On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:32:27 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:50:03 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:25 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue
beyond some weighted geographic issues....

The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver...

You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last
few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack
depth of experience.

And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time?

Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist
Academy for several years.

In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes......
I judge, from your posts, that you haven't.

You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled.

Well... that explains a LOT..... again, you are waxing eloquent about
a subject you have no knowledge or personal experience.

I thought you were an idiot..... I didn't realize you just didn't know
what you were talking about..... OK...... I'm good.....

The sensible and honest reader will note that I have refrained from
making any statements of fact that would lead one to believe that the
author of these lines is an expert in homeschooling. In fact, I doubt
that a challenge to corroborate such an assertion would yield much
evidence that this humble person made any statements of fact in this
regard. What this person did do, aside from making a few meager
inquiries, was to illustrate the poor thinking of a pontificating,
ultra-resplendent academician. And it would appear from the knee-jerk
response of the Infallible Erudite from the Great Halls of Conceit,
that the sting of that illustration was...tangible.

Wow! I thought Spiro T. Agnew passed in 1996, but perhaps you are
channeling him...

No meager inquiries, in fact, you admitted to being condescending.

If fact appears to you as pontification and academia offends you as
being too intellectual, please feel comfortable in your liberal yet
parochial views. You will surely find comfort as others, here, have
posted with respect to the evils of intellectuals, so you should be
able to find many soul mates....

I didn't note any illustration, but if the images in your mind give
your comfort, please enjoy them.

In the future, please let me know if you are responding with eloquent
verbiage, rather than any experience or knowledge on the subject. It
will greatly enhance the reader's experience..... Generally, I prefer
to have discourse with folks that have knowledge of a subject, rather
than a patter of magical words...

Who's going to permit you to find refuge in the red herring? There is
nothing to suggest that I'm anti-intellectual in any of this
discourse. What should be obvious, even to you, is that I oppose
conceit. Experience is not the issue when you have served up a game
of feigned intellectualism replete with examples of poor thinking. Are
you able to redeem yourself? To put the onus on lack of experience is
disingenuous, when the term itself is broad and generic. If my
experience is in the dialectic, do you bear the conceit to deny it?
All you have to do to play your game is to put the focus on my
verbiage. You, my conceited fellow, are in error.

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:32:27 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:50:03 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:25 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene
wrote:

snipped for brevity
Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue
beyond some weighted geographic issues....

The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver...

You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last
few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack
depth of experience.
And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time?
Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist
Academy for several years.

In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes......
I judge, from your posts, that you haven't.
You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled.
Well... that explains a LOT..... again, you are waxing eloquent about
a subject you have no knowledge or personal experience.

I thought you were an idiot..... I didn't realize you just didn't know
what you were talking about..... OK...... I'm good.....
The sensible and honest reader will note that I have refrained from
making any statements of fact that would lead one to believe that the
author of these lines is an expert in homeschooling. In fact, I doubt
that a challenge to corroborate such an assertion would yield much
evidence that this humble person made any statements of fact in this
regard. What this person did do, aside from making a few meager
inquiries, was to illustrate the poor thinking of a pontificating,
ultra-resplendent academician. And it would appear from the knee-jerk
response of the Infallible Erudite from the Great Halls of Conceit,
that the sting of that illustration was...tangible.
Wow! I thought Spiro T. Agnew passed in 1996, but perhaps you are
channeling him...

No meager inquiries, in fact, you admitted to being condescending.

If fact appears to you as pontification and academia offends you as
being too intellectual, please feel comfortable in your liberal yet
parochial views. You will surely find comfort as others, here, have
posted with respect to the evils of intellectuals, so you should be
able to find many soul mates....

I didn't note any illustration, but if the images in your mind give
your comfort, please enjoy them.

In the future, please let me know if you are responding with eloquent
verbiage, rather than any experience or knowledge on the subject. It
will greatly enhance the reader's experience..... Generally, I prefer
to have discourse with folks that have knowledge of a subject, rather
than a patter of magical words...

Who's going to permit you to find refuge in the red herring? There is
nothing to suggest that I'm anti-intellectual in any of this
discourse. What should be obvious, even to you, is that I oppose
conceit. Experience is not the issue when you have served up a game
of feigned intellectualism replete with examples of poor thinking. Are
you able to redeem yourself? To put the onus on lack of experience is
disingenuous, when the term itself is broad and generic. If my
experience is in the dialectic, do you bear the conceit to deny it?
All you have to do to play your game is to put the focus on my
verbiage. You, my conceited fellow, are in error.

Frankly, you have nothing to offer but overblown "verbiage."

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:35:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:32:27 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:50:03 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:25 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene
wrote:

snipped for brevity
Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue
beyond some weighted geographic issues....

The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver...

You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last
few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack
depth of experience.
And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time?
Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist
Academy for several years.

In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes......
I judge, from your posts, that you haven't.
You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled.
Well... that explains a LOT..... again, you are waxing eloquent about
a subject you have no knowledge or personal experience.

