On 3/30/2012 3:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

On 3/30/2012 3:23 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

You claim to know specifics of Dole's alleged crookedness, but the
*only* thing you've ever read on that is the title of a ****ty, libelous
book.


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 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.

But I am.

Nope.


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?

The title of the book is the *only* thing you've ever seen intimating
his crookedness. "Greed", of course, is meaningless.


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 don't.


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.

You haven't seen any. The *only* reason you believe this **** is due to
your rabid, far-left ideology.


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,

I'll say it every time you claim to have "proof" or "evidence". You
have none.


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.

Certainly I am.


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?

It's just another of your lines of bull****. You don't have any
evidence. All you have is innuendo and more **** like that book.


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.

You have nothing to hold back. You have nothing.


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.

No facts; nothing but political 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.

There is no proof you have been right about anything

I have been right about you, in every way.

So you say but

It's true.

Hawke wrote:


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?
Leaving aside both bigger and stronger, it could follow such an "IF"
But your responses in this news group make the last 4 fall on the
"false" side of that "if".

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.
They haven't met you, would be the ONE reason I can see.

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.

You have already shown me, that your grasp of history that is more
than a couple of hundred years old is rather weak.
I could care less about any claim of sports (i.e. trivia) "wisdom".

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.
So tell us again what Physical Chess is about, and what sport does it
discuss?

blah blah on guns clipped
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.
Really?????
WHO here has asked you ANY thing when they don't know something. I
have been here longer than you claim to have been, and I don't recall
seeing it.



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

We do? How do we know that?

Your posts.



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.
Of course you don't, perfect memory letting you down ....AGAIN?

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.
Nope

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.
Mathematically impossible, showing again that you think 100% of a
group CAN be above it's average. That "I know more than they do about
what it is we are discussing" is really showing through here!

Whatever it
is you mean I don't get you.
Think back to a discussion where you think 100% of people should be
paid an above average wage. Again mathematically impossible.
jk

On Mar 30, 6:41*pm, Hawke wrote:


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

I do not think that I ever said anything about a group of engineers.
Much less about saying anything about a group of engineers that are
way above average as far as IQ goes.

Dan

jk wrote:



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

And as I expected, nothing but silence.



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.
================================

jk

On 3/30/2012 5:05 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 3/30/2012 2:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 1:47 PM, Hawwke-ptooey 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.

Actually, I said you seemed to be high normal in intelligence, with an
IQ in the 115-125 range. Of course, this doesn't keep you from being
ignorant or foolish as you so often display.

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.

Why have you chosen to not show that side of you here?

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.

Slightly above average, about where the average businessman or
politician might be.

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.

Hawwke-ptooey

I've asked you several times how you expect anyone to prove how much
smarter they are than you are. What proof would you accept?

David

On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

Let me clarify that for you. What you mean is that assholes like you and
your brethren here are laughing at me. But you're talking about a bunch
of freaks. Normal people don't do that.



Maybe they'll be laughing at you now for making a mountain out of a mole
hill and after your unsubstantiated claims are disproven. You're the one
who denied it when I said that Bob Dole made millions when he was in the
senate. You said that was a lie. You said there was no proof he was a
millionaire when he was in the senate. You wanted the proof. There's
lots of it. Here's some right here.

"Speech fees the only direct cash payoff allowed to politicians -- other
campaign contributions cannot be used for personal expenses, but this
money goes straight into Bob and Liddy's bank account. Bob Dole himself
earned over a million in speech money between 1981 and 1991, even though
Senators were limited to $2,000 per speech. In 1993 speaking fees for
Senators were banned altogether, and Liddy's speechifying career took off.
At least four of the groups that hired Bob Dole later hired Liddy and paid
her 10 times as much money."

Take note that it says that Bob earned over a million from speech money
alone between 1981 and 1991. I'd say that proves he was a millionaire
when he was a senator, wouldn't you? One other thing, when the speech
giving con was ended in 1993 businesses continued to influence and pay
Bob by hiring his wife to give the speeches instead of him. Either way
they did it the same thing was true, it was a way for businesses to give
money to politicians to get favors. Dole was a master at this.

Here's the link, which by the way, is not a citation.


http://realchange.org/bdole.htm#Liddyspeech




Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's what I
told you and what you said was a lie. The truth is you could find that
out all by yourself instead of saying I was lying. But you showed your
true colors by doing it the sleazy way you did. Looks like Bob Dole was
a millionaire when in the senate, just like I said. Gee, what if the
other things I said are true too? And they are. That would mean you're a
real idiot. But that isn't in question.


Hawke

On 3/30/2012 4:08 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


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?

Leaving aside both bigger and stronger, it could follow such an "IF"
But your responses in this news group make the last 4 fall on the
"false" side of that "if".

Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans, if I am more knowledgeable than most, and do things better
than most, then all of what I said are true. But all I said is that I'm
better than average. I never said I was great at anything. More than
anything else I'm well rounded.


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.
They haven't met you, would be the ONE reason I can see.

Yeah, but that's you. Anyone else would first conclude that they don't
think I'm an ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk. I meet all kinds of
people and that is not the impression they get.


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.

You have already shown me, that your grasp of history that is more
than a couple of hundred years old is rather weak.

Weaker than yours? When did you display a superior grasp of history? Not
only did I take history in college I'm a history buff as well. So your
impression is mistaken.


I could care less about any claim of sports (i.e. trivia) "wisdom".

It's just one more area that I know a lot about having participated in
all kinds of sports for decades.


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.


So tell us again what Physical Chess is about, and what sport does it
discuss?

Never heard of it and have no idea what sport it is related to. Is that
something most sports enthusiasts would know about?




blah blah on guns clipped

Why? Doesn't that count as an area that I'm extremely well versed in?

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.


Really?????
WHO here has asked you ANY thing when they don't know something. I
have been here longer than you claim to have been, and I don't recall
seeing it.

Nobody here asks anyone when they don't know something. They just Google
it. I'm talking about when you don't have your computer handy and have
to rely on what you actually know. That's when people find out what I
know and they don't.

With the computer you can answer any question, as we all know. Just like
I did to find out that physical chess is just another name for fencing.
Which leads me to ask a question, when did fencing become "physical
chess"? If you had asked me if I knew anything about fencing I would
have told you that I do. I'm no expert but I know more about it than
most people. For example most people you ask would not even know what an
epee is. I do.


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

We do? How do we know that?

Your posts.



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.
Of course you don't, perfect memory letting you down ....AGAIN?

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.
Nope

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.


Mathematically impossible, showing again that you think 100% of a
group CAN be above it's average. That "I know more than they do about
what it is we are discussing" is really showing through here!

You're simply wrong here. You know why? Because I don't think 100% of a
group can be above its average. I don't know where you got that idea. I
have taken statistics in college. What I said was that 100% of people in
a group "think" they are above average.


