Horvath has made his point.
 

Douglas King posted blatant lies about Rush Limbaugh and Horvath called
him a liar and a ****ing liar and an asshole and a coward - all of which
are true.

I need to correct Horvath on one thing, though. Douglas King is also
chicken.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Douglas King posted blatant lies about Rush Limbaugh and Horvath called
him a liar and a ****ing liar and an asshole and a coward - all of which
are true.

I need to correct Horvath on one thing, though. Douglas King is also
chicken.

I guess this is one of those loose ends you were talking about?
Neal, you're a putz.
Scout

"Scout" wrote
I guess this is one of those loose ends you were talking about?
Neal, you're a putz.
Scout

The only real loose end in this group belongs to one Jonathan Edward Ganz.

Bobsprit told me, Binary Bill told me, and I'm sure you, as well, have intimate
knowledge of this sordid and disgusting fact.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote
I guess this is one of those loose ends you were talking about?
Neal, you're a putz.
Scout

The only real loose end in this group belongs to one Jonathan Edward Ganz.

Bobsprit told me, Binary Bill told me, and I'm sure you, as well, have
intimate
knowledge of this sordid and disgusting fact.

Your constant allusions to the act are most likely rooted in your own
shameful desire.
Scout

"Scout" wrote

Your constant allusions to the act are most likely rooted in your own
shameful desire.

Sad to see you are so illiterate. The word you meant to use, I'm sure, is
'alluding.'

A literate person would have written: "Your constantly alluding to the act
is most likely rooted in your own shameful desire."

I hope this helps.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote

Your constant allusions to the act are most likely rooted in your own
shameful desire.

Sad to see you are so illiterate. The word you meant to use, I'm sure, is
'alluding.'
A literate person would have written: "Your constantly alluding to the act
is most likely rooted in your own shameful desire."

I hope this helps.


Sorry if my correct use of the noun confused you.
Perhaps a dictionary will help you in your struggle with the English
language. Hope this helps.
Scout
al·lu·sion (…-l›"zh…n) n. 1. The act of alluding; indirect reference:
Without naming names, the candidate criticized the national leaders by
allusion. 2. An instance of indirect reference: an allusion to classical
mythology in a poem. See Usage Note at allude. [Late Latin all¿si½,
all¿si½n-, a playing with, from Latin all¿sus, past participle of all¿dere,
to play with. See ALLUDE.]

"Scout" wrote

Sorry if my correct use of the noun confused you.
Perhaps a dictionary will help you in your struggle with the English
language. Hope this helps.

snipped drivel

Sorry Scout, but allusion is defined as an indirect reference or a passing mention,
neither of which fits the context of your arrogant and misconceived criticism.

I hope this helps.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote
Sorry if my correct use of the noun confused you.
Perhaps a dictionary will help you in your struggle with the English
language. Hope this helps.

snipped drivel

Sorry Scout, but allusion is defined as an indirect reference or a passing
mention, neither of which fits the context of your arrogant and
misconceived criticism.

I hope this helps.

No one could be that stupid. Surely you're just pretending you don't get it.
Scout

"Scout" wrote

No one could be that stupid. Surely you're just pretending you don't get it.
Scout



You're the one who is clueless. You wrote, and I quote, "Your constant allusions
to the act are most likely rooted in your own shameful desire."

The problem lies in the combination of the word 'constant allusions" which
is about a dumb as saying 'jumbo shrimp'. You screwed up the meaning of
your sentence by using constant and allusions together. How can one have
a constant passing reference? Duh. A passing reference, by definition,
cannot be constant.

By rearranging the sentence as I did to show you your illiteracy, I demonstrated
how to say it correctly.

I hope this helps.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote

Sorry Scout, but allusion is defined as an indirect reference or a passing
mention, neither of which fits the context of your arrogant and
misconceived criticism.

