On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:57:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:21:07 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:06:04 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
...is falling in the area now, so southerners must be abandoning
their
cars by the hundreds on the Capital Beltway.
As long as you get to say something ****ty about someone, your life is
good, eh?
It's liberal compassion in action...

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


Give us a break with your sanctimonious comments.

snipped for the kiddies Sanctimonious comments are OUR rice bowl.

Exactly my point.


Not sure who you're referring to... perhaps a slimeball sockpuppet? In any
case, my statement stands. You started off sounding intelligent and open to
debate, but now I see you were just pretending.

Em, there is no "open to debate" in this newsgroup, as much as I would
enjoy that. I have iterated and reiterated the point; the opposing
voices retreat to fallacy in nearly every debate to no avail.
Concordantly, definitions are massaged and skewed to bail out failed
arguments. Numerous times I have pointed out the ad hominem, the
various forms of ignoratio elenchi, the hasty generalization, begging
the question, etc. And every time I do, I'm assualted with additional
fallacies to conceal the previous use of fallacies. I deliberately
use an expired email addy for my e-nym in this NG, when I first
started posting here this summer, for the distinct purpose of
defeating the ad hominem argument. (As far as I know, only one person
that participates in this group knows my identity.) So, now, in order
to employ the ad hominem, antagonists have tried to put a face on me,
by comparing me to a former poster called "Reggie," whom I've yet to
see post in this group. Doing so facilitates the ad hominem,
especially the "circumstantial." And when I (or anyone else for that
matter) contend against common, 'designer' stereotypes such as "all
righties are simpies," which is patently false and blatantly
malicious, I'm again excoriated without due cause by those that hope
to foster that calumny. In my lifetime, I have seen, for whatever
reason, more compassion, munificence, benificence, philanthropy, and
charity from the Christian right than I have ever seen from the Left.
And I'm supposed to affirm the "compassion" of the left when its most
vocal representatives in this group are vituperative, malicious,
arrogant, narcissitic, duplicitous, churlish, sophistic, bellicose,
and belligerent? I don't include you in this group, Em. However, you
recently asked me if, in my reticence to condemn the demeaning of the
vocation of the community organizer, I was condoning the alleged
campaign to demean the vocation. I can ask the same of you. If you
remain indifferent to the banal ridicule, the wealth of informal
fallacies, and the contrived intellectual arrogance of your
colleagues, aren't you condoning those sordid behaviors?
I'll confess that I have allowed my indignation to get the best of me
in the last couple of notes, and I had already decided that I need to
remove myself from participating in any of these discussions for a
period. The spirit of the whole conversation tends to "dumb" me down,
as it were. I apologize if I have offended you, Em.
(I apologize, too, for any spelling, grammatical, or syntactical
errors, too. I don't have the time to proof this today.)

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

Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
...is falling in the area now, so southerners must be abandoning their
cars by the hundreds on the Capital Beltway.

As long as you get to say something ****ty about someone, your life is
good, eh?
Out of the mouths of babes. I've been made.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet,or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:06:04 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
...is falling in the area now, so southerners must be abandoning their
cars by the hundreds on the Capital Beltway.
As long as you get to say something ****ty about someone, your life is
good, eh?
It's liberal compassion in action...

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


Give us a break with your sanctimonious comments.

And what will you give in return?

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet,or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:57:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:21:07 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:06:04 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
...is falling in the area now, so southerners must be abandoning
their
cars by the hundreds on the Capital Beltway.
As long as you get to say something ****ty about someone, your life
is
good, eh?
It's liberal compassion in action...

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


Give us a break with your sanctimonious comments.

snipped for the kiddies Sanctimonious comments are OUR rice bowl.

Exactly my point.


Not sure who you're referring to... perhaps a slimeball sockpuppet? In any
case, my statement stands. You started off sounding intelligent and open
to
debate, but now I see you were just pretending.

