I've figured it out
 

wrote in message
...
I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not
an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention
that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to
correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a
proposition from my comment that was not implied.


Firstly, that's an intensly cruel thing to say to someone.
No, it's not. You're invested in histrionics.
Saying to your
son?? Good gosh! Secondly, you don't know me near as well as you
supposedly
know your son. Based on a few posts, it seems hardly likely that you
would
know me well enough to make that judgement. I think you just prefer to
put
people down who don't agree with you 100%. Oh, and you're a very rude
person. Like I said, low-brow.

My apologies. I'll amend my original indictment. You have
demonstrated at least one instance of poor thinking. It's an odd
thing that you can liberally charge me with cruelty while you take
umbrage with being taken to task for poor thinking. But I must remind
myself that you are thinking poorly.


I have not and you're just being rude. I'm not sure why. What's your
agenda
here? You made the statement that your treated your son to the same sort
of
behavior. What was your agenda with him? Do you think it really helped him
or did it just make you feel better about your own supposed superiority
over
him. How anyone could say that to a child is beyond me.

You are either thinking poorly, or you are retreating to sophistry. To
wit, I did not say that I was rendering a severe criticism to "a
child," as though it were an adult verses a juvenile. I offered an
honest criticism to a young man. And that young man understood the
spirit in which that criticism was given and did not take offense.
Even still, if he had taken offense and had reciprocated with a
criticism of me to vindicate himself, he would be guilty of the tu
quoque logical fallacy in an instance of poor thinking.


I was quoting you. Now, you're changing your story. Suddenly, "son" has
changed to "young man," and this young man accepted your criticism. Why do I
not completely believe this...

--
Nom=de=Plume

I've figured it out
 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:51:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not
an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention
that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to
correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a
proposition from my comment that was not implied.


Firstly, that's an intensly cruel thing to say to someone.
No, it's not. You're invested in histrionics.
Saying to your
son?? Good gosh! Secondly, you don't know me near as well as you
supposedly
know your son. Based on a few posts, it seems hardly likely that you
would
know me well enough to make that judgement. I think you just prefer to
put
people down who don't agree with you 100%. Oh, and you're a very rude
person. Like I said, low-brow.

My apologies. I'll amend my original indictment. You have
demonstrated at least one instance of poor thinking. It's an odd
thing that you can liberally charge me with cruelty while you take
umbrage with being taken to task for poor thinking. But I must remind
myself that you are thinking poorly.


I have not and you're just being rude. I'm not sure why. What's your
agenda
here? You made the statement that your treated your son to the same sort
of
behavior. What was your agenda with him? Do you think it really helped him
or did it just make you feel better about your own supposed superiority
over
him. How anyone could say that to a child is beyond me.

You are either thinking poorly, or you are retreating to sophistry. To
wit, I did not say that I was rendering a severe criticism to "a
child," as though it were an adult verses a juvenile. I offered an
honest criticism to a young man. And that young man understood the
spirit in which that criticism was given and did not take offense.
Even still, if he had taken offense and had reciprocated with a
criticism of me to vindicate himself, he would be guilty of the tu
quoque logical fallacy in an instance of poor thinking.


I was quoting you. Now, you're changing your story. Suddenly, "son" has
changed to "young man," and this young man accepted your criticism. Why do I
not completely believe this...

You quote poorly, too. I was speaking of my "son," who was a "young
man" when I proffered my criticism. And, as a free-willed agent, you
are free to believe as you choose. Concordantly, you may engage in
sophistry to your hearts content. In fact, you may have the last
word. I won't persist in indulging sophistry.

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

I've figured it out
 

On Sep 9, 12:59*pm, JustWait wrote:
In article f4aa38df-347e-476f-98d6-
, says...



On Sep 9, 8:55*am, JustWait wrote:

Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo * here is that "is,
is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, ...

What's the deal, Scott.

That looks like something I'd type!

I am emulating you.. hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

--
Wafa free since 2009

Scott!

If you were emulating me, you'r next phrase would be :

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhh...

I've figured it out
 

On Sep 9, 1:26*pm, NotNow wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article f4aa38df-347e-476f-98d6-
, says...
On Sep 9, 8:55 am, JustWait wrote:

Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo * here is that "is,
is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, ...
What's the deal, Scott.