Whatever it
is you mean I don't get you.

Think back to a discussion where you think 100% of people should be
paid an above average wage. Again mathematically impossible.

But realistically very possible. What I meant was I pay every one I hire
above average pay. That's 100% of them. I still think people should be
paid more than what is the current "average" wage.

Hawke

On 3/30/2012 3:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

Ha ha ha ha ha!


The laugh would be on you if you met me in person because you would find
the same thing, that except for what your job or education is in I know
more about more things than you too. I'd be laughing at how much you
don't know.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
You said that was a lie. You said there was no proof he was a
millionaire when he was in the senate. You wanted the proof. There's
lots of it. Here's some right here.

"Speech fees the only direct cash payoff allowed to politicians -- other
campaign contributions cannot be used for personal expenses, but this
money goes straight into Bob and Liddy's bank account. Bob Dole himself
earned over a million in speech money between 1981 and 1991, even though
Senators were limited to $2,000 per speech. In 1993 speaking fees for
Senators were banned altogether, and Liddy's speechifying career took off.
At least four of the groups that hired Bob Dole later hired Liddy and paid
her 10 times as much money."

Take note that it says that Bob earned over a million from speech money
alone between 1981 and 1991. I'd say that proves he was a millionaire
when he was a senator, wouldn't you?
That fact ALONE, no!
As stated, that would be 100k/year, (or 90.9k/yr if you assume it is
the full1 yrs) and only by the barest fraction, assuming he had no
expenses other than what he earned in pay, could it make him what is
commonly called a millionaire.

If you are foolish enough to suggest that anyone who grossed over
100k/yr over 10 years is a "millionaire", then, yes of course you are
right, but then anyone who grossed $25k/yr for 40 years is also a
"millionaire".

Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's what I
told you and what you said was a lie.
That is NOT what you were saying. And that is not what he called a
lie.
jk

Hawke wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,
Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?
~52% of the US population (as of 2000) had some college.
and BTW, going to college, is NOT the only way to get an education,
and a "history buff" ought to know that.

if I am more knowledgeable than most,
At least you are aware that there is a difference between education
and knowledge. But you sure don't show it here.
and do things better
than most,
Un provable, and unlikely.

then all of what I said are true. But all I said is that I'm
better than average.
And much other puffery.
I never said I was great at anything. More than
anything else I'm well rounded.
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.
They haven't met you, would be the ONE reason I can see.

Yeah, but that's you. Anyone else would first conclude that they don't
think I'm an ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk. I meet all kinds of
people and that is not the impression they get.

You don't know that for a fact. How many of the people you meet, to
you meet again or see regularly?

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.
You have already shown me, that your grasp of history that is more
than a couple of hundred years old is rather weak.
Weaker than yours? When did you display a superior grasp of history?
In our "discussions" on the economic status of what you like to call
the "poor" and in discussion of early medieval guilds and their
relationship to the availability to labor (both trained and
untrained).
Not only did I take history in college I'm a history buff as well. So your
impression is mistaken.
I doubt it.

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.


So tell us again what Physical Chess is about, and what sport does it
discuss?

Never heard of it and have no idea what sport it is related to. Is that
something most sports enthusiasts would know about?
Doesn't really matter to some one who could TRUTHFULLY boast
"So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it."

blah blah on guns clipped

Why? Doesn't that count as an area that I'm extremely well versed in?
There is no way of telling, all you did was to provide information
that you fire from 20 to 200 rounds a week.



Really?????
WHO here has asked you ANY thing when they don't know something. I
have been here longer than you claim to have been, and I don't recall
seeing it.

Nobody here asks anyone when they don't know something.
Your statement "A few people here don't, but they are the exceptions."
sure implies that all but those few exceptions do ask you for
information.

With the computer you can answer any question, as we all know. Just like
I did to find out that physical chess is just another name for fencing.
Which leads me to ask a question, when did fencing become "physical
chess"?

If you had asked me if I knew anything about fencing I would
have told you that I do. I'm no expert but I know more about it than
most people.
And yet you didn't know it was frequently called Physical Chess?
(of course it isn't the only sport to be called that)
For example most people you ask would not even know what an
epee is. I do.
Again, big whoop, probably looked it up.
Just about everyone I hang out with would know. Probably less than
half of those I work with would.

Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are.
Mathematically impossible, showing again that you think 100% of a
group CAN be above it's average. That "I know more than they do about
what it is we are discussing" is really showing through here!

You're simply wrong here. You know why? Because I don't think 100% of a
group can be above its average. I don't know where you got that idea.

Your statement "Maybe they are" would be why.

Think back to a discussion where you think 100% of people should be
paid an above average wage. Again mathematically impossible.

But realistically very possible.
Not! mathematically impossible means just that.


What I meant was I pay every one I hire
above average pay.
Wasn't even in a discussion of what you pay YOUR serfs.
jk

On 3/31/2012 11:51 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

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.

Actually, I said you seemed to be high normal in intelligence, with an
IQ in the 115-125 range. Of course, this doesn't keep you from being
ignorant or foolish as you so often display.

Gee, thanks for giving me that. You're so generous. You're not
condescending at all, are you? The funny thing I've found is that no
matter what a person's IQ is they can still act foolish, even someone
like you. Or they could just project a lousy attitude, which you
certainly do.


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.

Why have you chosen to not show that side of you here?


A better question would be what's wrong with your perception that you
didn't notice what is obvious to most people? Just because you can't see
something that doesn't mean others can't. Some people actually think
Bush was a good president and did a good job. You don't think I've shown
anything. Just shows how wrong people can be.


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.

Slightly above average, about where the average businessman or
politician might be.

We can argue the level of my IQ all day or we can argue about yours. So
you're about slightly above average too, right? Or are you saying you're
way up there? You know we can't tell that either from what you have
written here.



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.

Hawwke-ptooey

I've asked you several times how you expect anyone to prove how much
smarter they are than you are. What proof would you accept?


Credentials for one, like a Ph.D., of if you are a nuclear physicist or
something like that would do. Or if you had the background or the
accomplishments of the president of Dartmouth college. Quite a few
things would do. You can't just say it though.

Hawke

On 3/31/2012 2:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,


Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials. So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated. That's
by the standard of how you measure education. Was I not just as educated
a week before I graduated? Of course I was, but you measure a man's
education by his degrees. Only about 27% of Americans have completed a
BA or a BS degree. If you have one of those you are "more educated" than
those who haven't. It's that simple.



~52% of the US population (as of 2000) had some college.
and BTW, going to college, is NOT the only way to get an education,
and a "history buff" ought to know that.

That all depends on what you define as education. Most people call
education college. They don't call all learning education although it
probably is. But you're talking about what words mean and that can make
things complicated.



if I am more knowledgeable than most,
At least you are aware that there is a difference between education
and knowledge. But you sure don't show it here.

