2pid's imbecility, cowardice and hypocrisy: his complete package

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

A couple of days ago, our resident imbecile, 2pid, posted this link:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019465.php

He chose to excerpt this portion:

LTC Joseph C. Myers, Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff
College, speaks out about the firing of Stephen Coughlin:

"We began on September 12, 2001 with "Islam is a religion of peace,"
which soothed ideological sentiments of many but has failed us
strategically, short-stopped the objective, sytstemic evaluation of
the threat doctrine.

"Islam is a religion of peace" is fine for public policy statements,
but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent
military
or intelligence analysis...it is in fact a logical flaw under any
professional research methodology...you have stated the conclusion
before you have done the analysis.

If one has studied the implication of the Holy Land Foundation trial
discovery documents as I have, as a former DIA senior military
analyst, and understanding as even Bill Gertz has written in his book
Enemies about the dismal record of our counter-intelligence one has
to
wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in
government
and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood,
Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social
compact."

I asked 2pid a very straightforward question: "What do you suppose LTC
Myers meant by these remarks?"

Keeping in mind 2pid's very public denouncements of flaming and
insults, here is his response to my question:

"LoL (sic)...I think LTC Myers words are too close to home for our
resident islamist apologist."

Rather than answer a question about a post he made, 2pid has
immediately resorted to the insults that he claims to detest.

We can see from this latest example that I have been correct all
along: 2pid is far more interested in propaganda and Rovian PR
techniques than he is generating the 'discussions' he 'thinks' are
'saving' RAO. Above all else, 2pid is concerned with furthering his
small-'mind'ed agenda.

I suppose it's too much to expect rationality and honesty from someone
who publicly admits to having oral sex with stray dogs and complains
that their ass is chapped from being licked too often. Perhaps the
mental anguish he suffers from won't allow 2pid to answer questions.
Perhaps he has become gutless as a result of pursuing his strange
sexual fetishes. All we can know for sure is that probably the only
time 2pid has been honest is when he confessed to his odd sexual
obsessions. After all, who would lie about something like that?

I predict a couple of possible outcomes: 2pid will either resort to
answering this post with yet more of the insults he claims to detest
and once again ignore a straightforward question about one of his
posts, or 2pid will simply not answer. These are, of course, the marks
of a true propagandist. 2pid can then be placed alongside Bratzi as
the two most despicable posters on RAO. Either of these will also
reinforce the truth about what 2pid truly is: a cowardly and
hypocritical imbecile.

That would make me right about 2pid. And wouldn't that just chap
2pid's ass?

lol Lol LoL LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 15, 10:08*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >A couple of days ago, our resident imbecile, 2pid, posted this link:
>
> >http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019465.php
>
> > He chose to excerpt this portion:
>
> > LTC Joseph C. Myers, Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff
> > College, speaks out about the firing of Stephen Coughlin:
>
> > "We began on September 12, 2001 with "Islam is a religion of peace,"
> > which soothed ideological sentiments of many but has failed us
> > strategically, short-stopped the objective, sytstemic evaluation of
> > the threat doctrine.
>
> > "Islam is a religion of peace" is fine for public policy statements,
> > but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent
> > military
> > or intelligence analysis...it is in fact a logical flaw under any
> > professional research methodology...you have stated the conclusion
> > before you have done the analysis.
>
> > If one has studied the implication of the Holy Land Foundation trial
> > discovery documents as I have, as a former DIA senior military
> > analyst, and understanding as even Bill Gertz has written in his book
> > Enemies about the dismal record of our counter-intelligence one has
> > to
> > wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in
> > government
> > and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood,
> > Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social
> > compact."
>
> > I asked 2pid a very straightforward question: "What do you suppose LTC
> > Myers meant by these remarks?"
>
> > Keeping in mind 2pid's very public denouncements of flaming and
> > insults, here is his response to my question:
>
> > "LoL (sic)...I think LTC Myers words are too close to home for our
> > resident islamist apologist."

I said:

I predict a couple of possible outcomes: 2pid will either resort to
answering this post with yet more of the insults he claims to detest
and once again ignore a straightforward question about one of his
posts, or 2pid will simply not answer. These are, of course, the
marks
of a true propagandist. 2pid can then be placed alongside Bratzi as
the two most despicable posters on RAO. Either of these will also
reinforce the truth about what 2pid truly is: a cowardly and
hypocritical imbecile.

> You were insulted? *Hmmmm.... I'm not when you make outrageous
> false statements. My comment must be spot on.

OK, 2pid, I am a closet Islamist. That still beats, IMO, a dog-licker
who has a chapped ass.

lol Lol LoL LOL!

> *Anyway, your history of islamism apologism
> speaks for itself.

What is being spoken to here is your lack of comprehension of the
written word, as if that needed further speaking to.

> Only thing insulting, and it is to everyone, not just me,
> *is your insistence that people can't read
> his words and tell for themselves what he said.

So there you have it: 2pid proves yet again that he is a coward.

> > Rather than answer a question about a post he made, 2pid has
> > immediately resorted to the insults that he claims to detest.
>
> > We can see from this latest example that I have been correct all
> > along: 2pid is far more interested in propaganda
>
> Exact quote...no comment by me. *Now you're insulting
> LTC Myers.

Nope. I asked you a simple question. You posted *some* of what the
colonel said, out of context. So what do LTC Myers' words mean to you,
2pid? You know, you being a military 'expert' and all. What did his
words mean to you?

> The spin... grows ever more blatant.

Indeed it does.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 15, 11:56*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:44*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > *So what do LTC Myers' words mean to you,
>
> Clearly he has an issue with our understanding and evaluation process
> of the threat as well as the motives for the dismissal of Coughlin.

What are those issues? Why are they pertinent? And why do you
consistently make the same mistakes (assuming you even know what
mistakes those are and what they mean) that LTC Myers is referring
to?

I have my own reasons for disagreeing with removing Coughlin. I will
wager a large sum they are not close to your 'reasons'. But then
again, I know what LTC Myers means and you do not appear to.

> But since we won't have opportunity to discuss this with LTC Myers,
> people will have to decide for themselves what he meant.

And I'm asking *you* what they mean to *you*.

I could dig up his email for you through the Army email system quite
easily if you'd like to ask him. I'd email it to you and ask that you
not publish it though. You could, however, just as easily get the
number to the Air Force Air Command and Staff College yourself and
call him.

> Unlike you, I am not going to try and tell them other than with his
> own words.

Aside from the fact that "most people" on RAO could give a rat's ass
about this (and your motivation for posting it here) I can see why you
usually avoid questions. You seem to draw the wildest implications out
of them.

Perhaps I am stupid. I cannot see where "What do LTC Myers' words mean
to you?" is an effort to tell anybody else what they mean. I merely
asked what they mean to *you*.

