On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

news
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama.
Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's
idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush.
And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush
would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good.
That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald
washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid
mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president
*you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush
rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're
doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The
reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for
Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection
for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms
the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional
status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member"
names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it
would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't
appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.

De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause.

I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But,
her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for
sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the
thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That
would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that
she means well, unlike Harry.


I'm affable and considerate here also.

I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have
demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and
condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those
particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also
demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not
take away from your affability, in any event.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access