Good news, Witless!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

According to a story in USA Today, a fabulous new treatment for stupidity
is on the horizon.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
ability, or cognition, hit the market.

"The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.
"What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
short-term to long-term memories."

<http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-07-07-smart-pills-main_x.htm>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well, they're not talking about sudden increases in IQ, but it may help
you anyway. What are you taking for your ADD? I'd like to find out whether
it will conflict with these new Smart Pills.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 12, 1:46*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> According to a story in USA Today, a fabulous new treatment for stupidity
> is on the horizon.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
> matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
> ability, or cognition, hit the market.
>
> "The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
> Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
> begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.
> "What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
> short-term to long-term memories."
>
> <http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-07-07-smart-pills-main_x.htm>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Well, they're not talking about sudden increases in IQ, but it may help
> you anyway. What are you taking for your ADD? I'd like to find out whether
> it will conflict with these new Smart Pills.

2pid's faith in god having a plan for him will not allow him to take
these pills. It's similar to his not supporting gay marriage because
he's afraid of god's wrath.

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

George M. Middius wrote...

> Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
> begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.

Helicon Therapeutics, Inc. has moved from Farmingdale NY to San Diego
CA!

One would think that it would have been much cheaper to buy Scott a
plane ticket to NY.

An interesting company that. I could use some of those memory pills.

--
Ken

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 12, 2:46 pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
> matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
> ability, or cognition, hit the market.
>
> "The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
> Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
> begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.
> "What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
> short-term to long-term memories."

Yet "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

John Atkinson wrote...

> Yet "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

It's about hope, I expect they prefer "The Marching Morons"

--
Ken

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

ScottW wrote...

> Ken,
> You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
> But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
> bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
> maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
> cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.

You're right it was childish and thoughtless.

Sorry.

--
Ken

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 1:11*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 3:46*pm, UnsteadyKen > wrote:
>
> > George M. Middius *wrote...
>
> > > *Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
> > > begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year..
>
> > Helicon Therapeutics, Inc. has moved from Farmingdale NY to San Diego
> > CA!
>
> > One would think that it would have been much cheaper to buy Scott a
> > plane ticket to NY.
>
> Ken,
> *You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
> But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
> bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
> maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
> cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.

2pid, calling you stupid is not a "childish taunt".

Do you know why? LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 1:04*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 4:03*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 2:46 pm, George M. Middius >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
> > > matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
> > > ability, or cognition, hit the market.
>
> > > "The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
> > > Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
> > > begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year..
> > > "What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
> > > short-term to long-term memories."
>
> > Yet "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> What that is, is just another broad brushed
> smear from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
> simple hypothetical.

So, dear, dim, 2pid, why would a mayor "hypothetically" ask a
librarian about "hypothetically" banning books?

Should a mayor "hypothetically" ask an administrator about
"hypothetically" skimming funds and "hypothetically" depositing them
in her bank account? What do you suppose the result of that might be?

Talk about swallowing the party line. Moron. LoL.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> What that is, is just another broad brushed
> smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

> from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
> simple hypothetical.

It looks as if you are working your "debating trade"
schtick, ScottW, by assuing that I was referring to
Sarah Palin's question to the Wassila town librarian
about how the mayor could go about removing books
she felt inappropriate from the library's shelves. But
if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

But if you wish to discuss Sarah Palin's suitability
from being one heartbeat away from the presidency,
does it not dismay you that she is not familiar
with the United States' defining foreign policy strategy?

Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
Doctrine?

Long pause...

Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 6:48�am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > smear...
>
> Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> list.
>
> > from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
> > simple hypothetical.
>
> It looks as if you are working your "debating trade"
> schtick, ScottW, by assuing that I was referring to
> Sarah Palin's question to the Wassila town librarian
> about how the mayor could go about removing books
> she felt inappropriate from the library's shelves. But
> if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> question very carefully, you will will see that I
> wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> in general.
>
> But if you wish to discuss Sarah Palin's suitability
> from being one heartbeat away from the presidency,
> does it not dismay you that she is not familiar
> with the United States' defining foreign policy strategy?
>
> Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
> Doctrine?
>
> Long pause...
>
> Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

And then she went on to give a pre-fabricated, generic answer that
revealed that she had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" was. It sent
chills up my spine.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

UnsteadyKen said:

> > But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
> > bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
> > maniacs than show some maturity.

> You're right it was childish and thoughtless.

And yet entirely accurate. Go figure!

> Sorry.

Awwww.....

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> > But if you wish to discuss Sarah Palin's suitability
> > from being one heartbeat away from the presidency,
> > does it not dismay you that she is not familiar
> > with the United States' defining foreign policy strategy?
> >
> > Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
> > Doctrine?
> >
> > Long pause...
> >
> > Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"
>
> And then she went on to give a pre-fabricated, generic answer that
> revealed that she had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" was. It sent
> chills up my spine.

She does have a position even if she doesn't know it consciously. It's the
same as McCain's: "As long as it takes to 'win'."

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 4:03�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:23�am, UnsteadyKen > wrote:
>
> > ScottW �wrote...
> > > Ken,
> > > �You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
> > > But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
> > > bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
> > > maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
> > > cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.
>
> > You're right it was childish and thoughtless.
>
> � No worries. �I was just sad to see one of the few who
> seems to generally treat people with respect
> start sliding.

Do you live up to those same standards of respect? Especially after
calling people who disagree with you "weak minded bandwagoners" and
"schoolyard maniacs"?

Tsk, tsk.