Or, more likely, perhaps you are delusional, or (again perhaps) you're
an an imbecile. I think the latter case has been effectively proven
too many times to question it.

> I think most people can come to a reasonable conclusion.

Many of the people responding to that link at JihadWatch sure didn't.
Are they "most people"? Are you "most people"?

> You are not most people.

That's true: I (unlike "most people") have been trained in military
intelligence, threat assessment, and valid military threat assessment
procedures through the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP). I'm
also a member of his peer group as a fellow field-grade Army officer.
We've both been through the same training. I know exactly what Myers
meant. Do you? And are you? If so, why do you so consistently make the
mistakes he warns against?

lol Lol LoL LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:40*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 11:56*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 9:44*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > *So what do LTC Myers' words mean to you,
>
> > > Clearly he has an issue with our understanding and evaluation process
> > > of the threat as well as the motives for the dismissal of Coughlin.
>
> > What are those issues? Why are they pertinent?
>
> *You'll have to take this up with LTC Meyers.

You found it necessary to post his quote. Therefore, you do have an
opinion on it, regardless of what you say. All I've done is ask what
those opinions are. All you've done is deke the questions. Do you want
discussion or not? If no, why do you post things?

Unless, of course, you are claiming to be exactly like Bratzi. He just
posts "interesting things" without comment too. I think "most people"
see remarkable similarities in your posting styles. If that's your
claim, however, I'll just agree with you and we can move on.

lol Lol LoL LOL!

> > And why do you
> > consistently make the same mistakes (assuming you even know what
> > mistakes those are and what they mean) that LTC Myers is referring
> > to?

I note that you chose not to address this. One can presume it's
because you do not/cannot see your errors.

> > I have my own reasons for disagreeing with removing Coughlin. I will
> > wager a large sum they are not close to your 'reasons'.
>
> *I actually don't have an opinion nor did I express one
> *as I don't know his role nor his qualifications and performance
> in that role.

But a letter regarding his dismissal was important enough to post
here. If you do not have an opinion on that letter, why did you bother
to post it? Something about that letter must have resonated with you.
What was it?

> > *But then
> > again, I know what LTC Myers means and you do not appear to.
>
> > > But since we won't have opportunity to discuss this with LTC Myers,
> > > people will have to decide for themselves what he meant.
>
> > And I'm asking *you* what they mean to *you*.
>
> * I answered. *Demands for additional details are not
> relevant.

Of course not, as discussion is never your goal, is it?

> Playing "I know something you don't know" games are
> typical for you, but remain uninteresting and are
> rarely substantiated.

While avoiding questions and discussion on posts that you've made is
not only typical, but in fact the rule.with you.

I'm not asking you to guess anything, nor am I telling you anything.
I'm merely asking you questions about something you posted. For
example, if you have no opinions on it, why did you post it? And if
you do have opinions on it, why are you unwilling to share them?

Your avoidance speaks volumes, 2pid. I'm OK with that. "Most people"
can draw their own conclusions about your reasons for avoidance.

lol Lol LoL LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 15, 2:13*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 10:40*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 15, 11:56*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 15, 9:44*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > *So what do LTC Myers' words mean to you,
>
> > > > > Clearly he has an issue with our understanding and evaluation process
> > > > > of the threat as well as the motives for the dismissal of Coughlin..
>
> > > > What are those issues? Why are they pertinent?
>
> > > *You'll have to take this up with LTC Meyers.
>
> > You found it necessary to post his quote. Therefore, you do have an
> > opinion on it, regardless of what you say.
>
> Really? * I guess you can argue the point yourself then.

Later, you say it was important enough to post here. I ask again: why?

> > *All I've done is ask what
> > those opinions are. All you've done is deke the questions. Do you want
> > discussion or not? If no, why do you post things?
>
> *Because they're interesting and revealing.

About what? What makes them "interesting" to you? What makes them
"revealing" to you?

BTW, it seems that you do have an opinion on it, just like I said.

> > Unless, of course, you are claiming to be exactly like Bratzi. He just
> > posts "interesting things" without comment too.
>
> *There is a difference that most people can easily see.
> However....well, I don't want to get repititious.

That you're not a member of the neo-Nazi movement? That's a pretty
small difference actually. No, "most people" would know that I meant
regarding posting style, as that's what I said.

> > *I think "most people"
> > see remarkable similarities in your posting styles. If that's your
> > claim, however, I'll just agree with you and we can move on.

See?

> > lol Lol LoL LOL!
>
> > > > And why do you
> > > > consistently make the same mistakes (assuming you even know what
> > > > mistakes those are and what they mean) that LTC Myers is referring
> > > > to?
>
> > I note that you chose not to address this. One can presume it's
> > because you do not/cannot see your errors.
>
> *You haven't substantiated any errors though desperately you try
> to imply you have.

I have implied no such thing. I have asked you if you can see them.
The answer is "no". I'm OK with that, 2pid.

> > > > I have my own reasons for disagreeing with removing Coughlin. I will
> > > > wager a large sum they are not close to your 'reasons'.
>
> > > *I actually don't have an opinion nor did I express one
> > > *as I don't know his role nor his qualifications and performance
> > > in that role.
>
> > But a letter regarding his dismissal was important enough to post
> > here.
>
> Yes, it was.

Why? Why was this important enough to post on an audio forum?

I think we've pretty well debunked your "salvation" excuse.

> > If you do not have an opinion on that letter, why did you bother
> > to post it?
>
> It was interesting and revealing. *You don't seem to want to deal
> directly with the content of the letter.

You posted it. I've been asking you about what it means to you, and
why it is important enough to post on an audio forum and then not be
willing to discuss it.

> > Something about that letter must have resonated with you.
> > What was it?
>
> You missed my quotes. *Here...

I saw them, 2pid.

> *"Islam is a religion of peace" is fine for public policy statements,
> but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent military
> or intelligence analysis...it is in fact a logical flaw under any
> professional research methodology...you have stated the conclusion
> before you have done the analysis.
>
> If one has studied the implication of the Holy Land Foundation trial
> discovery documents as I have, as a former DIA senior military
> analyst, and understanding as even Bill Gertz has written in his book
> Enemies about the dismal record of our counter-intelligence one has to
> wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in government
> and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood,
> Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social
> compact.
>
> I think this is quite clear....to most people.

I'd like to know what "most people" think about this. You've already
stated that I am not "most people" (and I've agreed with you). Since
you claim to know what "most people" will conclude, why not share it?
This is a topic *you* brought up, 2pid. That seems very fair to me. So
what is LTC Myers saying to you (as the voice of "most people") here?

