On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

It's entirely possible that when I introduce the term "imputation,"
fallacy will follow fallacy to impute upon me what is considered to be
the onerous characteristics of vile conservatism. So, I'll also, with
complete lack of respect for the doctrine of"'eschew obfuscation,"
toss out the term "enfilade" to describe that sad march of fallacies,
and I'll wed it to the adjective "mindless."

You don't get it, Vic.

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

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Big or little, they have meaning.
Obsequious is big only in syllables.
I prefer beggarly bugger.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.

Mary Poppins. Never could get through that.
I got broke in on antidisestablismentariaism.
Then I quit.

--Vic.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Big or little, they have meaning.
Obsequious is big only in syllables.
I prefer beggarly bugger.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.

Mary Poppins. Never could get through that.
I got broke in on antidisestablismentariaism.
Then I quit.

--Vic.





pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:55:52 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Big or little, they have meaning.
Obsequious is big only in syllables.
I prefer beggarly bugger.


You have a better temperment than most, Vic.

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

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.


Only if the biguns are spelled correctly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Nov 17, 6:27*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"jps" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:

BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the *intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.

Only if the biguns are spelled correctly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Honestly, do you really wish to use the word "Biguns," instead of
"Bigguns?"

There is a huge difference.

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 6:27 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"jps" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:

BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.

Only if the biguns are spelled correctly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Honestly, do you really wish to use the word "Biguns," instead of
"Bigguns?"

There is a huge difference.


Bygones will be bygones...
--
Nom=de=Plume