On 3/24/2012 4:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 2:21 PM, wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:48 pm, wrote:

You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean
after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and
was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.


Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

He either dropped out or was expelled; either way, he clearly wasn't
college material at the time.


Good to know you know so much more about me than I do. I do wonder how
you know all this though.

It's not so hard to figure out, Ptooey. You said you were attending
university back in the 1970s, when you were in your 20s, then you said
you didn't obtain a degree until you were 50, which would be about 2001.
What were you doing in the interim - attending collegge and changing
majors every 10 days? No, you were not attending university during that
time - you either dropped out or were expelled.

On 3/23/2012 4:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:48 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:08 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

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?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.
jk


You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do?

You don't know particularly much about him. You don't know of a single
concrete accusation that disbarred lawyer made about him.


I don't have to know anything about what that book says. I knew about
Bob Dole when he was the majority leader in the senate. He was a crooked
republican and the right hand man of Richard Nixon. It's you that knows
nothing.



When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college

...and had dropped out or been booted out for the same ****ty study
habits you exhibit now.


political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election?

No more than any other registered voter.


Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.

No more than any other registered voter.

Yeah, that's right, people with a life of interest in politics only pay
the same attention as ordinary people do.



So what were you doing when Dole and Ford were running for president in
1976? Was politics something you paid a lot of attention to back then?
It was for me. And have you ever seen any documentaries about Bob Dole
in your life? Because I have.

I think you "saw" the documentaries about the same way you "read" that
book: you maybe watched the trailers for them.


But what we know beyond your speculation about me is that you were
ignorant back in 76 and you are ignorant now about Bob Dole. So why are
you talking about something YOU know nothing about and I do?

Hawke

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

On 3/24/2012 4:16 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 4:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 2:21 PM, wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:48 pm, wrote:

You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean
after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and
was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.


Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

He either dropped out or was expelled; either way, he clearly wasn't
college material at the time.


Good to know you know so much more about me than I do. I do wonder how
you know all this though.

It's not so hard to figure out, Ptooey. You said you were attending
university back in the 1970s, when you were in your 20s, then you said
you didn't obtain a degree until you were 50, which would be about 2001.
What were you doing in the interim - attending collegge and changing
majors every 10 days? No, you were not attending university during that
time - you either dropped out or were expelled.


I got an AA in the early 70s, didn't go any farther. So I didn't drop
out or get expelled. I went back in 1998, fall semester. The rest is
history, which you don't know. By the way, I got excellent grades too.

Hawke

On 3/23/2012 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:48 pm, wrote:

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.


But that does not give any information about what the collection of
books is about. So the title does not tell you what the Bible is
about.


It's important because while there are some books that have titles that
give no clue as to what the book is about, like the book Rabbit Redux,
the vast majority of books have titles that identify what the subject of
the book is. That is the number one reason for a title, to identify what
the book is about so the reader will know it without reading the book first.


You really blew this one. " Rabbit Redux " actually tell you exactly
what the book is about. Provided you know something about Updike and
his books, and you know what Redux means. I was in high school with
John , but he was several grades ahead of me.

You are wrong about the title of books. The number one reason for a
title is to identify the book. Not to identify what the book is
about.

It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about but in the majority of
books the reason for the title is to tell what the book is about. You
can argue about percentages but most book titles tell what they are
about or at least give you a clue to what it's about.


Like " Gone with the Wind " is about a tornado.

That's a novel.

Hawke

On 3/24/2012 4:13 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

A bit difficult with a mail order degree from Nigeria.

His BA means bull**** artist


I guess that's your way of saying you have none.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

Why did it take you 30 years to earn a BA?


You're a little man, aren't you?

Why - because he can spot what a conceited clown you are?

On 3/23/2012 4:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:48 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:29 PM, wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:38 pm, wrote:


So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a
book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic? Really? Then why not tell
me what percentage of books have a title that give no clue as to what
the book is about. Or how about tell us what is the purpose of a book's
title?


Hawke

The title of a book is the name of the book. Pretty much the same as
Dave Smithers is your name. Your name may or may not give a clue
about what you are about. I think the Bible is the book that is the
most sold book. It's title does not say what the book is about. The
purpose of a books title is to have a way to easily identify the
book. It provides a way to search for copies of the book and a way to
tell others about a book so they can find and read it. A title is
much easier to remember than say a number.

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.

You know that *now*. You didn't know it two minutes before you did a
Google search on "Bible".


Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.

Even if the title implies a lie.


Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about?

It's important because

It isn't important.


As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about. But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.


It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about

Hilton wrote a novel - well, fiction in any case.

You've really made a hell of a lot of claims about a book you've never
even laid eyes on. I'm trying to figure out how you know so much about
it. I know you can Google the author but you don't really have any idea
what the book says about Dole. As we have just said, the title may have
nothing to tell us about the book, right? It may be a book that makes
Dole out to be a god. We don't know for sure unless we read it do we? Of
course, you seem to know all about it without reading a word. You know,
when you do that it just makes everything you say even less believable
than it is already?

Hawke

On 3/22/2012 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Mar 22, 3:13 pm, wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Nice diversion. Nice attack on the messenger too.

His credibility is zero.

That's what smart people do, reject everything in the book without
reading a word of it. Yeah, sure they do. Closed minded dweeb.

Nothing he wrote in his book is true, right?

Did he spell Dole's name right? I guess that could be "true".

Admit it you coward, you don't know a word that is written in that book
but you have rejected it anyway. Good little totalitarian.

Good try but no cigar. Dole was one of the
worst offenders of using the office for personal gain.

Prove it, ****flaps.

For you? Forget it. You're such a jerk that if I had chapter and verse
right in front of me proving Dole was guilty of what I said he did I
wouldn't show it to you. You don't deserve to hear the facts. You're
such an ass that I would purposely leave you out whenever I cited
anything for other people. I do nothing for **** ants.

If it ever mattered to you in the least you would take the time to prove
me wrong. But you're too lazy to find the facts out for yourself. You'd
much rather just run your mouth and make one personal criticism after
another. So get the facts for yourself, or you have no business
commenting on Bob Dole. You're obligated to do more than say I'm wrong.
We get it you deny Dole used his office to get rich. We also know you
will never come up with any proof of that too. You just want to call
people names like a punky little kid. That's the only thing you know how
to do. You sure can't prove what you are implying about Bob Dole. All
you can do is blah, blah, blah.

Hawke

This is not how you impress people with your higher education.

Dan




That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get him to prove what he
is asserting, and that is Bob Dole is an honest, ethical, senator that
didn't use his office to get rich. He says I'm wrong but all he has to
do to prove that is to prove Dole is honest and never made a lot of
money when he was a senator. We see that Biden didn't make himself a
multimillionaire even after 30 some years in the senate. But Bob Dole
did. Pimpleton says he didn't. What is wrong with asking him if he can
prove that?