Boon

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> >Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
> >Doctrine?
>
> >Long pause...
> >
> >Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"
>
> A legit response. He might as well have been asking
> about the "conservatives banned books list" as the
> Bush doctrine remains a creation of the media
> constantingly morphing over the years.
> Gibson even had it wrong.
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/13/charlie_gibsons_g
> affee
>
> "The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
> There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have
> been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the
> eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited
> is not the one in common usage today. "

Kudos! Palin is in the clear because no one could be expected to keep up
with Bush's incoherent and constantly changing doctrines!

Stephen



> As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > smear...
>
> > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > list.
>
> Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them: http://www.ala.org.

> And please produce this list. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
consider your having seen something as the test
of validity for something someone else has said,
ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
"Flowers for Algernon":
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.cfm
..

> the Bush doctrine remains a creation of the media
> constantingly morphing over the years.
> Gibson even had it wrong.
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/13/charlie_...

Charlie Gibson was referring, as he subsequently explained,
to Mrs.Palin, to the most commonly accepted definition,
despite Charles Krauthammer's somewhat self-serving words
on the subject. Even then, Mrs. Palin dodged the question,
Do you not feel, ScottW, that someone who might be a
heartbeat away from the presidency should be better-informed
on US foreign policy?

> As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Yeah, right, ScottW. You _work_ that debating trade
schtick! :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 19:14, Vinylanach > wrote:

>
> Do you live up to those same standards of respect? *Especially after
> calling people who disagree with you "weak minded bandwagoners" and
> "schoolyard maniacs"?
>
> Tsk, tsk.
>
> Boon

I for one resent that. I am a mature adult maniac.

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 19:48, ScottW > wrote:

>
> *In general I give people respect and hospitality until
> they demonstrate they no longer deserve it.
>



Lets start a pool.
Who will be the last man standing?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Do you live up to those same standards of respect? *Especially after
> > calling people who disagree with you "weak minded bandwagoners" and
> > "schoolyard maniacs"?

> I for one resent that. I am a mature adult maniac.

Wipe the mustard from your chin.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 13, 4:23*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > >Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
> > > >Doctrine?
> >
> > > >Long pause...
> >
> > > >Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"
> >
> > > A legit response. He might as well have been asking
> > > about the "conservatives banned books list" as the
> > > Bush doctrine remains a creation of the media
> > > constantingly morphing over the years.
> > > Gibson even had it wrong.
> >
> > >http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/13/charlie_...
> > > affee
> >
> > > "The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
> > > There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have
> > > been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the
> > > eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited
> > > is not the one in common usage today. "
> >
> > Kudos! Palin is in the clear because no one could be expected to keep up
> > with Bush's incoherent and constantly changing doctrines!
>
> I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
> I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

Look at section v.

> AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
> Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
> from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.

The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

...the Bush Doctrine, articulated by the president over the past
eighteen months in a series of speeches and encapsulated in the new
National Security Strategy paper released in September, represents a
reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of
U.S. power and, especially, military force. So perhaps it is no surprise
that many Americans--and others in the rest of the world as well--are
struggling to keep up with the changes. Indeed, it often appears that
many in the administration cannot keep up with the president. But in
fact the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of
American security strategy. The Bush Doctrine also represents the
realities of international politics in the post-cold-war,
sole-superpower world. Further, the combination of these two
factors--America's universal political principles and unprecedented
global power and influence--make the Bush Doctrine a whole greater than
the sum of its parts; it is likely to remain the basis for U.S. security
strategy for decades to come.
--

Struggling to keep up! Yes, indeed.

Stephen

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 4:48�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:14�pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 4:03 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 12:23 am, UnsteadyKen > wrote:
>
> > > > ScottW wrote...
> > > > > Ken,
> > > > > You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
> > > > > But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
> > > > > bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
> > > > > maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
> > > > > cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.
>
> > > > You're right it was childish and thoughtless.
>
> > > No worries. I was just sad to see one of the few who
> > > seems to generally treat people with respect
> > > start sliding.
>
> > Do you live up to those same standards of respect?
>
> �In general I give people respect and hospitality until
> they demonstrate they no longer deserve it.

Maybe Terry felt you no longer deserved it.

Boon

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 11:52 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 4:23 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
> > I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
> Look at section v.

Perhaps the "liberal media" planted it.

> > AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
> > Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
> > from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.
>
> The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:
> http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

If you read my exchange with ScottW in this thread
regarding books that conservatives (mainly) wish to
have banned, he subscribes to the "if I haven't
read it, it doesn't exist" sub-class of the "debating
trade." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Sep 13, 11:52 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 13, 4:23 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
> > > I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?
> >
> > http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
> > Look at section v.
>
> Perhaps the "liberal media" planted it.

I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".

> > > AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
> > > Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
> > > from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.
> >
> > The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:
> > http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
>
> If you read my exchange with ScottW in this thread
> regarding books that conservatives (mainly) wish to
> have banned, he subscribes to the "if I haven't
> read it, it doesn't exist" sub-class of the "debating
> trade." :-)

If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
practice?

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
> book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
> practice?

Fire-and-brimstone preachers who rant about "the Gay agenda" are similarly
unimpeded by their 'moderate conservative' brethren. And those who try to
interfere with Planned Parenthood using peaceful means are notably silent
on the issue of their less-rational hit squads. So people like Matthew
Shepherd and Dr. Slapian end up murdered at the hands of hate-fueled
lunatics.

Not that there's a pattern here. As John said, perception is only required
to extend to the end of your nose.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".

BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".
>
> BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
> a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
> miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.

It got humid and windy and there was a little rain last night, but the
biggest effect from the hurricane is an influx of out-of-towners from
the coast. Some kids got the day off from school while gyms served as
staging areas for the evacuees.

