Hawke wrote:

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?

You said one thing, and then said you didn't say it, and then admitted
you did say it.

ONE of those has to be Untruth, I don't car if you call it Lie,
Untruth Forgot, Misspoke, or just plain lazy it is the same thing.

And as I said you lied to me, and about me several times.

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.
No one said it didn't. We just said it did not mean it was already
sold.

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.
So your "perfect " memory doesn't work, and you are too damn lazy to
go back and read what you said just a few days ago.

What's the point of that?
Your lies about what you said IS the point.


You go back an read your
posts?
Yes, when I quote what I said.
I doubt that but if you did if they changed in a thread would
that mean you lied when they changed?
If I said one thing and then Said I had said something different???
YES that is EXACTLY what it means.


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.
AND not ONE (unless you are in the sample) will likely say that means
it already has been sold. If fact I would suspect they will say that
means it HAS NOT been sold, or why would the sign still be on it.

I would let you ask the question, but I doubt you could give anything
but a mendacious answer, and probably can't reliably count that high
anyway. You would likely get to 11, forget where you were, say you
got to the hundred, forget that you said it, say you got to 50, and
then say they all gave above average answers.
jk

Hawke wrote:

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



Nothing was wrong with the example. What's silly is that you actually
argued that for sale doesn't really mean for sale.
Bull crap
What we argued (George and I) was that "For Sale" does not mean
"Sold" it means "For Sale". You can not seem to grasp the SIMPLE
difference.

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.
Ahhhhh, another absolutist (and stupid) statement.
But that's what you're doing because of
your desperation.

Yawn

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.
You keep saying that, but you can't.
Like your other BS, you can't live up to your words


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.
Yes he is, and I think it is rather lame.

You can get the best education in the world at the worst college, and
the worst education at the best. His constant carping on Chico state,
implies to me that he is not all that firm in his convictions of the
quality of his institution of higher learning, whatever that was.

Has he shown you any proof I have a lousy education?

No, but you have, here, in the last several weeks, or at least if not
poor, then deficient in areas which you claim to have expertise in.

Do
you think how someone talks here with others is a good way to know who
has the better education?

I would say it is certainly one indicator.


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.
Again you make claims in areas on which you have no knowledge

So like I told Dan. Get off the high horse. You aren't good enough to
judge anyone, especially me.
Quite good enough. [Not that the standard for that, historically, has
been all that high]

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?
Well to put it in the vernacular you seem to like, "****ing
everything, or at least enough" You don't like it. pick up your
marbles and leave. So you have been "here" a decade? SO WHAT????? I
was here before that. Big Deal

jk

Hawke wrote:

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.
Finally, a well thought out valid response.

jk

On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
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?

It's unsubstantiated crap - fiction.


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

You ****ed up and can't support your bull**** claims.


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.

You did.


I gave no proof.

Exactly. You couldn't - you don't have any.



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.

You're admitting you can't support your claim - can't even get started.
Good.


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 *everything* to do with it. It's all you have - no facts, just
blatant bias.



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.

It's fact.


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.

It's a glorious day.

On 3/26/2012 12:17 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

I told you I don't make claims. When I say something it's true.

Except that when challenged, you either go silent [Like your many
claims about me] or it turns out you "mis rembembered", or you want to
define words in ways special and unique to you.



I said what I say is true. I didn't say I'm never wrong. Do you not know
the difference between telling a lie and making a mistake either? I'm
telling you I don't purposely tell lies, which is why I know you won't
catch me in one. I don't lie if I don't know what I'm talking about, and
if I'm wrong and you prove it I will change my position. Do I
mis-remember things sometimes? Yeah, I do. Do you? Do you make mistakes?
Do you make typographical errors, grammatical errors, errors in general?
Then don't hold me to a different standard than you do for yourself.


What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
specific and I'll address anything I've said. As for defining my own
words everybody else does the same thing. If I threw a hatchet at your
head and it missed by a couple of feet you might say that was close
where I'd say I missed by a mile. We both had our own definition of what
a miss by a couple of feet is. Understand?

Hawke

On 3/27/2012 6:01 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

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.
Finally, a well thought out valid response.

jk


You set that bar pretty damn high don't you? How about for yourself?
Just as strict, and do you think I care about the approval of anyone
here? Especially for those who think they're in a position to call the tune?

Hawke

On 3/28/2012 3:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/26/2012 12:17 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

I told you I don't make claims. When I say something it's true.

Except that when challenged, you either go silent [Like your many
claims about me] or it turns out you "mis rembembered", or you want to
define words in ways special and unique to you.



I said what I say is true.

But it isn't.

On 3/27/2012 5:30 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

My undergraduate classes were taught by professors with Ph.D degrees.
My undergraduate university was not as prestigious as UCLA, but it still
was a research university, not a teaching college like Chico, and being
private, there were small class sizes and none of the economics classes
were taught by assistants. UCLA, of course, is a premier research
university, and the professors had degrees almost exclusively from other
premier schools like Stanford (Armen Alchian), Harvard (Jack
Hirshleifer), Chicago (Ben Klein), and Northwestern (Harold Demsetz).

Hawke wrote:

On 3/26/2012 12:17 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

I told you I don't make claims. When I say something it's true.

Except that when challenged, you either go silent [Like your many
claims about me] or it turns out you "mis rembembered", or you want to
define words in ways special and unique to you.


I said what I say is true. I didn't say I'm never wrong.

Then what does "When I say something it's true." mean then?

Do you not know
the difference between telling a lie and making a mistake either?

I'm
telling you I don't purposely tell lies, which is why I know you won't
catch me in one. I don't lie if I don't know what I'm talking about, and
if I'm wrong and you prove it I will change my position. Do I
mis-remember things sometimes? Yeah, I do. Do you? Do you make mistakes?
Do you make typographical errors, grammatical errors, errors in general?
Then don't hold me to a different standard than you do for yourself.
I don't




What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
specific and I'll address anything I've said.