*allusion* is also a noun, which is how I used it in my post. You changed it
to a verb. The meaning is essentially the same, and either is correct. I
find it more interesting that you would snip the dictionary reference I
provided for your edification.
Scout

"Capt. Neal®" wrote
You're the one who is clueless. You wrote, and I quote, "Your constant
allusions to the act are most likely rooted in your own shameful desire."

The problem lies in the combination of the word 'constant allusions" which
is about a dumb as saying 'jumbo shrimp'. You screwed up the meaning of
your sentence by using constant and allusions together. How can one have a
constant passing reference? Duh. A passing reference, by definition,
cannot be constant.
By rearranging the sentence as I did to show you your illiteracy, I
demonstrated
how to say it correctly.

WRONG! It is certainly possible to make repeated, indirect references, which
is what you have done.
*Constant allusions* then means to make a series of allusions. This is what
you did and I have accurately described your actions.
Scout

"Scout" wrote

*allusion* is also a noun, which is how I used it in my post. You changed it
to a verb. The meaning is essentially the same, and either is correct. I
find it more interesting that you would snip the dictionary reference I
provided for your edification.
Scout

I snipped the dictionary definition simply because it was not necessary.

I defined it more succinctly and clearly. I also explained in another post
how the problem lies more in your combining constant and allusions than
in the definition of allusion. The way I couched the sentence avoids this
problem.

CN

"Scout" wrote
WRONG! It is certainly possible to make repeated, indirect references, which
is what you have done.
*Constant allusions* then means to make a series of allusions. This is what
you did and I have accurately described your actions.

But one cannot make constant passing references. Look up the meaning of passing
references and you can see, by definition, that 'passing' references cannot be
constant.

Boy, are you ever stupid! Just admit you're wrong. Be a man for once in your
pathetic little life.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote
[snip]
I defined it more succinctly and clearly.

If by succinct you mean that you ignore alternate meanings, then yes, you
are very succinct.
Scout

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote
WRONG! It is certainly possible to make repeated, indirect references,
which is what you have done.
*Constant allusions* then means to make a series of allusions. This is
what you did and I have accurately described your actions.

But one cannot make constant passing references. Look up the meaning of
passing references and you can see, by definition, that 'passing'
references cannot be constant.

Boy, are you ever stupid! Just admit you're wrong. Be a man for once in
your
pathetic little life.

Who says the word *passing* is a part of the definition of *allusion*? You?
LOL!
*Passing* is not used in any of my dictionaries. Since you insist on using
this qualifier, the burden is on you to show one linguist who agrees with
you. I certainly do not.
Scout
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allusion

"Scout" wrote
*Passing* is not used in any of my dictionaries. Since you insist on using
this qualifier, the burden is on you to show one linguist who agrees with
you. I certainly do not.
Scout

Look up the term 'obiter dictum' and you will see the error of your ways . . .

Capt. Neal
Ph.D. English Language Studies

"Dr.. Neal" wrote
Look up the term 'obiter dictum' and you will see the error of your ways .
. .

I'm familiar with the phrase. I don't recall using it in my post though, so
I don't see why you should refer to it.
It's similar but certainly not synomomous with allusion.
Keep trying Doctor Knowlittle!
Scout

"Scout" wrote

I'm familiar with the phrase. I don't recall using it in my post though, so
I don't see why you should refer to it.
It's similar but certainly not synomomous with allusion.
Keep trying Doctor Knowlittle!

Apparently NOT! If you were familiar with obiter dictum, you would
know it refers to "passing" as in passing reference. Duh! And you
claim to be a teacher.

I pity your students.

CN

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:49:46 -0500, Capt. Neal®
wrote this crap:

Douglas King posted blatant lies about Rush Limbaugh and Horvath called
him a liar and a ****ing liar and an asshole and a coward - all of which
are true.

I need to correct Horvath on one thing, though. Douglas King is also
chicken.

CN


I believe calling him a coward, and a pussy also includes calling him
chicken.

Let's see what he cackles next.





This post is 100% free of steroids