My first...
 

On 1/7/2015 5:26 PM, 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.



Well, if you are really doing science you have to take into
consideration that those 6 probably hate you becasue you have acted like
such an asshole for so long, stalked, threatened, and blackmailed
posters here for over a decade? Did you take all of that into consideration?

My first...
 

On 1/7/2015 7:11 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/7/2015 5:26 PM, 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.



Well, if you are really doing science you have to take into
consideration that those 6 probably hate you becasue you have acted like
such an asshole for so long, stalked, threatened, and blackmailed
posters here for over a decade? Did you take all of that into
consideration?

Hate is much to strong a word. I have very little emotion of any sort to
spare for him. I can understand if you hate him though. He's been
exceptionally cruel, condescending, and hurtful to you.

--


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

My first...
 

On 1/7/2015 7:30 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/7/2015 7:11 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/7/2015 5:26 PM, 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.



Well, if you are really doing science you have to take into
consideration that those 6 probably hate you becasue you have acted like
such an asshole for so long, stalked, threatened, and blackmailed
posters here for over a decade? Did you take all of that into
consideration?

Hate is much to strong a word. I have very little emotion of any sort to
spare for him. I can understand if you hate him though. He's been
exceptionally cruel, condescending, and hurtful to you.


Well, in the interest of science.... yup....

My first...
 

On 1/7/15 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!



A good cunning linguist is in much demand among the ladies.

My first...
 

On 1/7/15 6:13 PM, 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.


The real Gohmert doesn't post here and therefore is not part of my
decision to not directly insult other posters here. It's not that subtle.

My first...
 

On 1/7/15 6:24 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
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.



My positions on religion are not aimed at individuals here. I don't, for
example, claim you are a flaming asshole for being an adherent of the
Wiccan religion, for example. :)

My first...
 

On 1/7/15 7:11 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/7/2015 5:26 PM, 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.



Well, if you are really doing science you have to take into
consideration that those 6 probably hate you becasue you have acted like
such an asshole for so long, stalked, threatened, and blackmailed
posters here for over a decade? Did you take all of that into
consideration?


It's not science...it's just a little experiment. And, once again, how
posters behave here is not up to me...it is up to them.

My first...
 

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:24:28 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

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.

===

I find that less abhorent than his stated desire to have an
incompetent idealogue in a high public office.

My first...
 

On 1/7/15 7:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:24:28 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

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.

===

I find that less abhorent than his stated desire to have an
incompetent idealogue in a high public office.


If you are referring to Louis Gohmert and my comment about him, he
already is in high public office.

It is an interesting phenomenon that so many Republican officeholders
and wannabes at all levels are like Gohmert in so many ways. I am not
saying there are no bat**** crazy Dems, but not nearly as many as in the
GOP.

My first...
 

On 1/7/2015 7:43 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/15 6:13 PM, 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.


The real Gohmert doesn't post here and therefore is not part of my
decision to not directly insult other posters here. It's not that subtle.

So, you want to make the rules again... seriously, **** off...