Fair enough,

On 2/19 when you said you knew were I stood on all "Issues"
I challenged you to tell me (and the world) "where I stand" on the
following.
==============================
Since you know what I know on so many subjects.
Please tell me where I stand on these issues.
Abortion
The environment
Global Warming
Patriot Act
Nuclear Power
Decriminalization of Pot.
The peace corps
Complete Legalization of Pot.
NASA
The first gulf war
Space Travel in General
Nanotechnology
PBS/NPR
The War in Afghanistan
The second gulf war
Foreign Aid
==============================

When you said you knew exactly what training and education I had
received in my life.
On 2/22 under "why do you have a right to your money" I challenged
you to tell me (and the world) exactly what my training was in these
areas.

===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?
Last time you claimed to know exactly where I stood on all issues,
based on a single (misunderstood) statement, and I asked you to "put
up or shut up" by telling me where I stood on a laundry list of
today's more "popular" issues, and you shut up.

So pray tell, since you are now also an expert on my education,

What School did I graduate from?
What classes did I take there?
What was my major
Have I done ANY post graduate education?
DO I have an Advanced Degree?
Have I ever been accredited as an instructor for a college?
If so what subject.
================================






As for defining my own
words everybody else does the same thing. If I threw a hatchet at your
head and it missed by a couple of feet you might say that was close
where I'd say I missed by a mile. We both had our own definition of what
a miss by a couple of feet is. Understand?

Hawke
jk

Hawke wrote:



What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
specific and I'll address anything I've said.
Hawke
And I forgot a winner. That is your claim to have been here "longer "
than I have.
If you would look back at some of what I've written over the
years here you would find that what's typical of me is to tell the truth
and to be very accurate, not perfect, but very accurate. You haven't
been here long enough to know what is typical of me.

Horse ****, Dave, I have been "here" whether that means RCM or the
Usenet in general, far longer than I believe you have. I have been
"here" since BEFORE news groups were even related to a "web" that
didn't generally even exist yet! Yes, since the Usenet was a "store
and forward" system using UUCP connections to transfer news groups
from computer to computer over phone lines.
Heck JUST on this machine I have copies of my posts going back to 1999
in RCM. Mayflies like you are a dime a dozen.
jk

On 3/28/2012 1:47 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawwke-ptooeye wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a glorious day.


Hey, guys, I know it's fun to poke Hawwke-ptooey to see what addled
nonsense he'll spew in response, but does anyone really think that
showing him facts and/or wisdom will eventually educate him to the point
where he can participate in an adult discussion?

He ignores anything from any one, left of right, who doesn't kowtow to
the establishment left orthodoxy, or at least his odd view of what it
is. He cites misremembered vague nonsense as proof of his absurd
conjectures and then attacks those who point out the worthlessness of
his posts.

I propose we just ignore him, he never contributes anything other than
as a target for ridicule. It may be that's what he wants in a
masochistic way, but I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth
on him.

I think I may have said that before, though.

:^)

David

On 3/26/2012 11:50 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No, you ****wit - writing "I have known about Bob Dole from his days in
WWII when he got wounded" implies that you were *there*, you clumsy
plodding idiot.

Any normal person can understand exactly what I meant. A dimwit, no.

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

Did you think that I meant I was there in WWII with Bob Dole? I think
you could grasp what I meant and were not confused by it. Did you think
I implied I was there with Dole? The point is you understood what I
meant like everyone else would have. There is nothing wrong with that
English. Not to Pimpton though. But he's not overly critical of
anything, is he?


Your reading comprehension is what sucks.

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

My reading comprehension is as good as it gets. What's not so good is
the language I read here quite often. Do you think anyone would single
you out for your excellence? But you can find fault with me though, right?



I never dabbled in anything. The first thing that made me interested in
politics was the Vietnam war. See, I was eligible for the draft back
then
So what, so was I

If that kind of thing wasn't enough to spark an interest in politics
than what would? I had to pay attention back then because it had a major
effect on my life. I've been paying attention ever since. How about you?
Did you just forget all about politics after that and go on to other
things? I didn'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.

Yeah, right.

That happens to be true.


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.

I was talking about the recent republican primary debates. Did you watch
any of them? I did. I can't stand republicans but I watched those
debates anyway. Why? Because when you are into politics that's what you
do. You learn what is going on politically on both sides. Do you do
that? Or do you even follow American politics at all?



Then why don't you show us some of your ability here? Your writing style
looks like high school level. Everything you write is so full of
invectives and personal insults that there is no argument anyone can
find. Look at what you wrote here. Is that the best you can do? It's
pretty damn bad. Your work isn't good enough to qualify you to criticize
anyone else's. The only thing good about you is how good you think you
are and you're way off base. You're average. So how come you think
you're so damn great? It's all a fantasy you created. In reality you're
just an average Joe in a newsgroup that's pretending to be a superhero.
It's pretty pathetic really.
Wow, everything you wrote is true of George, but is equally true of
yourself as well. Except, that it is true that he lards his with more
insults than you do, but not by much.


No it's not true. If you have read this thread it's Pimpton who
continually claims his superiority in every regard. From his education,
to his writing, to his knowledge of politics, to everything. He is the
one claiming to be superior. But that slipped past you somehow. I wonder
how that happened. I've only said I know more about politics than he
does and I believe that is true. I also wonder how you noticed how
insulting he is as if that somehow adds to his weak and unsupported
accusations. It doesn't really, it just shows how desperate he is to
prove the unprovable, which he can't do so he lies.

Hawke

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


No, you ****wit - writing "I have known about Bob Dole from his days in
WWII when he got wounded" implies that you were *there*, you clumsy
plodding idiot.

