| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message news  On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message news 
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you have serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies. ?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to previous presidents, he seems pretty good to me. Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear the led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have. Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the same as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on the beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery) Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that makes you feel better. With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine by yourself. I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO one voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or Obama) You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a political party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the deficiencies. Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You have LOADS of company. You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH?????? Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser. Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names? And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name? Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be obvious what I'm talking about. What would you call him? -- Nom=de=Plume Correct. Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate. -- Nom=de=Plume There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being intentionally bitchy? reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. Too similar to 'debating' Harry. Probably is... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause. I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But, her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that she means well, unlike Harry. I'm affable and considerate here also. I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not take away from your affability, in any event. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message news
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you have serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies. ?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to previous presidents, he seems pretty good to me. Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear the led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have. Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the same as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on the beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery) Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that makes you feel better. With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine by yourself. I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO one voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or Obama) You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a political party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the deficiencies. Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You have LOADS of company. You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH?????? Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser. Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names? And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name? Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be obvious what I'm talking about. What would you call him? -- Nom=de=Plume Correct. Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate. -- Nom=de=Plume There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being intentionally bitchy? reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. Too similar to 'debating' Harry. Probably is... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause. I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But, her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that she means well, unlike Harry. I'm affable and considerate here also. I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not take away from your affability, in any event. Patronizing and condescending are not traits one associates with affableness (not sure this is a word). Please feel free to post instances of either. The "qualities" (condescention and patronization) are certainly associated with poor powers of reasoning. How could they not be? Perhaps you meant they _are_ in accord with those two things.... Honestly, I don't know anyone who is condescending and patronizing _and_ affable. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:30:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message news
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you have serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies. ?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to previous presidents, he seems pretty good to me. Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear the led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have. Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the same as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on the beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery) Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that makes you feel better. With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine by yourself. I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO one voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or Obama) You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a political party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the deficiencies. Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You have LOADS of company. You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH?????? Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser. Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names? And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name? Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be obvious what I'm talking about. What would you call him? -- Nom=de=Plume Correct. Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate. -- Nom=de=Plume There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being intentionally bitchy? reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. Too similar to 'debating' Harry. Probably is... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause. I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But, her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that she means well, unlike Harry. I'm affable and considerate here also. I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not take away from your affability, in any event. Patronizing and condescending are not traits one associates with affableness (not sure this is a word). Please feel free to post instances of either. The "qualities" (condescention and patronization) are certainly associated with poor powers of reasoning. How could they not be? Perhaps you meant they _are_ in accord with those two things.... Honestly, I don't know anyone who is condescending and patronizing _and_ affable. Actually, I would ascribe those exact attributes to our current President. To say that a person has those qualities is not to suggest that those qualities fail to manifest themselves in particular instances, separated by circumstance, which is why I qualified my observation by saying "you can be" instead of a more inflexible "you 'are' patronizing..." Likewise, I was careful not to insinuate that you persist in poor thinking, only that you, by demonstration, "can" do so. And to be honest, there isn't a person in the world that isn't capable of lapsing into occasional episodes of poor thinking. However, some will try to recognize when they fall prey to poor thinking and try to correct it, even when cajoled to do so by another. It would be a wondeful world if we were all that humble. It seems to me that you do try to be civil and engaging; but, there has been at least one instance in responding to me in which you were overtly patronizing (and that's forgiveable). That doesn't rob you of your overall comportment, though, which appears benign. And that's a characteristic missing in far too many conversations in this group. (Your liberal bent is forgiveable, too. Everyone has room for improvement  -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:30:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message news
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you have serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies. ?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to previous presidents, he seems pretty good to me. Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear the led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have. Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the same as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on the beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery) Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that makes you feel better. With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine by yourself. I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO one voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or Obama) You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a political party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the deficiencies. Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You have LOADS of company. You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH?????? Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser. Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names? And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name? Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be obvious what I'm talking about. What would you call him? -- Nom=de=Plume Correct. Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate. -- Nom=de=Plume There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being intentionally bitchy? reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. Too similar to 'debating' Harry. Probably is... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause. I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But, her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that she means well, unlike Harry. I'm affable and considerate here also. I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not take away from your affability, in any event. Patronizing and condescending are not traits one associates with affableness (not sure this is a word). Please feel free to post instances of either. The "qualities" (condescention and patronization) are certainly associated with poor powers of reasoning. How could they not be? Perhaps you meant they _are_ in accord with those two things.... Honestly, I don't know anyone who is condescending and patronizing _and_ affable. Actually, I would ascribe those exact attributes to our current President. To say that a person has those qualities is not to suggest that those qualities fail to manifest themselves in particular instances, separated by circumstance, which is why I qualified my observation by saying "you can be" instead of a more inflexible "you 'are' patronizing..." Likewise, I was careful not to insinuate that you persist in poor thinking, only that you, by demonstration, "can" do so. And to be honest, there isn't a person in the world that isn't capable of lapsing into occasional episodes of poor thinking. However, some will try to recognize when they fall prey to poor thinking and try to correct it, even when cajoled to do so by another. It would be a wondeful world if we were all that humble. By that measure, everyone, anyone "can" exhibit just about anything. I can even be humble. It seems to me that you do try to be civil and engaging; but, there has been at least one instance in responding to me in which you were overtly patronizing (and that's forgiveable). That doesn't rob you of your overall comportment, though, which appears benign. And that's a characteristic missing in far too many conversations in this group. Really? I'm not a patronizing person in general... perhaps you deserved it and I couldn't help myself. smirk (Your liberal bent is forgiveable, too. Everyone has room for improvement Even GWB! Did you read Andrew Sullivan's article in The Atlantic. It was wonderful. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New Pass | General | |||
| Active Pass | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| HOW DO I BY PASS THE IGNITION KEY ? | General | |||
| OT - Another prediction comes to pass! | General | |||
| OT--Here's one bill that will never pass | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
