On Jun 12, 12:41*pm, Jack wrote:
On Jun 12, 12:30*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."





wrote:
Jim22208 wrote:
HK wrote:
jps wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:50:03 -0400, jim 1 wrote:

Don't try it H. You might hurt your brain.

Plonk you, ****.

floridajim tries *soooo* hard to be noticed. I don't know why; he's
just another knuckledragger who shot the only wad he had in the navy
while helping us lose the war against vietnam.

Harry, your boy is having some trouble. Tell him that you can't block a
poster by saying plonk.

You must also say abra ka dabra before and after saying "plonk".

abra ka dabra.... * *PLONK ............................ * abra ka dabra

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

jps has written that he's really smart, but have you noticed when
someone puts forth an opposing viewpoint that he can't counter, he
"plonks" them? *He just sticks his head in the sand and ignores any
thought that his mind can't comprehend, and that seems to be quite a
lot.

Also, consider this: "The use of profanity has been described as an
attempt by a lazy and ignorant mind to express itself forcefully.
Others have called profanity the refuge of the witless. *People who
have such a poor command of the language that they are unable to
express themselves effectively often rely on profanity to impress and
shock others."

"And one more thing to consider—the words we choose to use reveal the
kind of person we are. *A person who is willing to use coarse, base,
and offensive words, in public or in private, is a person whose
character should be seriously questioned."

This guy nailed jps.

Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer developed the Two Factor
Theory of Emotion. In essence, the theory developed the following
structu

(1) In the event that an individual has no causal explanation for an
arousal state, he or she will label arousal in terms of available
cognitions.

(2) In the event that an individual has appropriate explanation for
arousal,
alternative cognitive labeling will be unlikely.

(3) Under identical “cognitive circumstances”, an individual will
only
respond with emotional experience to the degree that he or she is
physiologically excited.

Basically, the psychological value of cursing and/or coarse language
depends upon the force of the 'shock' which it is capable of giving.
The
occasion of profanity in general is a situation in which there is a
high
degree of emotion, usually aggressive, accompanied by a certain
feeling of helplessness.

Additionally, the Two Factor theory allows for differing levels of
cursing/oath/coarse language as a measure of both intelligence
and creativity. For example, a single oath/curse when surprised
is relatively meaningless in context - as in being surprised by a
loud noise or event.

However, when it is used routinely in response to reasoned and/or
normal discourse, it is an indicator of base intelligence and
creativity.

For example, a riposte of "Plonk you, ****" shows a base lack of
creativity thus a low level of intelligence in addition to being
rather
passive. Conversly, a riposte of "You loose-toothed croup-breathed
nightcrawler reeking of bathtub gin and the genetic stink of human
desperation ****" shows a high level of creativity and is much more
aggressive carrying much more meaning.

So, while your original supposition was sound and correct, it also
needed some additional clarification.

"DK" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

This morning, for example, Eisboch thought it not possible for me to
review a YouTube video he referenced in the time I allocated for it,
which I suppose means he doesn't know how YouTube works. For reasons that
have nothing to do with me, my internet connection apparently is about 10
times faster than his. That means I can "get" a YouTube video much faster
than he can, and skim right through it without it breaking up or
pixelating.


Bull****.




It is bull****. Regardless of his super-duper cable download speeds, the
fact is that YouTube streams the video files, allowing us mere mortals with
normal Internet speeds to enjoy the presentation.

The performance section of the "Tribute" involves at least half of the time
to watch the video in real time. So Super Harry was able to watch a mere
segment of a 7 plus minute long performance, then jump back to rec.boats and
declare his authoritative opinion of it's quality compared to the original
performance.

What a guy.

Professionals in the field hold Monaco in very high opinion in terms of his
interpretation and ability to emulate the Jimmy Smith style of B3 organ
playing. Some say Monaco has to hold back.

I don't think Harry knows who Monaco or Smith is, let alone his ability to
compare their capabilities.


Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"DK" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

This morning, for example, Eisboch thought it not possible for me to
review a YouTube video he referenced in the time I allocated for it,
which I suppose means he doesn't know how YouTube works. For reasons
that have nothing to do with me, my internet connection apparently is
about 10 times faster than his. That means I can "get" a YouTube
video much faster than he can, and skim right through it without it
breaking up or pixelating.


Bull****.