Any normal person can understand exactly what I meant. A dimwit, no.

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

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

Your sentence structure implied it, dummy.


Your reading comprehension is what sucks.

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

My reading comprehension is as good as it gets.

It's atrocious.


I never dabbled in anything. The first thing that made me interested in
politics was the Vietnam war. See, I was eligible for the draft back
then
So what, so was I

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

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



Your writing is **** - indicative of the thinking behind it.

They didn't say that when they wanted one of my papers to be published
in a textbook.

Yeah, right.

That happens to be true.

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


Then why don't you show us some of your ability here? Your writing style
looks like high school level. Everything you write is so full of
invectives and personal insults that there is no argument anyone can
find. Look at what you wrote here. Is that the best you can do? It's
pretty damn bad. Your work isn't good enough to qualify you to criticize
anyone else's. The only thing good about you is how good you think you
are and you're way off base. You're average. So how come you think
you're so damn great? It's all a fantasy you created. In reality you're
just an average Joe in a newsgroup that's pretending to be a superhero.
It's pretty pathetic really.
Wow, everything you wrote is true of George, but is equally true of
yourself as well. Except, that it is true that he lards his with more
insults than you do, but not by much.


No it's not true.

It's true.


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

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

On 3/27/2012 11:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what the title Senator for Sale is
saying about senator Dole?

It's unsubstantiated crap - fiction.

And you got that information from your imagination. This is what I mean.
You make a statement about that book as if you are an expert on it when
in fact you're never laid your eyes on it. So the only way for you to
make your statement is for you to have made it up. That's being kind.
Other would say you're just an outright liar.


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

You ****ed up and can't support your bull**** claims.

No I didn't. I can support what I said about Dole. It's well known
information. You are ignorant. You know nothing about Dole's senate
career. That's all that matters is how dumb you are to even question
something you don't know anything about. That's irrationally
argumentative. You know nothing about a subject but argue about it
anyway. Okay we get it you're Monty Python but not funny.



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.

You did.

I'm telling you I didn't. What does it take to get it through your thick
skull? How many times do I have to repeat it? I'm not offering that book
as proof of anything other than a book exists that is critical of Dole.


I gave no proof.

Exactly. You couldn't - you don't have any.

Exactly means I have proof but I haven't shown it to you. Can't you tell
the difference?


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.

You're admitting you can't support your claim - can't even get started.
Good.

You want to talk about a lack of reading comprehension? You exhibit it
here. Saying there is no rule saying I have to support my claim is not
the same as saying I can't. How can you be so dumb?



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 *everything* to do with it. It's all you have - no facts, just
blatant bias.

Bias isn't involved. It's a matter of facts. It's like if I said Mickey
Mantle had a great record with the Yankees and you said I haven't proved
it and I'm just biased in his favor. Well, Mickey Mantle does have a
reputation and a record that can be checked for accuracy. So does Bob
Dole. I happen to know about Bob Dole's record and apparently you don't
know the first thing about him. So it's really just a matter of you
getting the facts about Bob Dole. You want me to give them to you. You
are such a prick that I am not going to do it. It's not because I can't
prove what I said about Bob Dole. It's because I won't give you the
satisfaction of me having to prove it to your satisfaction. That's not
going to happen. But bias has nothing to do with it.



That is only your opinion.

It's fact.

Not a fact, opinion.


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.

It's a glorious day.

But it's not a day where you're right about anything. So it's just like
every other day where you make all kings of claims and assertions and
have nothing to back them up with.

Hawke

On 3/28/2012 6:45 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/28/2012 1:47 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawwke-ptooeye wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a glorious day.


Hey, guys, I know it's fun to poke Hawwke-ptooey to see what addled
nonsense he'll spew in response, but does anyone really think that
showing him facts and/or wisdom will eventually educate him to the point
where he can participate in an adult discussion?

He ignores anything from any one, left of right, who doesn't kowtow to
the establishment left orthodoxy, or at least his odd view of what it
is. He cites misremembered vague nonsense as proof of his absurd
conjectures and then attacks those who point out the worthlessness of
his posts.

I propose we just ignore him, he never contributes anything other than
as a target for ridicule. It may be that's what he wants in a
masochistic way, but I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth
on him.

I think I may have said that before, though.

:^)

David



Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.
That's understandable because when you aren't too smart and you aren't
well read you don't have much to contribute to the adults in the room.
So keep repeating yourself and maybe one of these days someone will
respond to your vacuous remarks. Until then, you will keep being ignored
the way you have for as long as you have been hanging around here.

Hawke

On 3/29/2012 5:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/27/2012 11:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what the title Senator for Sale is
saying about senator Dole?

It's unsubstantiated crap - fiction.

And you got that information from your imagination.

I got it from the fact the author is a disgruntled crackpot who had a
vendetta against Dole.


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

You ****ed up and can't support your bull**** claims.

No I didn't. I can support what I said about Dole.

You can't.


It's well known information.

There isn't any "information". It's nothing but unsubstantiated crap.



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.

You did.

I'm telling you I didn't.

You're lying.


I gave no proof.

Exactly. You couldn't - you don't have any.

Exactly means I have proof but I haven't shown it to you.

You don't have any "proof" of what you claim.


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.

You're admitting you can't support your claim - can't even get started.
Good.

You want to talk about a lack of reading comprehension? You exhibit it
here. Saying there is no rule saying I have to support my claim is not
the same as saying I can't.

You can't. You have basically admitted it.


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 *everything* to do with it. It's all you have - no facts, just
blatant bias.

Bias isn't involved. It's a matter of facts.

No facts; only bias.



That is only your opinion.

It's fact.

Not a fact, opinion.

Fact.

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.

It's a glorious day.

But it's not a day where you're right about anything.

Yes, it sure is.

On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David

On 3/29/2012 5:48 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 6:45 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/28/2012 1:47 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawwke-ptooeye wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a glorious day.