You're entitled to that opinion but just understand that I think it's
totally wrong. I haven't seen any great demonstration of knowledge or
education from you either. So why point out me when you haven't shown
any better? But you probably think your posts show you as someone really
bright? Me too.


and do things better
than most,
Un provable, and unlikely.

Both provable and it happens to be the truth. I do a lot of things well.
That's just a fact.


then all of what I said are true. But all I said is that I'm
better than average.

And much other puffery.

You don't know what that word means. If you think saying I'm better than
average is puffery you're out of your mind.


I never said I was great at anything. More than
anything else I'm well rounded.

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".

But since I don't convey that kind of picture why would anyone think that?


They don't think that for one really good reason.
They haven't met you, would be the ONE reason I can see.

Yeah, but that's you. Anyone else would first conclude that they don't
think I'm an ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk. I meet all kinds of
people and that is not the impression they get.

You don't know that for a fact. How many of the people you meet, to
you meet again or see regularly?

The truth is I'm a pretty likable guy. Most people who meet me like me.
The exception is when I run into someone who doesn't like me. That's rare.


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.
You have already shown me, that your grasp of history that is more
than a couple of hundred years old is rather weak.


Weaker than yours? When did you display a superior grasp of history?
In our "discussions" on the economic status of what you like to call
the "poor" and in discussion of early medieval guilds and their
relationship to the availability to labor (both trained and
untrained).

I know quite a lot about the poor. I also know about medieval guilds
too. But I don't remember anything specific. My argument with you isn't
about what happened in history but about what it means and how it is
interpreted. I don't see things the way you conservatives do. I see very
little the way you conservatives do. But if you want to discuss
something specific I assure you that I know enough to do so.



Not only did I take history in college I'm a history buff as well. So your
impression is mistaken.

I doubt it.

That's easy to explain. You have made the mistake of basically doubting
everything I say. You do that at your peril because I am not often wrong
about anything. But you take the opposite tack, that I'm wrong all the
time and every now and then I'm right. That's an error by you.


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.


So tell us again what Physical Chess is about, and what sport does it
discuss?

Never heard of it and have no idea what sport it is related to. Is that
something most sports enthusiasts would know about?


Doesn't really matter to some one who could TRUTHFULLY boast
"So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it."

blah blah on guns clipped

Why? Doesn't that count as an area that I'm extremely well versed in?
There is no way of telling, all you did was to provide information
that you fire from 20 to 200 rounds a week.

Do you think that's all I think it takes to know a lot about guns,
firing a couple hundred rounds a week? Because I don't. There is much
more to it than that. Much of which I know. I've also reloaded for more
than a decade as well.



Really?????
WHO here has asked you ANY thing when they don't know something. I
have been here longer than you claim to have been, and I don't recall
seeing it.

Nobody here asks anyone when they don't know something.
Your statement "A few people here don't, but they are the exceptions."
sure implies that all but those few exceptions do ask you for
information.

What you think I'm implying is wrong. Few people ask me for anything
here. When I used to spend a lot of time in rec.guns I gave people
information all the time.



With the computer you can answer any question, as we all know. Just like
I did to find out that physical chess is just another name for fencing.
Which leads me to ask a question, when did fencing become "physical
chess"?

If you had asked me if I knew anything about fencing I would
have told you that I do. I'm no expert but I know more about it than
most people.


And yet you didn't know it was frequently called Physical Chess?
(of course it isn't the only sport to be called that)

I told you I wasn't familiar with that term and when did they start
calling fencing physical chess?




For example most people you ask would not even know what an
epee is. I do.

Again, big whoop, probably looked it up.

Nope, I know what a foil, saber, katana, cutlass, broadsword, and epee
all are, others too, have know for years, and don't need to go to the
computer to look them up.

Just about everyone I hang out with would know. Probably less than
half of those I work with would.

Point is most people wouldn't know that an epee is a type of sword but I
do.



Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are.
Mathematically impossible, showing again that you think 100% of a
group CAN be above it's average. That "I know more than they do about
what it is we are discussing" is really showing through here!

You're simply wrong here. You know why? Because I don't think 100% of a
group can be above its average. I don't know where you got that idea.

Your statement "Maybe they are" would be why.

Taken out of context. Maybe they are was referring to what the people in
the group thought they were.


Think back to a discussion where you think 100% of people should be
paid an above average wage. Again mathematically impossible.

But realistically very possible.


Not! mathematically impossible means just that.

So you know of nothing that is possible that is mathematically impossible?



What I meant was I pay every one I hire
above average pay.


Wasn't even in a discussion of what you pay YOUR serfs.


It was to me. And nobody that I hire to work for me is a serf. Is that
what you call people who you pay for their labor? That would really tell
me a lot about you as a person.

Hawke

On 3/31/2012 1:22 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:
You said that was a lie. You said there was no proof he was a
millionaire when he was in the senate. You wanted the proof. There's
lots of it. Here's some right here.

"Speech fees the only direct cash payoff allowed to politicians -- other
campaign contributions cannot be used for personal expenses, but this
money goes straight into Bob and Liddy's bank account. Bob Dole himself
earned over a million in speech money between 1981 and 1991, even though
Senators were limited to $2,000 per speech. In 1993 speaking fees for
Senators were banned altogether, and Liddy's speechifying career took off.
At least four of the groups that hired Bob Dole later hired Liddy and paid
her 10 times as much money."

Take note that it says that Bob earned over a million from speech money
alone between 1981 and 1991. I'd say that proves he was a millionaire
when he was a senator, wouldn't you?
That fact ALONE, no!
As stated, that would be 100k/year, (or 90.9k/yr if you assume it is
the full1 yrs) and only by the barest fraction, assuming he had no
expenses other than what he earned in pay, could it make him what is
commonly called a millionaire.

If you are foolish enough to suggest that anyone who grossed over
100k/yr over 10 years is a "millionaire", then, yes of course you are
right, but then anyone who grossed $25k/yr for 40 years is also a
"millionaire".

Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's what I
told you and what you said was a lie.
That is NOT what you were saying. And that is not what he called a
lie.


Look, Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the price
of a first class ticket. The actual cost of those was between 5000 and
20,000 dollars a piece. He was directing speeches that would have gone
to him to his wife. He was having corporations giving all kinds of money
to his foundation, Pacs, and other entities he controlled. He was also
getting special sweetheart deals on real estate from companies like ADM.
All of which contributed to his income. The million in speaking fees was
only from 1981 to 1991. He was in the senate from 1969 on. So he was
making that money for more than twice that time. You add all that up
with the million he made from just the speeches for ten years and it
would be far more than a million and we're not even counting his actual
pay. So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate. He was a millionaire. That is a fact. Pimpton says that is a
lie. You still think so too?

