On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:35:13 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:25:55 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:01 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
snipped for contextual obligations

Then you should be able to evidentially reveal the other poster's
identity.


further redaction action

What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.


I'm sorry, Harry, but this doesn't even make sense,
contextually or otherwise.

That's rich. With all your ponderous scribbling you're having trouble
parsing Harry's simple phrase.

It's not the parsing that is problematic, JPS. It's the ostensible
assumption on his part that I 'thought' he should reveal the other
poster's identity. His response was juxtaposed below my assertion
that he should be able to divulge the other person's identity. There
was no requirement for him to do so, implicitly or explicitly. Does
that make sense? There are support groups that help with
comprehending "ponderous scribbling," if that will help at all.

Fresh in from the Ponderosa with a mouthful.

I haven't any trouble understanding your ponderosities.

You're like a young jazz musician who knows how to play a lot of notes
fast and hasn't yet discovered the spaces between the notes are what
make the music worth listening to.

You're a young writer, perhaps not in years.

On 9/25/09 12:25 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:01 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
snipped for contextual obligations

Then you should be able to evidentially reveal the other poster's
identity.


further redaction action

What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.


I'm sorry, Harry, but this doesn't even make sense,
contextually or otherwise.

That's rich. With all your ponderous scribbling you're having trouble
parsing Harry's simple phrase.


We professional writers weave a mysterious tapestry with simple,
unambiguous language. :)

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

On Sep 25, 6:11*am, H the K wrote:

I don't give a **** if you read my posts here. Almost all of them
are totally devoid of meaningful content.

Amen.

On 9/25/09 12:55 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:35:13 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:25:55 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:01 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
snipped for contextual obligations

Then you should be able to evidentially reveal the other poster's
identity.


further redaction action

What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.


I'm sorry, Harry, but this doesn't even make sense,
contextually or otherwise.

That's rich. With all your ponderous scribbling you're having trouble
parsing Harry's simple phrase.

It's not the parsing that is problematic, JPS. It's the ostensible
assumption on his part that I 'thought' he should reveal the other
poster's identity. His response was juxtaposed below my assertion
that he should be able to divulge the other person's identity. There
was no requirement for him to do so, implicitly or explicitly. Does
that make sense? There are support groups that help with
comprehending "ponderous scribbling," if that will help at all.

Fresh in from the Ponderosa with a mouthful.

I haven't any trouble understanding your ponderosities.

You're like a young jazz musician who knows how to play a lot of notes
fast and hasn't yet discovered the spaces between the notes are what
make the music worth listening to.

You're a young writer, perhaps not in years.


"He" reminds me of some of the freshmen I encountered when I taught
bonehead English. There were always a couple of overwrought, purple
prose wannabe writers among the students I taught in every class.

If they were particularly obnoxious in class, I would slash and burn my
way through their homework with a red pen.

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

On Sep 25, 2:48*am, Toots Sweet wrote:


*Being libertarian by nature (and most likely heritage) I
had to join the fray by tickling the sensitivities of the left wing
pseudo revolutionaries that seem to infest most on-line forums now.

'tickling' implies one has the intellect to 'tickle'.

and you don't. blatantly lying isn't an argument.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:13:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
It isn't me, blame someone else. He/she is prolific though. I
stopped posting political stuff for our truce and have kept my word.
I always thought jps was HK but will give him/her the benefit of
doubt. If y'all will look back at Toots first posts, you will see
that I tried to discourage him/her due to said truce.

Frogwatch


Hey, a couple of us are discussing philosophy in another thread and we
haven't come to blows yet. I think boating is a philosophy. I was never
much
of a power boater.. don't see the attraction.. if I want to go fast, I
take
a plane. Sailing on the other hand, seems very zen-like.


Ms Plume has been a cogent poster here and I enjoyed our exchanges,
even if we don't agree on a lot of things but I think I am joining the
"trusers" myself. When discussions simply become insults I don't want
to participate anymore.


Thanks! Agreement is over-rated anyway. It doesn't add much to understanding
if all you have is a bunch of people nodding their heads in agreement. When
I'm with my close friends, we argue all the time about politics and
religion. A couple of them are Born-againers and we can have a lively
discussion without screeching.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:55:09 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:35:13 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:25:55 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:01 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
snipped for contextual obligations

Then you should be able to evidentially reveal the other poster's
identity.


further redaction action

What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.