Hey, guys, I know it's fun to poke Hawwke-ptooey to see what addled
nonsense he'll spew in response, but does anyone really think that
showing him facts and/or wisdom will eventually educate him to the point
where he can participate in an adult discussion?

He ignores anything from any one, left of right, who doesn't kowtow to
the establishment left orthodoxy, or at least his odd view of what it
is. He cites misremembered vague nonsense as proof of his absurd
conjectures and then attacks those who point out the worthlessness of
his posts.

I propose we just ignore him, he never contributes anything other than
as a target for ridicule. It may be that's what he wants in a
masochistic way, but I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth
on him.

I think I may have said that before, though.

:^)

David



Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.

On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David

Why? I suppose it's because Ptooey's amusement value isn't quite
exhausted. He's a rather different sort of clown from those I've
encountered in other groups.

On 3/29/2012 10:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:48 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 6:45 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/28/2012 1:47 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawwke-ptooeye wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a glorious day.


Hey, guys, I know it's fun to poke Hawwke-ptooey to see what addled
nonsense he'll spew in response, but does anyone really think that
showing him facts and/or wisdom will eventually educate him to the point
where he can participate in an adult discussion?

He ignores anything from any one, left of right, who doesn't kowtow to
the establishment left orthodoxy, or at least his odd view of what it
is. He cites misremembered vague nonsense as proof of his absurd
conjectures and then attacks those who point out the worthlessness of
his posts.

I propose we just ignore him, he never contributes anything other than
as a target for ridicule. It may be that's what he wants in a
masochistic way, but I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth
on him.

I think I may have said that before, though.

:^)

David



Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you can't
back up. So you can't convince anyone that anything you say is true.
Same with little Davey boy. He says a few things over and over. They
weren't worth anything the first time he said them but he likes them so
much he can't stop repeating himself. You're no different. You couldn't
convince a class of sixth graders it was lunch time. Inept and
incompetent you are, but at least you have a big mouth and think way too
highly of yourself. I guess some people find that worthwhile.

Hawke

On 3/29/2012 5:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/27/2012 11:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what the title Senator for Sale is
saying about senator Dole?

It's unsubstantiated crap - fiction.

And you got that information from your imagination.

I got it from the fact the author is a disgruntled crackpot who had a
vendetta against Dole.

You didn't get anything about the book though, did you? You just assumed
that because of who wrote it that it has nothing in it of value. You
don't know that is true so you made up your own conclusion. Admit it,
for all you know the book could be filled with factual information about
Dole showing him as I said he is. You don't know one way or the other.
Why keep pretending you do? It makes you look stupid.


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

You ****ed up and can't support your bull**** claims.

No I didn't. I can support what I said about Dole.

You can't.

Of course I can. I wouldn't say things about Dole unless I knew they
were true.


It's well known information.

There isn't any "information". It's nothing but unsubstantiated crap.

You mean you are not aware of any information showing Dole was lining
his pockets. But I mentioned the deal he got from ADM on an some real
estate he bought for much less than it was worth. Just forgot about that?


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.

You did.

I'm telling you I didn't.

You're lying.

You can't read. I did not and am not using a book I've not read as proof
of anything. But any normal person's interest would perk up if they
learned a book had been written about someone alleging they were
crooked, whether it was true or not. Just the fact the book had been
written would have caused a normal person to see a red flag. Stupid
people would not notice.


I gave no proof.

Exactly. You couldn't - you don't have any.

I don't have that book as any of my proof. You're so sloppy and
imprecise it's ridiculous.



Exactly means I have proof but I haven't shown it to you.

You don't have any "proof" of what you claim.

I do have it but you don't know what it is so you are denying it exists.
That's meaningless because what you believe and what is true are usually
different. The proof is there. You just don't know about it.


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.

You're admitting you can't support your claim - can't even get started.
Good.

You want to talk about a lack of reading comprehension? You exhibit it
here. Saying there is no rule saying I have to support my claim is not
the same as saying I can't.

You can't. You have basically admitted it.

You really are poor at communication. I've told you that I can support
my allegations against Dole. I just won't show it to you. If you want to
know the truth you find it like I did. I refuse to provide anything to
you and I think even you can understand why.


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.

I agree I haven't given you any proof or evidence of what I say about
Dole, and I'm not going to. Are you saying that means it's not true? I
can find plenty of evidence showing Dole was lining his pockets for as
long as he was a senator. Bias has nothing to do with it. It's totally
about all the evidence that shows what he did. That's on the record. You
just won't believe it due to your bias in favor of conservatives.



Bias has nothing to do with it.

It has *everything* to do with it. It's all you have - no facts, just
blatant bias.

Bias isn't involved. It's a matter of facts.

No facts; only bias.

You have it backwards. It has nothing to do with bias and everything to
do with the real Dole record in the senate. We both know that record is
out there. You are pretending it won't show how he made himself rich
while in the senate. I know it does.

That is only your opinion.

It's fact.

Not a fact, opinion.

Fact.

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.

It's a glorious day.

But it's not a day where you're right about anything.

Yes, it sure is.

There is no proof you have been right about anything so until you come
up with some that makes you full of **** and a liar.

Hawke

On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David


A better question is why waste yours? Why don't you show all the adults
why it is you think you are superior to me? I've read a number of your
posts. There is nothing to them. I don't know why you bother. If you
aren't going to actually say something smart or make an intelligent
point about something why are you posting at all? For someone who claims
to be as intelligent as you do you sure aren't showing it. So instead of
wasting time trying fruitlessly to show how dumb I am why don't you show
how good you are? I mean, where's the beef? You're all hat and no
cattle. Everyone has seen that from your first day here.

Hawke

On 3/29/2012 10:06 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David

Why? I suppose it's because Ptooey's amusement value isn't quite
exhausted. He's a rather different sort of clown from those I've
encountered in other groups.