I thought you were an idiot..... I didn't realize you just didn't know
what you were talking about..... OK...... I'm good.....
The sensible and honest reader will note that I have refrained from
making any statements of fact that would lead one to believe that the
author of these lines is an expert in homeschooling. In fact, I doubt
that a challenge to corroborate such an assertion would yield much
evidence that this humble person made any statements of fact in this
regard. What this person did do, aside from making a few meager
inquiries, was to illustrate the poor thinking of a pontificating,
ultra-resplendent academician. And it would appear from the knee-jerk
response of the Infallible Erudite from the Great Halls of Conceit,
that the sting of that illustration was...tangible.
Wow! I thought Spiro T. Agnew passed in 1996, but perhaps you are
channeling him...

No meager inquiries, in fact, you admitted to being condescending.

If fact appears to you as pontification and academia offends you as
being too intellectual, please feel comfortable in your liberal yet
parochial views. You will surely find comfort as others, here, have
posted with respect to the evils of intellectuals, so you should be
able to find many soul mates....

I didn't note any illustration, but if the images in your mind give
your comfort, please enjoy them.

In the future, please let me know if you are responding with eloquent
verbiage, rather than any experience or knowledge on the subject. It
will greatly enhance the reader's experience..... Generally, I prefer
to have discourse with folks that have knowledge of a subject, rather
than a patter of magical words...

Who's going to permit you to find refuge in the red herring? There is
nothing to suggest that I'm anti-intellectual in any of this
discourse. What should be obvious, even to you, is that I oppose
conceit. Experience is not the issue when you have served up a game
of feigned intellectualism replete with examples of poor thinking. Are
you able to redeem yourself? To put the onus on lack of experience is
disingenuous, when the term itself is broad and generic. If my
experience is in the dialectic, do you bear the conceit to deny it?
All you have to do to play your game is to put the focus on my
verbiage. You, my conceited fellow, are in error.

Frankly, you have nothing to offer but overblown "verbiage."

Then I would suggest that you have limited experience in
comprehension.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:35:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:32:27 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:50:03 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:25 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene
wrote:

snipped for brevity
Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue
beyond some weighted geographic issues....

The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver...

You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last
few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack
depth of experience.
And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time?
Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist
Academy for several years.

In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes......
I judge, from your posts, that you haven't.
You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled.
Well... that explains a LOT..... again, you are waxing eloquent about
a subject you have no knowledge or personal experience.

I thought you were an idiot..... I didn't realize you just didn't know
what you were talking about..... OK...... I'm good.....
The sensible and honest reader will note that I have refrained from
making any statements of fact that would lead one to believe that the
author of these lines is an expert in homeschooling. In fact, I doubt
that a challenge to corroborate such an assertion would yield much
evidence that this humble person made any statements of fact in this
regard. What this person did do, aside from making a few meager
inquiries, was to illustrate the poor thinking of a pontificating,
ultra-resplendent academician. And it would appear from the knee-jerk
response of the Infallible Erudite from the Great Halls of Conceit,
that the sting of that illustration was...tangible.
Wow! I thought Spiro T. Agnew passed in 1996, but perhaps you are
channeling him...

No meager inquiries, in fact, you admitted to being condescending.

If fact appears to you as pontification and academia offends you as
being too intellectual, please feel comfortable in your liberal yet
parochial views. You will surely find comfort as others, here, have
posted with respect to the evils of intellectuals, so you should be
able to find many soul mates....

I didn't note any illustration, but if the images in your mind give
your comfort, please enjoy them.

In the future, please let me know if you are responding with eloquent
verbiage, rather than any experience or knowledge on the subject. It
will greatly enhance the reader's experience..... Generally, I prefer
to have discourse with folks that have knowledge of a subject, rather
than a patter of magical words...
Who's going to permit you to find refuge in the red herring? There is
nothing to suggest that I'm anti-intellectual in any of this
discourse. What should be obvious, even to you, is that I oppose
conceit. Experience is not the issue when you have served up a game
of feigned intellectualism replete with examples of poor thinking. Are
you able to redeem yourself? To put the onus on lack of experience is
disingenuous, when the term itself is broad and generic. If my
experience is in the dialectic, do you bear the conceit to deny it?
All you have to do to play your game is to put the focus on my
verbiage. You, my conceited fellow, are in error.

Frankly, you have nothing to offer but overblown "verbiage."

Then I would suggest that you have limited experience in
comprehension.

You can suggest whatever you wish, but that doesn't mean your
suggestions are worthy of consideration. I've read enough of the
overblown, overwritten crap you post here to know there's nothing there,
and that includes a critical discussion of ideas. Frankly, in terms of
usenet discussions, you remind me of a gaseous anomaly, i.e., someone
who is always farting or burping.




--
Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles.

Harry wrote:
Frankly, in terms of
usenet discussions, you remind me of a gaseous anomaly, i.e., someone
who is always farting or burping.




Folks.
Here is an example of my finest work. I offer it to you as a token to
remember your humble servant Harry Krause.
Go in peace.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:35:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Frankly, you have nothing to offer but overblown "verbiage."

Then I would suggest that you have limited experience in
comprehension.

BINGO

Harry wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:35:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Frankly, you have nothing to offer but overblown "verbiage."

Then I would suggest that you have limited experience in
comprehension.

BINGO


Ahhh...flajim or loogy or whoever made it through another night to ID
spoof yet again. Yawn.

--
Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles.