![]() |
More Republican Family Values
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:05:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:06 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:25 -0400, H the K wrote: wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, wrote: Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and fallacy hasn't avoided you. That's not very subtle. If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect in some modest measure. At this point, the thread has degenerated to the state of simple posturing. The original premise, to give it any justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can afford in a meager posting in this thread. I have taken license to explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though, in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more thoroughly. Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man. There are maybe a half dozen posters here on either side of the common political spectrum whose opinions I value, and once in a while I will engage in a discussion with them. Mostly, though, I simply avoid making posts that require a demonstration beyond a few sentences of a "knowledge base." It hasn't been worth the effort, what with all the mindless droolers here. But if a few posters want to get rolling in interesting discussions sans the usual rec.boats bull****, idiocy, and name-calling, I might again participate. I enjoy discussions that allow the use of language at a level higher than the grammar school level insulting that permeates rec.boats. Watch the responses from the droolers, if any...they'll be entertaining. What seems to escape some critics is that a broad lexicon and strong command of the language can allow a person to be somewhat discreet and indirect while yet articulating thoughts lucidly. It's a shame that more persons don't engage language with more dexterity and alacrity. Yes, quite right. Critically speaking however, broad lexicons rendering unsubstantive thought are exceedingly tedious in the reading, unless at least laced with Angl-Saxon expletives - or at bare minimum with a good ****ing story. --Vic Hear, hear! ****in-a right! |
More Republican Family Values
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:05:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:06 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:25 -0400, H the K wrote: skissored Yes, quite right. Critically speaking however, broad lexicons rendering unsubstantive thought are exceedingly tedious in the reading, unless at least laced with Angl-Saxon expletives - or at bare minimum with a good ****ing story. --Vic I suspect that the ambition of this post is to qualify for a retort; but, there's nothing there :) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
More Republican Family Values
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:38:04 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:05:08 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:06 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:25 -0400, H the K wrote: skissored Yes, quite right. Critically speaking however, broad lexicons rendering unsubstantive thought are exceedingly tedious in the reading, unless at least laced with Angl-Saxon expletives - or at bare minimum with a good ****ing story. --Vic I suspect that the ambition of this post is to qualify for a retort; but, there's nothing there :) Not really, but I never turn down a bonus. (-: --Vic |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com