Em, there is no "open to debate" in this newsgroup, as much as I would
enjoy that. I have iterated and reiterated the point; the opposing
voices retreat to fallacy in nearly every debate to no avail.
Concordantly, definitions are massaged and skewed to bail out failed
arguments. Numerous times I have pointed out the ad hominem, the
various forms of ignoratio elenchi, the hasty generalization, begging
the question, etc. And every time I do, I'm assualted with additional
fallacies to conceal the previous use of fallacies. I deliberately
use an expired email addy for my e-nym in this NG, when I first
started posting here this summer, for the distinct purpose of
defeating the ad hominem argument. (As far as I know, only one person
that participates in this group knows my identity.) So, now, in order
to employ the ad hominem, antagonists have tried to put a face on me,
by comparing me to a former poster called "Reggie," whom I've yet to
see post in this group. Doing so facilitates the ad hominem,
especially the "circumstantial." And when I (or anyone else for that
matter) contend against common, 'designer' stereotypes such as "all
righties are simpies," which is patently false and blatantly
malicious, I'm again excoriated without due cause by those that hope
to foster that calumny. In my lifetime, I have seen, for whatever
reason, more compassion, munificence, benificence, philanthropy, and
charity from the Christian right than I have ever seen from the Left.
And I'm supposed to affirm the "compassion" of the left when its most
vocal representatives in this group are vituperative, malicious,
arrogant, narcissitic, duplicitous, churlish, sophistic, bellicose,
and belligerent? I don't include you in this group, Em. However, you
recently asked me if, in my reticence to condemn the demeaning of the
vocation of the community organizer, I was condoning the alleged
campaign to demean the vocation. I can ask the same of you. If you
remain indifferent to the banal ridicule, the wealth of informal
fallacies, and the contrived intellectual arrogance of your
colleagues, aren't you condoning those sordid behaviors?
I'll confess that I have allowed my indignation to get the best of me
in the last couple of notes, and I had already decided that I need to
remove myself from participating in any of these discussions for a
period. The spirit of the whole conversation tends to "dumb" me down,
as it were. I apologize if I have offended you, Em.
(I apologize, too, for any spelling, grammatical, or syntactical
errors, too. I don't have the time to proof this today.)

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


You sure are long-winded. If you're unable to participate in a legitimate,
fact-based debate, just say so. You don't need to go on for so long.

Where do you see me being "indifferent" to churlish behavior. I've said
several times that I don't condone it. Are you claiming I should be the ng
monitor?

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message

Em, there is no "open to debate" in this newsgroup, as much as I would
enjoy that. I have iterated and reiterated the point; the opposing
voices retreat to fallacy in nearly every debate to no avail.
Concordantly, definitions are massaged and skewed to bail out failed
arguments. Numerous times I have pointed out the ad hominem, the
various forms of ignoratio elenchi, the hasty generalization, begging
the question, etc. And every time I do, I'm assualted with additional
fallacies to conceal the previous use of fallacies. I deliberately
use an expired email addy for my e-nym in this NG, when I first
started posting here this summer, for the distinct purpose of
defeating the ad hominem argument. (As far as I know, only one person
that participates in this group knows my identity.) So, now, in order
to employ the ad hominem, antagonists have tried to put a face on me,
by comparing me to a former poster called "Reggie," whom I've yet to
see post in this group. Doing so facilitates the ad hominem,
especially the "circumstantial." And when I (or anyone else for that
matter) contend against common, 'designer' stereotypes such as "all
righties are simpies," which is patently false and blatantly
malicious, I'm again excoriated without due cause by those that hope
to foster that calumny. In my lifetime, I have seen, for whatever
reason, more compassion, munificence, benificence, philanthropy, and
charity from the Christian right than I have ever seen from the Left.
And I'm supposed to affirm the "compassion" of the left when its most
vocal representatives in this group are vituperative, malicious,
arrogant, narcissitic, duplicitous, churlish, sophistic, bellicose,
and belligerent? I don't include you in this group, Em. However, you
recently asked me if, in my reticence to condemn the demeaning of the
vocation of the community organizer, I was condoning the alleged
campaign to demean the vocation. I can ask the same of you. If you
remain indifferent to the banal ridicule, the wealth of informal
fallacies, and the contrived intellectual arrogance of your
colleagues, aren't you condoning those sordid behaviors?
I'll confess that I have allowed my indignation to get the best of me
in the last couple of notes, and I had already decided that I need to
remove myself from participating in any of these discussions for a
period. The spirit of the whole conversation tends to "dumb" me down,
as it were. I apologize if I have offended you, Em.
(I apologize, too, for any spelling, grammatical, or syntactical
errors, too. I don't have the time to proof this today.)

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


You sure are long-winded. If you're unable to participate in a legitimate,
fact-based debate, just say so. You don't need to go on for so long.

Where do you see me being "indifferent" to churlish behavior. I've said
several times that I don't condone it. Are you claiming I should be the ng
monitor?


Long winded? He's a gasbag...and a terrible writer.

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:38:15 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:12:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

OK, here's what you do. Go to the local gym and put in five miles on
the treadmill. Then go to the range and hit a large bucket of balls,
using all your clubs. Almost like playing a round.