Don't you mean someone your little "games" don't work on?

Hawke

On 3/27/2012 5:39 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

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?

You said one thing, and then said you didn't say it, and then admitted
you did say it.

First off I have no idea what the hell you're talking about so I can't
tell you a thing about it unless you are specific.


ONE of those has to be Untruth, I don't car if you call it Lie,
Untruth Forgot, Misspoke, or just plain lazy it is the same thing.

Secondly, in error, misspoke, or lazy, are not the same thing as a lie.


And as I said you lied to me, and about me several times.

Now that is an outright lie.


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.
No one said it didn't. We just said it did not mean it was already
sold.


I was the one who said that a "for sale" sign on a car meant it was for
sale. So it was me who said that is all it meant and not some cockamamie
thing you or George could imagine why a car would have a "for sale" sign
on it for some other reason. But if someone has a car for sale it's
pretty certain that he's the owner and at some point he bought it. So it
had already been sold at least once and to the person with the car with
the "for sale" sign on it. Understand?


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.
So your "perfect " memory doesn't work, and you are too damn lazy to
go back and read what you said just a few days ago.

I would if I needed to but I haven't seen any reason to do that.



What's the point of that?
Your lies about what you said IS the point.

By the way, you made a grammatical error in the sentence above. It
should say your lies about what you said ARE the point. That's awfully
lazy and sloppy writing. Judging from that you are not well educated.
I'm just checking on you as carefully as you and George do to me.

But there were not lies in the first place, at least not on my part.



You go back an read your
posts?
Yes, when I quote what I said.
I doubt that but if you did if they changed in a thread would
that mean you lied when they changed?


If I said one thing and then Said I had said something different???
YES that is EXACTLY what it means.

It wouldn't mean you forgot or made a mistake? It would only mean you
told an intentional lie? Like I said, I don't tell lies. That means I
don't have to check on myself. If there is a discrepancy between what I
said once and again later at least I know it was not an intentional lie.
That's why I don't tell them. I don't want to have to worry about having
told them at all.



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.
AND not ONE (unless you are in the sample) will likely say that means
it already has been sold. If fact I would suspect they will say that
means it HAS NOT been sold, or why would the sign still be on it.

What would you say if you asked them if the person selling the car had
bought it? Wouldn't they say yes, that's how he became the owner and how
he obtained the right to sell the car, because he bought it. Which only
goes to show you that if it's not a brand new car every other car has
been sold at least once.

If a "for sale" sign is still on a car it is reasonable for people
seeing it to assume the car is still for sale. But that doesn't change
the fact that the car had been sold to the person with the car with the
sign on it at some time. So it had to have been sold previously.




I would let you ask the question, but I doubt you could give anything
but a mendacious answer, and probably can't reliably count that high
anyway. You would likely get to 11, forget where you were, say you
got to the hundred, forget that you said it, say you got to 50, and
then say they all gave above average answers.


What I doubt is that your level of intellect is any higher than average
and I suspect you are even lower on the scale when it comes to honesty.

Hawke

On 3/30/2012 1:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:48 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 6:45 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/28/2012 1:47 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawwke-ptooeye wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a glorious day.


Hey, guys, I know it's fun to poke Hawwke-ptooey to see what addled
nonsense he'll spew in response, but does anyone really think that
showing him facts and/or wisdom will eventually educate him to the
point
where he can participate in an adult discussion?

He ignores anything from any one, left of right, who doesn't kowtow to
the establishment left orthodoxy, or at least his odd view of what it
is. He cites misremembered vague nonsense as proof of his absurd
conjectures and then attacks those who point out the worthlessness of
his posts.

I propose we just ignore him, he never contributes anything other than
as a target for ridicule. It may be that's what he wants in a
masochistic way, but I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth
on him.

I think I may have said that before, though.

:^)

David



Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you can't
back up.

More than anything else, I show that *you* can't back up your claims.
You make wild, inflammatory statements that you simply can't support at
all - ever.

On 3/30/2012 1:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/27/2012 11:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what the title Senator for
Sale is
saying about senator Dole?

It's unsubstantiated crap - fiction.

And you got that information from your imagination.

I got it from the fact the author is a disgruntled crackpot who had a
vendetta against Dole.

You didn't get anything about the book though, did you?

There was nothing to get. *You* didn't get anything from it except the
libelous title.


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

You ****ed up and can't support your bull**** claims.

No I didn't. I can support what I said about Dole.

You can't.

Of course I can.

You can't, of course. You have no facts.


It's well known information.

There isn't any "information". It's nothing but unsubstantiated crap.

You mean you are not aware of any information showing Dole was lining
his pockets.

Nor are you.


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.

You did.

I'm telling you I didn't.

You're lying.

You can't read. I did not and am not using a book I've not read as proof
of anything.

You sure are.


I gave no proof.

Exactly. You couldn't - you don't have any.

I don't have that book as any of my proof.

You don't have *ANYTHING* as any kind of proof. You believe negative
crap about Dole because of your rabid, far-left ideology. It's the
*ONLY* reason you believe it.



Exactly means I have proof but I haven't shown it to you.

You don't have any "proof" of what you claim.

I do have it but

You don't have any "proof" of what you claim.


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.

You're admitting you can't support your claim - can't even get started.
Good.

You want to talk about a lack of reading comprehension? You exhibit it
here. Saying there is no rule saying I have to support my claim is not
the same as saying I can't.

You can't. You have basically admitted it.

You really are poor at communication.

I'm excellent at it.


I've told you that I can support
my allegations against Dole.

But you can't, and you don't have any means of doing so. You've
admitted it.


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.

I agree I haven't given you any proof or evidence of what I say about
Dole, and I'm not going to.

Because you have none. You've admitted it.


Bias has nothing to do with it.