UT rescheduled a football game, which is a big deal hereabouts.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 6:03*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:23*am, UnsteadyKen > wrote:
>
> > ScottW *wrote...
> > > Ken,
> > > *You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
> > > But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
> > > bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
> > > maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
> > > cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.
>
> > You're right it was childish and thoughtless.
>
> * No worries. *I was just sad to see one of the few who
> seems to generally treat people with respect
> start sliding.

I'm sure we all respect your stupidity, 2pid. Stupidity in such
staggering amounts is rarely seen. Most people with 'brains' that
function at the level yours 'functions' do not survive very often.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 6:19*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 6:48*am, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > smear...
>
> > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > list.
>
> Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

"Domocrats sure rattle easily." LoL.

Hypocrite. Stupid, lying hypocrite.

> And please produce this list.
> I've never seen it.

That's because you're dumb.

45. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.cfm

> > > from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
> > > simple hypothetical.
>
> > It looks as if you are working your "debating trade"
> > schtick, ScottW, by assuing that I was referring to
> > Sarah Palin's question to the Wassila town librarian
> > about how the mayor could go about removing books
> > she felt inappropriate from the library's shelves.
>
> I was giving you benefit of the doubt.
> Instead your defense is admittedly that you see
> all conservatives being like minded on this
> point, a totally ludicrous viewpoint.

This differes from your frequent and repetitive diatribes against
"Dems" and "liberals" exactly how?

LoL.

What an imbecile.

> > But
> > if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > in general.
>
> *Which is of course, even more absurd and ludicrous.
> *Why do insist on stereotyping all conservatives
> in such a bigotted manner?

Because they tend to be caricatures, easily stereotyped and generally
believing in selfish policies that benefit themselves?

Because they'll lie to get those policies in place? Because the world
to the vasy majority of them is defined in binary questions and
answers?

I give up. Why? LoL.

> As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 14, 6:44*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13, 11:52 pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 4:23 pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> > > > *I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
> > > > I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?
>
> > >http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
> > > Look at section v.
>
> > Perhaps the "liberal media" planted it.
>
> I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".
>
> > > > AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
> > > > Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
> > > > from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.
>
> > > The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:
> > >http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
>
> > If you read my exchange with ScottW in this thread
> > regarding books that conservatives (mainly) wish to
> > have banned, he subscribes to the "if I haven't
> > read it, it doesn't exist" sub-class of the *"debating
> > trade." :-)
>
> If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
> book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
> practice?

And if it's not the conservatives, where are the noted liberals who
have demanded books to be banned?

It's the ultra-right-wing of the republican party, the evangelicals so
truly represented and "energized" by Palin, who are the culprits.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
> > book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
> > practice?

> It's the ultra-right-wing of the republican party, the evangelicals so
> truly represented and "energized" by Palin, who are the culprits.

"The Origin of Species" was a book, you know, as was Galileo's "Dialogue
on Two Worlds". Books are bad. Books are scary. Except for books that tell
you what you already 'know' or what makes you feel safe and secure, like
the "Left Behind" books. Those books are good because you don't need no
book-learning to unnerstanem.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 6:19*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 6:48*am, John Atkinson > wrote:

> > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > list.
>
> Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

We've had this 'discussion', 2pid. If you support republicans, you are
supporting anti-abortion, for example. It's right there in their
platform.

> And please produce this list.
> I've never seen it.

Here are the 'reasons' given for trying to get books banned, 2pid.
Please list the ones you 'think' were given by liberals:

1990–20001

Between 1990 and 2000, of the 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded
by the Office for Intellectual Freedom (see The 100 Most Frequently
Challenged Books):

1,607 were challenges to “sexually explicit” material (up 161 since
1999);
1,427 to material considered to use “offensive language”; (up 165
since 1999)
1,256 to material considered “unsuited to age group”; (up 89 since
1999)
842 to material with an “occult theme or promoting the occult or
Satanism,”; (up 69 since 1999)
737 to material considered to be “violent”; (up 107 since 1999)
515 to material with a homosexual theme or “promoting
homosexuality,” (up 18 since 1999)and
419 to material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)
Other reasons for challenges included “nudity” (317 challenges, up 20
since 1999), “racism” (267 challenges, up 22 since 1999), “sex
education” (224 challenges, up 7 since 1999), and “anti-family” (202
challenges, up 9 since 1999).

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbannedDONOTUSE.cfm#backgroundinformation

My take on potential "liberal" challenges?

Perhaps these. Maybe. Personally I doubt even these challenges were
made by liberals:

737 to material considered to be “violent”; (up 107 since 1999)
419 to material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)
..
The rest are squarely in the evangelical right-wing agenda of your
chosen party. Which you are supporting. LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
> > > book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
> > > practice?
>
> > It's the ultra-right-wing of the republican party, the evangelicals so
> > truly represented and "energized" by Palin, who are the culprits.
>
> "The Origin of Species" was a book, you know, as was Galileo's "Dialogue
> on Two Worlds". Books are bad. Books are scary. Except for books that tell
> you what you already 'know' or what makes you feel safe and secure, like
> the "Left Behind" books. Those books are good because you don't need no
> book-learning to unnerstanem.

Speaking of "Left Behind," author Tim LaHaye co-wrote a series of
Christian teen books with Bob DeMoss. DeMoss is in the news for the
racist caricature Obama Waffles on sale at the Values Voter Summit.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
> > a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
> > miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.
>
> It got humid and windy and there was a little rain last night, but the
> biggest effect from the hurricane is an influx of out-of-towners from
> the coast. Some kids got the day off from school while gyms served as
> staging areas for the evacuees.