Hawke

On 3/31/2012 12:19 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

Let me clarify that for you.

None needed. It was perfectly clear. People laugh at you, not with you
and not at any witticism from you. You're not witty.

On 3/31/2012 1:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

Ha ha ha ha ha!


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

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

On 3/31/2012 10:43 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:



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

And as I expected, nothing but silence.



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.
==============================

As usual you have taken what I said out of context in an attempt to be
unfair. But from what I remember here is what it meant when I said I
know where you stand on all the issues. I was talking about your
political ideology and my guess was that you were a
rightwinger/conservative. With that in mind I said I know where you
stand on the issues because I know where conservatives stand on the
issues, and you are one of them. You took a broad generalization and
tried to apply it to the specifics to make it look wrong. Want to take
your views on the issues you listed and tell me how many of them do you
completely disagree with the view of conservatives? I still say your
view will agree with the conservative view on almost all of them. Prove
me wrong. If you do then you're a liberal.





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.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton. I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know. I was
trying to show you how it feels when someone does that to you like
Pimpton does. It was meant as a comparison to what Pimpton does.




===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?

That was part of the same post where I was "doing a Plimpton" and simply
saying things that I couldn't possibly know to show you what it's like
when someone claims things they don't really know.


But If I recall you never said you had any legal training either. Did you?


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.
================================


Now you know. I was copying Pimpton just to **** you off. Of course I
have no idea about any of those things. That was my point. Do you think
Pimpton knows any of those kinds of things about me? He's even saying
I've never done any research while in college. You know he doesn't know
that. I was giving you an example of what he's been doing to me for
quite a while. I see you don't like it very much. It's not so nice
seeing someone say something about you that is wrong and you can't do
anything about it. See my point? That's what I was doing.

Hawke

On 3/31/2012 5:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 12:19 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

Let me clarify that for you.

None needed. It was perfectly clear. People laugh at you, not with you
and not at any witticism from you. You're not witty.


You're bad looking.

Hawke

On 3/31/2012 5:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

Ha ha ha ha ha!


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

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


The only people who don't know that are idiots like you. Lying,
ignorant, disagreeable, assholes just like you. Lucky there's only a few
like you.


Hawke

On 3/31/2012 5:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:43 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:



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

And as I expected, nothing but silence.



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.
==============================

As usual you have taken what I said out of context

Bull****. He didn't take anything "out of context." He challenged you,
and you whiffed off - predictably.


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.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton. I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know. I was
trying to show you how it feels when someone does that to you like
Pimpton does. It was meant as a comparison to what Pimpton does.




===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?

That was part of the same post where I was "doing a Plimpton" and

You were ****ing the dog and selling the puppies is what you were doing.


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.
================================


Now you know. I was copying Pimpton just to

Bull****.

Hawke wrote:

On 3/31/2012 10:43 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:
What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
specific and I'll address anything I've said.
And as I expected, nothing but silence.
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.
==============================
As usual you have taken what I said out of context in an attempt to be
unfair.
NO exactly IN CONTEXT. You (and no one else) said YOU KNEW where I
stand on issues.

But from what I remember here is what it meant when I said I
know where you stand on all the issues. I was talking about your
political ideology and my guess was that you were a
rightwinger/conservative. With that in mind I said I know where you
stand on the issues because I know where conservatives stand on the
issues, and you are one of them. You took a broad generalization and
tried to apply it to the specifics to make it look wrong.
NO I challenged your assertion that you had knowledge. Knowledge you
had no reasonable way of possessing, except in fact by inference from
your ASSUMPTIONS about my political views.

Want to take
your views on the issues you listed and tell me how many of them do you
completely disagree with the view of conservatives? I still say your
view will agree with the conservative view on almost all of them. Prove
me wrong. If you do then you're a liberal.
Or in other words, NOT only did you lie when you said you knew, you
lied when you said
" What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
" specific and I'll address anything I've said.

The above blather is not addressing what you said, it is a mealy
mouthed backtracking.

If you had half the knowledge you claim, you would be able to state
EXACTLY where I stand on the issues below. But I will be king and say
that if you get even HALF of them right I will call it a "win" for
you, if you get 3/4 of them right, you might even be as smart as you
claim.


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.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton.
Bull****, you were being you.

I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know.
Or in other words, you LIED.

I was
trying to show you how it feels when someone does that to you like
Pimpton does. It was meant as a comparison to what Pimpton does.
No it wasn't, it was in a discussion of your supposed ability to
evaluate evidence. And that was well before you started trying that
one on for size. But even if that were to be true, it still means
you lied.


===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?

That was part of the same post where I was "doing a Plimpton" and simply
saying things that I couldn't possibly know to show you what it's like
when someone claims things they don't really know.
Or in the same words as before, you were lying then.


But If I recall you never said you had any legal training either. Did you?
Never said I didn't either.

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.
================================


Now you know. I was copying Pimpton just to **** you off.
No you were lying then, and you are lying now.

Of course I
have no idea about any of those things. That was my point.
No you thought you could get away with a stupid, lame attack, and it
backfired. That's why you went silent and did not respond.

I was giving you an example of what he's been doing to me for
quite a while. I see you don't like it very much.
I could give a rats ass. It just makes a convenient vehicle to
illustrate your mendacious ways.
jk

Hawke wrote:


Take note that it says that Bob earned over a million from speech money
alone between 1981 and 1991. I'd say that proves he was a millionaire
when he was a senator, wouldn't you?
That fact ALONE, no!
As stated, that would be 100k/year, (or 90.9k/yr if you assume it is
the full1 yrs) and only by the barest fraction, assuming he had no
expenses other than what he earned in pay, could it make him what is
commonly called a millionaire.

If you are foolish enough to suggest that anyone who grossed over
100k/yr over 10 years is a "millionaire", then, yes of course you are
right, but then anyone who grossed $25k/yr for 40 years is also a
"millionaire".


So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate. He was a millionaire. That is a fact. Pimpton says that is a
lie. You still think so too?
I never said he didn't, (I am not sure WHAT George thinks, and don't
care that much) I was discussing what you seem to "think" is
sufficient evidence to "prove" it.

jk

Hawke wrote:



Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials.

That is ONE way , but not the only way. If it were there would be no
such ting as the SAL, GRE, LSAT or professional licensing exams.

So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated. That's
by the standard of how you measure education.
Apparently the only way YOU can measure it.
Was I not just as educated
a week before I graduated? Of course I was, but you measure a man's
education by his degrees.
Can't have it both ways. Either you were more educated or you weren't.
~52% of the US population (as of 2000) had some college.
and BTW, going to college, is NOT the only way to get an education,
and a "history buff" ought to know that.

That all depends on what you define as education. Most people call
education college.
Ahhhh your misuse of the "most people" again.