Hawke

On 3/24/2012 4:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:48 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:08 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

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?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.
jk


You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do?

You don't know particularly much about him. You don't know of a single
concrete accusation that disbarred lawyer made about him.


I don't have to know anything about what that book says. I knew about
Bob Dole when he was the majority leader in the senate. He was a crooked
republican and the right hand man of Richard Nixon. It's you that knows
nothing.

You have no sound evidence that he was crooked; nothing but innuendo and
your reflexive hatred.


When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college

...and had dropped out or been booted out for the same ****ty study
habits you exhibit now.


political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election?

No more than any other registered voter.


Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.

No more than any other registered voter.

Yeah, that's right, people with a life of interest in politics only pay
the same attention as ordinary people do.

Just how profound of a "life of interest in politics" could you have had
in your early 20s, Ptooey? Apparently it wasn't strong enough interest
to get you to finish your degree in a timely manner.

Cut the ****. You want us to believe you were a little junior James
Carville at age 26, and we're just not buying it. You were a
dilettante. You read a little bit about political figures in the
newspaper and in People magazine, same as a few tens of millions of
other folks. You were not politically savvy, you have no special
insight that any other reasonably aware person had.

Just cut the ****, goddamnit.


So what were you doing when Dole and Ford were running for president in
1976? Was politics something you paid a lot of attention to back then?
It was for me. And have you ever seen any documentaries about Bob Dole
in your life? Because I have.

I think you "saw" the documentaries about the same way you "read" that
book: you maybe watched the trailers for them.


But what we know beyond your speculation about me is that you were
ignorant back in 76 and you are ignorant now about Bob Dole.

Nope. I expect I had about the same awareness you had. I'm just a bit
younger than you - I was a bit less than a month away from turning 24 in
November 1976 - but unlike you, Ptooey, I had *completed* my university
degree then. I didn't **** around and get expelled from university or
drop out. I don't claim to have been an expert, but I followed
politics, read about it in serious publications like the L.A. Times and
the weekly news magazines, and I even still watched some television news
in those days. I expect I knew at least as much about it as you did then.

Quick smart now, boy - who was Jimmy Carter's second Secretary of
Commerce? Don't look it up, bitch, just tell us off the top of your
head, bam-bam-bam-SEND. Come on, quit ****ing around. What was the
confirmation vote?

Who was Richard Nixon's first Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare, and what were his political positions immediately before and
after he held that post?

You ****ing clown.

On Mar 24, 7:42*pm, Hawke wrote:


Like " Gone with the Wind " is about a tornado.

That's a novel.

Hawke

Do you know anything about Venn diagrams? " Gone with the Wind " is a
book. It is also a novel, it is also an American novel. It is also
an American Historical Novel. It is also a book written by a woman.
So what is your point about it being a novel ?

Dan

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 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.

On 3/24/2012 4:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/24/2012 4:16 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 4:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 2:21 PM, wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:48 pm, wrote:

You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean
after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and
was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.


Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

He either dropped out or was expelled; either way, he clearly wasn't
college material at the time.


Good to know you know so much more about me than I do. I do wonder how
you know all this though.

It's not so hard to figure out, Ptooey. You said you were attending
university back in the 1970s, when you were in your 20s, then you said
you didn't obtain a degree until you were 50, which would be about 2001.
What were you doing in the interim - attending college and changing
majors every 10 days? No, you were not attending university during that
time - you either dropped out or were expelled.


I got an AA in the early 70s, didn't go any farther. So I didn't drop
out or get expelled. I went back in 1998, fall semester. The rest is
history, which you don't know. By the way, I got excellent grades too.

In community college and a third-tier state college. Good for you, your
mommy probably baked you some cookies for it.

On 3/24/2012 4:48 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:48 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:29 PM, wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:38 pm, wrote:


So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a
book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic? Really? Then why not tell
me what percentage of books have a title that give no clue as to what
the book is about. Or how about tell us what is the purpose of a
book's
title?


Hawke

The title of a book is the name of the book. Pretty much the same as
Dave Smithers is your name. Your name may or may not give a clue
about what you are about. I think the Bible is the book that is the
most sold book. It's title does not say what the book is about. The
purpose of a books title is to have a way to easily identify the
book. It provides a way to search for copies of the book and a way to
tell others about a book so they can find and read it. A title is
much easier to remember than say a number.

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.

You know that *now*. You didn't know it two minutes before you did a
Google search on "Bible".


Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.

Even if the title implies a lie.


Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about?

It's important because

It isn't important.


As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about. But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.


It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about

Hilton wrote a novel - well, fiction in any case.

You've really made a hell of a lot of claims about a book you've never
even laid eyes on.

The fact you're citing it as gospel tells me everything I need to know.
Oh, that and the fact that the author was a crackpot conspiracy theory
lawyer who eventually got disbarred.

Do you know that Hilton sued the San Francisco Airport and a few dozen
other agencies for hundreds of millions of dollars because he says the
airport noise made him go so completely nuts that his wife and children
left him? Look it up. That's your boy, Ptooey - some scholar and legal
whiz-bang, haw haw haw.

On 3/22/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke wrote:

If it ever mattered to you in the least you would take the time to prove
me wrong.

You have to prove that you're right, ****head. But you can't.


But you're too lazy to find the facts out for yourself.

I've shown that you have *not* produced any facts. You're produced a
smearing book title; that's all.


You'd much rather just run your mouth and make one personal criticism
after
another.

Your slovenliness and partisan credulity are easy and obvious targets
for criticism.


So get the facts for yourself, or you have no business commenting on
Bob Dole.

You try producing some facts, ****head. A smearing book title is not a
relevant fact.


You're obligated to do more than say I'm wrong.

You're obliged to show you're right. You can't, of course.


We get it you deny Dole used his office to get rich.

Nope. I haven't said anything of the kind. I've said that *you* haven't
showed that he did. He might have, but you haven't come close to showing
it - haven't even started, really.



We also know you will never come up with any proof of that too.

Not my burden. It's your burden to show you're right; not anyone's
burden to show you're wrong.


You just want to call people names

I just want to point out what a lying partisan ****bag you are.


And all I'm trying to do it point out that Bob Dole was the same kind of
a senator that his mentor, Richard Nixon was, and that both of them were
cut from the same cloth. Which they were, by the way. I know this and
have known it for decades. I don't know anything about Bob Dole from the
book, I haven't read it.


