On Sep 22, 6:25*pm, Tom Watson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:52:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
get back to me on just who was mean here first.

I have decided to fight fire with fire. *This means you and the rest of
pottymouths better hunker down - I have a way more interesting vocabulary
than you do. *Oh ... while it is never intended, a person of reason is
always "talking down" to people that express themselves irrationally...

If you listen closely, you can hear the soft clicking of the steel
balls as he rolls them over and over again in his hand...

Regards,

Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

I need to watch that movie again. There might be some tips.

On Sep 22, 7:02*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
a lot of weak ****.

That's it? A 'mirror' line is fighting fire with fire?

But I do hear "click, click"

Tim Daneliuk

Reminds me of the advice my mother gave me a long time ago:

"Son, if you are going to mess with chicken ****, you are bound to get
some on you."

Even with a kill file, it's tough to keep clean.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 22, 11:54 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[snipped more of Tim's demonic soul-less banter]

Discussing ANYthing with you impossible as you have no ability to see
anything through anyone else's eyes.

Translation: Robocop is too dumb to debate the issues with Tim.

Tim's view is the only view. Period.

Tims view is Tims view. I guess you expect him to suffer your view?

You are a very disturbed creature, Tim.

Translation: You are too dumb to argue or shut up, so you might as well
mount a meaningless attack.

You can bend, twist, and flap in any direction you want, tossing up
straw-men by the truckload, but for you to accuse anybody of
misdirection is the best laugh I had all day.

Last I heard Tim was too ridged in his beliefs. You fools can't seem to
keep your act straight.

Your arguments cannot follow a straight line.

Agree with him or not, he is undeniably consistent in his line of
thought. You may be dumb as dirt, but surely not so dumb as all that.

You have to keep taking
detours to your stock-piles of hurtful vitriol in order to feel like
you are making a case for yourself.

Blah, blah blah.

Your venomous words are way more
disgusting than a simple '**** you' would ever be. You get all
offended by people using language THEIR way...

Wrong as usual. He doesn't seem to get offended by brainless posts
devoid of any meaningful arguments other than personal attacks and
meaningless depreciatory remarks.

yet you continue to
skewer people with YOUR vile disgusting language. Do you honestly
think you have advantage by not using curse words?

Well he certainly has a much better handle on the English language than
you, or Upscale have demonstrated.

Is that all you can
hide behind?.."oh nooooo Rob cussed at meeeeeee...MOMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY"

You're babbling yet again...

Grow the **** up, asshole.

Yeah, that should straighten his ass out...

And stop trying to baffle people with your
bull****, straw-men and out-right lies.

Lies? Lies? I love when lies are exposed. What lies specifically are
you speaking, or were you just practicing your typical meaningless,
empty attacks?

There... that is English...now go whine somewhere else,

Hypocrite is the word jumps into my head here.... A whole ****ing page
of whiny attacks and then you accuse him of whining? No, hypocrite is
too nice, ballsy might work... No, asshole, yeah, that fits quite nicely.

Now apologize to Upscale or I'll ride your ass like a new bride.

That should scare the hell out of him... Ride cowboy Ride!

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 22, 11:15 am, Jack Stein wrote:

You seem to see what you want to see!

THIS is why I keep coming back for more. The purest of hilarities.
You are funny, Jack. WAY funnier than you know.

I wasn't talking to you, you misguided douche-nozzle!

And not very bright.

Obviously, else I wouldn't be so amused by your ineptness!

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Sep 23, 12:05*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 22, 11:15 am, Jack Stein wrote:
You seem to see what you want to see!
THIS is why I keep coming back for more. The purest of hilarities.
You are funny, Jack. WAY funnier than you know.

I wasn't talking to you, you misguided douche-nozzle!

And not very bright.

Obviously, else I wouldn't be so amused by your ineptness!

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server:http://www.eternal-september.org/http://jbstein.com

That label 'douche nozzle' is really bothering you isn't?

"Robatoy" wrote in message
I suspect that most of them are actively living out their lives as our
current crop of politicians.

One Americanadian (Ignatieff) is trying to become PM.
I'm no Harper fan, but IggyPop is no alternative.

I agree. I've never be remotely interest in the Conservatives, but the
'leaders' of the Liberals for the past several years have been lacking in
everything I'd consider necessary to be a leader of our country.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
No, they are first responders entrenched in the system for decades.

Riiiggghhht!!!! Notice when it comes to you giving examples in your life of
how you contribute, you always come up with extreme examples of what your
relatives are or do.

When called about being negative about blacks, you claim to not only have a
black relative, but one that was blacker than most.

