Question for Witlessmongrel

[George M. Middius]

Whose fault is it that you're an idiot?

I'm not saying it's your own fault. For all I know, you were born the
way we find you now. I'm sure there's something wrong with you
organically, either something congenital or something that, uh, happened
to you.

The reason I ask is you keep complaining that Normals want to muzzle or
censor you. You also keep whining when we complain about your stupid
yapping. Whine, whine, whine. Yap, yap, yap. Regardless of how you
choose to interpret our comments about your stupidity, we are not trying
to shut you up. We are trying to motivate you to think about what you're
saying. At least a little. Admittedly, nobody has succeeded at all yet.
But the same thing keeps happening every time you get into an argument:
Somebody tries to drag you toward the light of truth, and you run away
bitching and name-calling.

We can't help believing if, instead of making noise all the time, you
took a moment to reflect on what's being said to you, that you might
actually absorb a little insight. That's why we tell you you're being
stupid. And yes, I am speaking for many RAOers, despite your desperate
desire to deny it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 14, 10:53 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Whose fault is it that you're an idiot?
>
> I'm not saying it's your own fault. For all I know, you were born the
> way we find you now. I'm sure there's something wrong with you
> organically, either something congenital or something that, uh, happened
> to you.
>
> The reason I ask is you keep complaining that Normals want to muzzle or
> censor you. You also keep whining when we complain about your stupid
> yapping. Whine, whine, whine. Yap, yap, yap. Regardless of how you
> choose to interpret our comments about your stupidity, we are not trying
> to shut you up. We are trying to motivate you to think about what you're
> saying. At least a little. Admittedly, nobody has succeeded at all yet.
> But the same thing keeps happening every time you get into an argument:
> Somebody tries to drag you toward the light of truth, and you run away
> bitching and name-calling.
>
> We can't help believing if, instead of making noise all the time, you
> took a moment to reflect on what's being said to you, that you might
> actually absorb a little insight. That's why we tell you you're being
> stupid. And yes, I am speaking for many RAOers, despite your desperate
> desire to deny it.

Excellent post, George. I think, however, that you've used words that
are going to be over 2pid's head. I saw several three (and even a few
four) syllable words.

Please consider your audience in the future.

TIA!

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Whose fault is it that you're an idiot?

> > I'm not saying it's your own fault. For all I know, you were born the
> > way we find you now. I'm sure there's something wrong with you
> > organically, either something congenital or something that, uh, happened
> > to you.

> > The reason I ask is you keep complaining that Normals want to muzzle or
> > censor you. You also keep whining when we complain about your stupid
> > yapping. Whine, whine, whine. Yap, yap, yap. Regardless of how you
> > choose to interpret our comments about your stupidity, we are not trying
> > to shut you up. We are trying to motivate you to think about what you're
> > saying. At least a little. Admittedly, nobody has succeeded at all yet.
> > But the same thing keeps happening every time you get into an argument:
> > Somebody tries to drag you toward the light of truth, and you run away
> > bitching and name-calling.

> > We can't help believing if, instead of making noise all the time, you
> > took a moment to reflect on what's being said to you, that you might
> > actually absorb a little insight. That's why we tell you you're being
> > stupid. And yes, I am speaking for many RAOers, despite your desperate
> > desire to deny it.

> Excellent post, George.

Thank you, Shhhh.

> I think, however, that you've used words that
> are going to be over 2pid's head. I saw several three (and even a few
> four) syllable words.

Uh-oh. Right you are. My bad.

> Please consider your audience in the future.

Many of us have made the same mistake. You know how it is -- you get
caught up in your own train of thought, and you forget that the
individual you're trying to instruct in self-improvement is an imbecile.

I have a proposal for this situation. We Smart Guys should review each
other's "Scottie can do better" posts. When the reviewer notes a word
that is likely beyond Scottie's language skills, he or she should post a
reply with definitions (or links to definitions) of the questionable
word(s). In this case, the first reviewer would be you, and you would
then make a post like this:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

organically (adv): as an important constituent; "the drapery served
organically to cover the Madonna"

congenital (adj): relating to a condition that is present at birth

interpret (vt): to give or provide the meaning of

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Of course, these aren't the only definitions of the polysyllabic words I
used. However, when you're talking to Scottie, it's best to restrict his
field of vision by giving only the definition that fits the context.


If you and other volunteers would like to participate, we can work
together to help Scottie get a little smarter, or at least act a little
smarter.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 14, 12:08 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:

> Many of us have made the same mistake. You know how it is -- you get
> caught up in your own train of thought, and you forget that the
> individual you're trying to instruct in self-improvement is an imbecile.

It's also really really hard work (my apologies to W for plagiarism)
to dumb down posts to the point that 2pid can understand them.

> I have a proposal for this situation. We Smart Guys should review each
> other's "Scottie can do better" posts. When the reviewer notes a word
> that is likely beyond Scottie's language skills, he or she should post a
> reply with definitions (or links to definitions) of the questionable
> word(s). In this case, the first reviewer would be you, and you would
> then make a post like this:

I still foresee disaster, though. Here are potential 2pid responses:

> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

"LoL! I obviously know English far more better than you."

> organically (adv): as an important constituent; "the drapery served
> organically to cover the Madonna"

"The music organically filled the church with sound."

> congenital (adj): relating to a condition that is present at birth

"The newcomer was very congenitally welcomed."

> interpret (vt): to give or provide the meaning of

"I interpreted the data into the computer."

LoL! Nice try, troll."

> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Normally when confronted with somebody whose grasp on English is very
weak (like someone who just arrived from Bangladesh), I try to speak
very, very slowly and use gestures when appropriate. That's not
possible on the Usenet.