The news reports show a huge disaster. Good thing you have all those rich
oil companies roundabout to pick up the slack when FEMA flops.

> UT rescheduled a football game, which is a big deal hereabouts.

Shee-it! That's something all right.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
> > > a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
> > > miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.
> >
> > It got humid and windy and there was a little rain last night, but the
> > biggest effect from the hurricane is an influx of out-of-towners from
> > the coast. Some kids got the day off from school while gyms served as
> > staging areas for the evacuees.
>
> The news reports show a huge disaster. Good thing you have all those rich
> oil companies roundabout to pick up the slack when FEMA flops.

Yep, plenty o' devastation on the coast and up the I-45 corridor.

Hurricane Rita turned out to be a practice run for evacuating Houston.

> > UT rescheduled a football game, which is a big deal hereabouts.
>
> Shee-it! That's something all right.

The new date is the same weekend as ACL-fest. Razorback fans will have
trouble with lodging.

Stephen

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
> >
> > > > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > > > smear...
> >
> > > > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > > > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > > > list.
> >
> > > Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> > > typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> > > to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
> >
> > AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
> > all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
> > general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
> > and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
> > The American Library Association maintains an updated
> > list of books and the organizations that have banned or
> > have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
>
> Is this one of your random sites?
> I search ban in their search window and what do I
> find.
>
> http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/september2006a
> /contracosta.cfm
>
> Hint for the link phobic.
> This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/september2006a/contracosta.cfm
> > Hint for the link[sic] phobic[sic].
> > This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

> No, it's not.

Poor Scottie is confused. He managed to digest the first half of the first
sentence on that page:

"A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries can
bar religious groups from holding worship services in public meeting
rooms."

Cleary Yapper's attention span was overtaxed. It's not fair at all to
expect the poor, benighted pooch to read an entire sentence that goes on
for more than two whole lines of text. All the quibbling and mincing of
the decisions hinged on what "public" means.

BTW, Witlessmongrel says he is not a christian. Real christians are
probably relieved to hear that. Even though it's a lie.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > in general.
> >
> > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.
>
> Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 14, 9:56*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> > > > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > > > smear...
>
> > > > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > > > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > > > list.
>
> > > Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> > > typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> > > to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
>
> > AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
> > all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
> > general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
> > and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
> > The American Library Association maintains an updated
> > list of books and the organizations that have banned or
> > have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
>
> Is this one of your random sites?
> I search ban in their search window and what do I
> find.
>
> http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/septe...
>
> Hint for the link phobic.
> This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

Hint for the non-thinking-impaired:

No, it's not. Duh.

> > > And please produce this list. I've never seen it.
>
> > Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
> > consider your having seen something as the test
> > of validity for something someone else has said,
> > ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
> > "Flowers for Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently...
>
> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>
> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti...
>
> No mention of conservatives. *Once again John assumes
> conservatives must be behind all this.

I asked you in another post, 2pid: which of these would you attribute
to "conservatives" and which to "liberals"?

> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> by parents acting as parents do.

So which would you attribute to "conservative" parents versus
"liberal" parents, 2pid?

> But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
> total 207.
>
> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigotted claims.

But it does,

You would, however, need to join that group of those "non-thinking-
impaired", which is not possible. For you. LoL.

Imbecile.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 14, 7:56�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:43�pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> > > > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > > > smear...
>
> > > > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > > > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > > > list.
>
> > > Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> > > typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> > > to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
>
> > AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
> > all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
> > general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
> > and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
> > The American Library Association maintains an updated
> > list of books and the organizations that have banned or
> > have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
>
> Is this one of your random sites?
> I search ban in their search window and what do I
> find.
>
> http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/septe...
>
> Hint for the link phobic.
> This is the library banning religious groups from the library.
>
>
>
> > > And please produce this list. I've never seen it.
>
> > Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
> > consider your having seen something as the test
> > of validity for something someone else has said,
> > ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
> > "Flowers for Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently...
>
> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>
> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti...
>
> No mention of conservatives. �Once again John assumes
> conservatives must be behind all this.
>
> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> by parents acting as parents do.
> But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
> total 207.
>
> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigotted claims.

This is an exceptionally weak argument, and it's obvious that your
fervor is not directed at the words, but the man. An intelligent man
listens to the argument regardless of the source. It's clear to
everyone here that you don't do that.

And if you're going to call someone bigoted, at least spell it right.
In the last week you've used bigotted and biggotted.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message

> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW > wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 4:43?pm, John Atkinson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
>>>>>>> conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>>
>>>>>> What that is, is just another broad brushed
>>>>>> smear...
>>
>>>>> Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
>>>>> has long been on the conservatives' banned books
>>>>> list.
>>
>>>> Who are these conservatives which you, in your
>>>> typical intellectually laziness and general lack of
>>>> devotion
>>>> to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
>>
>>> AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
>>> all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
>>> general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
>>> and holding to a conservative political point of view.
>>> The American Library Association maintains an updated
>>> list of books and the organizations that have banned or
>>> have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
>>
>> Is this one of your random sites?
>> I search ban in their search window and what do I
>> find.
>>
>> http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/septe...
>>
>> Hint for the link phobic.
>> This is the library banning religious groups from the
>> library.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And please produce this list. I've never seen it.
>>
>>> Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
>>> consider your having seen something as the test
>>> of validity for something someone else has said,
>>> ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
>>> "Flowers for
>>> Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently...
>>
>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>>
>> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti...
>>
>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
>> conservatives must be behind all this.
>>
>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
>> by parents acting as parents do.
>> But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
>> total 207.
>>
>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
>> claims.

> This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

> and it's obvious
> that your fervor is not directed at the words, but the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and well-documented. I've made the
same point related to a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

> An intelligent man
> listens to the argument regardless of the source.

Scott has no problem there. He listened to the argument, studied its
support, and saw the obvious flaw.

> It's clear to everyone here that you don't do that.

???????????????

> And if you're going to call someone bigoted, at least
> spell it right.
> In the last week you've used bigotted and biggotted.

Oh, its the old "Let me rant about your bad spelling, but don't check mine"
debating trade trick.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 7:10�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Sep 13, 4:43?pm, John Atkinson
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> >>>>>>> conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> >>>>>> What that is, is just another broad brushed
> >>>>>> smear...
>
> >>>>> Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> >>>>> has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> >>>>> list.
>
> >>>> Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> >>>> typical intellectually laziness and general lack of
> >>>> devotion
> >>>> to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
>
> >>> AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
> >>> all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
> >>> general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
> >>> and holding to a conservative political point of view.
> >>> The American Library Association maintains an updated
> >>> list of books and the organizations that have banned or
> >>> have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
>
> >> Is this one of your random sites?
> >> I search ban in their search window and what do I
> >> find.
>
> >>http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/septe....
>
> >> Hint for the link phobic.
> >> This is the library banning religious groups from the
> >> library.
>
> >>>> And please produce this list. I've never seen it.
>
> >>> Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
> >>> consider your having seen something as the test
> >>> of validity for something someone else has said,
> >>> ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
> >>> "Flowers for
> >>> Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently...
>
> >> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>
> >>http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti....
>
> >> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
> >> conservatives must be behind all this.
>
> >> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> >> by parents acting as parents do.
> >> But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
> >> total 207.
>
> >> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
> >> claims.
> > This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>
> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
>
> > and it's obvious
> > that your �fervor is not directed at the words, but the man.
>
> Actually, the point is both well-taken and well-documented. I've made the
> same point related to a different issue, and all John did is run and hide..

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at HE2005? Doesn't
sound like running and hiding to me.

In fact, this is how everyone else in the audio world sees it...JA
gave you your shot, you blew it, and now you're just wasting
everyone's time. If you call that running and hiding, then I guess
it's your cross to bear.

>
> > An intelligent man
> > listens to the argument regardless of the source.
>
> Scott has no problem there. He listened to the argument, studied its
> support, and saw the obvious flaw.

Please lay it all out for everyone to see. As a scientist, you should
be able to do that easily.

>
> > It's �clear to �everyone here that you don't do that.
>
> ???????????????

Okay, correction noted. It's clear to everyone except Arny, the other
person here with a hard-on for JA.

>
> > And if you're going to call someone bigoted, at least
> > spell it right.
> > In the last week you've used bigotted and biggotted.
>
> Oh, its the old "Let me rant about your bad spelling, but don't check mine"
> debating trade trick.

No, it's the "you shouldn't call someone a name if you have to spell
it three different ways" debating trade trick. It's also known as the
Krueger Korrection.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:11*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> > *ScottW > wrote:

> > > Hint for the link phobic.
> > > This is the library banning religious groups from the library.
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> "A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
> can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
> meeting rooms."
>
> But I'll bet anarchists planning their protests are just fine.

Not if they're worshipping the religion of anarchy, imbecile. LoL.

There isn't a Constitutional separation between anarchists and
government, imbecile. LoL.

Are you brain dead, 2pid? Have you had your 'brain' 'function' tested
recently? LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > > > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
> >
> > > > > > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > > > > > smear...
> >
> > > > > > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > > > > > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > > > > > list.
> >
> > > > > Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> > > > > typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> > > > > to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
> >
> > > > AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
> > > > all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
> > > > general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
> > > > and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
> > > > The American Library Association maintains an updated
> > > > list of books and the organizations that have banned or
> > > > have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
> >
> > > Is this one of your random sites?
> > > I search ban in their search window and what do I
> > > find.
> >
> > >http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/septe...
> > > /contracosta.cfm
> >
> > > Hint for the link phobic.
> > > This is the library banning religious groups from the library.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> "A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
> can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
> meeting rooms."

You do understand that to "bar religious groups from holding worship
services" is not the same as "banning religious groups from the
library", don't you?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yapper is dumbfounded by the ironies of liberty and civil rights.

> > > This is the library banning religious groups from the library.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> "A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
> can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
> meeting rooms."

So now you 'understand' why your fatuous claim was wrong, don't you?

> But I'll bet anarchists planning their protests are just fine.

Is this where you throw a tantrum and curse the liberalism of the Founding
Fathers?

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:18�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 8:43�pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > in general.
>
> > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.
>
> > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
>
> > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
>
> � I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> claim against conservatives.
> So you substitute cheap insults. �Typical.
> Still others want to know what you've done to
> earn disrespect. �They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:14�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 7:05�am, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 7:56 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 4:43 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > > > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> > > > > > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > > > > > smear...
>
> > > > > > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > > > > > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > > > > > list.
>
> > > > > Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> > > > > typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> > > > > to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
>
> > > > AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
> > > > all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
> > > > general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
> > > > and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
> > > > The American Library Association maintains an updated
> > > > list of books and the organizations that have banned or
> > > > have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
>
> > > Is this one of your random sites?
> > > I search ban in their search window and what do I
> > > find.
>
> > >http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/septe....
>
> > > Hint for the link phobic.
> > > This is the library banning religious groups from the library.
>
> > > > > And please produce this list. I've never seen it.
>
> > > > Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
> > > > consider your having seen something as the test
> > > > of validity for something someone else has said,
> > > > ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
> > > > "Flowers for Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently...
>
> > > and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>
> > >http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti....
>
> > > No mention of conservatives. Once again John assumes
> > > conservatives must be behind all this.
>
> > > The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> > > by parents acting as parents do.
> > > But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
> > > total 207.
>
> > > Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigotted claims.
>
> > This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>
> � Another obtuse declaration with no substantive support.