It is bull****. Regardless of his super-duper cable download speeds,
the fact is that YouTube streams the video files, allowing us mere
mortals with normal Internet speeds to enjoy the presentation.

The performance section of the "Tribute" involves at least half of the
time to watch the video in real time. So Super Harry was able to watch
a mere segment of a 7 plus minute long performance, then jump back to
rec.boats and declare his authoritative opinion of it's quality compared
to the original performance.

What a guy.

Professionals in the field hold Monaco in very high opinion in terms of
his interpretation and ability to emulate the Jimmy Smith style of B3
organ playing. Some say Monaco has to hold back.

I don't think Harry knows who Monaco or Smith is, let alone his ability
to compare their capabilities.


Eisboch


Nice try. The reality is, I downloaded the video from youtube, watched
about 30 seconds of the schmaltzy beginning, then fast-fowarded to the
middle and then the end. I probably watched two minutes in total, enough
to determine the guy was damned good, but not Jimmy Smith. Just an
imitator.

Let's put it into simpler terms. Jimmy Smith played as Jimmy Smith;
Monaco played as an imitator of Smith. Wynton Marsalis has a CD out in
which he imitates many famous jazz trumpeters. I saw him interviewed
about that CD many years ago. He was imitating the earlier great
trumpeters (Armstrong, Miles Davis, and a couple of others), but as good
as he is, he said he could never equal any of them playing their style,
because each of their styles was unique, just as when he is playing
*his* style, he is incomparable.

Well, I'm sure your hero Monaco is terrific when he's playing in his
style, but when he is playing in Smith's style, he's not Smith...he's
just imitating him.

You righties are quite the trip...if someone intrudes onto what you feel
is your turf, you all go bat****. That's true of you, and to a much
greater degree, of Tom.

Entertaining, but predictable.



--
The modern GOP is little more than an army of moral absolutists led by a
gang of moral nihilists.

On Jun 12, 8:23*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"DK" wrote in message

...

HK wrote:

This morning, for example, Eisboch thought it not possible for me to
review a YouTube video he referenced in the time I allocated for it,
which I suppose means he doesn't know how YouTube works. For reasons that
have nothing to do with me, my internet connection apparently is about 10
times faster than his. That means I can "get" a YouTube video much faster
than he can, and skim right through it without it breaking up or
pixelating.

Bull****.

It is bull****. * Regardless of his super-duper cable download speeds, the
fact is that YouTube streams the video files, allowing us mere mortals with
normal Internet speeds to enjoy the presentation.

The performance section of the "Tribute" involves at least half of the time
to watch the video in real time. *So Super Harry was able to watch a mere
segment of a 7 plus minute long performance, then jump back to rec.boats and
declare his authoritative opinion of it's quality compared to the original
performance.

What a guy.

Professionals in the field hold Monaco in very high opinion in terms of his
interpretation and ability to emulate the Jimmy Smith style of B3 organ
playing. *Some say Monaco has to hold back.

I don't think Harry knows who Monaco or Smith is, let alone his ability to
compare their capabilities.

Eisboch

Yeah, we figured that out hours ago while Harry was dancing...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"DK" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

This morning, for example, Eisboch thought it not possible for me to
review a YouTube video he referenced in the time I allocated for it,
which I suppose means he doesn't know how YouTube works. For reasons
that have nothing to do with me, my internet connection apparently is
about 10 times faster than his. That means I can "get" a YouTube video
much faster than he can, and skim right through it without it breaking
up or pixelating.


Bull****.




It is bull****. Regardless of his super-duper cable download speeds,
the fact is that YouTube streams the video files, allowing us mere
mortals with normal Internet speeds to enjoy the presentation.

The performance section of the "Tribute" involves at least half of the
time to watch the video in real time. So Super Harry was able to watch a
mere segment of a 7 plus minute long performance, then jump back to
rec.boats and declare his authoritative opinion of it's quality compared
to the original performance.

What a guy.

Professionals in the field hold Monaco in very high opinion in terms of
his interpretation and ability to emulate the Jimmy Smith style of B3
organ playing. Some say Monaco has to hold back.

I don't think Harry knows who Monaco or Smith is, let alone his ability
to compare their capabilities.


Eisboch


Nice try. The reality is, I downloaded the video from youtube, watched
about 30 seconds of the schmaltzy beginning, then fast-fowarded to the
middle and then the end. I probably watched two minutes in total, enough
to determine the guy was damned good, but not Jimmy Smith. Just an
imitator.

