On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:13:10 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 11:08 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:50:45 -0400, H the K
wrote:
temporarily snipped

The wind blew, the crap flew, and all of it stuck to you.
You've been punked.

This from a man who makes comments like this?:

So...is your daddy in the ground yet? When do you start grieving?

Why am I unconcerned?



Your concern concerns me not. The funny thing is that you fell for the
other poster's tale, hook, line, and stinker.


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


The "other poster," to whom you refer, is in my bozo bin, which is where
he resided in most of his other iterations here. What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.


Your concern for JustHate's feelings also are humorous, as is his lack
of grief for his recently departed father.

Do you ever get anything straight? I didn't express concerns for
JustHate's feelings in any way whatsoever. I expressed a warranted
loathing for your general lack of civility and decorum. There are
some things that don't need to be uttered, and you utter them anyway,
virtually in bad taste in every instance. It's a demonstrable lack of
self-control, a form of verbal incontence.

So there you have it. That's my cathartic moment, and I did it
without any of the vile acrimony and emotive bilge that defines your
character.


In my opinion, JustHate is such a sleaze there simply is no excuse to
treat him as if he were something else. The hardest work he does is to
remain unemployable and suck down taxpayer benefits while he plays
right-wing stooge. **** him.


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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 12:55 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 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

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.


You never taught a damn thing.

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