I'm sorry, Harry, but this doesn't even make sense,
contextually or otherwise.

That's rich. With all your ponderous scribbling you're having trouble
parsing Harry's simple phrase.

It's not the parsing that is problematic, JPS. It's the ostensible
assumption on his part that I 'thought' he should reveal the other
poster's identity. His response was juxtaposed below my assertion
that he should be able to divulge the other person's identity. There
was no requirement for him to do so, implicitly or explicitly. Does
that make sense? There are support groups that help with
comprehending "ponderous scribbling," if that will help at all.

Fresh in from the Ponderosa with a mouthful.

I haven't any trouble understanding your ponderosities.

You're like a young jazz musician who knows how to play a lot of notes
fast and hasn't yet discovered the spaces between the notes are what
make the music worth listening to.

You're a young writer, perhaps not in years.

Interesting. You would express an opinion of the writing style of
someone who doesn't aspire to be a 'writer' rather than examine the
error of your own statement. I suppose that's understandable, and it
stands as a tested tatic. It certainly can't be for being unable to
follow the course of the conversation, as you "haven't any trouble
understanding ponderosities."

Is there any reason that you expect to a more belletristic style of
me?

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

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:09:40 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 12:55 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:35:13 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:25:55 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:01 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
snipped for contextual obligations

Then you should be able to evidentially reveal the other poster's
identity.


further redaction action

What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.


I'm sorry, Harry, but this doesn't even make sense,
contextually or otherwise.

That's rich. With all your ponderous scribbling you're having trouble
parsing Harry's simple phrase.

It's not the parsing that is problematic, JPS. It's the ostensible
assumption on his part that I 'thought' he should reveal the other
poster's identity. His response was juxtaposed below my assertion
that he should be able to divulge the other person's identity. There
was no requirement for him to do so, implicitly or explicitly. Does
that make sense? There are support groups that help with
comprehending "ponderous scribbling," if that will help at all.

Fresh in from the Ponderosa with a mouthful.

I haven't any trouble understanding your ponderosities.

You're like a young jazz musician who knows how to play a lot of notes
fast and hasn't yet discovered the spaces between the notes are what
make the music worth listening to.

You're a young writer, perhaps not in years.


"He" reminds me of some of the freshmen I encountered when I taught
bonehead English. There were always a couple of overwrought, purple
prose wannabe writers among the students I taught in every class.

If they were particularly obnoxious in class, I would slash and burn my
way through their homework with a red pen.

Can you imagine being his kid? Yikes.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:09:40 -0400, H the K
wrote:

snipped for Harry's own good

You're a young writer, perhaps not in years.


"He" reminds me of some of the freshmen I encountered when I taught
bonehead English. There were always a couple of overwrought, purple
prose wannabe writers among the students I taught in every class.

If they were particularly obnoxious in class, I would slash and burn my
way through their homework with a red pen.

Harry, that reminds of me of my first year in college in comp class. I
had submitted my first writing assignment, and a short time later the
professor of the class came into the book store by the student union,
having seen me in there, to commend me on my writing and the quality
of the essay. I was surprised by that, of course. He said that I was
far ahead of most other freshmen that he usually had in his class. He
was equally surprised when he learned that I had little desire to be a
writer. I went into engineering. Silly me.

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

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:45:49 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:09:40 -0400, H the K
wrote:

snipped for Harry's own good

You're a young writer, perhaps not in years.


"He" reminds me of some of the freshmen I encountered when I taught
bonehead English. There were always a couple of overwrought, purple
prose wannabe writers among the students I taught in every class.

If they were particularly obnoxious in class, I would slash and burn my
way through their homework with a red pen.

Harry, that reminds of me of my first year in college in comp class. I
had submitted my first writing assignment, and a short time later the
professor of the class came into the book store by the student union,
having seen me in there, to commend me on my writing and the quality
of the essay. I was surprised by that, of course. He said that I was
far ahead of most other freshmen that he usually had in his class. He
was equally surprised when he learned that I had little desire to be a
writer. I went into engineering. Silly me.

And now you sell insurance?

Even professors can be buffoons, you know. Most who consider
themselves right-of-center have little regard for the liberal arts so
I haven't a clue why you'd think his commendation held any value.