Everything I know about Dole came years ago and from many different
sources. I saw things about him on TV, I read things about him in
magazines and newspapers. He was a big deal republican senator for years
and years from the time I was 20 until I wan nearly 50 years old.

For you not to know that I would know all kinds of stuff about Bob Dole
only shows your ignorance. I couldn't stand Bob Dole. If you knew
anything about me you would know that I knew Bob Dole like I know Sarah
Palin. It's hard not to know about people like that. They're in the news
all the time. And like I've said repeatedly Dole had a reputation for
selling out to business interests and getting rich doing it. It seems
like you are one of the few people who doesn't know that but you want me
to prove it to you. To which I tell you again you can go screw yourself.
I'm not doing it for you. You can say all day long I haven't proved Dole
was what I say he is. Too bad. I'm through saying it. Take it or leave
it. It's your loss if you're too dumb to know the truth when you hear
it, and it's clear that is the case.

Hawke

On 3/24/2012 4:57 PM, wrote:
On Mar 24, 7:42 pm, wrote:


Like " Gone with the Wind " is about a tornado.

That's a novel.

Hawke

Do you know anything about Venn diagrams? " Gone with the Wind " is a
book. It is also a novel, it is also an American novel. It is also
an American Historical Novel. It is also a book written by a woman.
So what is your point about it being a novel ?

Dan



Simple, novels are the kind of books that the title frequently doesn't
give you any idea what it is about.

As for Venn diagrams, I know what they are but I didn't know what they
were called. Why did you bring them up? What do they have to do with
book titles?


Hawke

On 3/24/2012 5:07 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.

You know that *now*. You didn't know it two minutes before you did a
Google search on "Bible".

You mean you just learned that from doing a Google search. Me, I learned
that word back when I was 19 years old from a guy in Oregon that was of
Greek heritage. I never forgot it. You just learned the meaning of a
word I've known almost 40 years. That's how far you are behind me.



Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.

Even if the title implies a lie.


Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about?

It's important because

It isn't important.


As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about. But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.


It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about

Hilton wrote a novel - well, fiction in any case.

You've really made a hell of a lot of claims about a book you've never
even laid eyes on.

The fact you're citing it as gospel tells me everything I need to know.
Oh, that and the fact that the author was a crackpot conspiracy theory
lawyer who eventually got disbarred.

You're full of one lie after another aren't you. I never cited that book
for anything. I wouldn't do that because I didn't read it. I don't know
what it says about Dole. After looking at it I assume it's an indictment
of Dole but I don't know that for sure so I wouldn't presume to use it
to prove anything. You keep saying I'm using it when in fact I am not
and never have. I only mentioned it because it probably does paint a
negative picture of Dole. But I would expect that from what I knew about
Dole from years ago.



Do you know that Hilton sued the San Francisco Airport and a few dozen
other agencies for hundreds of millions of dollars because he says the
airport noise made him go so completely nuts that his wife and children
left him? Look it up. That's your boy, Ptooey - some scholar and legal
whiz-bang, haw haw haw.


Yes, I did know that. But for all I know the man has become mentally
unstable in the last few years. That happens to people when they get old
sometimes. He may be off his rocker. I don't really know just like I
don't know if his book is any good or not, which I freely admit and you
don't have the balls to admit.

Earnest Hemingway blew his head off. Does that mean his writing was no
good? I don't think so. I don't know about Hilton one way or the other.
There's a good chance the book has plenty of validity to it. Hilton had
a good education, a law degree, and good jobs for many years. I don't
know about now but I wouldn't presume he was a nut all his life. You're
the one who makes all the presumptions.


Hawke

On 3/24/2012 4:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 4:13 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

A bit difficult with a mail order degree from Nigeria.

His BA means bull**** artist


I guess that's your way of saying you have none.

No, that doesn't follow at all.


Usually does.




Why did it take you 30 years to earn a BA?

It didn't. It took about five.



You're a little man, aren't you?

Why - because he can spot what a conceited clown you are?


Because I am a good guesser and your the conceited one around here.

Hawke

On 3/24/2012 5:05 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Good to know you know so much more about me than I do. I do wonder how
you know all this though.

It's not so hard to figure out, Ptooey. You said you were attending
university back in the 1970s, when you were in your 20s, then you said
you didn't obtain a degree until you were 50, which would be about 2001.
What were you doing in the interim - attending college and changing
majors every 10 days? No, you were not attending university during that
time - you either dropped out or were expelled.


I got an AA in the early 70s, didn't go any farther. So I didn't drop
out or get expelled. I went back in 1998, fall semester. The rest is
history, which you don't know. By the way, I got excellent grades too.

In community college and a third-tier state college. Good for you, your
mommy probably baked you some cookies for it.


I could do worse. I could have gone to a good school and not learned
anything. But then I'd be like you.

Hawke

On Mar 24, 8:38*pm, Hawke wrote:

So what is your point about it being a novel ?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Simple, novels are the kind of books that the title frequently doesn't
give you any idea what it is about.

As for Venn diagrams, I know what they are but I didn't know what they
were called. Why did you bring them up? What do they have to do with
book titles?

Hawke


I brought up Venn diagrams because you are saying the purpose of book
titles is to identify what the book is about, and then you say novels
are the kind of book that the title frequently does not give you an
idea of what the book is about.

Thinking in terms of Venn diagrams should make you aware that novels
are in the set of "books". The very thing we have been talking about.