No, I believe most people use the term "Formal Education" for what you
mean.

They don't call all learning education although it
probably is. But you're talking about what words mean and that can make
things complicated.
Yeah, especially if you are expected to use them consistently and in a
least some relationship to the way most others use them.




if I am more knowledgeable than most,
At least you are aware that there is a difference between education
and knowledge. But you sure don't show it here.

You're entitled to that opinion but just understand that I think it's
totally wrong.

So you don't think there is a difference?

I haven't seen any great demonstration of knowledge or
education from you either. So why point out me when you haven't shown
any better?


But you probably think your posts show you as someone really
bright? Me too.
Why thank you. I know you don't really mean it, but heck....


And much other puffery.

You don't know what that word means. If you think saying I'm better than
average is puffery you're out of your mind.
Flaming bonkers it is then.

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".

But since I don't convey that kind of picture why would anyone think that?

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy.


Yeah, but that's you. Anyone else would first conclude that they don't
think I'm an ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk. I meet all kinds of
people and that is not the impression they get.

You don't know that for a fact. How many of the people you meet, to
you meet again or see regularly?

The truth is I'm a pretty likable guy. Most people who meet me like me.
The exception is when I run into someone who doesn't like me.

Wow.... Caption Obvious, everyone likes you, except those that don't?
What an amazing insight.


I know quite a lot about the poor. I also know about medieval guilds
too. But I don't remember anything specific.
"Perfect Memory " acting up again?

My argument with you isn't
about what happened in history but about what it means and how it is
interpreted.
Which is where you illustrated your ignorance. Sufficiently for others
to mock you.


I don't see things the way you conservatives do.
Let's see, you think people do things solely because of their race,
you think there are "lower classes" of people, sound fairly typical
of the common perception of "conservatives".

I see very
little the way you conservatives do. But if you want to discuss
something specific I assure you that I know enough to do so.


Doesn't really matter to some one who could TRUTHFULLY boast
"So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it."

Really?????
WHO here has asked you ANY thing when they don't know something. I
have been here longer than you claim to have been, and I don't recall
seeing it.

Nobody here asks anyone when they don't know something.
Lots of people ask questions here, some even about metalworking. None
of them seem to be direction questions to you though.


Your statement "A few people here don't, but they are the exceptions."
sure implies that all but those few exceptions do ask you for
information.

What you think I'm implying is wrong. Few people ask me for anything
here.
"True dat"

When I used to spend a lot of time in rec.guns I gave people
information all the time.
Regardless of if they wanted it. Which would be why you are here now,
not there?

With the computer you can answer any question, as we all know. Just like
I did to find out that physical chess is just another name for fencing.
Which leads me to ask a question, when did fencing become "physical
chess"?

If you had asked me if I knew anything about fencing I would
have told you that I do. I'm no expert but I know more about it than
most people.


Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are.
Mathematically impossible, showing again that you think 100% of a
group CAN be above it's average. That "I know more than they do about
what it is we are discussing" is really showing through here!

You're simply wrong here. You know why? Because I don't think 100% of a
group can be above its average. I don't know where you got that idea.

Your statement "Maybe they are" would be why.

Taken out of context. Maybe they are was referring to what the people in
the group thought they were.

I don't think "taken out of context" means what you think it does. The
whole context of that line was quoted. NOTHING was out of context.



Wasn't even in a discussion of what you pay YOUR serfs.


It was to me. And nobody that I hire to work for me is a serf. Is that
what you call people who you pay for their labor?

Just riffing on what you prefer to call them, that is to say "lower
classes".
Of course technically no one you hire to work for you is a serf. Might
be a varlet though.

jk

On 3/31/2012 6:01 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 5:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 12:19 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

Let me clarify that for you.

None needed. It was perfectly clear. People laugh at you, not with you
and not at any witticism from you. You're not witty.


You're bad looking.

You're looking bad.

On 3/31/2012 6:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 5:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

Ha ha ha ha ha!


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

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


The only people who don't know that are

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

On 3/31/2012 5:33 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:22 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:
You said that was a lie. You said there was no proof he was a
millionaire when he was in the senate. You wanted the proof. There's
lots of it. Here's some right here.

"Speech fees the only direct cash payoff allowed to politicians -- other
campaign contributions cannot be used for personal expenses, but this
money goes straight into Bob and Liddy's bank account. Bob Dole himself
earned over a million in speech money between 1981 and 1991, even though
Senators were limited to $2,000 per speech. In 1993 speaking fees for
Senators were banned altogether, and Liddy's speechifying career took
off.
At least four of the groups that hired Bob Dole later hired Liddy and
paid
her 10 times as much money."

Take note that it says that Bob earned over a million from speech money
alone between 1981 and 1991. I'd say that proves he was a millionaire
when he was a senator, wouldn't you?
That fact ALONE, no!
As stated, that would be 100k/year, (or 90.9k/yr if you assume it is
the full1 yrs) and only by the barest fraction, assuming he had no
expenses other than what he earned in pay, could it make him what is
commonly called a millionaire.

If you are foolish enough to suggest that anyone who grossed over
100k/yr over 10 years is a "millionaire", then, yes of course you are
right, but then anyone who grossed $25k/yr for 40 years is also a
"millionaire".

Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's what I
told you and what you said was a lie.
That is NOT what you were saying. And that is not what he called a
lie.


Look, Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the price
of a first class ticket.

Not established.


He was having corporations giving all kinds of money
to his foundation, Pacs, and other entities he controlled.

But not to him.


So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate.

Not proved.

On 3/31/2012 2:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,


Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials.

Wrong.

So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated.

You never obtained an education.

On 3/31/2012 9:39 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials.

That is ONE way , but not the only way. If it were there would be no
such ting as the SAL, GRE, LSAT or professional licensing exams.

I didn't say it's the only way. But that is the primary way it's done in
this country. When people ask what your educational level is they expect
you will tell them what degrees you have. Licensing exams are not a
measure of your education. You can take a bar exam and pass it without
going to law school. Passing the test doesn't mean you have the education.



So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated. That's
by the standard of how you measure education.


Apparently the only way YOU can measure it.

That's how the learning institutions measure it. You have completed a
degree program and you have the education or you didn't. I don't make
those rules.

Was I not just as educated
a week before I graduated? Of course I was, but you measure a man's
education by his degrees.


Can't have it both ways. Either you were more educated or you weren't.

I'm not trying to. You're splitting hairs. Before you got your degree
you didn't have one. You don't have one until they give it to you. It
has nothing to do with if I was more or less educated a week before the
end.

~52% of the US population (as of 2000) had some college.
and BTW, going to college, is NOT the only way to get an education,
and a "history buff" ought to know that.

But it is how you get a degree. You have to take a course of education
and pass according to their satisfaction.



That all depends on what you define as education. Most people call
education college.