When questioned on charity, you claimed to make many charitable
contributions ~ anonymously, the epitome of giving.

When it's suggested that your relatives are union trouble makers in the
medical industry, you respond with the thought that they're first responders
~ emergency responders.

Do you see how all that sounds? It tells us that you're full of bull****
because you continually counter with the best in humanity (your relatives)
while you contribute nothing and exist solely to whine and complain all day
without giving a shred of consideration to anybody.

Daneliuk, you are full of ****. I know it, everybody else knows it. I
suspect (although I could be wrong) even Doug Miller knows it, but he
supports you just to hassle me.

You feel free to question my integrity by calling me evil and a thief solely
based on the fact that I benefit from country wide universal health care. I
know it's all you have. And, if that's the best form of attack you can
muster with your screwed up logic, then you stick with that. But, we both
know what's really true. I don't have to conjure up extreme examples of
contributions by relatives to defend myself. Compared to me, there's nothing
you can offer to bolster yourself.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
is a short list to get him started:

Only problem is that most everybody gets drawn into some completely off
topic political or gun or medical or other non woodworking topic. Yet, it
only seems to be you with your extremely limited intelligence that suggests
filtering everybody. I wonder why that is?

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
get back to me on just who was mean here first.

In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comments ~
in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we were
discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' was said,
you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
accepting universal health care.

This is the internet. It's all online, even what was said years before. Tell
me I'm wrong Tim. Show me where you were attacked first. Tell me you're not
a hypocrite of the highest degree.

Castigate me as much as you want, but despite the difficulties I have
physically, my memory is excellent.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
No. To disagree by throwing personal shots is irrational ... and
a sign that there is no real discussion is possible.

Bull****! You throw personal insults all the time and try to hide them under
the protection of a 'no profanity' cloud.

As time goes on you sink deeper and deeper into a lying, deceptive shroud in
a feeble attempt to hide your deficiencies.

Upscale wrote:

This is the internet. It's all online, even what was said years
before. Tell me I'm wrong Tim. Show me where you were attacked first.
Tell me you're not a hypocrite of the highest degree.

Castigate me as much as you want, but despite the difficulties I have
physically, my memory is excellent.

Two observations:

1. Hypocrisy is not intrinsically bad; 95% of the nation's gynecologists are
men.

2. You can't really criticize a progressive for profanity - it's what they
do. A recent study of mainstream blogs found that the comments section of
liberal blogs contained eighteen times the number of naughty words compared
to conservative sites. For example, "Lucianne.com" has virtually zero
profanity whereas "dailykos.com" contains a high percentage of "the seven
forbidden words."

I suspect, but can't prove, the latter is because liberals argue from an
emotional, child-like, ego state rather than a dispassionate, adult
position. An emotional argument often involves an anecdotal example whereas
an adult discourse usually involves aggregates of a population ("one child
becomes Autistic due to measles vaccine" vs. "thousands don't die because
they don't contract the disease").

"HeyBub" wrote in message
1. Hypocrisy is not intrinsically bad; 95% of the nation's gynecologists
are
men.

I've seen that statement before, but for the life of me, I don't see how it
relates to being a hypocrite. With some things, I'm extraordinarily dumb.
Guess this is one of them.

Upscale wrote:
Daneliuk, you are full of ****. I know it, everybody else knows it. I
suspect (although I could be wrong) even Doug Miller knows it, but he
supports you just to hassle me.

I'm not a liberal *or* a conservative, and I'm not taking anyone's "side" here, but I take
offense to anyone who presumes to speak for "everybody else". My guess is that the majority
of participants in this group are silent unless the discussion is on-topic. To hear you
(and others) loudly assume that "everyone" shares your view when they in fact haven't said a
word, well frankly it just ****es me off.

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Sep 23, 8:04*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

[snipped stuff]


I'd rather take a verbal "**** off" in the face, than a knife in my
back Right-Wing-Stein style..

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
(and others) loudly assume that "everyone" shares your view when they in
fact haven't said a
word, well frankly it just ****es me off.

Sure, you're right that respect. I'm putting words in your mouth when you
haven't said anything. For that I'll apologize.

Let me rephrase. A significant amount of people in involved in the thread
appear to support much of my mindset.

I hope that meets with your approval.

Upscale wrote:
"Steve Turner" wrote in message
(and others) loudly assume that "everyone" shares your view when they in
fact haven't said a
word, well frankly it just ****es me off.

Sure, you're right that respect. I'm putting words in your mouth when you
haven't said anything. For that I'll apologize.

Let me rephrase. A significant amount of people in involved in the thread
appear to support much of my mindset.