Dan


Yes, I could have been a judge but I never had the Latin, never
had the Latin for the judging. I just never had sufficient of it to
get through the rigorous judging exams. They’re noted for their
rigour. People came staggering out saying ‘My God, what a rigorous
exam’—and so I became a miner instead. A coal miner. I managed to get
through the mining exams—they’re not very rigorous. They only ask one
question. They say ‘Who are you?’, and I got 75% for that.
Of course, it’s quite interesting work, getting hold of lumps of
coal all day. It’s quite interesting, because the coal was made in a
very unusual way. You see God blew all the trees down. He didn’t say
‘Let’s have some coal,’ as he could have done—he had all the right
contacts. No, he got this great wind going you see, and blew down all
the trees, then over a period of three million years he changed it
into coal gradually, over a period of three million years so it wasn’t
noticeable to the average passer by. It was all part of the scheme,
but people at the time did not see it that way. People under the trees
did not say ‘Hurrah, coal in three million years.’ No, they said ‘Oh
dear, oh dear, trees falling on us—that’s the last thing we want.’ And
of course their wish was granted.
I am very interested in the universe—I am specialising in the
universe and all that surrounds it. I am studying Nesbitt’s book—The
Universe & All That Surrounds It, an Introduction. He tackles the
subject boldly, goes through from the beginning of time right through
to the present day, which according to Nesbitt is October 31, 1940.
And he says the earth is spinning into the sun and we will all be
burnt to death. But he ends the book on a note of hope. He says ‘I
hope this will not happen.’ But there’s not a lot of interest in this
down the mine.
The trouble with it is the people. I am not saying you get a load
of riff-raff down the mine. I am not saying that. I am just saying we
had a load of riff-raff down my mine—very boring conversationalists,
extremely boring. All they talk about is what goes on in the mine—
extremely boring. If you were searching for a word to describe the
conversation, boring would spring to your lips. If ever you want to
hear things like ‘Hello, I’ve found a bit of coal.’ ‘Have you really?’
‘Yes, no doubt about it, this black substance is coal all right.’
‘Jolly good, the very thing we’re looking for.’ It’s not enough to
keep the mind alive, is it?
Whoops. Did you notice I suddenly went ‘Whoops’? It’s an
impediment I got from being down the mine. Because one day I was
walking along in the dark when I came across the body of a dead pit
pony. ‘Whoops.’ And that’s another reason why I couldn’t be a judge,
because I might have been up there all regal, sentencing away. ‘I
sentence you to whoops.’ And you see, the trouble is under English law
that would have to stand. So all in all I’d rather have been a judge
than a miner.
And what is more, being a miner, as soon as you are too old and
tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly, you have to go.
Well, the very opposite applies with the judges. So all in all I’d
rather have been a judge than a miner. Because I’ve always been after
the trappings of great luxury, you see. I really, really have. But all
I’ve got hold of are the trappings of great poverty. I’ve got hold of
the wrong load of trappings, and a rotten load of trappings they are
too, ones I could have very well done without.
—Peter Cook, Tragically I Was an Only Twin: The Complete Peter Cook,
St. Martin’s Press, 2002, pp. 43-45

On 3/24/2012 4:53 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Mar 22, 3:13 pm, wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Nice diversion. Nice attack on the messenger too.

His credibility is zero.

That's what smart people do, reject everything in the book without
reading a word of it. Yeah, sure they do. Closed minded dweeb.

Nothing he wrote in his book is true, right?

Did he spell Dole's name right? I guess that could be "true".

Admit it you coward, you don't know a word that is written in that book
but you have rejected it anyway. Good little totalitarian.

Good try but no cigar. Dole was one of the
worst offenders of using the office for personal gain.

Prove it, ****flaps.

For you? Forget it. You're such a jerk that if I had chapter and verse
right in front of me proving Dole was guilty of what I said he did I
wouldn't show it to you. You don't deserve to hear the facts. You're
such an ass that I would purposely leave you out whenever I cited
anything for other people. I do nothing for **** ants.

If it ever mattered to you in the least you would take the time to prove
me wrong. But you're too lazy to find the facts out for yourself. You'd
much rather just run your mouth and make one personal criticism after
another. So get the facts for yourself, or you have no business
commenting on Bob Dole. You're obligated to do more than say I'm wrong.
We get it you deny Dole used his office to get rich. We also know you
will never come up with any proof of that too. You just want to call
people names like a punky little kid. That's the only thing you know how
to do. You sure can't prove what you are implying about Bob Dole. All
you can do is blah, blah, blah.

Hawke

This is not how you impress people with your higher education.

Dan




That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get him to prove what he
is asserting, and that is Bob Dole is an honest, ethical, senator that
didn't use his office to get rich.

I never asserted that, you ****wit.


He says I'm wrong but

I said that you didn't prove your claim. You didn't.

I also said that your claim is motivated purely by politics. It is.

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 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. That's
how you want it too. Too bad it's not how it works. If you had your way
you would come out on top every time. You don't. You think you do but in
reality you don't.

Nothing you do smacks of excellence. Nothing. I think you're just mad
because a "dabbler" like me can do everything better than you can. I'm
good at everything I do. You're not. You can **** and moan all you like
but you're not winning any arguments. You aren't showing off anything
you write anyone would be proud of. Most of it is all crapola. It is
name calling, denials, accusations, and most of all noise. You seem
incapable of actually debating any issue.


You keep saying that I haven't proved Dole was cashing in for years. You
don't deny it though. It could well be, is that right? I just haven't
proved it? So what? All you are saying is that you don't know if it's
true. I do. I don't owe it to you to prove it. I told you in good faith
what I know to be true. You reject it. Okay, fine. Now it's your turn.
You prove something, you make some argument, you show me what the facts
are. Nothing is stopping you unless you really know I'm right and you
would be wasting your time because all your research would just prove me
right. So I tell you, lets see what someone as brilliant and wonderfully
educated as you can do. I can't wait to see your case showing Dole never
made a dime off his position. That is if you can. So go to it, I'm waiting.

Hawke

On 3/24/2012 5:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke wrote:

If it ever mattered to you in the least you would take the time to prove
me wrong.

You have to prove that you're right, ****head. But you can't.


But you're too lazy to find the facts out for yourself.

I've shown that you have *not* produced any facts. You're produced a
smearing book title; that's all.


You'd much rather just run your mouth and make one personal criticism
after
another.

Your slovenliness and partisan credulity are easy and obvious targets
for criticism.


So get the facts for yourself, or you have no business commenting on
Bob Dole.

You try producing some facts, ****head. A smearing book title is not a
relevant fact.


You're obligated to do more than say I'm wrong.

You're obliged to show you're right. You can't, of course.

What's the matter, Ptooey?


We get it you deny Dole used his office to get rich.

Nope. I haven't said anything of the kind. I've said that *you* haven't
showed that he did. He might have, but you haven't come close to showing
it - haven't even started, really.



We also know you will never come up with any proof of that too.

Not my burden. It's your burden to show you're right; not anyone's
burden to show you're wrong.


You just want to call people names

I just want to point out what a lying partisan ****bag you are.


And all I'm trying to do it point out that Bob Dole was the same kind of
a senator that his mentor, Richard Nixon was,

Really? Nixon was in the Senate for just a bit over two years before
becoming vice president. Dole was a senator for over 27 years. Are you
sure you want to stand by that?

What did Nixon do in his years in the Senate, hotshot? Whom did he
succeed for that Senate seat?

You ****ing clown.


and that both of them were
cut from the same cloth.

They were Republicans. So?


Which they were, by the way.

Yes, they were both Republicans. You don't like Republicans. yawn


Everything I know about Dole came years ago and from many different
sources. I saw things about him on TV, I read things about him in
magazines and newspapers. He was a big deal republican senator for years
and years from the time I was 20 until I wan nearly 50 years old.