It has *everything* to do with it. It's all you have - no facts, just
blatant bias.

Bias isn't involved. It's a matter of facts.

No facts; only bias.

You have it backwards.

I have it 100% right. It is *ONLY* your extreme, rabid, far-left
political bias; no facts.


That is only your opinion.

It's fact.

Not a fact, opinion.

Fact.

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.

It's a glorious day.

But it's not a day where you're right about anything.

Yes, it sure is.

There is no proof you have been right about anything

I have been right about you, in every way.

On 3/30/2012 1:47 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David


A better question is why waste yours? Why don't you show all the adults
why it is you think you are superior to me?

There you go with that "superiority" bull**** again. You stupid
****wit, you give yourself away so easily. You actually *know* that
you're an inferior intellect, don't you? You do. All this egotistical
blabber about how great you are is actually just cover for your massive
inferiority complex. It's a well known phenomenon: when someone
continually runs his yap about how great he is, it's almost always the
case that he thinks - or in your case, knows - he's ****.

On 3/30/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:06 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David

Why? I suppose it's because Ptooey's amusement value isn't quite
exhausted. He's a rather different sort of clown from those I've
encountered in other groups.

Don't you mean someone your little "games" don't work on?

I mean you're a clown, and I'm still just a wee bit amused by you.

Hawke wrote:



ONE of those has to be Untruth, I don't car if you call it Lie,
Untruth Forgot, Misspoke, or just plain lazy it is the same thing.

Secondly, in error, misspoke, or lazy, are not the same thing as a lie.


I didn't say they were. [reading problems again?]
I said I didn't care which word YOU use to describe your lies,
it is still the same thing, an intentional untruth spread from your
hand, to the world at large.


And as I said you lied to me, and about me several times.

Now that is an outright lie.

jk

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


No, you ****wit - writing "I have known about Bob Dole from his
days in
WWII when he got wounded" implies that you were *there*, you clumsy
plodding idiot.

Any normal person can understand exactly what I meant. A dimwit, no.

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

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

Your sentence structure implied it, dummy.

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



Your reading comprehension is what sucks.

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

My reading comprehension is as good as it gets.

It's atrocious.

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


I never dabbled in anything. The first thing that made me interested in
politics was the Vietnam war. See, I was eligible for the draft back
then
So what, so was I

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

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

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


Your writing is **** - indicative of the thinking behind it.

They didn't say that when they wanted one of my papers to be published
in a textbook.

Yeah, right.

That happens to be true.

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

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


Then why don't you show us some of your ability here? Your writing
style
looks like high school level. Everything you write is so full of
invectives and personal insults that there is no argument anyone can
find. Look at what you wrote here. Is that the best you can do? It's
pretty damn bad. Your work isn't good enough to qualify you to
criticize
anyone else's. The only thing good about you is how good you think you
are and you're way off base. You're average. So how come you think
you're so damn great? It's all a fantasy you created. In reality you're
just an average Joe in a newsgroup that's pretending to be a superhero.
It's pretty pathetic really.
Wow, everything you wrote is true of George, but is equally true of
yourself as well. Except, that it is true that he lards his with more
insults than you do, but not by much.


No it's not true.

It's true.

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



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

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

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

Hawke

On 3/30/2012 2:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 1:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:48 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 6:45 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/28/2012 1:47 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawwke-ptooeye wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a glorious day.


Hey, guys, I know it's fun to poke Hawwke-ptooey to see what addled
nonsense he'll spew in response, but does anyone really think that
showing him facts and/or wisdom will eventually educate him to the
point
where he can participate in an adult discussion?

He ignores anything from any one, left of right, who doesn't kowtow to
the establishment left orthodoxy, or at least his odd view of what it
is. He cites misremembered vague nonsense as proof of his absurd
conjectures and then attacks those who point out the worthlessness of
his posts.

I propose we just ignore him, he never contributes anything other than
as a target for ridicule. It may be that's what he wants in a
masochistic way, but I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth
on him.

I think I may have said that before, though.

:^)

David



Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you can't
back up.

More than anything else, I show that *you* can't back up your claims.
You make wild, inflammatory statements that you simply can't support at
all - ever.


That happens to be a claim, by the way, which according to your rules
you are supposed to prove is true. So you're obligated by your own rules
to prove I can't back up my claims, and that I make wild, inflammatory
statements that I can't support at all - ever. Okay, son, time for you
to get to proving that assertion. If you can't then you are guilty of
the same thing that you have been ragging me about for days.

One other thing. If you find any "inflammatory" statement I've ever made
that I can or have supported then your claim is invalid.

You better get to it.

Hawke

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.

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

Your sentence structure implied it, dummy.

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



So any time you write something that is clearly untrue, we are
supposed to believe it REALLY isn't what you meant, and substitute
some other random statement for it.

For all we knew you had another "episode" and believe you were in
WWII with Dole.


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


So cite it.
Put up or shut up time again.



Then why don't you show us some of your ability here? Your writing
style
looks like high school level. Everything you write is so full of
invectives and personal insults that there is no argument anyone can
find. Look at what you wrote here. Is that the best you can do? It's
pretty damn bad. Your work isn't good enough to qualify you to
criticize
anyone else's. The only thing good about you is how good you think you
are and you're way off base. You're average. So how come you think
you're so damn great? It's all a fantasy you created. In reality you're
just an average Joe in a newsgroup that's pretending to be a superhero.
It's pretty pathetic really.
Wow, everything you wrote is true of George, but is equally true of
yourself as well. Except, that it is true that he lards his with more
insults than you do, but not by much.


No it's not true.

It's true.

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



If you have read this thread it's Pimpton who

The truth is you
haven't given me credit for even one area that I'm better than you.
And what area is that?

jk

On 3/30/2012 2:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:06 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David

Why? I suppose it's because Ptooey's amusement value isn't quite
exhausted. He's a rather different sort of clown from those I've
encountered in other groups.

Don't you mean someone your little "games" don't work on?

I mean you're a clown, and I'm still just a wee bit amused by you.


I told you that I'm funny and have a really good sense of humor. I
suppose for someone with a stick up their ass like you amused is as good
as it gets.

Hawke

On 3/30/2012 2:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 1:47 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David


A better question is why waste yours? Why don't you show all the adults
why it is you think you are superior to me?

There you go with that "superiority" bull**** again. You stupid ****wit,
you give yourself away so easily. You actually *know* that you're an
inferior intellect, don't you? You do. All this egotistical blabber
about how great you are is actually just cover for your massive
inferiority complex. It's a well known phenomenon: when someone
continually runs his yap about how great he is, it's almost always the
case that he thinks - or in your case, knows - he's ****.


Obviously you haven't read little Davey boy's comments. He's the one
claiming he's pals with all kinds of MENSA folks and he is just one of
the gang. He's the one saying I'm the stupid ****. He's the one who has
gone out of his way to make it sound like he's my superior not the other
way around.

You just plain have it wrong with your idea that I think I'm superior to
everyone. Far from it. But I've lived a long time and have been around
lots and lots of people over the years. At this point just about
anywhere I go people find out right away that I'm someone who knows not
just what he's talking about but about a lot of things, and more than
they do.

I've been around plenty of brainy people with Ph.Ds that I know are way
smarter than me. So I know I'm not up there in the elite brain power
class. But I also know I'm way above what's average. The problem is that
some people in this group seem to want to prove how much smarter they
are than I am. So far I haven't seen anybody do it successfully yet and
that includes you and little Davy. I think the problem is that you and
he have over rated your abilities and underestimated mine.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:



You just plain have it wrong with your idea that I think I'm superior to
everyone. Far from it. But I've lived a long time and have been around
lots and lots of people over the years. At this point just about
anywhere I go people find out right away that I'm someone who knows not
just what he's talking about but about a lot of things, and more than
they do.

Which by YOUR pre established definition of "everyone", DOES mean
that you think you are superior (as we would more commonly put it)
"most" people.

And as for people "finding out right away", just because they don't
SAY it like we do here, does not mean they are not thinking "what an
Ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk".

I've been around plenty of brainy people with Ph.Ds that I know are way
smarter than me. So I know I'm not up there in the elite brain power
class.

But I also know I'm way above what's average.
We already know that you have a problem with this term. You have
previously illustrated that you think 100% of a group can be above
average for the group. Only in Lake Woebegone

jk

On 3/30/2012 2:30 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I got it from the fact the author is a disgruntled crackpot who had a
vendetta against Dole.

You didn't get anything about the book though, did you?

There was nothing to get. *You* didn't get anything from it except the
libelous title.

Right, but I never claimed I did. I said I didn't read enough of it to
use it to prove anything about Dole. But that is what I said. Maybe now
I will read it. I planned to when I saw it but never had the time. After
I read it and tell you Dole was a crook I can hardly wait to hear you
deny it when you know nothing.



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

You ****ed up and can't support your bull**** claims.

No I didn't. I can support what I said about Dole.

You can't.

Of course I can.

You can't, of course. You have no facts.

I do have facts. You are making a claim again. You say I have no facts?
Where is your proof I don't? Put up or shut up.



It's well known information.

There isn't any "information". It's nothing but unsubstantiated crap.

You mean you are not aware of any information showing Dole was lining
his pockets.

Nor are you.

But I am.


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.

You did.

I'm telling you I didn't.

You're lying.

You can't read. I did not and am not using a book I've not read as proof
of anything.

You sure are.

You can't take yes for an answer? I've told you I do not consider that
book proof of Dole's greed? What more can I do but tell you I don't
think a book I have not read qualifies as proof of anything.


I gave no proof.

Exactly. You couldn't - you don't have any.

I don't have that book as any of my proof.

You don't have *ANYTHING* as any kind of proof.

Yes I do, you just don't know what it is.


You believe negative
crap about Dole because of your rabid, far-left ideology. It's the
*ONLY* reason you believe it

The only reason I believe Dole used his office to get rich is because of
the evidence I saw against him. It's not because of ideology. If I saw
the same evidence against any other politician I'd think the same thing.



Exactly means I have proof but I haven't shown it to you.

You don't have any "proof" of what you claim.

I do have it but

You don't have any "proof" of what you claim.

You can say that as often as you like, it'll never make it true.





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.

You're admitting you can't support your claim - can't even get
started.
Good.

You want to talk about a lack of reading comprehension? You exhibit it
here. Saying there is no rule saying I have to support my claim is not
the same as saying I can't.

You can't. You have basically admitted it.

You really are poor at communication.

I'm excellent at it.

No, you're not.


I've told you that I can support
my allegations against Dole.

But you can't, and you don't have any means of doing so. You've admitted
it.

Then why would I tell you the evidence showing Dole was out to get rich
is easy to find?




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.

I agree I haven't given you any proof or evidence of what I say about
Dole, and I'm not going to.

Because you have none. You've admitted it.

That's not the reason I'm withholding it and you know it. I'm holding it
back because of how you act.



Bias has nothing to do with it.

It has *everything* to do with it. It's all you have - no facts, just
blatant bias.

Bias isn't involved. It's a matter of facts.

No facts; only bias.

You have it backwards.

I have it 100% right. It is *ONLY* your extreme, rabid, far-left
political bias; no facts.

All of my political views are backed up with tons of facts. I wouldn't
have them otherwise.



That is only your opinion.

It's fact.

Not a fact, opinion.

Fact.

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.

It's a glorious day.

But it's not a day where you're right about anything.

Yes, it sure is.

There is no proof you have been right about anything

I have been right about you, in every way.

