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.

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

On Jul 14, 4:34*pm, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's Harry, calling names and being an insulting boor while
chastising others for calling names and insulting. Rich isn't it?