On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:30:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
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.


Patronizing and condescending are not traits one associates with affableness
(not sure this is a word). Please feel free to post instances of either.

The "qualities" (condescention and patronization) are certainly associated
with poor powers of reasoning. How could they not be? Perhaps you meant they
_are_ in accord with those two things....

Honestly, I don't know anyone who is condescending and patronizing _and_
affable.

Actually, I would ascribe those exact attributes to our current
President. To say that a person has those qualities is not to suggest
that those qualities fail to manifest themselves in particular
instances, separated by circumstance, which is why I qualified my
observation by saying "you can be" instead of a more inflexible "you
'are' patronizing..." Likewise, I was careful not to insinuate that
you persist in poor thinking, only that you, by demonstration, "can"
do so. And to be honest, there isn't a person in the world that isn't
capable of lapsing into occasional episodes of poor thinking. However,
some will try to recognize when they fall prey to poor thinking and
try to correct it, even when cajoled to do so by another. It would be
a wondeful world if we were all that humble.

It seems to me that you do try to be civil and engaging; but, there
has been at least one instance in responding to me in which you were
overtly patronizing (and that's forgiveable). That doesn't rob you of
your overall comportment, though, which appears benign. And that's a
characteristic missing in far too many conversations in this group.

(Your liberal bent is forgiveable, too. Everyone has room for
improvement

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