We can try, but I'm not sanguine about the outcome.

> Of course, these aren't the only definitions of the polysyllabic words I
> used. However, when you're talking to Scottie, it's best to restrict his
> field of vision by giving only the definition that fits the context.

Or maybe we can figure out a way to use a whiteboard on RAO, so we can
draw 2pid pictures.

> If you and other volunteers would like to participate, we can work
> together to help Scottie get a little smarter, or at least act a little
> smarter.

As I said, I'm willing to try, but I suspect that will have little
affect on 2pid. Yes, I truly believe he's that dense.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Many of us have made the same mistake. You know how it is -- you get
> > caught up in your own train of thought, and you forget that the
> > individual you're trying to instruct in self-improvement is an imbecile.

> It's also really really hard work (my apologies to W for plagiarism)
> to dumb down posts to the point that 2pid can understand them.

Has anybody been doing that? I sure haven't.

> > I have a proposal for this situation. We Smart Guys should review each
> > other's "Scottie can do better" posts. When the reviewer notes a word
> > that is likely beyond Scottie's language skills, he or she should post a
> > reply with definitions (or links to definitions) of the questionable
> > word(s). In this case, the first reviewer would be you, and you would
> > then make a post like this:
>
> I still foresee disaster, though. Here are potential 2pid responses:
>
> > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> "LoL! I obviously know English far more better than you."
>
> > organically (adv): as an important constituent; "the drapery served
> > organically to cover the Madonna"
>
> "The music organically filled the church with sound."
>
> > congenital (adj): relating to a condition that is present at birth
>
> "The newcomer was very congenitally welcomed."
>
> > interpret (vt): to give or provide the meaning of
>
> "I interpreted the data into the computer."
>
> LoL! Nice try, troll."
>
> > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Ugh. Do you think Scottie is incorrigible? I hope you're wrong.

> Normally when confronted with somebody whose grasp on English is very
> weak (like someone who just arrived from Bangladesh), I try to speak
> very, very slowly and use gestures when appropriate. That's not
> possible on the Usenet.
>
> We can try, but I'm not sanguine about the outcome.
>
> > Of course, these aren't the only definitions of the polysyllabic words I
> > used. However, when you're talking to Scottie, it's best to restrict his
> > field of vision by giving only the definition that fits the context.
>
> Or maybe we can figure out a way to use a whiteboard on RAO, so we can
> draw 2pid pictures.
>
> > If you and other volunteers would like to participate, we can work
> > together to help Scottie get a little smarter, or at least act a little
> > smarter.
>
> As I said, I'm willing to try, but I suspect that will have little
> affect on 2pid. Yes, I truly believe he's that dense.

Thank you for your cogent analysis. I can't help but notice that Scottie
is afraid to answer my question. Nothing new about that, unfortunately.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 14, 2:41 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > Many of us have made the same mistake. You know how it is -- you get
> > > caught up in your own train of thought, and you forget that the
> > > individual you're trying to instruct in self-improvement is an imbecile.
> > It's also really really hard work (my apologies to W for plagiarism)
> > to dumb down posts to the point that 2pid can understand them.
>
> Has anybody been doing that? I sure haven't.

People have tried, albeit unsuccessfully. No matter what level you
dumb down to, 2pid goes one better.;-)

> > > I have a proposal for this situation. We Smart Guys should review each
> > > other's "Scottie can do better" posts. When the reviewer notes a word
> > > that is likely beyond Scottie's language skills, he or she should post a
> > > reply with definitions (or links to definitions) of the questionable
> > > word(s). In this case, the first reviewer would be you, and you would
> > > then make a post like this:
>
> > I still foresee disaster, though. Here are potential 2pid responses:
>
> > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> > "LoL! I obviously know English far more better than you."
>
> > > organically (adv): as an important constituent; "the drapery served
> > > organically to cover the Madonna"
>
> > "The music organically filled the church with sound."
>
> > > congenital (adj): relating to a condition that is present at birth
>
> > "The newcomer was very congenitally welcomed."
>
> > > interpret (vt): to give or provide the meaning of
>
> > "I interpreted the data into the computer."
>
> > LoL! Nice try, troll."
>
> > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> Ugh. Do you think Scottie is incorrigible? I hope you're wrong.

I'm actually not 100% sure that his intense stupidity is his fault.
It's the old GIGO effect at work.

I mean, you have to have some intelligence to begin with, to be sure,
but when you have a very small amount and then pack it full of the
likes of Hugh Hewitt, well, the results may not be pretty.

> > Normally when confronted with somebody whose grasp on English is very
> > weak (like someone who just arrived from Bangladesh), I try to speak
> > very, very slowly and use gestures when appropriate. That's not
> > possible on the Usenet.
>
> > We can try, but I'm not sanguine about the outcome.
>
> > > Of course, these aren't the only definitions of the polysyllabic words I
> > > used. However, when you're talking to Scottie, it's best to restrict his
> > > field of vision by giving only the definition that fits the context.
>
> > Or maybe we can figure out a way to use a whiteboard on RAO, so we can
> > draw 2pid pictures.
>
> > > If you and other volunteers would like to participate, we can work
> > > together to help Scottie get a little smarter, or at least act a little
> > > smarter.
>
> > As I said, I'm willing to try, but I suspect that will have little
> > affect on 2pid. Yes, I truly believe he's that dense.
>
> Thank you for your cogent analysis. I can't help but notice that Scottie
> is afraid to answer my question. Nothing new about that, unfortunately.

Well, 2pid is on yet another moral superiority jag. And you and I are
on his 'moral' 'inferiority' list...

Perhaps when he's reduced to 'discussing' things with Bratzi, as it
appears he is now, he'll overcome his fear.