I hope that meets with your approval.

Thank you. :-)

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Robatoy wrote:

That label 'douche nozzle' is really bothering you isn't?

Yeah, it's killing me!

Your mastery of words is overwhelming...

--
Jack
Got Change: Oak trees ======= Acorns!
http://jbstein.com

Upscale wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
is a short list to get him started:

Only problem is that most everybody gets drawn into some completely off
topic political or gun or medical or other non woodworking topic. Yet, it
only seems to be you with your extremely limited intelligence that suggests
filtering everybody. I wonder why that is?

I never suggested any such thing. I merely provided a short list of
folks that post off topic when someone else suggested filtering names
rather than subjects. I may have correctly noted that filtering names
would be much easier than filtering subjects.

--
Jack
Got Change: Van Guard ====== Van Jones!
http://jbstein.com

YAAFA

HeyBub wrote:

2. You can't really criticize a progressive for profanity - it's what they
do.

**** all socialists! Where did this "progressive" **** come from
anyway? "Progressive" implies moving forward, making things better.
This is like 180° opposite of the people being described. Socialist is
the correct word, and "progressive" doesn't come close to describing
power hungry, anti-individual, anti-freedom, left wing, socialists...

A recent study of mainstream blogs found that the comments section of
liberal blogs contained eighteen times the number of naughty words compared
to conservative sites. For example, "Lucianne.com" has virtually zero
profanity whereas "dailykos.com" contains a high percentage of "the seven
forbidden words."

I suspect, but can't prove, the latter is because liberals argue from an
emotional, child-like, ego state rather than a dispassionate, adult
position.

I use expletives to keep in touch with my feminine side and to increase
the likelihood those left wing, socialist *******s will comprehend whats
being said...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:

I'd rather take a verbal "**** off" in the face, than a knife in my
back Right-Wing-Stein style..

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm sure I'm not the only one sitting on
the edge of my chair wondering how you felt about that very thing...

--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual ===== The Collective!
http://jbstein.com

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comments
~
in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we
were
discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' was
said,
you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
accepting universal health care.

(all the bull**** snipped)

As usual, you don't bother to reply to the question at hand and launch into
some unrelated rhetoric. Just between you and me, did you or did you not
start with the accusations and recriminations.

Answer the question dweeb.

Jack Stein wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but
here is a short list to get him started:

Only problem is that most everybody gets drawn into some completely
off topic political or gun or medical or other non woodworking
topic. Yet, it only seems to be you with your extremely limited
intelligence that suggests filtering everybody. I wonder why that is?

I never suggested any such thing. I merely provided a short list of
folks that post off topic when someone else suggested filtering names
rather than subjects. I may have correctly noted that filtering names
would be much easier than filtering subjects.

Then your list may need some tuning. I have NEVER started an off-topic
conversation (except maybe a humorous one or two and so labeled). On the
other hand, I don't let some things go unchallenged either.

Upscale wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
1. Hypocrisy is not intrinsically bad; 95% of the nation's
gynecologists are men.

I've seen that statement before, but for the life of me, I don't see
how it relates to being a hypocrite. With some things, I'm
extraordinarily dumb. Guess this is one of them.

Point is, it's okay to admonish someone about what they should do even
though you, yourself, can't or won't do it. Like teachers.

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

[snipped stuff]


I'd rather take a verbal "**** off" in the face, than a knife in my
back Right-Wing-Stein style..

But you won't get a "**** off" from a right-winger. There are two reasons
why this won't happen:

1. We don't often use profanity, and
2. As you correctly point out, we have no inhibition against killing our
enemies.

When Saul told David to bring back the foreskins of a hundred Phillistines
as a bride-price, David got all excited and started figuring how many men he
would need to subdue each Phillistine (because he wasn't counting on
voluntary compliance) and how long it would take, considering he would have
to sharpen his knife between events, and so on, Saul's emissary got all
exasperated: "David, David," he said, "You don't understand! Saul want you
to KILL the Phillistines, not CONVERT them! Saul doesn't care if you bring
back the whole prick!"

We have ways of detecting modern-day Phillistines: Usually it involves the
spontaneous declaration of "**** off."

Jack Stein wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

2. You can't really criticize a progressive for profanity - it's
what they do.

**** all socialists! Where did this "progressive" **** come from
anyway? "Progressive" implies moving forward, making things better.
This is like 180° opposite of the people being described. Socialist
is the correct word, and "progressive" doesn't come close to
describing power hungry, anti-individual, anti-freedom, left wing,
socialists...
A recent study of mainstream blogs found that the comments section of
liberal blogs contained eighteen times the number of naughty words
compared to conservative sites. For example, "Lucianne.com" has
virtually zero profanity whereas "dailykos.com" contains a high
percentage of "the seven forbidden words."