That looks like something I'd type!

I am emulating you.. hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You can't!

You're right, Loog!

But he can try.......

I've figured it out
 

Tim wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:59 pm, JustWait wrote:
In article f4aa38df-347e-476f-98d6-
, says...



On Sep 9, 8:55 am, JustWait wrote:
Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo here is that "is,
is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, ...
What's the deal, Scott.
That looks like something I'd type!
I am emulating you.. hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

--
Wafa free since 2009

Scott!

If you were emulating me, you'r next phrase would be :

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhh...


I was in a meeting one time and a design question came up that I would
have, should have known, but alas, I wasn't paying attention at the time
so bad that they asked what I thought, and I did JUST that.....

I've figured it out
 

Tim wrote:
On Sep 9, 1:26 pm, NotNow wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article f4aa38df-347e-476f-98d6-
, says...
On Sep 9, 8:55 am, JustWait wrote:
Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo here is that "is,
is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, ...
What's the deal, Scott.
That looks like something I'd type!
I am emulating you.. hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You can't!

You're right, Loog!

But he can try.......


Oh, yes, we ALL can try!

I've figured it out
 

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article f4aa38df-347e-476f-98d6-
, says...
On Sep 9, 8:55 am, JustWait wrote:

Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo here is that "is,
is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, ...
What's the deal, Scott.

That looks like something I'd type!

I am emulating you.. hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


You can't!

I did, and I will again... Tim is "da bomb"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z60NgWV8U_g

Speaking of weird ****, I heard DOA by Bloodrock the other night, 40
years later the song still freaks me out...

--
Wafa free since 2009

I've figured it out
 

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:14:01 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:51:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not
an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention
that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to
correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a
proposition from my comment that was not implied.


Firstly, that's an intensly cruel thing to say to someone.
No, it's not. You're invested in histrionics.
Saying to your
son?? Good gosh! Secondly, you don't know me near as well as you
supposedly
know your son. Based on a few posts, it seems hardly likely that you
would
know me well enough to make that judgement. I think you just prefer to
put
people down who don't agree with you 100%. Oh, and you're a very rude
person. Like I said, low-brow.

My apologies. I'll amend my original indictment. You have
demonstrated at least one instance of poor thinking. It's an odd
thing that you can liberally charge me with cruelty while you take
umbrage with being taken to task for poor thinking. But I must remind
myself that you are thinking poorly.


I have not and you're just being rude. I'm not sure why. What's your
agenda
here? You made the statement that your treated your son to the same sort
of
behavior. What was your agenda with him? Do you think it really helped him
or did it just make you feel better about your own supposed superiority
over
him. How anyone could say that to a child is beyond me.

You are either thinking poorly, or you are retreating to sophistry. To
wit, I did not say that I was rendering a severe criticism to "a
child," as though it were an adult verses a juvenile. I offered an
honest criticism to a young man. And that young man understood the
spirit in which that criticism was given and did not take offense.
Even still, if he had taken offense and had reciprocated with a
criticism of me to vindicate himself, he would be guilty of the tu
quoque logical fallacy in an instance of poor thinking.


I was quoting you. Now, you're changing your story. Suddenly, "son" has
changed to "young man," and this young man accepted your criticism. Why do I
not completely believe this...

You quote poorly, too. I was speaking of my "son," who was a "young
man" when I proffered my criticism. And, as a free-willed agent, you
are free to believe as you choose. Concordantly, you may engage in
sophistry to your hearts content. In fact, you may have the last
word. I won't persist in indulging sophistry.

You'll have to excuse whatever his name is. He's in the insurance
business and I expect recent developments have at least one of his
sphincters totally knotted up, not to mention whatever artery feeds
blood and oxygen to his brain.

Imagine being his son...

I've figured it out
 

jps wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:14:01 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:51:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not
an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention
that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to
correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a
proposition from my comment that was not implied.

