On 4/4/2012 5:30 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/3/2012 2:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/3/2012 1:39 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:30 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:11 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

The laugh would be on you if you met me in person because you
would
find
the same thing

You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. You're
clueless, including your ****witted belief that people think
you're
knowledgeable.


The only people who don't know that are

Everyone knows you're not a smart or clever guy.


The only people who don't know that are

Everyone knows you're not a smart or clever guy.


You aren't a very good listener. I told you that every one who
knows me
knows that I am not just a smart guy but I'm also a very knowledgeable
one too.

You ****ing idiot: being smart *means* being knowledgeable. And no, no
one believes that people who know you consider you smart. *We* who
suffer through your pedantic bull**** here "know" you, and you're not
smart.


You don't know anything.

We know you well enough to know you're not smart - not about anything.


You are too dumb to know that smart and intelligent mean the same thing.

They don't. I explained this. Intelligent means having the ability to
learn easily and quickly. Being smart means *having* learned,
regardless of how long or how much effort it took. I know some smart
people who aren't particularly intelligent, but they have excellent work
habits and over time they acquired a lot of knowledge. I know
intelligent people who aren't very smart because they're intellectually
lazy. I think George W. Bush was one such. He is actually reasonably
well above average in intelligence, but because he's lazy and not
curious about anything, he never applied his intelligence and so never
learned much - he's not smart.

You, of course, are neither.