I suspect, but can't prove, the latter is because liberals argue
from an emotional, child-like, ego state rather than a
dispassionate, adult position.

I use expletives to keep in touch with my feminine side and to
increase the likelihood those left wing, socialist *******s will
comprehend whats being said...

Well, there's that. To teach, you have to speak in a language that the child
understands.

That's why the liberals are going nuts over the "You lie!" shout-out and the
Tea Party crowds and the "Help me set up a child-prostitution bordello so I
can run for Congress" methodologies. These, they understand.

Robatoy wrote:

As your application of the 'bull**** baffles brains' method is well
known now, it cannot be dealt with by a rational person.
Your elementary school debate tactics are as painfully transparent as
Stein's ****ed-through panties. He forgets to take them down before he
sits down to pee.
Seeing that you have nothing else to offer, either in constructive or
creative manner, I will now concentrate on getting Stein in a lather.
He's a lot of fun. Not stale like you, Tim.


I feel left out. Sniff.

"HeyBub" writes:
DGDevin wrote:

What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.

[...]

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
free to change insurance companies!

No, you're not.

First, many employers only offer one choice.

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).

scott

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
.. .
"HeyBub" writes:
DGDevin wrote:

What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.

[...]

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
free to change insurance companies!

No, you're not.

First, many employers only offer one choice.

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).

scott

one changes insurance companies by changing employers, if it's that
important to the person. if it's a government 'insurance' company, i would
suppose one would have to emmigrate to change.

no one said either would be easy or have drawbacks.

"DGDevin" writes:
HeyBub wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.

[...]

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
direction - you're free to change insurance companies!

Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
words, **** out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
when in that situation, any easy slogans?

In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.

scott

Scott Lurndal wrote:

In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.


Some observations:

1. I don't post with my real name because I change it often. The email
address is, however, real. If you send a polite request, I'll be pleased to
provide the name I'm using this week.

2. "Old Repubs" favor business being able to contract with a willing seller
of labor and conditions of work for an agreed on wage.

3. I agree that Dems favor freedom of individuals to do CERTAIN things
(smoke dope, marry the same sex, burn the flag, etc.) but they are, by no
means, libertarians. For example, most liberals favor a woman using a name
other than her real one (which is okay by me inasmuch as she's taking the
name of TWO men instead of the traditional one). Oops.

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
direction - you're free to change insurance companies!

No, you're not.

First, many employers only offer one choice.

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be
able to afford it (note that the current figure for the average
family employer plan is $13k per year between the employer and
employee for premiums).

Yes you are. If you don't like the POS you're driving, you can buy another
car. The difference between a used Pinto and a new Lamborghini is one of
price, not the availability of the choice.

You can even self-insure!

Scott Lurndal wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
DGDevin wrote:
What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
[...]

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
free to change insurance companies!

No, you're not.

First, many employers only offer one choice.

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).

scott

If the company is providing the insurance then it belongs to the company
and covers you. The same as any company policy, you live with it or
look elsewhere. If you don't like the way the company is being run
then, for many reasons, it is best if you look elsewhere. Because if
you are right and it it is being badly run, then you may be out of work
if you stay. I read some where that a recent graduate will have 6 jobs
in the next 20 years.

HeyBub wrote:

1. I don't post with my real name because I change it often.

That must get expensive!

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

Daneliuk, you are full of ****. I know it, everybody else knows it. I
suspect (although I could be wrong) even Doug Miller knows it, but he
supports you just to hassle me.

You certainly have an active imagination. I'm not going to allow you to drag
me into this argument, though.

On 23 Sep 2009 21:20:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

"HeyBub" writes:
DGDevin wrote:

What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.

[...]

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
free to change insurance companies!

No, you're not.

First, many employers only offer one choice.

Thre is more than one employer.

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).

There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
benefit plan he won't have employees.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
exasperated: "David, David," he said, "You don't understand! Saul want you
to KILL the Phillistines, not CONVERT them! Saul doesn't care if you bring
back the whole prick!"

Har! Now that's funny!

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
You certainly have an active imagination. I'm not going to allow you to
drag
me into this argument, though.

Maybe, but it makes life interesting. However, if you want to go on record
as being a supporter of Daneliuk, don't let me stand in your way.
Personally, I don't like trying to make my way through the traffic on an
eight lane highway.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:12:34 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.


A good start would be to filter everyone who posts in alt.home.repair.




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/