Firstly, that's an intensly cruel thing to say to someone.
No, it's not. You're invested in histrionics.
Saying to your
son?? Good gosh! Secondly, you don't know me near as well as you
supposedly
know your son. Based on a few posts, it seems hardly likely that you
would
know me well enough to make that judgement. I think you just prefer to
put
people down who don't agree with you 100%. Oh, and you're a very rude
person. Like I said, low-brow.
My apologies. I'll amend my original indictment. You have
demonstrated at least one instance of poor thinking. It's an odd
thing that you can liberally charge me with cruelty while you take
umbrage with being taken to task for poor thinking. But I must remind
myself that you are thinking poorly.

I have not and you're just being rude. I'm not sure why. What's your
agenda
here? You made the statement that your treated your son to the same sort
of
behavior. What was your agenda with him? Do you think it really helped him
or did it just make you feel better about your own supposed superiority
over
him. How anyone could say that to a child is beyond me.
You are either thinking poorly, or you are retreating to sophistry. To
wit, I did not say that I was rendering a severe criticism to "a
child," as though it were an adult verses a juvenile. I offered an
honest criticism to a young man. And that young man understood the
spirit in which that criticism was given and did not take offense.
Even still, if he had taken offense and had reciprocated with a
criticism of me to vindicate himself, he would be guilty of the tu
quoque logical fallacy in an instance of poor thinking.

I was quoting you. Now, you're changing your story. Suddenly, "son" has
changed to "young man," and this young man accepted your criticism. Why do I
not completely believe this...
You quote poorly, too. I was speaking of my "son," who was a "young
man" when I proffered my criticism. And, as a free-willed agent, you
are free to believe as you choose. Concordantly, you may engage in
sophistry to your hearts content. In fact, you may have the last
word. I won't persist in indulging sophistry.

You'll have to excuse whatever his name is. He's in the insurance
business and I expect recent developments have at least one of his
sphincters totally knotted up, not to mention whatever artery feeds
blood and oxygen to his brain.

Imagine being his son...

Who is in the insurance biz?


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

I've figured it out
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:34:33 -0400, H the K
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:14:01 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:51:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not
an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention
that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to
correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a
proposition from my comment that was not implied.

Firstly, that's an intensly cruel thing to say to someone.
No, it's not. You're invested in histrionics.
Saying to your
son?? Good gosh! Secondly, you don't know me near as well as you
supposedly
know your son. Based on a few posts, it seems hardly likely that you
would
know me well enough to make that judgement. I think you just prefer to
put
people down who don't agree with you 100%. Oh, and you're a very rude
person. Like I said, low-brow.
My apologies. I'll amend my original indictment. You have
demonstrated at least one instance of poor thinking. It's an odd
thing that you can liberally charge me with cruelty while you take
umbrage with being taken to task for poor thinking. But I must remind
myself that you are thinking poorly.

I have not and you're just being rude. I'm not sure why. What's your
agenda
here? You made the statement that your treated your son to the same sort
of
behavior. What was your agenda with him? Do you think it really helped him
or did it just make you feel better about your own supposed superiority
over
him. How anyone could say that to a child is beyond me.
You are either thinking poorly, or you are retreating to sophistry. To
wit, I did not say that I was rendering a severe criticism to "a
child," as though it were an adult verses a juvenile. I offered an
honest criticism to a young man. And that young man understood the
spirit in which that criticism was given and did not take offense.
Even still, if he had taken offense and had reciprocated with a
criticism of me to vindicate himself, he would be guilty of the tu
quoque logical fallacy in an instance of poor thinking.

I was quoting you. Now, you're changing your story. Suddenly, "son" has
changed to "young man," and this young man accepted your criticism. Why do I
not completely believe this...
You quote poorly, too. I was speaking of my "son," who was a "young
man" when I proffered my criticism. And, as a free-willed agent, you
are free to believe as you choose. Concordantly, you may engage in
sophistry to your hearts content. In fact, you may have the last
word. I won't persist in indulging sophistry.

You'll have to excuse whatever his name is. He's in the insurance
business and I expect recent developments have at least one of his
sphincters totally knotted up, not to mention whatever artery feeds
blood and oxygen to his brain.

Imagine being his son...

Who is in the insurance biz?

jpj and all else he calls himself. The Earl of Rec.Boats? Pride of
the Ponderosa -- reflective of his writing style.