Actually, your post is referenced in detail for others to see. Of
course you could make us all look dumb by providing a list of liberal
organizations who like to burn books. You didn't...and I'm hoping you
see the irony.

In other words, it's not an obtuse declaration...I'm utterly astounded
that I have to point this **** out to you. I can only assume you're
playing Internet games. Or, as Arny likes to think, "it doesn't exist
if there isn't a URL."

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 11:14, Vinylanach > wrote:

>
> No, it's the "you shouldn't call someone a name if you have to spell
> it three different ways" debating trade trick. It's also known as the
> Krueger Korrection.
>
> Boon-

No, its the Krooger kurrection

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:20*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 3:11*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > Hint for the link phobic.
> > > > > This is the library banning religious groups from the library.
>
> > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > "A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
> > > can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
> > > meeting rooms."
>
> > > But I'll bet anarchists planning their protests are just fine.
>
> > Not if they're worshipping the religion of anarchy, imbecile. LoL.
>
> > There isn't a Constitutional separation between anarchists and
> > government, imbecile. LoL.
>
> * I knew your oath to protect and defend was BS.

From your hypothetical, imaginary anarchists who are plotting
"protests" in public libraries?

Get a grip, 2pid: a "protest" is not something the Constitution needs
defending from. In fact, the Constitution ensure that we have a
*right* to protest. Anarchists plotting "protests" are well within the
law and well within their rights (as long as they pull a permit if
necessary LOL!).

What an ignorant buffoon. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
> > > > > > > > > conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?
>
> > > > > > > > What that is, is just another broad brushed
> > > > > > > > smear...
>
> > > > > > > Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
> > > > > > > has long been on the conservatives' banned books
> > > > > > > list.
>
> > > > > > Who are these conservatives which you, in your
> > > > > > typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
> > > > > > to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?
>
> > > > > AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
> > > > > all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
> > > > > general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
> > > > > and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
> > > > > The American Library Association maintains an updated
> > > > > list of books and the organizations that have banned or
> > > > > have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.
>
> > > > Is this one of your random sites?
> > > > I search ban in their search window and what do I
> > > > find.
>
> > > >http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/septe...
> > > > /contracosta.cfm
>
> > > > Hint for the link phobic.
> > > > This is the library banning religious groups from the library.
>
> > > No, it's not.
>
> > "A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
> > can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
> > meeting rooms."
>
> You do understand that to "bar religious groups from holding worship
> services" is not the same as "banning religious groups from the
> library", don't you?

You're talking to 2pid. You'll have to go slower and enunciate.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:18*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 8:43*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > in general.
>
> > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.
>
> > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
>
> > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
>
> * I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> claim against conservatives.
> So you substitute cheap insults. *Typical.
> Still others want to know what you've done to
> earn disrespect. *They clearly have their own blind spots.

I've asked you which issues are likely for liberals to challenge books
on, 2pid.

I see that you're not man enough to do so, as you know you'll lose.

Run away, little man! LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 15, 1:21*pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > > > in general.
> >
> > > > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.
> >
> > > > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
> >
> > > > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > > > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
> >
> > > I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> > > claim against conservatives.
> > > So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
> > > Still others want to know what you've done to
> > > earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.
> >
> > It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
> > whenever JA posts.
>
> I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
> Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Shhh! gave a good run-down on the ALA list. You rejected it out of hand,
but not convincingly.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:44*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 1:21*pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > > > > in general.
>
> > > > > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best..
>
> > > > > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
>
> > > > > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > > > > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
>
> > > > I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> > > > claim against conservatives.
> > > > So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
> > > > Still others want to know what you've done to
> > > > earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.
>
> > > It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
> > > whenever JA posts.
>
> > I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
> > Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.
>
> Shhh! gave a good run-down on the ALA list. You rejected it out of hand,
> but not convincingly.

But I must not have been polite enough for 2pid, which gives him a
valid 'reason' to reject it. LOL!

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:34�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:21�pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > > > in general.
>
> > > > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.
>
> > > > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
>
> > > > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > > > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
>
> > > I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> > > claim against conservatives.
> > > So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
> > > Still others want to know what you've done to
> > > earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.
>
> > It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
> > whenever JA posts.
>
> I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
> Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! That explains everything!

Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
allegations supported? Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > > > > in general.
>
> > > > > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best..
>
> > > > > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
>
> > > > > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > > > > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
>
> > > > I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> > > > claim against conservatives.
> > > > So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
> > > > Still others want to know what you've done to
> > > > earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.
>
> > > It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
> > > whenever JA posts.
>
> > I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
> > Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.
>
> Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! *That explains everything!
>
> Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
> allegations supported? *Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
>
> Boon-

Wiki lacks an article on Krooligic.
Hmmm, you're a good writer, want to take a stab at it?