Why the hesitation? Why bring up things you claim are "discussion
points" and then hide from the discussion you say you want? What do
you suppose this says about you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 15, 2:44*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 12:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > > > > > > > *So what do LTC Myers' words mean to you,
>
> > > > > > > Clearly he has an issue with our understanding and evaluation process
> > > > > > > of the threat as well as the motives for the dismissal of Coughlin.
>
> > > > > > What are those issues? Why are they pertinent?
>
> > > > > *You'll have to take this up with LTC Meyers.
>
> > > > You found it necessary to post his quote. Therefore, you do have an
> > > > opinion on it, regardless of what you say.
>
> > > Really? * I guess you can argue the point yourself then.
>
> > Later, you say it was important enough to post here. I ask again: why?
>
> You're getting repititious.....again.

Because you lied about having an opinion and are avoiding discussing
what you brought up for discussion.

> > > > *All I've done is ask what
> > > > those opinions are. All you've done is deke the questions. Do you want
> > > > discussion or not? If no, why do you post things?
>
> > > *Because they're interesting and revealing.
>
> > About what? What makes them "interesting" to you? What makes them
> > "revealing" to you?
>
> *For one...that they seem to scare you silly.

Scare? Why would somebody whose intellectual capabilities seem non-
existent "scare" me?

About as close as you get to "scaring" me is generating concern in me
for the future of the human race. See the movie "Idiocracy" for the
reasons why.

> > That you're not a member of the neo-Nazi movement? That's a pretty
> > small difference actually. No, "most people" would know that I meant
> > regarding posting style, as that's what I said.
>
> *You've always been a style over substance kind of person.

You two share some very similar traits. That's substantive.

> > > *You haven't substantiated any errors though desperately you try
> > > to imply you have.
>
> > I have implied no such thing. I have asked you if you can see them.
> > The answer is "no". I'm OK with that, 2pid.
>
> *Lol...thanks for proving my point.

lOl! Where have I implied I've "substantiated" any errors you've made?
I *have* implied that you've made some, which you have.

Again, the answer is "no", you cannot see them.

> > > > But a letter regarding his dismissal was important enough to post
> > > > here.
>
> > > Yes, it was.
>
> > Why? Why was this important enough to post on an audio forum?
>
> *Actually...it's more about the less importance of anything audio
> being discussed right now.

So we gather that if there's nothing "important" (IYO) being discussed
regarding audio here, that causes your "motor" to "race", leading to
you post things that you have no opinion on, yet are "important" and
"revealing", but because you have no opinion on them, you don't know
why.

Is that about it?

> > I think we've pretty well debunked your "salvation" excuse.
>
> *Nothing to save.

How sad that you have a compulsion to stay here then. What an empty
life you must have. Dogs, getting your ass licked by men you've picked
up, and RAO.

I pity you even more now.

> > > > If you do not have an opinion on that letter, why did you bother
> > > > to post it?
>
> > > It was interesting and revealing. *You don't seem to want to deal
> > > directly with the content of the letter.
>
> > You posted it. I've been asking you about what it means to you,
>
> *Yeah..that seems to be a one way street with you.

You should try answering questions with something other than vague
responses about "most people".

> Asking the meaning of the obvious. *Twisting and spinning
> replies yet offering nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

What is so obvious? Spell it out for me. Remember, I'm not "most
people".

I have not twisted, nor spun, a thing here, 2pid.

> * The quote needs no explanation IMO.

The quote needs no explanation IYO to "most people", 2pid, yet in your
own words I'm not "most people". Please explain it to me. What does it
mean?

> > *and
> > why it is important enough to post on an audio forum and then not be
> > willing to discuss it.
>
> > > > Something about that letter must have resonated with you.
> > > > What was it?
>
> > > You missed my quotes. *Here...
>
> > I saw them, 2pid.
>
> *What part is confusing you?

That part about what resonates with you and what it means. Why this
was so important that you had to post it here. And about what you seem
to think is obvious, LTC Myers' meaning.

> > > I think this is quite clear....to most people.
>
> > I'd like to know what "most people" think about this.
>
> *Good luck. * I look forward to them sharing with you
> but I kind of doubt you'll find any takers.

Certainly not from the one who claims to "want discussion".

Avoiding discussion again. How sad.

> Problems with your motives and agenda I suspect
> but we'll see.

As usual, 2pid has nothing. The similarities between 2pid and Bratzi
are incredibly obvious, yes?.

Isn't that just too bad?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 15, 10:39*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 1:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2:44*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 12:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > > > > > *So what do LTC Myers' words mean to you,
>
> > > > > > > > > Clearly he has an issue with our understanding and evaluation process
> > > > > > > > > of the threat as well as the motives for the dismissal of Coughlin.
>
> > > > > > > > What are those issues? Why are they pertinent?
>
> > > > > > > *You'll have to take this up with LTC Meyers.
>
> > > > > > You found it necessary to post his quote. Therefore, you do have an
> > > > > > opinion on it, regardless of what you say.
>
> > > > > Really? * I guess you can argue the point yourself then.
>
> > > > Later, you say it was important enough to post here. I ask again: why?
>
> > > You're getting repititious.....again.
>
> > Because you lied about having an opinion and are avoiding discussing
> > what you brought up for discussion.
>
> * Not true, nor a reasoable rationale for repitition.

You said you didn't have an opinion. Then you said you posted it
because it was interesting and revealing. That, dear 2pid, is an
opinion.

Duh.

So what is a reasonable rationale for repition, 2pid?

> > > > > > *All I've done is ask what
> > > > > > those opinions are. All you've done is deke the questions. Do you want
> > > > > > discussion or not? If no, why do you post things?
>
> > > > > *Because they're interesting and revealing.

See? Imbecile. LOL!

> > > > About what? What makes them "interesting" to you? What makes them
> > > > "revealing" to you?
>
> > > *For one...that they seem to scare you silly.
>
> > Scare? Why would somebody whose intellectual capabilities seem non-
> > existent "scare" me?
>
> *That is quite the insult to LTC Myers.

Duh.

"Why do you post things?"

"Because those things seem to scare you silly."

"Me scared? You don't even understand what you're posting."

"What an insult to LTC Myers."

Duh.

Note "them" and "things". You really are quite dumb, you know.

> > About as close as you get to "scaring" me is generating concern in me
> > for the future of the human race. See the movie "Idiocracy" for the
> > reasons why.

This statement stands as written.

> > > > That you're not a member of the neo-Nazi movement? That's a pretty
> > > > small difference actually. No, "most people" would know that I meant
> > > > regarding posting style, as that's what I said.
>
> > > *You've always been a style over substance kind of person.
>
> > You two share some very similar traits. That's substantive.

Tacit agreement noted.

> > > > > *You haven't substantiated any errors though desperately you try
> > > > > to imply you have.
>
> > > > I have implied no such thing. I have asked you if you can see them.
> > > > The answer is "no". I'm OK with that, 2pid.
>
> > > *Lol...thanks for proving my point.
>
> > lOl! Where have I implied I've "substantiated" any errors you've made?
>
> Exactly...no substance.

Not at all, 2pid. There you go, jumping on the trampoline of
conclusions that you live on.

> > I *have* implied that you've made some, which you have.
>
> Still no substance and repititious.

So what? It's true. lOL!

> > Again, the answer is "no", you cannot see them.
>
> > > > > > But a letter regarding his dismissal was important enough to post
> > > > > > here.
>
> > > > > Yes, it was.
>
> > > > Why? Why was this important enough to post on an audio forum?
>
> > > *Actually...it's more about the less importance of anything audio
> > > being discussed right now.
>
> > So we gather that if there's nothing "important" (IYO) being discussed
>
> You want to put Jenn's and Stephen's hypocritical spam bitching
> up for discussion?

Hm. OK, 2pid. Let's discuss this. I haven't followed what happened, so
why not tell me. In your answer, please also tell how often either of
them have done whatever it is they did. Then compare and contrast how
often you do what you and Bratzi do.

Take your time.

> > regarding audio here, that causes your "motor" to "race", leading to
> > you post things that you have no opinion on, yet are "important" and
> > "revealing", but because you have no opinion on them, you don't know
> > why.
>
> > Is that about it?
>
> *Nope.

Yup.

> > > > I think we've pretty well debunked your "salvation" excuse.
>
> > > *Nothing to save.
>
> > How sad that you have a compulsion to stay here then.
>
> I'm waiting for the resurrection.

christians are like that, aren't they?

> > What an empty
> > life you must have. Dogs, getting your ass licked by men you've picked
> > up, and RAO.
>
> > I pity you even more now.
>
> * I am blessed.

I take it you got your broken christmas toy fixed, or you got a job at
a kennel. Which is it?

> > > > > > If you do not have an opinion on that letter, why did you bother
> > > > > > to post it?
>
> > > > > It was interesting and revealing. *You don't seem to want to deal
> > > > > directly with the content of the letter.
>
> > > > You posted it. I've been asking you about what it means to you,
>
> > > *Yeah..that seems to be a one way street with you.
>
> > You should try answering questions with something other than vague
> > responses about "most people".
>
> * Nothing vague to most people.

And here we go, 2pid: I am not "most people". (Shhhh! You're being
repetitive!)

Since you speak for "most people", why are you so afraid to tell
someone we both agree is not "most people" what this meant to you?

> > > Asking the meaning of the obvious. *Twisting and spinning
> > > replies yet offering nothing but unsubstantiated claims.
>
> > What is so obvious?
>
> * My post of LTC Myers words.

Yes, you obviously made a post. I agree. Now what did that post say to
you?

> > Spell it out for me.
>
> * Sorry, you won't or can't get it.

Get what, 2pid? Why apologize when you've never answered the question?
How could you possibly know what I can or cannot "get" when you've
never answered?

> > *Remember, I'm not "most
> > people".
>
> *No kidding.

So we agree. Since you now speak for "most people" lay it on my,
honey.

> > I have not twisted, nor spun, a thing here, 2pid.
>
> *Lol. *What's the matter? *Lacking opportunity?

lOl. The matter is your constant and fearful avoidance of questions,
2pid. That's been the issue since the first post.

As you said, this is repitious.

> > > * The quote needs no explanation IMO.
>
> > The quote needs no explanation IYO to "most people"
>
> *There ya go.

So what does this post say to "most people"? What action should be
taken? Or was it just a vent on a neocon blog?

> >, 2pid, yet in your
> > own words I'm not "most people". Please explain it to me. What does it
> > mean?
>
> * Try reading it again.

I already know what it said to me, but I'm not "most people". Since we
both admit that I'm not "most people", 2pid. this is where the issue
is.

You really are a chicken****, aren't you? Afraid and dumb.

> > > > *and
> > > > why it is important enough to post on an audio forum and then not be
> > > > willing to discuss it.
>
> > > > > > Something about that letter must have resonated with you.
> > > > > > What was it?
>
> > > > > You missed my quotes. *Here...
>
> > > > I saw them, 2pid.
>
> > > *What part is confusing you?
>
> > That part about what resonates with you
>
> *That's not your concern. This isn't about me.

You posted it, 2pid, which makes it about you.

> > and what it means. Why this
> > was so important that you had to post it here.
>
> Had to? *I think you're stretching again.

You seem to have to post lots of things here. I don't believe you can
help yourself.

> I get to...it's a priviledge as is your opportunity
> to read it.

OK, we'll compromise: you have to because you get to.

> > *And about what you seem
> > to think is obvious, LTC Myers' meaning.
>
> Why are you so worried about what I think?

Who's worried? Here's the scenario, 2pid: you posted something. It's
like cutting and pasting a blog to the letters to the editor. Now it's
about you. Readers get to ask you questions. You get to answer them,
or you get to run and hide.

Coupled with your whines about wanting "discussion", your avoidance of
it makes you a hypocrite. It appears with each deke of yours that my
subject line in cxentered in the bull's eye.

> > > > > I think this is quite clear....to most people.
>
> > > > I'd like to know what "most people" think about this.
>
> > > *Good luck. * I look forward to them sharing with you
> > > but I kind of doubt you'll find any takers.
>
> > Certainly not from the one who claims to "want discussion".
>
> *I do... but willing well meaning participants are lacking.

I suppose you consider asking what the quote meant to you is an
insult.

You're starting to sound an awful lot like Arns.

> > Avoiding discussion again. How sad.
>
> *Point me to it.

"What did what the colonel say mean to you?"

Discussions usually start with questions. That's something you've
never apparently understood.

> > > Problems with your motives and agenda I suspect
> > > but we'll see.
>
> > As usual, 2pid has nothing. The similarities between 2pid and Bratzi
> > are incredibly obvious, yes?.
>
> *No takers on your offer?

Offer of what?

> > Isn't that just too bad?
>
> Too bad for you.

I am not surprised, 2pid. In fact, I called this one in the first
post.

What *is* sad is that you have yet again proven yourself to be exactly
what I said you are: a cowardly and hypocritical imbecile. Now we
"get" to add liar as well.

There's no need to feel bad for me, 2pid.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 15, 11:21*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> *ScottW > wrote:

> > You want to put Jenn's and Stephen's hypocritical spam bitching
> > up for discussion?
>
> I take it google filtered the dozens of spam posts. However, you're an
> idiot to make the attack you just did.

In psychology terms idiots are smarter than 2pid.

[Jenn]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> You want to put Jenn's and Stephen's hypocritical spam bitching
> up for discussion?

