On 1/6/2015 10:58 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/6/2015 9:05 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:11:47 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...political disappointment of 2015:

On Sunday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) released a statement announcing
his intention to challenge Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) for the speaker's
gavel. The five-term congressman from northeastern Texas says he was
"urged" by colleagues and friends, who were fed up with the
insufficiently conservative leadership of Boehner, to seek the position.

Sadly for those of us who like Gohmert’s combination of stupidity,
ignorance, and insanity, he lost his bid for Speaker of the House,
earning just three votes.

Behavior?


He's dancing around again... nothing has changed. For whatever reason he
is playing but a ten year history tells us as soon as he is done with
whatever game he's playing he will be right back to his old tricks...

His modified behaviour will soon give way to his nasty old ways. His
little experiment in his ability to set the newsgroup "tone" has been a
roaring success. It is clear now that he alone is responsible for the
nastiness of rec.boats postings.

--


I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off!
Respectfully submitted by Justan

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 07:43:46 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

It is clear now that he alone is responsible for the
nastiness of rec.boats postings.

===

I think we knew that.

On 1/7/15 4:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.



1. Yes.

2. I have.

You and several of your buds seem determined to set a negative tone here
and to see if you can "bait." Have fun with that.

On 1/7/2015 4:48 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/15 4:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.



1. Yes.

2. I have.

You and several of your buds seem determined to set a negative tone here
and to see if you can "bait." Have fun with that.


Well, with all due respect it would be nice to hear from you why you
acted like you did for so many years, and why now all the change all of
a sudden?

On 1/7/15 4:56 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/7/2015 4:48 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/15 4:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.



1. Yes.

2. I have.

You and several of your buds seem determined to set a negative tone here
and to see if you can "bait." Have fun with that.


Well, with all due respect it would be nice to hear from you why you
acted like you did for so many years, and why now all the change all of
a sudden?

I'll be glad to at least partially respond.

I mentioned a couple of times here my college minor was sociology,
which, briefly, can involve the study of group behavior. I'm still a
student of sociology.

Over the years, *I* have been accused of being responsible for the
"snarliness" in this newsgroup. I thought the reality was that there
were many posters here who acted snarly.

So, as part of an experiment, I decided to stop making snarly posts
about other posters here. I implemented that decision what, three weeks
to a month ago? I forgot.

Another part of the experiment was to see if I could predict which
posters here would remain snarly in the absence of snarliness from me. I
predicted five or six would continue to make snarly remarks about other
posters. So far, my prediction has come true.

I've stated many times that posters here are solely responsible for what
they post and that they cannot blame others for their behavior. That was
my hypothesis. That the snarliness here continues in the absence of such
behavior from me seems to prove my hypothesis was correct.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:26:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/7/15 4:56 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/7/2015 4:48 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/15 4:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.



1. Yes.

2. I have.

You and several of your buds seem determined to set a negative tone here
and to see if you can "bait." Have fun with that.


Well, with all due respect it would be nice to hear from you why you
acted like you did for so many years, and why now all the change all of
a sudden?

I'll be glad to at least partially respond.

I mentioned a couple of times here my college minor was sociology,
which, briefly, can involve the study of group behavior. I'm still a
student of sociology.

Over the years, *I* have been accused of being responsible for the
"snarliness" in this newsgroup. I thought the reality was that there
were many posters here who acted snarly.

So, as part of an experiment, I decided to stop making snarly posts
about other posters here. I implemented that decision what, three weeks
to a month ago? I forgot.

Another part of the experiment was to see if I could predict which
posters here would remain snarly in the absence of snarliness from me. I
predicted five or six would continue to make snarly remarks about other
posters. So far, my prediction has come true.

I've stated many times that posters here are solely responsible for what
they post and that they cannot blame others for their behavior. That was
my hypothesis. That the snarliness here continues in the absence of such
behavior from me seems to prove my hypothesis was correct.


And I'll bet your buddies will eat that right up!

Talk about cunning linguists!

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:26:39 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.

===

PS, I don't consider that post to be even the slightest bit snarly. In
light of your stated desire to have a lunatic as speaker just because
you'd consider it funny, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question.
Back up from your keyboard and read your own posts.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:13:54 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:26:39 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.

===

PS, I don't consider that post to be even the slightest bit snarly. In
light of your stated desire to have a lunatic as speaker just because
you'd consider it funny, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question.
Back up from your keyboard and read your own posts.

He, et al, consider his anti-religion crap to be 'normal, sociable'
behavior.

On 1/7/2015 6:08 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:26:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/7/15 4:56 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/7/2015 4:48 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/15 4:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 05:58:40 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. A lunatic like Gohmert would have been a lot
of fun as speaker.

===

Have you ever, once, thought about what would be good for the country?

You should try it.



1. Yes.

2. I have.

You and several of your buds seem determined to set a negative tone here
and to see if you can "bait." Have fun with that.


Well, with all due respect it would be nice to hear from you why you
acted like you did for so many years, and why now all the change all of
a sudden?

I'll be glad to at least partially respond.

I mentioned a couple of times here my college minor was sociology,
which, briefly, can involve the study of group behavior. I'm still a
student of sociology.

Over the years, *I* have been accused of being responsible for the
"snarliness" in this newsgroup. I thought the reality was that there
were many posters here who acted snarly.

So, as part of an experiment, I decided to stop making snarly posts
about other posters here. I implemented that decision what, three weeks
to a month ago? I forgot.

Another part of the experiment was to see if I could predict which
posters here would remain snarly in the absence of snarliness from me. I
predicted five or six would continue to make snarly remarks about other
posters. So far, my prediction has come true.

I've stated many times that posters here are solely responsible for what
they post and that they cannot blame others for their behavior. That was
my hypothesis. That the snarliness here continues in the absence of such
behavior from me seems to prove my hypothesis was correct.


And I'll bet your buddies will eat that right up!

Talk about cunning linguists!

Why? You know how excitable Harry is.

--


I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off!
Respectfully submitted by Justan