Ahhhh your misuse of the "most people" again.

Since when is calling the majority "most people" wrong? You think that's
wrong? It isn't.


No, I believe most people use the term "Formal Education" for what you
mean.

Now it's you who is misusing the term "most people" now. A formal
education is synonymous to a college education. But then "most people"
now just say education for going to college.


They don't call all learning education although it
probably is. But you're talking about what words mean and that can make
things complicated.


Yeah, especially if you are expected to use them consistently and in a
least some relationship to the way most others use them.


And even more if you keep pretending that my use of language is way out
of the mainstream because it's not. In fact, it seems the only two
people who ever had a problem understanding me are you are Pimpton.

if I am more knowledgeable than most,
At least you are aware that there is a difference between education
and knowledge. But you sure don't show it here.

For that matter you don't show a lot of anything here either. You think
it's complicated the difference between knowledge and education? You
don't know that most people know the difference between the two?



You're entitled to that opinion but just understand that I think it's
totally wrong.

So you don't think there is a difference?

I haven't seen any great demonstration of knowledge or
education from you either. So why point out me when you haven't shown
any better?


But you probably think your posts show you as someone really
bright? Me too.
Why thank you. I know you don't really mean it, but heck....

Sorry but you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was that I think
the same thing about my posts that you do about yours. Not that your
posts are really bright. I've said it before that your posts don't show
you to be anything but average.




And much other puffery.

You don't know what that word means. If you think saying I'm better than
average is puffery you're out of your mind.


Flaming bonkers it is then.

Saying you're no better than average is not puffery. You better look the
word up.

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".

But since I don't convey that kind of picture why would anyone think that?

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy.

Only if you make a bunch of assumptions without any evidence to support
them.



Yeah, but that's you. Anyone else would first conclude that they don't
think I'm an ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk. I meet all kinds of
people and that is not the impression they get.

You don't know that for a fact. How many of the people you meet, to
you meet again or see regularly?

The truth is I'm a pretty likable guy. Most people who meet me like me.
The exception is when I run into someone who doesn't like me.

Wow.... Caption Obvious, everyone likes you, except those that don't?
What an amazing insight.

Well, you didn't get it. It was a simple statement. Most people I meet
like me. There are exceptions but they are few. I just means that more
people like me than don't. You had trouble with that though.



I know quite a lot about the poor. I also know about medieval guilds
too. But I don't remember anything specific.


"Perfect Memory " acting up again?

Did I ever say my memory was perfect? I know I didn't. So what are you
talking about? Things that never really happened?

My argument with you isn't
about what happened in history but about what it means and how it is
interpreted.


Which is where you illustrated your ignorance. Sufficiently for others
to mock you.

Except at no time have I illustrated ignorance.


I don't see things the way you conservatives do.
Let's see, you think people do things solely because of their race,

Not true. Do I think different races do things differently? Yes, I do.
Does anyone do some things solely because of their race? Of course not.


you think there are "lower classes" of people, sound fairly typical
of the common perception of "conservatives".

I do know America is a class society. You may have heard of some of them
upper class, middle class, working class, poor. Ever hear anyone besides
me talk about these classes? How come? Because it's a fact they exist.
It's a fairy tale that there are no classes in America.


I see very
little the way you conservatives do. But if you want to discuss
something specific I assure you that I know enough to do so.


Doesn't really matter to some one who could TRUTHFULLY boast

"So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it."

It's not boasting and I don't say I know a lot about everything. But I
do know a lot about a lot of things. That's true.


Really?????
WHO here has asked you ANY thing when they don't know something. I
have been here longer than you claim to have been, and I don't recall
seeing it.

Nobody here asks anyone when they don't know something.
Lots of people ask questions here, some even about metalworking. None
of them seem to be direction questions to you though.

They're all conservatives too. How often do they ask what they think is
a liberal about anything? How often do you ask questions of liberals?
Not much I'll bet.


Your statement "A few people here don't, but they are the exceptions."
sure implies that all but those few exceptions do ask you for
information.

It's real simple. People ask me for information all the time because
they perceive that I know more than they do. So blame them.




What you think I'm implying is wrong. Few people ask me for anything
here.
"True dat"

They don't come to you either.


When I used to spend a lot of time in rec.guns I gave people
information all the time.
Regardless of if they wanted it. Which would be why you are here now,
not there?

Yeah, I just volunteer information. Bull****. When people would ask gun
questions I had the answers. I got tired of it there because I wasn't
learning anything.


With the computer you can answer any question, as we all know. Just like
I did to find out that physical chess is just another name for fencing.
Which leads me to ask a question, when did fencing become "physical
chess"?

If you had asked me if I knew anything about fencing I would
have told you that I do. I'm no expert but I know more about it than
most people.


Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are.
Mathematically impossible, showing again that you think 100% of a
group CAN be above it's average. That "I know more than they do about
what it is we are discussing" is really showing through here!

Most of the time that's true. Want to take a test. Tell me what you
think you know more about than I do.



You're simply wrong here. You know why? Because I don't think 100% of a
group can be above its average. I don't know where you got that idea.

Your statement "Maybe they are" would be why.

Taken out of context. Maybe they are was referring to what the people in
the group thought they were.

I don't think "taken out of context" means what you think it does. The
whole context of that line was quoted. NOTHING was out of context.

You have to take it out of the whole paragraph not just the sentence.
Looks like it's you who doesn't know what that term means.



Wasn't even in a discussion of what you pay YOUR serfs.


It was to me. And nobody that I hire to work for me is a serf. Is that
what you call people who you pay for their labor?

Just riffing on what you prefer to call them, that is to say "lower
classes".

What they are is what I call them.



Of course technically no one you hire to work for you is a serf. Might
be a varlet though.


Could be.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:


I didn't say it's the only way. But that is the primary way it's done in
this country. When people ask what your educational level is they expect
you will tell them what degrees you have. Licensing exams are not a
measure of your education.

Says one who probably hasn't taken one.

You can take a bar exam and pass it without
going to law school. Passing the test doesn't mean you have the education.
So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated. That's
by the standard of how you measure education.

Apparently the only way YOU can measure it.

That's how the learning institutions measure it. You have completed a
degree program and you have the education or you didn't.
How incredibly lame. That is how they award a credential, not how
they measure education.

I don't make those rules.
Isn't a "rule", no matter what you would like to believe.


Was I not just as educated
a week before I graduated? Of course I was, but you measure a man's
education by his degrees.


Can't have it both ways. Either you were more educated or you weren't.

I'm not trying to. You're splitting hairs. Before you got your degree
you didn't have one.
You contradict yourself, and I point that out, and "I am splitting
hairs"? You really are what George paints you I guess.




That all depends on what you define as education. Most people call
education college.

Ahhhh your misuse of the "most people" again.