Let's put it into simpler terms. Jimmy Smith played as Jimmy Smith; Monaco
played as an imitator of Smith. Wynton Marsalis has a CD out in which he
imitates many famous jazz trumpeters. I saw him interviewed about that CD
many years ago. He was imitating the earlier great trumpeters (Armstrong,
Miles Davis, and a couple of others), but as good as he is, he said he
could never equal any of them playing their style, because each of their
styles was unique, just as when he is playing *his* style, he is
incomparable.

Well, I'm sure your hero Monaco is terrific when he's playing in his
style, but when he is playing in Smith's style, he's not Smith...he's just
imitating him.

You righties are quite the trip...if someone intrudes onto what you feel
is your turf, you all go bat****. That's true of you, and to a much
greater degree, of Tom.

Entertaining, but predictable.




"Us righties" ? What the hell does the playing style or competence of a
B3 Hammond player have to do with politics?

Sorry Harry. I'll pit my knowledge of the Hammond B3, the artists who
perform on a Hammond B3 and their relative competence against your knowledge
any day.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"DK" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

This morning, for example, Eisboch thought it not possible for me
to review a YouTube video he referenced in the time I allocated for
it, which I suppose means he doesn't know how YouTube works. For
reasons that have nothing to do with me, my internet connection
apparently is about 10 times faster than his. That means I can
"get" a YouTube video much faster than he can, and skim right
through it without it breaking up or pixelating.


Bull****.




It is bull****. Regardless of his super-duper cable download
speeds, the fact is that YouTube streams the video files, allowing us
mere mortals with normal Internet speeds to enjoy the presentation.

The performance section of the "Tribute" involves at least half of
the time to watch the video in real time. So Super Harry was able to
watch a mere segment of a 7 plus minute long performance, then jump
back to rec.boats and declare his authoritative opinion of it's
quality compared to the original performance.

What a guy.

Professionals in the field hold Monaco in very high opinion in terms
of his interpretation and ability to emulate the Jimmy Smith style of
B3 organ playing. Some say Monaco has to hold back.

I don't think Harry knows who Monaco or Smith is, let alone his
ability to compare their capabilities.


Eisboch


Nice try. The reality is, I downloaded the video from youtube, watched
about 30 seconds of the schmaltzy beginning, then fast-fowarded to the
middle and then the end. I probably watched two minutes in total,
enough to determine the guy was damned good, but not Jimmy Smith. Just
an imitator.

Let's put it into simpler terms. Jimmy Smith played as Jimmy Smith;
Monaco played as an imitator of Smith. Wynton Marsalis has a CD out in
which he imitates many famous jazz trumpeters. I saw him interviewed
about that CD many years ago. He was imitating the earlier great
trumpeters (Armstrong, Miles Davis, and a couple of others), but as
good as he is, he said he could never equal any of them playing their
style, because each of their styles was unique, just as when he is
playing *his* style, he is incomparable.

Well, I'm sure your hero Monaco is terrific when he's playing in his
style, but when he is playing in Smith's style, he's not Smith...he's
just imitating him.

You righties are quite the trip...if someone intrudes onto what you
feel is your turf, you all go bat****. That's true of you, and to a
much greater degree, of Tom.

Entertaining, but predictable.




"Us righties" ? What the hell does the playing style or competence of
a B3 Hammond player have to do with politics?

Sorry Harry. I'll pit my knowledge of the Hammond B3, the artists who
perform on a Hammond B3 and their relative competence against your
knowledge any day.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Eisboch


I never said I was an expert on the Hammond B3 or its players. But if I
had my druthers, I'd rather listen to Jimmy Smith playing Jimmy Smith
than some imitator playing Jimmy Smith.

The comment about politics had nothing to do with politics, per se.
Didn't you get that? "If someone intrudes on what you feel is your turf,
you go bat****."

As you did.




--
The modern GOP is little more than an army of moral absolutists led by a
gang of moral nihilists.

Jack wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:44 am, TopBassDog wrote:
....and quit writing jokes for David Letterman:

http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/200...vid-letterman-...

before you both end up on the streets.

Letterman is a liar. He knew exactly which daughter was with Palin on
her trip to NY, but he went ahead with the comments anyway. I see now
why the lefty wingnuts want to make sure young girls can get an
abortion... they need that to be able to cover their tracks when they
commit rape on young girls.