What was hypocritical about my post, Scott?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 12:47*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > You want to put Jenn's and Stephen's hypocritical spam bitching
> > up for discussion?
>
> What was hypocritical about my post, Scott?

It was simply an childish avoidance technique on 2pid's part. It's
exactly like the Wizard of Oz saying, "Pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain!"

[George M. Middius]

In case anybody is feeling overburdened with cogency, Scottie is here to
deliver a mouthful of gibberish.

> but I was unaware of the spam flood you apparently so I thought you
> were perhaps again complaining of off-topic content.

Scooter, do you have to whack yourself in the head to generate
incomprehensible gabble like that, or does it spew out naturally when you
start your "motor"?

[Jenn]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jan 15, 10:47*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > You want to put Jenn's and Stephen's hypocritical spam bitching
> > > up for discussion?
> >
> > What was hypocritical about my post, Scott?
>
> Spam complaints are a bit of spam themselves,


So you felt a need to respond to it, thereby creating more of what in
your mind is spam. OK.

> but I was unaware of the spam flood you apparently so I thought you
> were
> perhaps again complaining of off-topic content.

Do I do that? Not much, that I can recall.

> Not a big deal.

Of course not. But it is de rigueur for you to complain about something
concerning me.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 1:50*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> > Of course not. *But it is de rigueur for you to complain about something
> > concerning me.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rigueur
> de rigueur is a French expression that literally means "of rigor" or
> "of strictness". In English language usage, it means, "necessary
> according to etiquette, protocol or fashion."[1]
>
> I wouldn't say necessary but if you insist......

She said "for you" 2pid. It seems necessary *for you* to do it. You
whine about virtually *anything* Jenn says here. I have never seen
anybody with less comprehension of what is said than you.

Another usage might be, "It is de rigueur for you to be an imbecile on
RAO".

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Witless slobbered:

> > *But it is de rigueur for you to complain about something
> > concerning me.

[duh-Scottie's belated attempt to learn a high-school vocab word snipped]

> I wouldn't say necessary but if you insist......

You are so completely clueless about language, you might as well be using
fingerpaints. And yet you still lack the tiniest bit of shame at how
dismally you failed at absorbing the rudimentary elements of a basic
education.

Lucky for you, Scooter, charitable companies exist that have programs in
place to enable half-stunted dweebs to function within their organization.
If not for the coddling you undoubtedly receive, where would you be?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 2:33*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.

So let me get this straight: actually understanding what is said
denotes a "lack of integrity" to you.

LOL! No wonder nobody here has 'integrity' but you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 2:35*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:29*pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ *george @ comcast .
>
> net> wrote:
> > Witless slobbered:
>
> > > > *But it is de rigueur for you to complain about something
> > > > concerning me.
>
> > [duh-Scottie's belated attempt to learn a high-school vocab word snipped]
>
> *Actually, what he had to snip to avoid appearing blatantly dishonest
> was the Wiki definition.
> Enuf said.

OK, so now people who understand what is said "lack integrity" and are
"blatantly dishonest".

Anything else? You haven't hit "treasonous" yet.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 2:33*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:24*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 1:50*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > Of course not. *But it is de rigueur for you to complain about something
> > > > concerning me.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rigueur
> > > de rigueur is a French expression that literally means "of rigor" or
> > > "of strictness". In English language usage, it means, "necessary
> > > according to etiquette, protocol or fashion."[1]
>
> > > I wouldn't say necessary but if you insist......
>
> > She said "for you" 2pid.
>
> *" " usually indicate ...well a quote. *Not words inferred.

Dear dummy: here is Jenn's *exact quote*. No inference.

Of course not. But it is de rigueur for you to complain about
something
concerning me.

> But that is your form of discussion...what is said isn't, what isn't
> said is etc.

What was said was said, imbecile.

> A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

>> What was hypocritical about my post, Scott?
>
>Spam complaints are a bit of spam themselves,

Wrong.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 5:02*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2:33*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > So let me get this straight:
>
> *Sorry, this isn't straight...not even close.

I re-responded to an earlier post, dum-dum. In it, you'll find no
inference, no implication, no twisting or anything else. You'll find
the exact quote. Jeebus, this is deliciously rich. I think I'll post
it again here:

Jenn
"Of course not. But it is de rigueur for you to complain about
something
concerning me."

(I'd better emphasize the place where the OP said "for you" so that
2pid can see I'm telling the turth. I'd sure hate to have a 'moral'
being like 2pid question my integrity!) ;-)

"Of course not. But it is de rigueur ***for you*** ***for you***
***for you*** to complain about something
concerning me." LOL!

Me
> She said "for you" 2pid.

2pid
" " usually indicate ...well a quote. Not words inferred.
But that is your form of discussion...what is said isn't, what isn't
said is etc.
A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.

> *It's really quite bizarre how hard you strive to
> twist. *Oh well...it's your integrity.

Indeed, 2pid. It certainly is my integrity. Thank god it's not your
integrity I have. And just look at the "twisted" and "inferred"
statement of "for you" in the original quote. You know, the one where
" " usually means there's a quote?

What an imbecile. Christ on a crutch but you're stupid. LOL!

> You obviously have no need of it.

Chalk up "integrity" to the long, long list of words that 2pid has no
comprehension of.

So as I said, 2pid: you are of the opinion that those who understand
what is said are "twisting" and lack "integrity". I find that very
interesting.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 5:22*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 5:02*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 2:33*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > > So let me get this straight:
>
> > *Sorry, this isn't straight...not even close.
>
> I re-responded to an earlier post, dum-dum. In it, you'll find no
> inference, no implication, no twisting or anything else. You'll find
> the exact quote. Jeebus, this is deliciously rich. I think I'll post
> it again here:
>
> Jenn
> "Of course not. *But it is de rigueur for you to complain about
> something
> concerning me."
>
> (I'd better emphasize the place where the OP said "for you" so that
> 2pid can see I'm telling the turth. I'd sure hate to have a 'moral'
> being like 2pid question my integrity!) ;-)
>
> "Of course not. *But it is de rigueur ***for you*** ***for you***
> ***for you*** to complain about something
> concerning me." LOL!
>
> Me
>
> > She said "for you" 2pid.
>
> 2pid
> *" " usually indicate ...well a quote. *Not words inferred.
> But that is your form of discussion...what is said isn't, what isn't
> said is etc.
> A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > *It's really quite bizarre how hard you strive to
> > twist. *Oh well...it's your integrity.
>
> Indeed, 2pid. It certainly is my integrity. Thank god it's not your
> integrity I have. And just look at the "twisted" and "inferred"
> statement of "for you" in the original quote. You know, the one where
> " " usually means there's a quote?
>
> What an imbecile. Christ on a crutch but you're stupid. LOL!
>
> > You obviously have no need of it.
>
> Chalk up "integrity" to the long, long list of words that 2pid has no
> comprehension of.
>
> So as I said, 2pid: you are of the opinion that those who understand
> what is said are "twisting" and lack "integrity". I find that very
> interesting.