Since when is calling the majority "most people" wrong? You think that's
wrong? It isn't.
The assumption that "what you believe is what the majority believes"
is what is wrong.

No, I believe most people use the term "Formal Education" for what you
mean.

Now it's you who is misusing the term "most people" now. A formal
education is synonymous to a college education. But then "most people"
now just say education for going to college.

And even more if you keep pretending that my use of language is way out
of the mainstream because it's not. In fact, it seems the only two
people who ever had a problem understanding me are you are Pimpton.

" me are you are Pimpton."


For that matter you don't show a lot of anything here either.

I don't claim to, and you do.

But you probably think your posts show you as someone really
bright? Me too.
Why thank you. I know you don't really mean it, but heck....

Sorry but you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was that I think
the same thing about my posts that you do about yours.

Too bad that wasn't what you said then, isn't it.



And much other puffery.

You don't know what that word means. If you think saying I'm better than
average is puffery you're out of your mind.
puff·er·y /'p?f?ri/ Show Spelled[puhf-uh-ree] Show IPA
noun, plural -er·ies.
1. undue or exaggerated praise.
2. publicity, acclaim, etc., that is full of undue or exaggerated
praise.
Which meets your use, exactly

Flaming bonkers it is then.

Saying you're no better than average is not puffery. You better look the
word up.


The truth is I'm a pretty likable guy. Most people who meet me like me.
The exception is when I run into someone who doesn't like me.

Wow.... Caption Obvious, everyone likes you, except those that don't?
What an amazing insight.

Well, you didn't get it. It was a simple statement.
WHICH YOU ****ED UP, if the below is what you meant to say!

Most people I meet
like me. There are exceptions but they are few. I just means that more
people like me than don't. You had trouble with that though.

Which is where you illustrated your ignorance. Sufficiently for others
to mock you.

Except at no time have I illustrated ignorance.
Except in bright neon letters, flashing strobe lights, ill timed
fireworks, and a couple of glow-sticks.


I don't see things the way you conservatives do.
Garbage in Garbage out
Let's see, you think people do things solely because of their race,

you think there are "lower classes" of people, sound fairly typical
of the common perception of "conservatives".

I do know America is a class society. You may have heard of some of them
upper class, middle class, working class, poor. Ever hear anyone besides
me talk about these classes?
Yes, but you are the one who considers those who make less than you do
to be "lower classes". I guess that really shouldn't be a surprise.
The statements I called puffery (which they are) pretty much show that
you think most of the people on the face of the planet are inferior to
you.

How come? Because it's a fact they exist.
It's a fairy tale that there are no classes in America.
Never said there weren't, I said your use of the pejorative term
"lower" is revealing about your mental state.

I see very
little the way you conservatives do. But if you want to discuss
something specific I assure you that I know enough to do so.


Doesn't really matter to some one who could TRUTHFULLY boast

"So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it."

It's not boasting and I don't say I know a lot about everything.
The statement "So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it"
says exactly that.

Nobody here asks anyone when they don't know something.
Lots of people ask questions here, some even about metalworking. None
of them seem to be directing questions to you though.

They're all conservatives too.
Revealing the complete depth of your ignorance! There are people of
all stripes here, and a few in polka dots, and some rungychungy as
well.
How often do they ask what they think is
a liberal about anything?
Oh sure everybody picks on the poor "liberals".
How often do you ask questions of liberals?
Not much I'll bet.
All the time, but then unlike you I hang out with a wide variety of
people


What you think I'm implying is wrong. Few people ask me for anything
here.
"True dat"

They don't come to you either.
I am not the idiot making the claim. You are.

When I used to spend a lot of time in rec.guns I gave people
information all the time.
Regardless of if they wanted it. Which would be why you are here now,
not there?
Yeah, I just volunteer information. Bull****. When people would ask gun
questions I had the answers. I got tired of it there because I wasn't
learning anything.
THAT I believe.

Most of the time that's true. Want to take a test. Tell me what you
think you know more about than I do.
I already gave you a list.

Just riffing on what you prefer to call them, that is to say "lower
classes".

What they are is what I call them.
So you really believe they are your "inferiors" don't you.

You are useless.
jk

On 3/31/2012 10:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,


Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials.

Wrong.

So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated.

You never obtained an education.

I'm still ahead of you in that department because you are less educated
than I am.


Hawke

On 3/31/2012 10:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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

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


The only people who don't know that are

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


The only people who don't know that are mentally retarded rightwingers
and other sorts of trash.

Hawke

On 3/28/2012 4:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

You can't tell one from the other.

Hawke

On 3/28/2012 5:05 PM, jk wrote:
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?

It means I'm the same as you are. Sometimes we make mistakes. That
doesn't mean you aren't telling the truth. Lying means you aren't
telling the truth. No human is perfect so we all are wrong at times. The
question is are you telling the truth. That's what I do all the time. It
doesn't mean every now and then I'm not wrong. The difference is some
people don't mean to tell the truth. People like you and Pimpton. You
are running away from or covering the truth when you don't like it.





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

No? I think your standard for yourself isn't nearly as tough as the
standard you use for me.


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.
================================

I addressed the above in another post.







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?


Funny you didn't have anything to say about this.

Hawke

On 3/31/2012 6:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

As usual you have taken what I said out of context

Bull****. He didn't take anything "out of context." He challenged you,
and you whiffed off - predictably.


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.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton. I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know. I was
trying to show you how it feels when someone does that to you like
Pimpton does. It was meant as a comparison to what Pimpton does.

Yep, that's exactly what I was doing, just like Pimpton does. He
declares I'm not educated. I'm not this that or the other. So I did the
same thing to you. I said you don't have any education. You don't have
any training. Funny both of you geniuses missed what I was doing. Unless
the obvious is pointed out to you guys you miss it completely.




===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?

That was part of the same post where I was "doing a Plimpton" and

You were ****ing the dog and selling the puppies is what you were doing.

Even when I tell you what I was doing and you can see it with your own
eyes you still don't get it. I give you what you give to me and you
don't recognize it. Yeah, and you think you're so perceptive. You
aren't, that's for sure.


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.
================================


Now you know. I was copying Pimpton just to

Bull****.

That's a fact, Jack. Can't you see that I did just what you do? I made
claims that I have no way of knowing? You do that in every post. I did
it to JK and you can't see it. You wear blinders.


Hawke

On 4/2/2012 11:08 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,


Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials.

Wrong.

So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated.

You never obtained an education.

I'm still ahead of you in that department because

You aren't. You have *no* education. What you have is some
instruction, but that's different. Your instruction is in a worthless
field, by the way.

On 4/2/2012 11:11 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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

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


The only people who don't know that are

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


The only people who don't know that are

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

On 4/2/2012 11:18 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 5:05 PM, jk wrote:
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?