If you were 26 in 1976, then you were 20 in 1970. Dole first entered
the Senate in January 1969. Are you sure you want to claim he was a
"big deal Republican senator for years" starting when you were 20? You
think freshmen senators are "big deal" senators for their party, do you?

In 1970 when you were 20, you never heard of Bob Dole. You maybe -
*maybe* - learned a little about him a few years later when the
Watergate scandal was unfolding. You never heard of him before then.


For you not to know that I would know all kinds of stuff about Bob Dole
only shows your ignorance.

You didn't know anything about Dole until 1976.

On 3/24/2012 5:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/24/2012 5:07 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from
the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a
collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.

You know that *now*. You didn't know it two minutes before you did a
Google search on "Bible".

You mean you just learned that from doing a Google search.

Nope. But you did.



Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.

Even if the title implies a lie.


Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about?

It's important because

It isn't important.


As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about.
But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what
the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.


It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about

Hilton wrote a novel - well, fiction in any case.

You've really made a hell of a lot of claims about a book you've never
even laid eyes on.

The fact you're citing it as gospel tells me everything I need to know.
Oh, that and the fact that the author was a crackpot conspiracy theory
lawyer who eventually got disbarred.

You're full of one lie after another aren't you.

No, no lies. Everything I said about that crackpot Hilton, and about
you, is true.


I never cited that book for anything.

You sure did. You cited the mere title of it as "proof" chortle that
Dole was crooked while in the Senate.



Do you know that Hilton sued the San Francisco Airport and a few dozen
other agencies for hundreds of millions of dollars because he says the
airport noise made him go so completely nuts that his wife and children
left him? Look it up. That's your boy, Ptooey - some scholar and legal
whiz-bang, haw haw haw.


Yes, I did know that.

After I told you. You didn't know it before.


Earnest Hemingway blew his head off. Does that mean his writing was no
good?

Not comparable, unless you're now acknowledging that Hilton wrote fiction.

On 3/24/2012 5:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/24/2012 4:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 4:13 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/23/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

A bit difficult with a mail order degree from Nigeria.

His BA means bull**** artist


I guess that's your way of saying you have none.

No, that doesn't follow at all.


Usually does.

It doesn't follow at all.



Why did it take you 30 years to earn a BA?

It didn't. It took about five.

Why did you have to spread it over 30?


You're a little man, aren't you?

Why - because he can spot what a conceited clown you are?


Because I am a good guesser

You're not. You suck at it.

On 3/24/2012 6:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/24/2012 5:05 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Good to know you know so much more about me than I do. I do wonder how
you know all this though.

It's not so hard to figure out, Ptooey. You said you were attending
university back in the 1970s, when you were in your 20s, then you said
you didn't obtain a degree until you were 50, which would be about
2001.
What were you doing in the interim - attending college and changing
majors every 10 days? No, you were not attending university during that
time - you either dropped out or were expelled.


I got an AA in the early 70s, didn't go any farther. So I didn't drop
out or get expelled. I went back in 1998, fall semester. The rest is
history, which you don't know. By the way, I got excellent grades too.

In community college and a third-tier state college. Good for you, your
mommy probably baked you some cookies for it.


I could do worse.

You have.

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.

Hawke wrote:


That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get him to prove what he
is asserting,

But that isn't what he is asserting (It MAY be what he believes, but
that is different)

He is asserting that YOU don't have a sound basis for asserting
otherwise.


and that is Bob Dole is an honest, ethical, senator that
didn't use his office to get rich. He says I'm wrong but all he has to
do to prove that is to prove Dole is honest and never made a lot of
money when he was a senator. We see that Biden didn't make himself a
multimillionaire even after 30 some years in the senate.

Which doesn't mean he didn't try, doesn't mean he did try.

But Bob Dole
did. Pimpleton says he didn't.

No he says your basis for claiming that is wrong, and that your logic
is flawed as well.

What is wrong with asking him if he can
prove that?

Hawke
jk

Hawke wrote:



First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.


What?????
How does that tell us that it is a collection of stories about people
throwing stones at glass houses????

That is what you seem to believe (at times)


Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.
Yes and it can be ironic, satirical, or even funny. Or it can have
meaning ONLY after you read the book, or even only after you read and
understand the book.





It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about but in the majority of
books the reason for the title is to tell what the book is about. You
can argue about percentages but most book titles tell what they are
about or at least give you a clue to what it's about.
They MAY give you a clue, they may not. But you can not spring from
the "CLUE" to assuming it is a fact (as you do) without reading the
book.


Regardless, if you were SUCH a Dole expert, I am sure you would have
snatched it up and read it cover to cover, for it's "valuable"
insights that such a person who worked so "closely" with Dole must
have. So closely in fact that even 15 years later he (Hilton) is
still considered by you to be a subject matter expert on Dole.

And yet you didn't do more than glance at it, why is that. Perhaps
it is because you recognized that it is a piece of fluff, not an
authoritative work.
jk

Hawke 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.


Your reading comprehension is what sucks.

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


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




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.



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.

Hah, when was the last time we saw any REAL debates.


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.

jk

Hawke wrote:

ou aren't showing off anything
you write anyone would be proud of. Most of it is all crapola. It is
name calling, denials, accusations, and most of all noise. You seem
incapable of actually debating any issue.
Pot- Kettle-Black
jk

On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.

So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a
book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic?

Saying that the title of the book makes the case is idiotic, you ****ing
cheeselog.

You're the first to say the title of a book makes the case. I never said
that.

You did say it. You've been saying it for days.

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what the title Senator for Sale is
saying about senator Dole? They we can talk about that.


You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably
cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow
it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

Do you ever remember him giving you a good reason why what I said was
not true?

Because it's not established. It's nothing but an allegation.

What the **** is wrong with you, bitch? You think when you make some
wild, irresponsible and essentially slanderous charge, that it is
considered true until someone disproves it? Not the way it works, bitch.
*YOU* have to make the case that it's true, with verifiable evidence,
and until you do, it's considered "not proved."


You're taking the other side of the question.

There isn't any question. I'm pointing out that you are committing
debate errors, demanding that others disprove your claims when you
haven't done anything to try to prove them.

This is a recreational discussion group. It's not a formal debate so the
rules of debate are not applicable here. I'm not making a formal debate
statement. I'm telling you that from my personal knowledge of Bob Dole
that he's been lining his pockets from using his position in congress
for many years. It's what I believe to be true and I have seen many
facts over the years that convinced me it's true.

We're not in a debate and you are in no position to demand anything. The
normal way it's done is if you don't believe me then you state your
reasons why; not that you demand proof from me. You don't seem to
understand the setting. If you think I'm wrong then you tell me why. You
don't merely say, "not proven". Where exactly do you think you are? Oxford?