What, 2pid? No apology? No comment at all?

This speaks volumes about your 'integrity'.

lol Lol LoL lOl loL LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 17, 2:19*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 5:22*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 5:02*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 12:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 16, 2:33*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > > > So let me get this straight:
>
> > > *Sorry, this isn't straight...not even close.
>
> > I re-responded to an earlier post, dum-dum. In it, you'll find no
> > inference, no implication, no twisting or anything else. You'll find
> > the exact quote. Jeebus, this is deliciously rich. I think I'll post
> > it again here:
>
> > Jenn
> > "Of course not. *But it is de rigueur for you to complain about
> > something
> > concerning me."
>
> > (I'd better emphasize the place where the OP said "for you" so that
> > 2pid can see I'm telling the turth. I'd sure hate to have a 'moral'
> > being like 2pid question my integrity!) ;-)
>
> > "Of course not. *But it is de rigueur ***for you*** ***for you***
> > ***for you*** to complain about something
> > concerning me." LOL!
>
> > Me
>
> > > She said "for you" 2pid.
>
> > 2pid
> > *" " usually indicate ...well a quote. *Not words inferred.
> > But that is your form of discussion...what is said isn't, what isn't
> > said is etc.
> > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > > *It's really quite bizarre how hard you strive to
> > > twist. *Oh well...it's your integrity.
>
> > Indeed, 2pid. It certainly is my integrity. Thank god it's not your
> > integrity I have. And just look at the "twisted" and "inferred"
> > statement of "for you" in the original quote. You know, the one where
> > " " usually means there's a quote?
>
> > What an imbecile. Christ on a crutch but you're stupid. LOL!
>
> > > You obviously have no need of it.
>
> > Chalk up "integrity" to the long, long list of words that 2pid has no
> > comprehension of.
>
> > So as I said, 2pid: you are of the opinion that those who understand
> > what is said are "twisting" and lack "integrity". I find that very
> > interesting.
>
> What, 2pid? No apology? No comment at all?
>
> This speaks volumes about your 'integrity'.
>
> lol Lol LoL lOl loL LOL!

Uh-oh. 2pid hasn't shown up to respond. He's following his avoidance
MO now.

He's probably off licking his 'wounds' somewhere. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 18, 3:22*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2:19*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 5:22*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 5:02*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 16, 12:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 16, 2:33*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > > > > So let me get this straight:
>
> > > > *Sorry, this isn't straight...not even close.
>
> > > I re-responded to an earlier post, dum-dum. In it, you'll find no
> > > inference, no implication, no twisting or anything else. You'll find
> > > the exact quote. Jeebus, this is deliciously rich. I think I'll post
> > > it again here:
>
> > > Jenn
> > > "Of course not. *But it is de rigueur for you to complain about
> > > something
> > > concerning me."
>
> > > (I'd better emphasize the place where the OP said "for you" so that
> > > 2pid can see I'm telling the turth. I'd sure hate to have a 'moral'
> > > being like 2pid question my integrity!) ;-)
>
> > > "Of course not. *But it is de rigueur ***for you*** ***for you***
> > > ***for you*** to complain about something
> > > concerning me." LOL!
>
> > > Me
>
> > > > She said "for you" 2pid.
>
> > > 2pid
> > > *" " usually indicate ...well a quote. *Not words inferred.
> > > But that is your form of discussion...what is said isn't, what isn't
> > > said is etc.
> > > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > > > *It's really quite bizarre how hard you strive to
> > > > twist. *Oh well...it's your integrity.
>
> > > Indeed, 2pid. It certainly is my integrity. Thank god it's not your
> > > integrity I have. And just look at the "twisted" and "inferred"
> > > statement of "for you" in the original quote. You know, the one where
> > > " " usually means there's a quote?
>
> > > What an imbecile. Christ on a crutch but you're stupid. LOL!
>
> > > > You obviously have no need of it.
>
> > > Chalk up "integrity" to the long, long list of words that 2pid has no
> > > comprehension of.
>
> > > So as I said, 2pid: you are of the opinion that those who understand
> > > what is said are "twisting" and lack "integrity". I find that very
> > > interesting.
>
> > What, 2pid? No apology? No comment at all?
>
> > This speaks volumes about your 'integrity'.
>
> > lol Lol LoL lOl loL LOL!
>
> Uh-oh. 2pid hasn't shown up to respond. He's following his avoidance
> MO now.
>
> He's probably off licking his 'wounds' somewhere. ;-)

I'm confidant that 2pid will slink back into RAO at some point.
Perhaps he has a tail between his legs right now.

I do want to make sure that the lesson we all learned from him isn't
lost. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 22, 9:27*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Jan 16, 5:22 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 5:02 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 12:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 16, 2:33 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > > > So let me get this straight:
>
> > > Sorry, this isn't straight...not even close.
>
> > I re-responded to an earlier post, dum-dum. In it, you'll find no
> > inference, no implication, no twisting or anything else. You'll find
> > the exact quote. Jeebus, this is deliciously rich. I think I'll post
> > it again here:
>
> > Jenn
> > "Of course not. But it is de rigueur for you to complain about
> > something
> > concerning me."
>
> > (I'd better emphasize the place where the OP said "for you" so that
> > 2pid can see I'm telling the turth. I'd sure hate to have a 'moral'
> > being like 2pid question my integrity!) ;-)
>
> > "Of course not. But it is de rigueur ***for you*** ***for you***
> > ***for you*** to complain about something
> > concerning me." LOL!
>
> > Me
>
> > > She said "for you" 2pid.
>
> > 2pid
> > " " usually indicate ...well a quote. Not words inferred.
> > But that is your form of discussion...what is said isn't, what isn't
> > said is etc.
> > A real indicator of your integrity or actually the lack thereof.
>
> > > It's really quite bizarre how hard you strive to
> > > twist. Oh well...it's your integrity.
>
> > Indeed, 2pid. It certainly is my integrity. Thank god it's not your
> > integrity I have. And just look at the "twisted" and "inferred"
> > statement of "for you" in the original quote. You know, the one where
> > " " usually means there's a quote?
>
> > What an imbecile. Christ on a crutch but you're stupid. LOL!
>
> > > You obviously have no need of it.
>
> > Chalk up "integrity" to the long, long list of words that 2pid has no
> > comprehension of.
>
> > So as I said, 2pid: you are of the opinion that those who understand
> > what is said are "twisting" and lack "integrity". I find that very
> > interesting.
>
> :What, 2pid? No apology? No comment at all?
>
> Just got back from a short vacation.
> Funny to see how your knickers getting all twisted in my absence.
> But that is de rigueur.....for you. *lol, Lol, LoL.