So you say but you still have no proof of what you claim. You say you're
right but you can present no proof. Then when I do the same you find
that terrible. If it's good enough for you then it's good enough for me.

Hawke

On 3/30/2012 3:17 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You just plain have it wrong with your idea that I think I'm superior to
everyone. Far from it. But I've lived a long time and have been around
lots and lots of people over the years. At this point just about
anywhere I go people find out right away that I'm someone who knows not
just what he's talking about but about a lot of things, and more than
they do.

Which by YOUR pre established definition of "everyone", DOES mean
that you think you are superior (as we would more commonly put it)
"most" people.

If it's true that I'm bigger, stronger, smarter, better educated, more
knowledgeable, and do most things better than most people does that make
me superior? I think I would have to say yes. The only question would be
is it true. If it is would you say I'm superior to most people?



And as for people "finding out right away", just because they don't
SAY it like we do here, does not mean they are not thinking "what an
Ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk".

They don't think that for one really good reason. Whether it's sports,
or politics, or history, or anything else, they find out right away that
most of the time I know more than they do about what it is we are
discussing.

Here's an example. Say I'm at my health club like I am five days a week
and I'm talking to someone about something related to health. I've been
going to health clubs since I was a teenager. I've seen every machine,
and done every exercise you can imagine. I'm an old and experienced hand
at it. So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it.

Say I'm at my gun club. I go every week for a decade or more. I shoot
thousands of rounds per year and do my own reloading. Someone asks a
question about guns or reloading. Guess who knows the answer? Yeah, it's
me. That's how I know other people catch on right away that I know what
I'm talking about. Everyone I meet gets this. That's why they ask me
when they don't know something. A few people here don't, but they are
the exceptions.



I've been around plenty of brainy people with Ph.Ds that I know are way
smarter than me. So I know I'm not up there in the elite brain power
class.

But I also know I'm way above what's average.


We already know that you have a problem with this term.

We do? How do we know that?


You have
previously illustrated that you think 100% of a group can be above
average for the group. Only in Lake Woebegone


I don't know what you are getting at. Maybe you are referring to
something Dan said about a group of engineers he knows where 100% of
them are way above average as far as IQ goes. Otherwise I don't know
what you're talking about. Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are. Whatever it
is you mean I don't get you.

Hawke

On 3/30/2012 2:46 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/26/2012 11:50 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No, you ****wit - writing "I have known about Bob Dole from his
days in
WWII when he got wounded" implies that you were *there*, you clumsy
plodding idiot.

Any normal person can understand exactly what I meant. A dimwit, no.

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

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

Your sentence structure implied it, dummy.

Well, if your really thought I was saying I was in WWII with Bob Dole
it's you who's the dummy.

Your sentence structure implied it, dummy.


Your reading comprehension is what sucks.

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

My reading comprehension is as good as it gets.

It's atrocious.

It's excellent whether

It's atrocious.


I never dabbled in anything. The first thing that made me
interested in
politics was the Vietnam war. See, I was eligible for the draft back
then
So what, so was I

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

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

Where does it say I said he didn't?

Implied.


Your writing is **** - indicative of the thinking behind it.

They didn't say that when they wanted one of my papers to be published
in a textbook.

Yeah, right.

That happens to be true.

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

I didn't say "term paper".

You didn't write any other kind.


Then why don't you show us some of your ability here? Your writing
style
looks like high school level. Everything you write is so full of
invectives and personal insults that there is no argument anyone can
find. Look at what you wrote here. Is that the best you can do? It's
pretty damn bad. Your work isn't good enough to qualify you to
criticize
anyone else's. The only thing good about you is how good you think you
are and you're way off base. You're average. So how come you think
you're so damn great? It's all a fantasy you created. In reality
you're
just an average Joe in a newsgroup that's pretending to be a
superhero.
It's pretty pathetic really.
Wow, everything you wrote is true of George, but is equally true of
yourself as well. Except, that it is true that he lards his with more
insults than you do, but not by much.


No it's not true.

It's true.

Only as you see it

It's true, period.


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

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

At every opportunity you claim superiority, such as in intellect,

I don't. It's sufficient merely to show that you are inferior.

On 3/30/2012 2:53 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 2:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 1:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:48 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 6:45 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/28/2012 1:47 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawwke-ptooeye wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a glorious day.


Hey, guys, I know it's fun to poke Hawwke-ptooey to see what addled
nonsense he'll spew in response, but does anyone really think that
showing him facts and/or wisdom will eventually educate him to the
point
where he can participate in an adult discussion?

He ignores anything from any one, left of right, who doesn't
kowtow to
the establishment left orthodoxy, or at least his odd view of what it
is. He cites misremembered vague nonsense as proof of his absurd
conjectures and then attacks those who point out the worthlessness of
his posts.

I propose we just ignore him, he never contributes anything other
than
as a target for ridicule. It may be that's what he wants in a
masochistic way, but I'm not going to waste any more time or
bandwidth
on him.

I think I may have said that before, though.

:^)

David



Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you can't
back up.

More than anything else, I show that *you* can't back up your claims.
You make wild, inflammatory statements that you simply can't support at
all - ever.


That happens to be a claim, by the way, which according to your rules
you are supposed to prove is true.

I've done it.

On 3/30/2012 2:55 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 2:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:06 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/29/2012 8:30 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 3/29/2012 7:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

George, there are many adults in this group, why waste your time on a
child who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has nothing to offer and
doesn't reason well enough to respond to logic or wisdom?

David

Why? I suppose it's because Ptooey's amusement value isn't quite
exhausted. He's a rather different sort of clown from those I've
encountered in other groups.

Don't you mean someone your little "games" don't work on?

I mean you're a clown, and I'm still just a wee bit amused by you.


I told you that I'm funny and have a really good sense of humor.

People are laughing at you, not with you.