It means I'm the same as you are. Sometimes we make mistakes.

He mistakes. You **** up. There's a difference.

On 4/2/2012 11:24 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 6:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

As usual you have taken what I said out of context

Bull****. He didn't take anything "out of context." He challenged you,
and you whiffed off - predictably.


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.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton. I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know. I was
trying to show you how it feels when someone does that to you like
Pimpton does. It was meant as a comparison to what Pimpton does.

Yep, that's exactly what I was doing,

Why are you replying to your own bull**** comment, ****wit?



===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?

That was part of the same post where I was "doing a Plimpton" and

You were ****ing the dog and selling the puppies is what you were doing.

Even when I tell you what I was doing

I tell *you* what you were doing. See above.


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.
================================


Now you know. I was copying Pimpton just to

Bull****.

That's a fact,

Nope. Once again, you've put up a fact-free post.

On 3/31/2012 8:59 PM, jk wrote:
following.
==============================
As usual you have taken what I said out of context in an attempt to be
unfair.
NO exactly IN CONTEXT. You (and no one else) said YOU KNEW where I
stand on issues.

But from what I remember here is what it meant when I said I
know where you stand on all the issues. I was talking about your
political ideology and my guess was that you were a
rightwinger/conservative. With that in mind I said I know where you
stand on the issues because I know where conservatives stand on the
issues, and you are one of them. You took a broad generalization and
tried to apply it to the specifics to make it look wrong.


NO I challenged your assertion that you had knowledge. Knowledge you
had no reasonable way of possessing, except in fact by inference from
your ASSUMPTIONS about my political views.

The reality is that as a conservative I do know where you stand on most
issues. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that on the major issues you come
down on the side of average conservatives 90% of the time. But putting
that aside I've told you both that I was giving you the same treatment
you both have pulled on me. You have made all kinds of claims about me
without any proof or only based on a few posts of mine you have read. So
I was showing you what it's like to get that in return.

How many times has Pimpton said I have no education? He knows I do so
what do you call that? It's a lie, isn't it? So I did the same to you.
I did to you exactly what Pimpton does just to point out to the two of
you what you both were doing, which was saying things about me that
neither of you really have any proof of. They are just assertions based
on little or nothing. I gave you some of that back in return and it
appears that you don't like it very much. That fact you couldn't tell
that I was giving you some of your own medicine only shows how unaware
you two are.



Want to take
your views on the issues you listed and tell me how many of them do you
completely disagree with the view of conservatives? I still say your
view will agree with the conservative view on almost all of them. Prove
me wrong. If you do then you're a liberal.


Or in other words, NOT only did you lie when you said you knew, you
lied when you said

Throwing your own falsehoods back in your face was not lying. It was the
only way to show you what you were doing. I was demonstrating your
behavior. If you call that lying that means you admit you are a liar.


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

The above blather is not addressing what you said, it is a mealy
mouthed backtracking.

I call it giving a bully some of his own medicine.


If you had half the knowledge you claim, you would be able to state
EXACTLY where I stand on the issues below. But I will be king and say
that if you get even HALF of them right I will call it a "win" for
you, if you get 3/4 of them right, you might even be as smart as you
claim.


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.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton.
Bull****, you were being you.

I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know.
Or in other words, you LIED.

No I wasn't. I was giving you an example of what you and Pimpton have
been doing to me. You seem to forget that you have made all kinds of
accusations about me that I say are false. So what do you call it when
you make false accusations about me? Most would call that lying. So
don't get all high and mighty about lying when both of you have lied
about me repeatedly. You stop the baseless and unsubstantiated claims
about me and I'll do the same. You keep it up and you'll get it back in
return.


I was
trying to show you how it feels when someone does that to you like
Pimpton does. It was meant as a comparison to what Pimpton does.

No it wasn't, it was in a discussion of your supposed ability to
evaluate evidence. And that was well before you started trying that
one on for size. But even if that were to be true, it still means
you lied.

No, it just means I made a baseless claim about you the same way you
have made many of them about me. And you started it, not me.


===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.

So, you know this for a fact how?

Same way you guys know everything about me.



That was part of the same post where I was "doing a Plimpton" and simply
saying things that I couldn't possibly know to show you what it's like
when someone claims things they don't really know.
Or in the same words as before, you were lying then.

I did what you two do. You call that lying then you call yourself a
liar. So are you a liar?


But If I recall you never said you had any legal training either. Did you?


Never said I didn't either.

Oh well, you are being evasive and dishonest here. Some would call that
a lie. You're lying by omission. This is what I mean about you trying to
take the high ground when you are not exactly honest, to say the least.


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.
================================


Now you know. I was copying Pimpton just to **** you off.
No you were lying then, and you are lying now.

It's only fair isn't it? You two lie about me and when I give it back to
you then I'm the liar? I had to teach you a lesson. You started lying by
making up things about me that you knew were untrue or you had no proof
of. That means you gave up any right to the truth from me. You've lied
about me repeatedly, you've been dishonest. Calling me a liar only makes
you a hypocrite as well as a liar. That's worse than just being a liar FYI.




Of course I
have no idea about any of those things. That was my point.

No you thought you could get away with a stupid, lame attack, and it
backfired. That's why you went silent and did not respond.

That's a lie! See what I mean?



I was giving you an example of what he's been doing to me for
quite a while. I see you don't like it very much.


I could give a rats ass. It just makes a convenient vehicle to
illustrate your mendacious ways.



It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems like you don't like being told
things that are untrue, but you don't have a problem doing it yourself
at all. If you said you haven't said one thing about me that is untrue
you would be lying. So don't bother trying to come across as holier than
thou on this. You aren't honest enough to call anyone a liar.

Hawke

On 4/2/2012 11:31 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:18 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 5:05 PM, jk wrote:
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?

It means I'm the same as you are. Sometimes we make mistakes.

He mistakes. You **** up. There's a difference.


What do you call it when you haven't the balls to admit when you are
wrong? Is that a **** up? Because if it is you're guilty. I posted some
references to Bob Dole's being both easily bought and a millionaire when
he was a senator, which you denied. Where's your apology? Where's your
admission you were wrong and I was right? I cited the articles saying it
was well known that Dole was taking virtually free rides on corporate
jets from big agribusiness, he got more than a million dollars in
speaking fees while in the senate, he was directing speeches from big
corporate donors to his wife in exchange for campaign contributions, and
he was getting sweetheart real estate deals from right wing businessmen.

But not a word about that from you. You said there was no proof that
Dole was using his office to get rich. Well, I just showed you that you
are full of ****. So now you have nothing to say when you have ample
proof that what I said about Dole was true all along. Remember you said
I was making it up because of my bias? You said there was no proof Dole
was a millionaire while a senator. Wrong! There's lots of proof. Like I
told you. You **** up!


Hawke