Snerk Why would Sarah Palin be worried about Dave Letterman raping
her daughter (yes, she said that), when she allowed her daughter Bristol
to be raped and impregnated by the daughter's boy friend, and then let
him move into their house?

Wanna bet Palin's 14-year-old daughter will also be knocked up before
the next presidential election? After all, the Palins don't believe in
birth control.

On Jun 12, 8:16*pm, HK wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:44 am, TopBassDog wrote:
....and quit writing jokes for David Letterman:

http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/200...vid-letterman-....

before you both end up on the streets.

Letterman is a liar. *He knew exactly which daughter was with Palin on
her trip to NY, but he went ahead with the comments anyway. *I see now
why the lefty wingnuts want to make sure young girls can get an
abortion... they need that to be able to cover their tracks when they
commit rape on young girls.

*Snerk *Why would Sarah Palin be worried about Dave Letterman raping
her daughter (yes, she said that), when she allowed her daughter Bristol
to be raped and impregnated by the daughter's boy friend, and then let
him move into their house?

Wanna bet Palin's 14-year-old daughter will also be knocked up before
the next presidential election? After all, the Palins don't believe in
birth control.

Herr Krause. Why must you pang over girls you can't have?

Tendencies of pedophilia?

On Jun 12, 9:16*pm, HK wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:44 am, TopBassDog wrote:
....and quit writing jokes for David Letterman:

http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/200...vid-letterman-....

before you both end up on the streets.

Letterman is a liar. *He knew exactly which daughter was with Palin on
her trip to NY, but he went ahead with the comments anyway. *I see now
why the lefty wingnuts want to make sure young girls can get an
abortion... they need that to be able to cover their tracks when they
commit rape on young girls.

*Snerk *Why would Sarah Palin be worried about Dave Letterman raping
her daughter (yes, she said that),

"Why would Sarah Palin be worried about Dave Letterman raping
her daughter (yes, she said that)"

That's another hk lie. Palin did NOT say that, as much as Matt Lauer
tried to imply that.

"But Palin declined Letterman’s offer to appear on his show, saying
“it would be wise to keep Willow away from” him.

On TODAY Friday, Lauer asked the governor if she had been implying
that Willow would not be safe around the late-night comedian. “Take it
however you want to take it,” Palin replied. “It was a comment that
came from the heart.”

“Hey, it's not in bad taste,” the governor added. “Maybe he couldn’t
be trusted because Willow has had enough of these kinds of antics, and
maybe she would want to react in a way that would take him off guard.”

Heh... maybe Palin meant that Willow would just kick Letterman in the
nuts. That's what liberal trash like him deserves. In any case, she
did NOT say what old weird tried to lie that she did. No surprise
there.

Jack wrote:
On Jun 12, 9:16 pm, HK wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:44 am, TopBassDog wrote:
....and quit writing jokes for David Letterman:
http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/200...vid-letterman-...
before you both end up on the streets.
Letterman is a liar. He knew exactly which daughter was with Palin on
her trip to NY, but he went ahead with the comments anyway. I see now
why the lefty wingnuts want to make sure young girls can get an
abortion... they need that to be able to cover their tracks when they
commit rape on young girls.
Snerk Why would Sarah Palin be worried about Dave Letterman raping
her daughter (yes, she said that),

"Why would Sarah Palin be worried about Dave Letterman raping
her daughter (yes, she said that)"

That's another hk lie. Palin did NOT say that, as much as Matt Lauer
tried to imply that.

"But Palin declined Letterman’s offer to appear on his show, saying
“it would be wise to keep Willow away from” him.

On TODAY Friday, Lauer asked the governor if she had been implying
that Willow would not be safe around the late-night comedian. “Take it
however you want to take it,” Palin replied. “It was a comment that
came from the heart.”

“Hey, it's not in bad taste,” the governor added. “Maybe he couldn’t
be trusted because Willow has had enough of these kinds of antics, and
maybe she would want to react in a way that would take him off guard.”

Heh... maybe Palin meant that Willow would just kick Letterman in the
nuts. That's what liberal trash like him deserves. In any case, she
did NOT say what old weird tried to lie that she did. No surprise
there.



It's just been another week of Sarah Palin playing the victim.

--
The modern GOP is little more than an army of moral absolutists led by a
gang of moral nihilists.