On Jun 26, 3:34*pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
Seems like veryone has gone away, I suspect there is something wrong
with the server.

We are not gone; we are merely hiding from the Gun Lovers, who have
taken over a.h.r.

HB

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jun 26, 3:34*pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
Seems like veryone has gone away, I suspect there is something wrong
with the server.

We are not gone; we are merely hiding from the Gun Lovers, who have
taken over a.h.r.

HB

The republicans, gun-lovers, flag-wavers, and bible-thumpers were here
long before you showed up, higgs. It's only been recently that a few
voices of intelligence and reason have showed up.

On Jul 1, 12:19*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jun 26, 3:34*pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
Seems like veryone has gone away, I suspect there is something wrong
with the server.

We are not gone; we are merely hiding from the Gun Lovers, who have
taken over a.h.r.

HB

The republicans, gun-lovers, flag-wavers, and bible-thumpers were here
long before you showed up, higgs. It's only been recently that a few
voices of intelligence and reason have showed up.

That bad! I've only been posting for a few years, so you may well be
right.

My comment actually concerned GG's recent spasm of posting Gun Lovers
messages under separate Subject lines, rather than subsuming them all
under the
original Subject line as before. This may be part of GG's recent mini-
catastrophe; late posts, no posts, etc.

Anyway, you and I will surely be among the Elect in the Critical
Thinking Valhalla, quaffing mead as we reminisce about the Good Old
Days when people could write consecutive sentences with correct (but
not stuffy) grammar and syntax.

Skoal!

HB

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:



Anyway, you and I will surely be among the Elect in the Critical
Thinking Valhalla, quaffing mead as we reminisce about the Good Old
Days when people could write consecutive sentences with correct (but
not stuffy) grammar and syntax.

My dating site profile clearly states "If you are unable to construct a
sentence in the English language, please don't bother me."

On 7/3/2011 1:30 AM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Higgs wrote:



Anyway, you and I will surely be among the Elect in the Critical
Thinking Valhalla, quaffing mead as we reminisce about the Good Old
Days when people could write consecutive sentences with correct (but
not stuffy) grammar and syntax.

My dating site profile clearly states "If you are unable to construct a
sentence in the English language, please don't bother me."

Just how cute are you there stud? ^_^

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote

My dating site profile clearly states "If you are unable to construct a
sentence in the English language, please don't bother me."

TDD

You may as well put "Please don't bother me." I doubt your e mail is full
often anyway. The kind of wimmin your looking for their are not going to
meet you're standards because they are to stupid. They don't know that they
don't know. ;-)

Steve

On Jul 3, 7:47*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote

My dating site profile clearly states "If you are unable to construct a
sentence in the English language, please don't bother me."
TDD

You may as well put "Please don't bother me." *I doubt your e mail is full
often anyway. *The kind of wimmin your looking for their are not going to
meet you're standards because they are to stupid. *They don't know that they
don't know. *;-)

Steve

Steve, you're out of the running, grammar-wise! You reversed "your"
and "you're". Also "to" instead of "too". Tsk, tsk.
Git inna penalty box!

PS - You got that right about "They don't know that they don't know".
Look inna mirrr (that's how a lot of people pronounce "mirror")

Hey, but I bet you can fix things around the house big-time! Preshus!

HB

HB

On 7/3/2011 9:47 AM, Steve B wrote:
"The Daring wrote

My dating site profile clearly states "If you are unable to construct a
sentence in the English language, please don't bother me."

TDD

You may as well put "Please don't bother me." I doubt your e mail is full
often anyway. The kind of wimmin your looking for their are not going to
meet you're standards because they are to stupid. They don't know that they
don't know. ;-)

Steve


Steve my friend, I do believe you're responding to the wrong person. You
are quoting Smitty Two not me. :-)

TDD

I put an ad on Craigslist, months ago. I still get emails
asking if I want a no strings hookup.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"The Daring Dufas" wrote

My dating site profile clearly states "If you are unable
to construct a
sentence in the English language, please don't bother
me."

TDD

You may as well put "Please don't bother me." I doubt your
e mail is full
often anyway. The kind of wimmin your looking for their are
not going to
meet you're standards because they are to stupid. They
don't know that they
don't know. ;-)

Steve

In article ,
Steve B wrote:

... The kind of wimmin your looking for their are not going to
meet you're standards because they are to stupid.

Steve

Thank you for that hilarious takeoff on today's actual internet writing.

It can't really be deliberate that so *very* often you see "your" for
"you're", "to" for "too" (soon it will be for "two"!). I mean it
makes the writer look stupid, not clever, so it wouldn't be deliberate,
yes?

Seems to me that one (both?) of our political parties, or at least their
masters, are trying *hard* to dumb-down the school system.

Why might they want to do that?

Who knows? But, do recall that it was illegal to teach a slave to
read (and write). Why do you suppose that was?

What with the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, "Northern Command"
or whatever it's now called, with U.S. troops now stationed in the U.S.
*for action there!* (eg putting down "dissent"), and Mr. O. taking all
that even further, seems like the writing is on the wall, as they say.

Long time being planned, maybe even since that anti-Goldwater ad with
the little girl (I watched the ad, live, way back then) and the flower
and then the BOOM: think-tanks, etc. What do you think they were being
*paid* to do, other than plan for eventual takeover.

(That ad has to be on you-tube -- let me go google -- ok, I googled for
goldwater daisy
(you try it) and got a lot of stuff about the approved-by-Moyers shown-only-once
LBJ anti-goldwater ad. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjDzDsgbww
).

Anyway, ...

David