Do you believe your opinions are more creditable than others?

To whom?

Be careful not to confuse credible with creditable. That which is credible is
worthy of belief or agreement. That which is creditable is worthy of applause.

For example: You state "Gould is the most
bigoted, closed-minded person I ever met",
(or attempted to state same), and whether or not anyone found your sentiment
credible, one of the usual high-fivers found it creditable.

I believe that insults and/or opinions conveyed by clumsy or careless language
are more than usually revealing. Insults always indicate more about the
insulter than his or her subject, but nothing beats a classic like, "I think
their is plenty of evidence that you is stupid."

My advice to you, or to anyone else who cares to express opinions about other
individuals, would be to frame those observations in complete sentences with
some attention to grammar and syntax.

It is so easy to sound juvenile when making negative personal comments. It
becomes more important to avoid a sloppy, careless, use of the language
that reinforces an impression that you'll have to get off line when Dad gets
home and catches you playing with his computer.

Didn't you just say " To slip any lower, I'd have to begin posting insults
and negative personal comments when I run out of points in a debate"??

My, my my.


That seems to be Gould's new MO.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gossip

It looks like you realize you have lost the debate and now are resorting to
personal insults concerning my sentence structure and syntax. Gould, this
is not the New Yorker. This is Usenet and it is common for people to jot
off quick retorts and they will make typos and/or grammatical errors.

The fact still stands that you are extremely bigoted against those who have
different beliefs or values.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Do you believe your opinions are more creditable than others?

To whom?

Be careful not to confuse credible with creditable. That which is credible
is
worthy of belief or agreement. That which is creditable is worthy of
applause.

For example: You state "Gould is the most
bigoted, closed-minded person I ever met",
(or attempted to state same), and whether or not anyone found your
sentiment
credible, one of the usual high-fivers found it creditable.

I believe that insults and/or opinions conveyed by clumsy or careless
language
are more than usually revealing. Insults always indicate more about the
insulter than his or her subject, but nothing beats a classic like, "I
think
their is plenty of evidence that you is stupid."

My advice to you, or to anyone else who cares to express opinions about
other
individuals, would be to frame those observations in complete sentences
with
some attention to grammar and syntax.

It is so easy to sound juvenile when making negative personal comments. It
becomes more important to avoid a sloppy, careless, use of the language
that reinforces an impression that you'll have to get off line when Dad
gets
home and catches you playing with his computer.

Your bigotry extends beyond beliefs and values. It extends to where someone
decides to live. If they live in the city, they are wonderful and
progressive. If they live in the suburbs they are just lily white
conformist. You seem to see everything in black or white. Gould, the world
is not as binary as you would like to believe.



"Dr. Dr. Smithers" wrote in message
news:eZgld.26531$V41.26299@attbi_s52...
It looks like you realize you have lost the debate and now are resorting
to personal insults concerning my sentence structure and syntax. Gould,
this is not the New Yorker. This is Usenet and it is common for people to
jot off quick retorts and they will make typos and/or grammatical errors.

The fact still stands that you are extremely bigoted against those who
have different beliefs or values.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Do you believe your opinions are more creditable than others?

To whom?

Be careful not to confuse credible with creditable. That which is
credible is
worthy of belief or agreement. That which is creditable is worthy of
applause.

For example: You state "Gould is the most
bigoted, closed-minded person I ever met",
(or attempted to state same), and whether or not anyone found your
sentiment
credible, one of the usual high-fivers found it creditable.

I believe that insults and/or opinions conveyed by clumsy or careless
language
are more than usually revealing. Insults always indicate more about the
insulter than his or her subject, but nothing beats a classic like, "I
think
their is plenty of evidence that you is stupid."

My advice to you, or to anyone else who cares to express opinions about
other
individuals, would be to frame those observations in complete sentences
with
some attention to grammar and syntax.

It is so easy to sound juvenile when making negative personal comments.
It
becomes more important to avoid a sloppy, careless, use of the language
that reinforces an impression that you'll have to get off line when Dad
gets
home and catches you playing with his computer.

It looks like you realize you have lost the debate and now are resorting to
personal insults concerning my sentence structure and syntax.

No dice, Doc. When you introduce the concept "Gould is an asshole....." to a
discussion you have broached a subject
over which there is little or any debate. Gould is an asshole. Operational
difference between Gould and some of the rest of the assholes here 'bouts is
that he isn't a non-boating asshole trolling through rec.boats for purposes of
picking fights with one specific poster and then expanding the mission to
include anybody who might seem slightly philosophically aligned with the
initial target.

Gould, this
is not the New Yorker. This is Usenet and it is common for people to jot
off quick retorts and they will make typos and/or grammatical errors.

It's more common for some than for others.

Sloppy grammar is a sign of intellectual sloth, at best, and wears awkwardly on
those who presume to criticize others for their deductive reasoning processes
and conclusions.

The fact still stands that you are extremely bigoted against those who have
different beliefs or values.

Naw, just against other assholes like myself. Maybe a little moreso against
intellectual weaklings who run out of ammo somewhere around the second volley
and start pitching dirty little insult turds ( an emotional payoff practice
suspected more frequently now to be the only reason they appeared to engage in
debate in the first place) rather than comparing and contrasting ideas and
perspectives.

Your bigotry extends beyond beliefs and values. It extends to where someone

How funny. A supposedly grown man who selects the "send" function, and then has
to jump back in with a fresh post because he realizes there is still some venom
left in the sac. :-)

Grade yourself an A for this one. You
exceed all previous expectations.

On 13 Nov 2004 02:30:24 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Very often on the news, I'll hear an announcer say something like,
"The subject was a black male, about 200 lbs. and about six feet tall,
etc." Is that wrong? Is that a racial slur? Or is it simply a fact?

If the description is offered as part of an appeal to help locate somebody who
is suspected of a crime, that's completely legitimate. You also hear, "The
suspect is a white male, 35-40 years of age, with a shaved head and heavily
tattooed." In such a case, the description *is* the news.

Exactly, and providing a description is not a racial slur.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On 13 Nov 2004 01:21:10 GMT, (Florida Keyz) wrote:

you guys wasted 40 posts on this subject? Der!

How would you know, if we've all been 'ploinked'?
John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It looks like you realize you have lost the debate and now are resorting
to
personal insults concerning my sentence structure and syntax.

No dice, Doc. When you introduce the concept "Gould is an asshole....." to
a
discussion you have broached a subject
over which there is little or any debate.

You are correct. That concept is not debatable.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It looks like you realize you have lost the debate and now are resorting
to
personal insults concerning my sentence structure and syntax.

No dice, Doc. When you introduce the concept "Gould is an asshole....."
to a
discussion you have broached a subject
over which there is little or any debate.

You are correct. That concept is not debatable.


Sorry Chuck, I just could not resist. ;-)