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > > > > in general.
>
> > > > > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best..
>
> > > > > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
>
> > > > > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > > > > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
>
> > > > I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> > > > claim against conservatives.
> > > > So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
> > > > Still others want to know what you've done to
> > > > earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.
>
> > > It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
> > > whenever JA posts.
>
> > I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
> > Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.
>
> Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! *That explains everything!
>
> Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
> allegations supported? *Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
>
> Boon-

nor does wiki have one for debating trade.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> nor does wiki have one for debating trade.

Wikipedia is for real-world subjects. What you're imagining hasn't been
invented yet -- a Usenet wiki. You should make that your golden years
retirement project instead of that double-dipping that just makes you
fatter and stupider.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 4:48�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > > > > > in general.
>
> > > > > > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.
>
> > > > > > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
>
> > > > > > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > > > > > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
>
> > > > > I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> > > > > claim against conservatives.
> > > > > So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
> > > > > Still others want to know what you've done to
> > > > > earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.
>
> > > > It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
> > > > whenever JA posts.
>
> > > I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
> > > Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.
>
> > Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! �That explains everything!
>
> > Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
> > allegations supported? �Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
>
> > Boon-
>
> Wiki lacks an article on Krooligic.
> Hmmm, you're a good writer, want to take a stab at it?-

I am a registered editor...

Boon

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Vinylanach > wrote:

> On Sep 15, 4:48?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
> > > > > > > > > > question very carefully, you will will see that I
> > > > > > > > > > wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
> > > > > > > > > > in general.
> >
> > > > > > > > > As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at
> > > > > > > > > best.
> >
> > > > > > > > Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.
> >
> > > > > > > To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
> > > > > > > to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)
> >
> > > > > > I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
> > > > > > claim against conservatives.
> > > > > > So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
> > > > > > Still others want to know what you've done to
> > > > > > earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.
> >
> > > > > It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
> > > > > whenever JA posts.
> >
> > > > I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
> > > > Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.
> >
> > > Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! ?That explains everything!
> >
> > > Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
> > > allegations supported? ?Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
> >
> > > Boon-
> >
> > Wiki lacks an article on Krooligic.
> > Hmmm, you're a good writer, want to take a stab at it?-
>
> I am a registered editor...
>
> Boon

Good writing is an overrated skill.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> Good writing is an overrated skill.

Lack of substance noted.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > Good writing is an overrated skill.
>
> Lack of substance noted.

Well said.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > > Good writing is an overrated skill.
> >
> > Lack of substance noted.
>
> Well said.

As usual, I said nothing. But thanks for noticing.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 20:36, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > nor does wiki have one for debating trade.
>
> Wikipedia is for real-world subjects. What you're imagining hasn't been
> invented yet -- a Usenet wiki. You should make that your golden years
> retirement project instead of that double-dipping that just makes you
> fatter and stupider.

"At least" I can still work into my retirement years,
unlike someone we know who is too mentally incapacitated to hold
down a job.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Wikipedia is for real-world subjects. What you're imagining hasn't been
> > invented yet -- a Usenet wiki. You should make that your golden years
> > retirement project instead of that double-dipping that just makes you
> > fatter and stupider.
>
> "At least" I can still work into my retirement years,
> unlike someone we know who is too mentally incapacitated to hold
> down a job.

Scottie got fired again?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 10:05*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> "At least" I can still work into my retirement years,
> unlike someone we know who is too mentally incapacitated to hold
> down a job.

You'll lose your friendship with 2pid if you keep slamming him like
this.

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message


> On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message

>>

>>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW > wrote:

>>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>>
>>>> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti...
>>
>>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
>>>> conservatives must be behind all this.
>>
>>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
>>>> by parents acting as parents do.
>>>> But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
>>>> total 207.
>>
>>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
>>>> claims.
>>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>>
>> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
>>
>>> and it's obvious
>>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but the
>>> man.
>>
>> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
>> well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
>> different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
>
> Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
> HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

> In fact, this is how everyone else in the audio world
> sees it...

Baseless assertion....

Again.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 17, 12:16�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>
> >>>>http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti....
>
> >>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
> >>>> conservatives must be behind all this.
>
> >>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> >>>> by parents acting as parents do.
> >>>> But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
> >>>> total 207.
>
> >>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
> >>>> claims.
> >>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>
> >> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
>
> >>> and it's obvious
> >>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but the
> >>> man.
>
> >> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
> >> well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
> >> different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
>
> > Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
> > HE2005?
>
> That was then, this was much more recently.

Well, I'm going to assume that JA gave you a definitive chance to
prove your point, you failed colossally, and now he just isn't going
to waste any more time on you. Do you see the pattern here? People
just don't give a **** about you anymore. They're bored. Internet
assholes are so 1998.

>
> > In fact, this is how everyone else in the audio world
> > sees it...
>
> Baseless assertion....

I don't know...I'm in the audio world, and no one seems to know who
you are.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> Well, I'm going to assume that JA gave you a definitive chance to
> prove your point, you failed colossally, and now he just isn't going
> to waste any more time on you.

Mister Krooger certainly "failed" to repeat any of the slurs and slanders
he's so free with on Usenet. Personally, I think Turdy was intimidated by
the glimpse he caught of himself in the mirror. That stylish '70s leisure
suit is very likely to scare the crap out of a mentally defective nerd
like Krooger.

> Do you see the pattern here? People
> just don't give a **** about you anymore. They're bored. Internet
> assholes are so 1998.

JEE-zus loves you even if you don't love him.

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message

> On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti...
>>
>>>>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
>>>>>> conservatives must be behind all this.
>>
>>>>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
>>>>>> by parents acting as parents do.
>>>>>> But the religious actions total 28 while
>>>>>> administrators total 207.
>>
>>>>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
>>>>>> claims.
>>>>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>>
>>>> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
>>
>>>>> and it's obvious
>>>>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
>>>>> the man.
>>
>>>> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
>>>> well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
>>>> different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
>>
>>> Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
>>> HE2005?
>>
>> That was then, this was much more recently.

