me interested in
politics was the Vietnam war. See, I was eligible for the draft back
then and what happened politically had a major influence on my life.
I've been observing every election and everything that goes on ever
since. Not like you who wasted all your time on a stupid thing like
economics that never made you any money.


I don't care if it was your "lifelong" interest or not, bitch - you
didn't attentively follow the career of every major political figure of
the last 50 years. You paid no more attention than anyone else who reads
a daily newspaper. The simple fact is, you were nothing but a dabbler in
politics, just like all the other things in which you dabbled.

I still follow the careers of all the major politicians, so quit lying.


As a major American senator during my lifetime I've
leaned many things

You were never a major American senator. You were never any kind of
senator.

Hmmm, I seem to remember that sentence ending with the words, about Bob
Dole.

Your sentence construction is ****. You used what's called a dangling
participle. After writing "As a major American senator...", what comes
next must be a pronoun or the name of the person who *was* the major
American senator. If Dole himself were writing it, then "I" or "I've"
could reasonably follow, because Dole was a major American senator. You
weren't.

Your writing is **** - indicative of the thinking behind it.

They didn't say that when they wanted one of my papers to be published
in a textbook. But maybe English majors know more than you do about the
subject of writing. You sure are no expert on it, that's perfectly clear.



Why don't you learn how to write proper English so you can avoid
dangling participles like that, ****wit?

Why don't you learn something about politics? You're a rookie, baby,
neophyte, trying to act like you're not. I hate republicans and I bet
I've seen more of the republican debates than you have.


Why don't you learn to make a cogent argument sometime

I learned how to do that decades before you finally quit ****ing off
long enough to get your ****ty degree from a ****ty school.

Then why don't you show us some of your ability here? Your writing style
looks like high school level. Everything you write is so full of
invectives and personal insults that there is no argument anyone can
find. Look at what you wrote here. Is that the best you can do? It's
pretty damn bad. Your work isn't good enough to qualify you to criticize
anyone else's. The only thing good about you is how good you think you
are and you're way off base. You're average. So how come you think
you're so damn great? It's all a fantasy you created. In reality you're
just an average Joe in a newsgroup that's pretending to be a superhero.
It's pretty pathetic really.

Hawke