When you deny an
allegation is true you're taking a position.

I didn't deny any allegation was true. I said you haven't offered
anything but a ****ing smearing book title as "support" for your
allegation, and that's bull**** - an invalid technique.

I didn't offer any book as proof of my statement. I gave no proof. As of
now it's my opinion I've stated. You say it's not proven, okay fine. I
agree. I haven't shown evidence it is. Normally if you disagree you do
so for a reason, which is you are aware of evidence to the contrary. Do
you have any evidence of Dole being squeaky clean? I demand it if you do.

With your emphatic, and forceful denials of my allegation against Dole
if you don't think they are true you should have a reason why you think
that. You say I didn't offer proof. I didn't. But you denied it as if
you know it's untrue not just that proof wasn't offered. That's all you
had to say. But you rabidly denied what I said as if you had proof
showing the opposite. So how come you can make such a fuss about me not
having the proof when you don't know a damn thing about Dole. Why the
fuss when for all you know what I said is perfectly true? Just being an
asshole?



If I say Dole was out to
use his position to gain financially and you deny it then you are saying
he did not do that.

I didn't deny anything. I said that you didn't support your claim, and
you didn't.

There's no rule stating I have to. Don't you know that?



Are you saying that Dole did not use his position to gain financially?

I'm saying you haven't supported your claim, in *any* way, that he did.
I'm saying that you're stupidly willing to *believe* the allegation
because of your filthy political bias.

Bias has nothing to do with it. It has to do with all the things I've
learned about Dole over the years. Tons of evidence exists that shows
Dole used his office to make himself rich. It's not my fault you are
ignorant of those facts. I don't have any obligation to share them with
you either. I made you aware of What Dole was. That alone is more than I
needed to do.

You can make all the noise you want about me not proving anything to
your satisfaction. I don't have to. You are free to think anything you
want no matter how stupid. You admitted you don't know if Dole was using
his office to make himself rich but you deny I have proved it. So what?
That doesn't mean it isn't true. It only means you don't know anything.

You claim that I believe Dole was for sale because of political bias.
Now that is a claim that I would expect you can prove because if you
can't then you are just as guilty of making claims without any proof as
you say I am. Where is your proof I say Dole was for sale because of
bias and not because I have seen facts that prove it? You have none do
you? So quit your holier than though crap about debating rules. You
don't follow them either you dumb Pollock hypocrite.



The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who
better
to write about someone?


In fact the title merely imply's he was for sale, NOT that he was
bought and paid for.

Right, and when you drive down the street and see a car parked
there
with a sign on it that says "for sale" that doesn't mean that car
is for
sale.

It doesn't mean a sale has happened, you stupid ****.

Nobody said that it meant that.

It is the equivalent of what you have said about Dole.

That is only your opinion. Nothing more. I don't agree with it, by the way.



A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street
with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

Now you're getting the same disease that Pimpleton has, exceptionitis.

Now he's simply pointing out that you're full of **** - illogical,
irrational and full of ****.

No he's not,

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing, and he's right.

That'll be the day. You've been up a creek without a paddle ever since
you tried this stupid tactic of yours. You're full of ****, not me. You
have made a giant mountain out of the most trivial nonsense I've ever
seen. All this from someone who admits they don't know anything about
whether Bob Dole was using his office to get rich or not. If you were
that ignorant of Dole and his record you had no business making such a
big deal about proof. You wouldn't have known if the proof was even
valid if it was shown to you. You're like a dumb housewife. You wouldn't
know what the proof was if you saw it. Yet you just went on and on
because you thought you could use the opportunity to show I didn't
present the proper proof for your satisfaction.

You accomplished nothing except to prove what a silly, inane, nit picker
you are and that, unlike me, you have an exceptionally small amount of
knowledge about Bob Dole. You did prove that you can argue with someone
who does know about Dole even when you admittedly don't. All you have
done is to have shown what an abject loser you are.

Hawke

On 3/25/2012 11:31 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



In fact the title merely imply's he was for sale, NOT that he was
bought and paid for.

Right, and when you drive down the street and see a car parked there
with a sign on it that says "for sale" that doesn't mean that car
is for
sale.

It doesn't mean a sale has happened, you stupid ****.

Nobody said that it meant that.
What a Lie!
THat is EXACTLY what you said.


Right and if someone has a car to sell that doesn't mean that they
bought it does it? Every car I have ever seen for sale has had an owner
who bought it. So a car with a for sale sign on it means someone who
owns it bought it at one time or another.

But no, maybe someone gave them the car, maybe they stole it, maybe they
found it for free. Yes, those are possible. But how many times is that
the way it is? Hardly any. Almost every car for sale has an owner who
bought it so if he has a sign on his car then it means that car has
already been sold at least once, to the owner that's selling it.




No he's not, he's trying to avoid facing the plain fact, which is when a
car has a for sale sign on it that means someone is wanting to sell that
car. It doesn't mean a sale is pending, or the sign is on the car by
mistake, or that the car has been sold.

WHICH is not what you said. YOU SAID that means it has been sold at
least once.

I guess it is just early onset senility, if you can't remember what
you said from day to day, try at least looking at your own posts
before you contradict them.


jk



Sorry but I'm not going to argue with you jackasses any more about what
a for sale sign on a car means. If you don't understand the plain
meaning of what a for sale sign on a care means you're beyond help. I'm
not going to waste time trying to one up you nuts over some silly
bull**** that's meaningless.

I understand you are desperate to try to get a "win" over me at anything
and at any cost but to me it's not worth arguing over how many angels
can fit on the head of a pin. It's going to have to be a little more
substantive than that, and it's not going to be about whether I have
proof. It's going to have to be where you have some proof to the
contrary. Otherwise, don't bother.

Hawke

On 3/24/2012 6:06 PM, wrote:
On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, wrote:

So what is your point about it being a novel ?

Dan

Simple, novels are the kind of books that the title frequently doesn't
give you any idea what it is about.

As for Venn diagrams, I know what they are but I didn't know what they
were called. Why did you bring them up? What do they have to do with
book titles?

Hawke


I brought up Venn diagrams because you are saying the purpose of book
titles is to identify what the book is about, and then you say novels
are the kind of book that the title frequently does not give you an
idea of what the book is about.

Thinking in terms of Venn diagrams should make you aware that novels
are in the set of "books". The very thing we have been talking about.

Dan



You are having a real problem separating the wheat from the chaff. I've
said already that not all books have a title that gives you any idea
what the book is about. Novels are most likely to be like that. But the
point I made that the primary purpose of a book title is to identify to
the potential reader what the book is about is still true. I will
continue to believe that unless you can prove that most books have
titles that have no connection to what the book is about. Perhaps you
might want to consult a librarian about this because I know you don't
believe much of what you are told.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:



It doesn't mean a sale has happened, you stupid ****.

