Being Anti-Intellectual
 

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:41:28 -0500, John H wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:36:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:
Jim wrote:
Don White wrote:
jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses
Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for
"educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most
of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely
had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so
smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best
leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by
definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most
"intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for
proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican',
'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely
gone
haywire and can't even think straight.
I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I
can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the
club. Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.
Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between you
and harry, do you?

Wouldn't be me, though. I can't come at all.
This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him
is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone.

That and the 'eternal-september' stuff. No one ever said he was too
bright, except Donnie, and maybe the plum. Oh no, she was talking
about herself.

They left you outside in the cold.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:


Harry wrote:

Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:

Don White wrote:

jps wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500,
wrote:


Loogypicker wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:

On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, wrote:

David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses
Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running
things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for
"educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most
of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known
rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure
it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so
smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best
leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their
followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by
definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most
"intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.

So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for
proving
my point!

Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican',
'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've
completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.

I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out.
I can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the
club. Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.

Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between you
and harry, do you?

Wouldn't be me, though. I can't come at all.

This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing
him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool
anyone.

Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart
for you turd blossoms.

That's becauuse I am Flajim and I will spoof whoever I want. Nah Nah Nah

Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

Bruce wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:


Harry wrote:

Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:

Don White wrote:

jps wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500,
wrote:


Loogypicker wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:

On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, wrote:

David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses
Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running
things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for
"educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most
of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known
rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never
expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to
lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure
it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so
smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best
leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their
followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by
definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most
"intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.

So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for
proving
my point!

Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican',
'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've
completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.

I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out.
I can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate
area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima
syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the
club. Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.

Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between you
and harry, do you?

Wouldn't be me, though. I can't come at all.

This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing
him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool
anyone.

Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart
for you turd blossoms.

That's becauuse I am Flajim and I will spoof whoever I want. Nah Nah Nah

Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?



From what I can see here on my perch of scientific authority, jim is
getting some of his own medicine.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
Bruce wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:


Harry wrote:

Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:

Don White wrote:

jps wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500,
wrote:


Loogypicker wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:

On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, wrote:

David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses
Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running
things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for
"educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact,
most
of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known
rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never
expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me
to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure
it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so
smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best
leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their
followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by
definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most
"intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.

So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama
about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is?
Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for
proving
my point!

Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican',
'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've
completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.

I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him
out.
I can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate
area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima
syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the
club. Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.

Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between
you
and harry, do you?

Wouldn't be me, though. I can't come at all.

This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing
him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to
fool
anyone.

Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart
for you turd blossoms.

That's becauuse I am Flajim and I will spoof whoever I want. Nah Nah
Nah

Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?



From what I can see here on my perch of scientific authority, jim is
getting some of his own medicine.

Serves him right. He's about driven me nuts.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:38:03 -0500, Bruce wrote:

John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:

snipped


Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?


Nope. This line is Harry:

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:40:09 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:


Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?



From what I can see here on my perch of scientific authority, jim is
getting some of his own medicine.


Not Tom either:

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:38:03 -0500, Bruce wrote:

John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:

snipped


Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?


Nope. This line is Harry:

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)



Liar!

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:47:44 -0500, dumbass jimmie wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:40:09 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:


Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?



From what I can see here on my perch of scientific authority, jim is
getting some of his own medicine.


Not Tom either:

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)

WOW! How do ypou do that?

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

On 1/8/2010 11:27 AM, Jonn wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:47:44 -0500, dumbass jimmie wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:40:09 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, wrote:


Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention.

The headers are the same. What's the deal?



From what I can see here on my perch of scientific authority, jim is
getting some of his own medicine.


Not Tom either:

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)

WOW! How do ypou do that?



Just click on "read all headers" or whatever in whichever usenet reader
you use.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

In article 90169ca5-973c-4db9-85f0-857f0e22a867
@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 6, 8:59*am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. *GUILTY AS CHARGED, I
plead. *Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". *The reality is that being academically educated has nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. *The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. *I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. *The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.

So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!

Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

*You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.

I