On 3/24/2012 6:15 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/24/2012 5:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 4:38 PM, Hawke wrote:
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?

No; serious as a heart attack, boy.


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.

You write badly.


Your writing skills are atrocious.

Your reading comprehension is what sucks.

My reading comprehension is superb.


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.

No, Dole was *not* a particularly well known senator in the early 1970s.


Only people disinterested in politics wouldn't know who Dole was.

You should have written uninterested, not disinterested. They're not
synonyms, douche.



You didn't know any of that at the time.



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.

You were present in the US during their careers and you watched a little
TV news and read some newspapers. You did not closely follow their
careers.


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.

You have dabbled in *everything*. You have no expertise, no depth of
experience in anything. You're a dabbler, a dilettante - a lightweight
through and through.



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

You glance at the headlines.


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.

Didn't happen.


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?

I know plenty. I don't have any reason to know intricate details of
politics, but I have far beyond an average aware layman's grasp of
politics. You don't have any more than that, and probably not that much.


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.

My writing surpasses yours in every way.


What I notice is that when you are the judge you win every time.

Go ahead and ask some others.