Knickers are intact and not bunched or twisted.

I see that you still don't have enough integrity, honesty or honor to
admit that you were wrong. Which is, of course, de rigeur for you.

That's very sad considering how much you pretend to invest in those
words. As is typical for you, they are empty of meaning (unless you
are trying to apply them to somebody else).

So we are left with the conclusion (yet again) that you lack honesty,
integrity and honor, and that you have proven yourself (yet again) to
be a hypocrite of colossal proportion.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Witless is having a bad flea day.

> > > it takes to transmit.....and bw is really cheap.

> > Ah, that's why you don't trim your posts.
> > Please chime in on the subject of MLs.

> Never heard

Not to worry, Scooter -- we'll get you a nice whistle for your birthday.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 2:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:22*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > > > So as I said, 2pid: you are of the opinion that those who understand
> > > > what is said are "twisting" and lack "integrity". I find that very
> > > > interesting.
>
> > > :What, 2pid? No apology? No comment at all?
>
> > > Just got back from a short vacation.
> > > Funny to see how your knickers getting all twisted in my absence.
> > > But that is de rigueur.....for you. *lol, Lol, LoL.
>
> > Knickers are intact and not bunched or twisted.
>
> > I see that you still don't have enough integrity, honesty or honor to
> > admit that you were wrong. Which is, of course, de rigeur for you.
>
> > That's very sad considering how much you pretend to invest in those
> > words. As is typical for you, they are empty of meaning (unless you
> > are trying to apply them to somebody else).
>
> > So we are left with the conclusion (yet again)
>
> *We, as in you and your cloner George, are always
> concluding something not worth the bandwidth
> it takes to transmit.....and bw is really cheap.

It's so hard to admit that you're wrong. It's so hard when you set
yourself up to be judge and jury to confess to someone else (let alone
yourself) and admit a mistake.

No, it's far easier to dance around and name-call, isn't it? It makes
you look so much more rational, yes?

"We" as in anybody who reads your drivel, 2pid. "We" are left with the
conclusion that you'd rather argue and name-call than to admit that
you blew it and move on, no matter how loudly you wail that isn't the
case. So you're a hypocrite (which "we" all know), you're stupid and
immature (which "we" all knew), and you're an irrational, emotional
hypocrite (which "we" all knew). It's too bad that you don't realize
your shortcomings, 2pid. It may help you to look more intelligent and
less selfish.

The obvious conclusion is that you made a mistake, and that you aren't
adult enough to admit it. Face it, 2pid: you're an imbecile who cannot
understand your native tongue. "We" all know that already so when you
get around to admitting it to yourself "we're" here to offer support.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 9:25*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Jan 23, 2:24 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> > On Jan 22, 8:22 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > > I see that you still don't have enough integrity, honesty or honor to
> > > admit that you were wrong. Which is, of course, de rigeur for you.
>
> > > That's very sad considering how much you pretend to invest in those
> > > words. As is typical for you, they are empty of meaning (unless you
> > > are trying to apply them to somebody else).
>
> > > So we are left with the conclusion (yet again)
>
> > We, as in you and your cloner George, are always
> > concluding something not worth the bandwidth
> > it takes to transmit.....and bw is really cheap.
>
> :It's so hard to admit that you're wrong.
>
> Still telling others what they can and cannot do.
> Don't you tire of being the fascist?

So 'facism' in your eyes is someone pointing out how stupid you are.

I suppose that goes right along with my lack of 'integrity' for
claiming that someone said "for you".

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

> : It's so hard when you set
> :yourself up to be judge and jury to confess to someone else (let alone
> :yourself) and admit a mistake.
>
> *Perfection is not required to see what you are.

You still can't admit it. How sad.

Perhaps you 'think' admitting an error will cause you to lose your
'credibility'.

> :No, it's far easier to dance around and name-call, isn't it?
>
> Lol...hypocrisy is running wild.

There's no hypocrisy, 2pid, at least not on my part.

I don't claim that I don't like name-calling or insults like some
others here do. ;-)

> : It makes
> :you look so much more rational, yes?
>
> Rational in your eyes is a scary fate.
> Any other trifles to rant on endlessly about?
> This de rigueur for you is boring.

So you drop from third grade to second.

Your dwindling spiral seems to be unstoppable.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 24, 3:07*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 9:25*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> > > On Jan 23, 2:24 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 8:22 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > I see that you still don't have enough integrity, honesty or honor to
> > > > > admit that you were wrong. Which is, of course, de rigeur for you.
>
> > > > > That's very sad considering how much you pretend to invest in those
> > > > > words. As is typical for you, they are empty of meaning (unless you
> > > > > are trying to apply them to somebody else).
>
> > > > > So we are left with the conclusion (yet again)
>
> > > > We, as in you and your cloner George, are always
> > > > concluding something not worth the bandwidth
> > > > it takes to transmit.....and bw is really cheap.
>
> > > :It's so hard to admit that you're wrong.
>
> > > Still telling others what they can and cannot do.
> > > Don't you tire of being the fascist?
>
> > So 'facism' in your eyes is someone pointing out how stupid you are.
>
> > I suppose that goes right along with my lack of 'integrity' for
> > claiming that someone said "for you".
>
> > lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!
>
> > > : It's so hard when you set
> > > :yourself up to be judge and jury to confess to someone else (let alone
> > > :yourself) and admit a mistake.
>
> > > *Perfection is not required to see what you are.
>
> > You still can't admit it. How sad.
>
> If this semantic mistake is the best you got...
> I'm damn near perfect.

2pid, it isn't the "semantic mistake" that shows you for what you are.
That semantic mistake was no big deal.

No, the result of your "semantic mistake" was your insulting my
'integrity', accusing me of 'twisting' and 'cutting' lacking 'moral
fiber' and all sorts of others things. (I fully admit that nobody has
a clue as to what you mean when you use these words, hence the single
quotes.)

It would have been so simple just to say, "I misread the quote. I
didn't see where you accurately quoted what was said. I was wrong. I'm
sorry." Of course, it's too late for that now. Your true colors have
been revealed yet again.

Instead, you've been dancing, cutting, twisting and continuing to
insult based on a mistake that *you* made. Don't you find that at all
funny? I do, but in a very sad way. That's why you are pathetic.
That's why you garner such feelings of pity here.

And here comes your inevitable attempt to shift topics:

> > Perhaps you 'think' admitting an error will cause you to lose your
> > 'credibility'.
>
> *Nah...I just don't want you to wet your pants with glee.
> Wool thongs get itchy real fast.
>
> You have sworn off all use of cotton, right?

