Note to Clyde

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Don't bother.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Noi, 11:02, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Don't bother.

I will bother.

You are in need of some help.
You only posted your message three times, in three different threads.
That's not enough to get the word out.
to help you along, I'll post it here, just
in case anybody missed your three earlier identical posts.
I'll do this for a while, but in the
long rune, you might want to rent a borg.

George says:

"To His Magnificent Dumbness, duh-Scottie of San Diego:


Arnii Krooborg has proven himself the worst excuse for a self-
described
"christian" in the history of Usenet. Of course, we all know the
filthy
Beast is off his rails, as in not all there, looney-tunes, bazonkers,
etc.
By contrast, you appear to be sane, albeit a bit slow. I would like to
ask
you, as a lifelong and devout Lutheran, why you condone Bratzi's
racist
rants.


By way of explaining your responsibility to deliver a rationalization
for
your approval of RAO's little Nazi bedbug, I point out that you have
adopted
the Krooborg's "debating trade" religion. Therefore we Smart Guys
demand
that you conform to the least possible level of integrity in the
performance
of the "debating trade". That means that you, like your hideous,
misbegotten
idol Arnii Kroofeces, are required to utter frequent denunciations of
every
opinion and every post of which you disapprove. Lacking such overt
denunciations, your allegiance to the "debating trade" indicates your
acceptance of such posts.


You've never been shy about tattling on me or Shhhh to Mistress Jenn.
Nor
have you been reticent about launching volley after volley of
impotent
puff-ball insults at John Atkinson, whose only crime, by the
'evidence'
you've cited, is drawing breath. Since you are not obviously insane,
you
bear the obligation to denounce racism and other bigotry, else
otherwise
your fealty to those antihuman values be presumed as dominant. Get on
the
stick, you filthy mutt! "


glad to be of assistance, George.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 26, 5:37*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 26 Noi, 11:02, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Don't bother.
>
> I will bother.
>
> You are in need of some help.
> You only posted your message three times, in three different threads.
> That's not enough to get the word out.
> to help you along, I'll post it here, just
> in case anybody missed your three earlier identical posts.
> I'll do this for a while, but in the
> long rune, you might want to rent a borg.
>
> George says:
>
> "To His Magnificent Dumbness, duh-Scottie of San Diego:
>
> Arnii Krooborg has proven himself the worst excuse for a self-
> described
> "christian" in the history of Usenet. Of course, we all know the
> filthy
> Beast is off his rails, as in not all there, looney-tunes, bazonkers,
> etc.
> By contrast, you appear to be sane, albeit a bit slow. I would like to
> ask
> you, as a lifelong and devout Lutheran, why you condone Bratzi's
> racist
> rants.
>
> By way of explaining your responsibility to deliver a rationalization
> for
> your approval of RAO's little Nazi bedbug, I point out that you have
> adopted
> the Krooborg's "debating trade" religion. Therefore we Smart Guys
> demand
> that you conform to the least possible level of integrity in the
> performance
> of the "debating trade". That means that you, like your hideous,
> misbegotten
> idol Arnii Kroofeces, are required to utter frequent denunciations of
> every
> opinion and every post of which you disapprove. Lacking such overt
> denunciations, your allegiance to the "debating trade" indicates your
> acceptance of such posts.
>
> You've never been shy about tattling on me or Shhhh to Mistress Jenn.
> Nor
> have you been reticent about launching volley after volley of
> impotent
> puff-ball insults at John Atkinson, whose only crime, by the
> 'evidence'
> you've cited, is drawing breath. Since you are not obviously insane,
> you
> bear the obligation to denounce racism and other bigotry, else
> otherwise
> your fealty to those antihuman values be presumed as dominant. Get on
> the
> stick, you filthy mutt! "
>
> glad to be of assistance, George.

Learn how to format then. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Wacky Sacky said:

> > Don't bother.

> I will bother.

You're self-bothering.

> You are in need of some help.

How considerate of you. When it comes to your help, I'd prefer you focus on
a couple of outstanding questions that you've been weaseling away from for
months. First, when you were squealing in terror about SSM during your
colloquy with Jenn, you pretended not to understand anything she said. I'm
sure you can do better once you're out of Scottie's orbit.

Second, you once claimed, in apparent seriousness, that Witless is "quite
intelligent". I asked you then, and I'm asking you now, if you truly believe
that, how do you explain his simpleton act on Usenet?

It would be much more fruitful for you to clean up your own messes than to
run interference for poor, dumb Scottie Witlessmongrel.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Noi, 19:38, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Wacky Sacky said:
>
> > > Don't bother.
> > I will bother.
>
> You're self-bothering.
>
> > You are in need of some help.
>
> How considerate of you. When it comes to your help, I'd prefer you focus on
> a couple of outstanding questions that you've been weaseling away from for
> months. First, when you were squealing in terror about SSM during your
> colloquy with Jenn, you pretended not to understand anything she said. I'm
> sure you can do better once you're out of Scottie's orbit.
>

That is not a question

> Second, you once claimed, in apparent seriousness, that Witless is "quite
> intelligent". I asked you then, and I'm asking you now, if you truly believe
> that, how do you explain his simpleton act on Usenet?
>

that is your characterization, so you can try to explain it.


> It would be much more fruitful for you to clean up your own messes than to
> run interference for poor, dumb Scottie Witlessmongrel.

My postings about your so-called question are about you and your
question, not about Scott.