Nobody said that it meant that.
What a Lie!
THat is EXACTLY what you said.


Right
So you tacitly admit you lied.

and if someone has a car to sell that doesn't mean that they
bought it does it? Every car I have ever seen for sale has had an owner
who bought it. So a car with a for sale sign on it means someone who
owns it bought it at one time or another.
No it doesn't, as I said I can think of at least 3 ways that it could
happen.

But no, maybe someone gave them the car, maybe they stole it, maybe they
found it for free. Yes, those are possible. But how many times is that
the way it is? Hardly any.
Doesn't matter, you made an absolute statement.


No he's not, he's trying to avoid facing the plain fact, which is when a
car has a for sale sign on it that means someone is wanting to sell that
car. It doesn't mean a sale is pending, or the sign is on the car by
mistake, or that the car has been sold.

WHICH is not what you said. YOU SAID that means it has been sold at
least once.

I guess it is just early onset senility, if you can't remember what
you said from day to day, try at least looking at your own posts
before you contradict them.

Sorry but I'm not going to argue with you jackasses any more about what
a for sale sign on a car means.
Because apparently you finally realized it doesn't mean what you think
it does.

jk

Hawke wrote:



Sorry but I'm not going to argue with you jackasses any more about what
a for sale sign on a car means. If you don't understand the plain
meaning of what a for sale sign on a care means you're beyond help. I'm
not going to waste time trying to one up you nuts over some silly
bull**** that's meaningless.
You are the one who used it as an (poorly written) example.


I understand you are desperate to try to get a "win" over me at anything

I could care less about "winning", but I figure you loose every time
you resort to insults and personal attacks.

If you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that you like to
think, and type, in bold assertions, of little or no substance, and
(at best) minimal thought before hand, too bad.

Every time you do that sort of nonsense, you validate Georges claims
about the quality of your education.

But it is your foot, and your mouth so what the hell....just carry on.

jk

On 3/27/2012 1:30 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



It doesn't mean a sale has happened, you stupid ****.

Nobody said that it meant that.
What a Lie!
THat is EXACTLY what you said.


Right
So you tacitly admit you lied.

I haven't lied about anything, period. Got it?



and if someone has a car to sell that doesn't mean that they
bought it does it? Every car I have ever seen for sale has had an owner
who bought it. So a car with a for sale sign on it means someone who
owns it bought it at one time or another.

No it doesn't, as I said I can think of at least 3 ways that it could
happen.

You can split hairs all you want. You can make up all the scenarios you
want. You can imagine every possibility under the sun but none of that
matters at all. What matters is what does it mean 99% of the time when
you see a car with a for sale sign on it. It means someone who owns it
wants to find someone to buy it from him. Not to give it away, not to
destroy it, trade it, not anything else. It means they want someone to
buy it from them. Anything other than that is just you playing a game.



But no, maybe someone gave them the car, maybe they stole it, maybe they
found it for free. Yes, those are possible. But how many times is that
the way it is? Hardly any.

Doesn't matter, you made an absolute statement.

So what? It should be self evident to every rational person that every
statement anyone makes is conditional to some extent? It's like saying
the Yankees always win? Or Americans always win. They don't always but
close to it and you're supposed to understand that without having to be
told.


No he's not, he's trying to avoid facing the plain fact, which is when a
car has a for sale sign on it that means someone is wanting to sell that
car. It doesn't mean a sale is pending, or the sign is on the car by
mistake, or that the car has been sold.

WHICH is not what you said. YOU SAID that means it has been sold at
least once.

I guess it is just early onset senility, if you can't remember what
you said from day to day, try at least looking at your own posts
before you contradict them.

Do you think I have the time to go back and reread my previous posts?
Are you nuts? I've been in this newsgroup for over a decade. I'm not
going back to check on myself. What's the point of that? You think
you're a cop that gets to keep asking me what's my story over and over
and when it's not the exact same you think you've caught me? No one says
anything exactly the same. Every time you tell a story it's a little
different than it was before. What a joke. You go back an read your
posts? I doubt that but if you did if they changed in a thread would
that mean you lied when they changed?



Sorry but I'm not going to argue with you jackasses any more about what
a for sale sign on a car means.
Because apparently you finally realized it doesn't mean what you think
it does.

You go ahead and think whatever you want that a for sale sign on
something means. I know exactly what for sale means and so does
everybody else. If you were smarter you would realize how foolish your
point is. Ask 100 people what it means if a car has a for sale sign on
it. They'll all tell you the same thing. But you're going to argue that
it might mean something else? And you think I'm the one not making
sense. Try asking a few people what a for sale sign means. They'll all
tell you it means what I said and then they'll ask how can you ask such
a stupid question.

Hawke

On 3/27/2012 1:40 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



Sorry but I'm not going to argue with you jackasses any more about what
a for sale sign on a car means. If you don't understand the plain
meaning of what a for sale sign on a care means you're beyond help. I'm
not going to waste time trying to one up you nuts over some silly
bull**** that's meaningless.

You are the one who used it as an (poorly written) example.

Nothing was wrong with the example. What's silly is that you actually
argued that for sale doesn't really mean for sale.


I understand you are desperate to try to get a "win" over me at anything

I could care less about "winning", but I figure you loose every time
you resort to insults and personal attacks.

Number one, every post has a personal attack against me. So I'm not
allowed to fight back? Is that right? You lose every time you make an
argument like for sale means something else. It can but it's so rare
that it isn't worth mentioning. But that's what you're doing because of
your desperation.



If you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that you like to
think, and type, in bold assertions, of little or no substance, and
(at best) minimal thought before hand, too bad.

The only thing I can say is look who's talking. I think and talk like
everybody else, including you. The only difference is I have a bunch of
yahoos questioning every word and parsing every sentence I write for
errors. Believe you me, if I did that to you I would be finding things
to criticize every bit as often as you people are, more in fact. I mean,
come on, you think your writing is of great substance and extremely well
thought out before you write it? Funny, it doesn't appear that way to
me. If you think it does you're crazy.



Every time you do that sort of nonsense, you validate Georges claims
about the quality of your education.

As you ought to know George has no idea of the quality of my education.
He's simply trying to dismiss what I say by saying I am poorly educated.
The fact is I'm as well or better educated than he is, I'm extremely
well read too. So just because you hear him discount anything about me
means nothing. Has he shown you any proof I have a lousy education? Do
you think how someone talks here with others is a good way to know who
has the better education? Face it, George is doing what he says I do.
He's making negative claims about me with no proof at all. He makes
quite a fuss about making claims with out proof too doesn't he? Where's
his proof about the quality of my education? He doesn't even know the
extent of my education.