Not unless you hit every third ball into the woods, never to be seen
again. :-)

Sounds like my normal MO. I always start with three new balls. I
hardly ever finish with more than one of the balls I started with.
--

John H

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:38:44 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:57:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:21:07 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:06:04 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
...is falling in the area now, so southerners must be abandoning
their
cars by the hundreds on the Capital Beltway.
As long as you get to say something ****ty about someone, your life is
good, eh?
It's liberal compassion in action...

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


Give us a break with your sanctimonious comments.

snipped for the kiddies Sanctimonious comments are OUR rice bowl.

Exactly my point.


Not sure who you're referring to... perhaps a slimeball sockpuppet? In any
case, my statement stands. You started off sounding intelligent and open to
debate, but now I see you were just pretending.

Em, there is no "open to debate" in this newsgroup, as much as I would
enjoy that. I have iterated and reiterated the point; the opposing
voices retreat to fallacy in nearly every debate to no avail.
Concordantly, definitions are massaged and skewed to bail out failed
arguments. Numerous times I have pointed out the ad hominem, the
various forms of ignoratio elenchi, the hasty generalization, begging
the question, etc. And every time I do, I'm assualted with additional
fallacies to conceal the previous use of fallacies. I deliberately
use an expired email addy for my e-nym in this NG, when I first
started posting here this summer, for the distinct purpose of
defeating the ad hominem argument. (As far as I know, only one person
that participates in this group knows my identity.) So, now, in order
to employ the ad hominem, antagonists have tried to put a face on me,
by comparing me to a former poster called "Reggie," whom I've yet to
see post in this group. Doing so facilitates the ad hominem,
especially the "circumstantial." And when I (or anyone else for that
matter) contend against common, 'designer' stereotypes such as "all
righties are simpies," which is patently false and blatantly
malicious, I'm again excoriated without due cause by those that hope
to foster that calumny. In my lifetime, I have seen, for whatever
reason, more compassion, munificence, benificence, philanthropy, and
charity from the Christian right than I have ever seen from the Left.
And I'm supposed to affirm the "compassion" of the left when its most
vocal representatives in this group are vituperative, malicious,
arrogant, narcissitic, duplicitous, churlish, sophistic, bellicose,
and belligerent? I don't include you in this group, Em. However, you
recently asked me if, in my reticence to condemn the demeaning of the
vocation of the community organizer, I was condoning the alleged
campaign to demean the vocation. I can ask the same of you. If you
remain indifferent to the banal ridicule, the wealth of informal
fallacies, and the contrived intellectual arrogance of your
colleagues, aren't you condoning those sordid behaviors?
I'll confess that I have allowed my indignation to get the best of me
in the last couple of notes, and I had already decided that I need to
remove myself from participating in any of these discussions for a
period. The spirit of the whole conversation tends to "dumb" me down,
as it were. I apologize if I have offended you, Em.
(I apologize, too, for any spelling, grammatical, or syntactical
errors, too. I don't have the time to proof this today.)

I'm assuming you expect her to understand?
--

John H

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:38:44 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:57:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:21:07 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:06:04 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
...is falling in the area now, so southerners must be abandoning
their
cars by the hundreds on the Capital Beltway.
As long as you get to say something ****ty about someone, your life
is
good, eh?
It's liberal compassion in action...

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


Give us a break with your sanctimonious comments.

snipped for the kiddies Sanctimonious comments are OUR rice bowl.

Exactly my point.


Not sure who you're referring to... perhaps a slimeball sockpuppet? In
any
case, my statement stands. You started off sounding intelligent and open
to
debate, but now I see you were just pretending.