Whatever, 2pid. I'm not biting on shifting attention away from your
hypocrisy and stupidity.

> Or is your guilt not all that great?

We have different definitions of the word 'guilt', 2pid.

Because I see something wrong and actively try to fight it does not
mean I feel 'guilt'. It means that I see something wrong and actively
try to fight it.

Is there even one single word in the English language that you
understand the meaning of? Duh.

> > > :No, it's far easier to dance around and name-call, isn't it?
>
> > > Lol...hypocrisy is running wild.
>
> > There's no hypocrisy, 2pid, at least not on my part.
>
> That's right...you think it's ok to be a fulltime asshole
> so there's nothing wrong or hypocritical about it.

It's not hypocritical unless I claim to be something else, which I
haven't, 2pid. Here: "I. Shhhh!, am a full-time asshole." (Feel free
to cut-and-paste that to prove your 'points'.)

Now that I've admitted that, will you be equally honest and admit that
you're a full-time imbecile?

> Of course the failing of that is learned by most
> kids by age 5 or so. *You and George are "special".

I have not seen George claim to be anything else either. You'd have to
ask him about that.

I have, however, seen *you* claim to be something else. I have seen
*you* decry insults and other such things.

Failing to see that is hilarious. And (yes, an "IKYABWAI") that is
what makes you so 'special'.

Does it confuse you that so many people have asked you so many times
to look up the word "hypocrite"? I suppose it does as everything seems
to confuse you.

Another drop, from second to first grade. I hope your wife hasn't
forgotten how to put on diapers and wipe bottoms.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 24, 9:57*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Jan 24, 3:07 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 12:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jan 23, 9:25 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > > > ...
> > > > On Jan 23, 2:24 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 22, 8:22 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > I see that you still don't have enough integrity, honesty or honor to
> > > > > > admit that you were wrong. Which is, of course, de rigeur for you.
>
> > > > > > That's very sad considering how much you pretend to invest in those
> > > > > > words. As is typical for you, they are empty of meaning (unless you
> > > > > > are trying to apply them to somebody else).
>
> > > > > > So we are left with the conclusion (yet again)
>
> > > > > We, as in you and your cloner George, are always
> > > > > concluding something not worth the bandwidth
> > > > > it takes to transmit.....and bw is really cheap.
>
> > > > :It's so hard to admit that you're wrong.
>
> > > > Still telling others what they can and cannot do.
> > > > Don't you tire of being the fascist?
>
> > > So 'facism' in your eyes is someone pointing out how stupid you are.
>
> > > I suppose that goes right along with my lack of 'integrity' for
> > > claiming that someone said "for you".
>
> > > lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!
>
> > > > : It's so hard when you set
> > > > :yourself up to be judge and jury to confess to someone else (let alone
> > > > :yourself) and admit a mistake.
>
> > > > Perfection is not required to see what you are.
>
> > > You still can't admit it. How sad.
>
> > If this semantic mistake is the best you got...
> > I'm damn near perfect.
>
> :2pid, it isn't the "semantic mistake" that shows you for what you are.
> :That semantic mistake was no big deal.
>
> :No, the result of your "semantic mistake" was your insulting my
> :'integrity', accusing me of 'twisting' and 'cutting' lacking 'moral
> :fiber' and all sorts of others things.
>
> Well....considering your long history of demonstrating those things,
> what's your problem?

Poor 2pid. Comprehension is something he'll just *never* be good at.

This isn't about me at all, 2pid.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 25, 12:04*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote
> On Jan 24, 9:57 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> > > If this semantic mistake is the best you got...
> > > I'm damn near perfect.
>
> > :2pid, it isn't the "semantic mistake" that shows you for what you are.
> > :That semantic mistake was no big deal.
>
> > :No, the result of your "semantic mistake" was your insulting my
> > :'integrity', accusing me of 'twisting' and 'cutting' lacking 'moral
> > :fiber' and all sorts of others things.
>
> > Well....considering your long history of demonstrating those things,
> > what's your problem?
>
> :Poor 2pid. Comprehension is something he'll just *never* be good at.
>
> :This isn't about me at all, 2pid.
>
> Nothing worthy of note about you even from your perspective.

Twist and dance, dance and twist.

Nice try, 2pid. Stupid and immature, but a nice effort at deflection.
Let's sum up (This is where 2pid will snip the response and insert a
childish "IKYABWAI" or some other infantile attempt at insult):

You did not comprehend something. I did. You questioned my "integrity"
as a result. When you were shown to be wrong, you began the "2pid
dance" which you have been dancing ever since. (BTW, you're a lousy
dancer.)

> Ok, I can live with that.

Twist, twist, twist. See 2pid twist.

Dance, dance, dance. See 2pid dance. 2pid spins when he dances. See
2pid spin!

Look at 2pid twist and dance and spin!

Game over, 2pid. You've lost it. Sorry, but thanks for playing!

See loser 2pid! Lose, 2pid, lose!

You've also lost another grade. That explains the "primer" language.

Is 2pid wet? Change 2pid's pants, Mrs. 2pid!

2pid can never question "integrity" or "honesty" again, nor can he
ever again call anybody a hypocrite. And as for accusing someone of
"twisting" or "spinning"? Why, 2pid's lost his legs! He has nothing to
stand on! Poor 2pid! How will he dance without his legs?

(Mrs. 2pid is happy. It's so much easier to change a legless 2pid's
diapers!)

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 25, 2:27*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:52*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > 2pid can never question "integrity" or "honesty" again, nor can he
> > ever again call anybody a hypocrite.
>
> *Sure I can....

You can do as you wish, 2pid. I hope you don't 'mind' that the rest of
us will be laughing at you.

> it's just those hypocrites with no integrity who are scared of being called out.

It's certainly a shame, 2pid, that you've placed yourself in this
group. You seem to abhor it. Or is this yet something else that you
have no comprehension of?

> You need to stop quivering.

About what? Being barked at by a confused little puppy who's been
wetting his own rug for the past several days?

I've been shot at, for christ's sake. You're no more than a flea on
the windshield.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 25, 4:17*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 2:27*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 12:52*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > 2pid can never question "integrity" or "honesty" again, nor can he
> > > > ever again call anybody a hypocrite.
>
> > > *Sure I can....
>
> > You can do as you wish, 2pid.
>
> *Wow...progress for a fascist.

LOL!

What an imbecile. Whatever you say, dear.

You 'win', 2pid. In your own 'mind' you're not a hypocrite who lacks
honesty and integrity'. Everybody else knows better.

We can agree to that..

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 25, 5:50*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 3:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > What an imbecile. Whatever you say, dear.
>
> > You 'win', 2pid.
>
> Nothing to win... or learn...or benefit in anyway from you.

When is your book coming out?

I can hardly wait.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!