But it is your foot, and your mouth so what the hell....just carry on.


Call it what you will. I'll do the same for you. Like I said before. I
wouldn't be so proud of myself if I were you, or him, or Dan. None of
you has anything anyone can point to showing you to be great in any way.
So like I told Dan. Get off the high horse. You aren't good enough to
judge anyone, especially me. In the vernacular that would be put like
this, who the **** do you think you are? Or, what's so ****ing great
about you that you get to judge me? From what I've seen the answer is
not a damn thing.

Hawke

On 3/25/2012 11:38 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


You're full of one lie after another aren't you. I never cited that book
for anything. I wouldn't do that because I didn't read it.
Another lie!
That is EXACTLY what you did.

No I didn't. I mentioned it, didn't cite it. I'm not arguing as to what
qualifies as a valid cite in this group because there ain't none. So you
will have to take my word for it I didn't cite it but I did mention it.
I don't know if you can understand the difference.




I don't know
what it says about Dole. After looking at it I assume it's an indictment
of Dole but I don't know that for sure so I wouldn't presume to use it
to prove anything. You keep saying I'm using it when in fact I am not
and never have. I only mentioned it because it probably does paint a
negative picture of Dole. But I would expect that from what I knew about
Dole from years ago.



Do you know that Hilton sued the San Francisco Airport and a few dozen
other agencies for hundreds of millions of dollars because he says the
airport noise made him go so completely nuts that his wife and children
left him? Look it up. That's your boy, Ptooey - some scholar and legal
whiz-bang, haw haw haw.


Yes, I did know that. But for all I know the man has become mentally
unstable in the last few years.
And for "all you know", all his life. Yet you held him up as an
expert on Dole.

Show me, where I said that. I said he worked for Dole for a couple of
years and that was enough to know the man. But if you worked for someone
for two years and then wrote a book about him do you think that might
qualify someone as an expert on that person? Makes sense to me.

Hawke

On 3/26/2012 11:39 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:



First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.


What?????
How does that tell us that it is a collection of stories about people
throwing stones at glass houses????

That is what you seem to believe (at times)

Now you're telling a joke, right? And if you knew as many "old sayings"
as I do you would know why every now and then I get the origin of them
mixed up. I do pay more attention now to them since now I know someone
is going to check everything I say for accuracy.


Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.
Yes and it can be ironic, satirical, or even funny. Or it can have
meaning ONLY after you read the book, or even only after you read and
understand the book.

There is not just one reason alone why an author chooses the title of
his book. But the primary reason for a book having a title is to tell
the reader what it is about, and the books least likely to give you an
idea what they are about are novels. All textbooks, all non fiction,
just about all books besides novels have a title telling you what it is
about. It's like saying Japanese are small. Not every one of them is,
but most are.




It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about but in the majority of
books the reason for the title is to tell what the book is about. You
can argue about percentages but most book titles tell what they are
about or at least give you a clue to what it's about.

They MAY give you a clue, they may not. But you can not spring from
the "CLUE" to assuming it is a fact (as you do) without reading the
book.

Can you tell me how else would you know what a book is about when it's
title tells you nothing about it? I mean isn't it obvious that in those
cases you have to read the book to find it out? Just think what it would
be like trying to find a book to read if all titles gave you no idea
what the book is about. How would you choose a book. A book on carpentry
is titled "Blue Sky". A book about John Lennon would be "Green Grass".
Without the title telling you imagine how difficult it would be finding
a book on a subject you wanted to know about. That's why titles say what
they're about most of the time.



Regardless, if you were SUCH a Dole expert, I am sure you would have
snatched it up and read it cover to cover, for it's "valuable"
insights that such a person who worked so "closely" with Dole must
have. So closely in fact that even 15 years later he (Hilton) is
still considered by you to be a subject matter expert on Dole.

Do you know anything about Sarah Palin? How? Did you set out to learn
about her? No. But you know a lot about her don't you? I know a lot
about her too. I know about her life, her political career, her
reputation in Alaska, about her family. I know a lot about her.

I'm telling you that Bob Dole was in the senate my entire adult life so
I saw and heard about him as much over the years as I have heard about
Palin. So I know a lot about him. I don't consider myself an "exert" on
him but I do know quite a bit about him. To repeat myself once again, I
know that he was one of those congressmen who set out to make himself
rich while in the senate and he did.

I also say again that I know very little about the book Senator for Sale
or about the author of it. So I don't claim to. But let me ask you
again. If you work for a guy for two years and you write a book about
that person don't you think that guy would know more about the subject
than anyone else? A book and two years working for someone wouldn't make
you an expert on someone. I'd be inclined to think it does. So if Hilton
doesn't qualify as an expert on Dole, who would you suggest is?



And yet you didn't do more than glance at it, why is that. Perhaps
it is because you recognized that it is a piece of fluff, not an
authoritative work.


Actually, I was at the library looking for books for my mother. I
glanced up and saw one that said Senator for Sale so I took it down to
see it was about and there was old Bob Dole on the cover. I looked the
book over and decided my mom wouldn't like it. I already knew what Bob
Dole was so I didn't need to read a book confirming what I already knew.
I knew plenty about him just the way I know about Palin. It's out there
to find if you are interested in politics, and I was enough to get a
degree in it.

Hawke

On 3/24/2012 6:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/24/2012 5:05 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Good to know you know so much more about me than I do. I do wonder
how
you know all this though.

It's not so hard to figure out, Ptooey. You said you were attending
university back in the 1970s, when you were in your 20s, then you said
you didn't obtain a degree until you were 50, which would be about
2001.
What were you doing in the interim - attending college and changing
majors every 10 days? No, you were not attending university during
that
time - you either dropped out or were expelled.


I got an AA in the early 70s, didn't go any farther. So I didn't drop
out or get expelled. I went back in 1998, fall semester. The rest is
history, which you don't know. By the way, I got excellent grades too.

In community college and a third-tier state college. Good for you, your
mommy probably baked you some cookies for it.


I could do worse.

You have.


At least all my professors had Ph.D.s and from major universities like
Notre Dame, Princeton, Columbia, etc. All had great credentials and all
of them did the teaching, not leaving it to assistants like you probably
got. I knew them all on a personal basis and they treated me like a
colleague not an ignorant 20 year old. They were bright enough to see
that at 49 years old I was bringing something to the table. They liked
and thought highly of me. But then they knew me and you do not. And when
those professors said they were teaching us the same things they teach
at the name schools I believe them. Unlike you they weren't liars.

Hawke