> Well, I'm going to assume...

A baseless assumption, which is only a little different than a baseless
assertion.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
> > On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
> >>
> >>>>>> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti..
> >>>>>> .
> >>
> >>>>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
> >>>>>> conservatives must be behind all this.
> >>
> >>>>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> >>>>>> by parents acting as parents do.
> >>>>>> But the religious actions total 28 while
> >>>>>> administrators total 207.
> >>
> >>>>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
> >>>>>> claims.
> >>>>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
> >>
> >>>> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
> >>
> >>>>> and it's obvious
> >>>>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
> >>>>> the man.
> >>
> >>>> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
> >>>> well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
> >>>> different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
> >>
> >>> Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
> >>> HE2005?
> >>
> >> That was then, this was much more recently.
>
> > Well, I'm going to assume...
>
> A baseless assumption, which is only a little different than a baseless
> assertion.

Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject headers of posts,
when you are critical of others doing that?

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 17, 1:21�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
> >>>>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>
> >>>>>>http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti...
>
> >>>>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
> >>>>>> conservatives must be behind all this.
>
> >>>>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> >>>>>> by parents acting as parents do.
> >>>>>> But the religious actions total 28 while
> >>>>>> administrators total 207.
>
> >>>>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
> >>>>>> claims.
> >>>>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>
> >>>> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
>
> >>>>> and it's obvious
> >>>>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
> >>>>> the man.
>
> >>>> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
> >>>> well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
> >>>> different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
>
> >>> Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
> >>> HE2005?
>
> >> That was then, this was much more recently.
> > Well, I'm going to assume...
>
> A baseless assumption, which is only a little different than a baseless
> assertion.-

We all know your life is meaningless without URLs.

LOL!

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject headers of posts,
> when you are critical of others doing that?

Hypocrisy is not proscribed by any of the ten kroomandments.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti..
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>>>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John
>>>>>>>> assumes conservatives must be behind all this.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
>>>>>>>> by parents acting as parents do.
>>>>>>>> But the religious actions total 28 while
>>>>>>>> administrators total 207.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
>>>>>>>> claims.
>>>>>>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
>>>>
>>>>>>> and it's obvious
>>>>>>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
>>>>>>> the man.
>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
>>>>>> well-documented. I've made the same point related to
>>>>>> a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
>>>>
>>>>> Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
>>>>> HE2005?
>>>>
>>>> That was then, this was much more recently.
>>
>>> Well, I'm going to assume...
>>
>> A baseless assumption, which is only a little different
>> than a baseless assertion.
>
> Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
> headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
> that?

Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing the Middiot every
time he does it.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 18, 4:32�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
> >>> On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>> On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti..
> >>>>>>>> .
>
> >>>>>>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John
> >>>>>>>> assumes conservatives must be behind all this.
>
> >>>>>>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> >>>>>>>> by parents acting as parents do.
> >>>>>>>> But the religious actions total 28 while
> >>>>>>>> administrators total 207.
>
> >>>>>>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
> >>>>>>>> claims.
> >>>>>>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
>
> >>>>>> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
>
> >>>>>>> and it's obvious
> >>>>>>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
> >>>>>>> the man.
>
> >>>>>> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
> >>>>>> well-documented. I've made the same point related to
> >>>>>> a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
>
> >>>>> Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
> >>>>> HE2005?
>
> >>>> That was then, this was much more recently.
>
> >>> Well, I'm going to assume...
>
> >> A baseless assumption, which is only a little different
> >> than a baseless assertion.
>
> > Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
> > headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
> > that?
>
> Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing the Middiot every
> time he does it.

But George isn't critical of others doing it. That was her point.
You didn't get it. Stop the presses.

Boon

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlists/challengesbyiniti
> >>>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John
> >>>>>>>> assumes conservatives must be behind all this.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> The number of challenges is far and away dominated
> >>>>>>>> by parents acting as parents do.
> >>>>>>>> But the religious actions total 28 while
> >>>>>>>> administrators total 207.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
> >>>>>>>> claims.
> >>>>>>> This is an exceptionally weak argument,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> and it's obvious
> >>>>>>> that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
> >>>>>>> the man.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, the point is both well-taken and
> >>>>>> well-documented. I've made the same point related to
> >>>>>> a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
> >>>>> HE2005?
> >>>>
> >>>> That was then, this was much more recently.
> >>
> >>> Well, I'm going to assume...
> >>
> >> A baseless assumption, which is only a little different
> >> than a baseless assertion.
> >
> > Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
> > headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
> > that?
>
> Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing the Middiot every
> time he does it.

It's YOU who are critical of others doing it, not George. So it's YOU
who are hypocritical on this issue.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Arnii "****-for-Dinner" Kroofeces whines to Mistress Jenn.

> > Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
> > headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
> > that?
>
> Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing [my supreme master]
> every time he does it.

Arnii, be a good turd and point out where I complained about anybody doing
it. What are you saying now? You can't find a single instance of me
complaining about attack subjects? But Arnii, that would make you a
hypocrite. You're a hypocrite, Turdy. God hates hypocrites. (So do human
beings, but of course that has no importance to the likes of you.)

Mistress isn't going to rescue you from the fetid sump of your vile
hypocrisy, Mr. ****. You're going to moulder and rot in a pit of stinking
feces for all eternity. That's how the Devil will punish you for being a
**** during your wasted days on earth.