Em, there is no "open to debate" in this newsgroup, as much as I would
enjoy that. I have iterated and reiterated the point; the opposing
voices retreat to fallacy in nearly every debate to no avail.
Concordantly, definitions are massaged and skewed to bail out failed
arguments. Numerous times I have pointed out the ad hominem, the
various forms of ignoratio elenchi, the hasty generalization, begging
the question, etc. And every time I do, I'm assualted with additional
fallacies to conceal the previous use of fallacies. I deliberately
use an expired email addy for my e-nym in this NG, when I first
started posting here this summer, for the distinct purpose of
defeating the ad hominem argument. (As far as I know, only one person
that participates in this group knows my identity.) So, now, in order
to employ the ad hominem, antagonists have tried to put a face on me,
by comparing me to a former poster called "Reggie," whom I've yet to
see post in this group. Doing so facilitates the ad hominem,
especially the "circumstantial." And when I (or anyone else for that
matter) contend against common, 'designer' stereotypes such as "all
righties are simpies," which is patently false and blatantly
malicious, I'm again excoriated without due cause by those that hope
to foster that calumny. In my lifetime, I have seen, for whatever
reason, more compassion, munificence, benificence, philanthropy, and
charity from the Christian right than I have ever seen from the Left.
And I'm supposed to affirm the "compassion" of the left when its most
vocal representatives in this group are vituperative, malicious,
arrogant, narcissitic, duplicitous, churlish, sophistic, bellicose,
and belligerent? I don't include you in this group, Em. However, you
recently asked me if, in my reticence to condemn the demeaning of the
vocation of the community organizer, I was condoning the alleged
campaign to demean the vocation. I can ask the same of you. If you
remain indifferent to the banal ridicule, the wealth of informal
fallacies, and the contrived intellectual arrogance of your
colleagues, aren't you condoning those sordid behaviors?
I'll confess that I have allowed my indignation to get the best of me
in the last couple of notes, and I had already decided that I need to
remove myself from participating in any of these discussions for a
period. The spirit of the whole conversation tends to "dumb" me down,
as it were. I apologize if I have offended you, Em.
(I apologize, too, for any spelling, grammatical, or syntactical
errors, too. I don't have the time to proof this today.)

I'm assuming you expect her to understand?
--

John H


I'm assuming you think you're actually a man.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:53:47 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:38:44 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:57:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:21:07 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:06:04 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
...is falling in the area now, so southerners must be abandoning
their
cars by the hundreds on the Capital Beltway.
As long as you get to say something ****ty about someone, your life is
good, eh?
It's liberal compassion in action...

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


Give us a break with your sanctimonious comments.

snipped for the kiddies Sanctimonious comments are OUR rice bowl.

Exactly my point.


Not sure who you're referring to... perhaps a slimeball sockpuppet? In any
case, my statement stands. You started off sounding intelligent and open to
debate, but now I see you were just pretending.

Em, there is no "open to debate" in this newsgroup, as much as I would
enjoy that. I have iterated and reiterated the point; the opposing
voices retreat to fallacy in nearly every debate to no avail.
Concordantly, definitions are massaged and skewed to bail out failed
arguments. Numerous times I have pointed out the ad hominem, the
various forms of ignoratio elenchi, the hasty generalization, begging
the question, etc. And every time I do, I'm assualted with additional
fallacies to conceal the previous use of fallacies. I deliberately
use an expired email addy for my e-nym in this NG, when I first
started posting here this summer, for the distinct purpose of
defeating the ad hominem argument. (As far as I know, only one person
that participates in this group knows my identity.) So, now, in order
to employ the ad hominem, antagonists have tried to put a face on me,
by comparing me to a former poster called "Reggie," whom I've yet to
see post in this group. Doing so facilitates the ad hominem,
especially the "circumstantial." And when I (or anyone else for that
matter) contend against common, 'designer' stereotypes such as "all
righties are simpies," which is patently false and blatantly
malicious, I'm again excoriated without due cause by those that hope
to foster that calumny. In my lifetime, I have seen, for whatever
reason, more compassion, munificence, benificence, philanthropy, and
charity from the Christian right than I have ever seen from the Left.
And I'm supposed to affirm the "compassion" of the left when its most
vocal representatives in this group are vituperative, malicious,
arrogant, narcissitic, duplicitous, churlish, sophistic, bellicose,
and belligerent? I don't include you in this group, Em. However, you
recently asked me if, in my reticence to condemn the demeaning of the
vocation of the community organizer, I was condoning the alleged
campaign to demean the vocation. I can ask the same of you. If you
remain indifferent to the banal ridicule, the wealth of informal
fallacies, and the contrived intellectual arrogance of your
colleagues, aren't you condoning those sordid behaviors?
I'll confess that I have allowed my indignation to get the best of me
in the last couple of notes, and I had already decided that I need to
remove myself from participating in any of these discussions for a
period. The spirit of the whole conversation tends to "dumb" me down,
as it were. I apologize if I have offended you, Em.
(I apologize, too, for any spelling, grammatical, or syntactical
errors, too. I don't have the time to proof this today.)

I'm assuming you expect her to understand?

I was expecting too much apparently.

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

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:51:03 -0500, John H
wrote:

Not unless you hit every third ball into the woods, never to be seen
again. :-)

Sounds like my normal MO. I always start with three new balls.

That would last me about 6 holes on a good day, one of the reasons I
became a pool player instead.