On 3/29/2012 5:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/26/2012 11:50 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:


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.

What we know is what we read from your writing. This isn't
rec.psychics.

Did you think that I meant I was there in WWII with Bob Dole?

Your sentence structure implied it, dummy.

Well, if your really thought I was saying I was in WWII with Bob Dole
it's you who's the dummy. My guess is any sixth grader would have known
what I meant. The fact you were not sure only shows your reading problem.



Your reading comprehension is what sucks.

YOu have already shown that it is your comphrension that sucks.

My reading comprehension is as good as it gets.

It's atrocious.

It's excellent whether you know it or not. In fact, I would expect that
you would not be able to determine how good it really is. That would
take a superior brain, and you don't have one of those.


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
So what, so was I

If that kind of thing wasn't enough to spark an interest in politics
than what would?

He didn't say he didn't have an interest in it, stupid.

Where does it say I said he didn't? It was a rhetorical question.
Apparently, you didn't understand that. Oh, and adding an infantile
personal attack at the end of every sentence does nothing to improve it.
The truth is it makes you look like a buffoon.


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.

Yeah, right.

That happens to be true.

Bull****. Term papers aren't published in textbooks.

I didn't say "term paper". You made another mistake. Sloppy, lazy,
inattentive work on your part. But it is a fact I had a "paper" of mine
published in a textbook. I ought to know whether it's true or not. I had
to sign a release to give the author permission to use it.


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.
Wow, everything you wrote is true of George, but is equally true of
yourself as well. Except, that it is true that he lards his with more
insults than you do, but not by much.


No it's not true.

It's true.

Only as you see it and you're only one person.



If you have read this thread it's Pimpton who
continually claims his superiority in every regard.

Nope. For the most part, I merely point out how you *aren't* superior.

At every opportunity you claim superiority, such as in intellect,
writing, education, reading comprehension, and on and on. Then you turn
around here and say you only point out that I'm not superior. So should
I say you're lying or you just made a mistake? Because we both know you
claim superiority in the areas I just listed and probably more. So it's
not, for the most part, is it? It's in every area. The truth is you
haven't given me credit for even one area that I'm better than you. And
you still maintain you aren't claiming your superiority. I'd say I just
proved you wrong right here and now. You aren't pointing out how I'm not
superior. You really are claiming superiority over me in every category.
Can't wait to hear your lame excuse that you aren't.

Hawke