Ode to Scottie Witlessmongrel [Archive]

Jenn[_3_]

December 8th 08, 09:30 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 1:07*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 11:17*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 8, 7:56*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > > > > > > He licks his own asshole
> > > > > > > > > In the dump out back
> > > > > > > > > He squirms from fleas that bite him
> > > > > > > > > He just yaps
> > > > > > > > > And he barks about some deep stuff
> > > > > > > > > That he can't ever understand
> > > > > > > > > Still stupid afler all these years
> > > > > > > > > Oh, still stupid afler all these yearsS
> >
> > > > > > > > OK, so we can now compare and contrast a "Kroodown" vs. a
> > > > > > > > "2down".
> > > > > > > > I'd say the similarities are startling.
> >
> > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against SSM. I believe
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > fear
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't remember.
> >
> > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a possibility, but he
> > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > said, AFAIK.
> >
> > > > > * *Only hatred I've seen around here comes from the gay community and
> > > > > their
> > > > > resident supporters.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
> >
> > > *I don't know if you deserve to be included or not. * It's a
> > > possibility.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > You said that you've "seen" hatred here. *It would seem an easy matter
> > to say whether you believe that applies to me or not.
>
> I don't know if you feel hatred or not in doing some of the hateful
> things
> you do like accusing me of possibly being motivated by hate.
> It's a possibility you do feel hate when you do those things.
>
> ScottW

I said that it's a possibility because anything is a possibility, since
you haven't indicated what the reason is. So what other "hateful"
things do I do?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 8th 08, 09:39 PM

On Dec 8, 3:05*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 12:31*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:

> > Note that Scottie "I don't hate anybody except those I want to hate"
> > Witlessmongrel is still unable to say why he's against SSM.
>
> *One small reason would be I don't think you should be allowed to
> marry, anyone, ever.
> I do this out of the kindness of my heart to protect some poor
> misguided
> individual from ruining the rest of their life.

And yet you claim that you don't set yourself up as a judge. LoL.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 8th 08, 09:41 PM

On Dec 8, 3:37*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> *I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.

If you could keep this in 'mind' every time you post, you'd have some
empathy for how the rest of us feel. LoL.

Jenn[_3_]

December 8th 08, 09:56 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 1:30*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 1:07*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 8, 11:17*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 8, 7:56*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > He licks his own asshole
> > > > > > > > > > > In the dump out back
> > > > > > > > > > > He squirms from fleas that bite him
> > > > > > > > > > > He just yaps
> > > > > > > > > > > And he barks about some deep stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > That he can't ever understand
> > > > > > > > > > > Still stupid afler all these years
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh, still stupid afler all these yearsS
> >
> > > > > > > > > > OK, so we can now compare and contrast a "Kroodown" vs. a
> > > > > > > > > > "2down".
> > > > > > > > > > I'd say the similarities are startling.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against SSM. I
> > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > fear
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't remember.
> >
> > > > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a possibility, but he
> > > > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > > said, AFAIK.
> >
> > > > > > > * *Only hatred I've seen around here comes from the gay community
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > resident supporters.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
> >
> > > > > *I don't know if you deserve to be included or not. * It's a
> > > > > possibility.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > You said that you've "seen" hatred here. *It would seem an easy matter
> > > > to say whether you believe that applies to me or not.
> >
> > > I don't know if you feel hatred or not in doing some of the hateful
> > > things
> > > you do like accusing me of possibly being motivated by hate.
> > > * It's a possibility you do feel hate when you do those things.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > I said that it's a possibility because anything is a possibility,
>
> Wow, that's quite the rationale you've made for saying
> just about whatever you feel like.
> Well, your possibilities are endless as well.
> Where should we begin disecting your life with
> possibilities?

You haven't indicated what the reason is. If you say that you hatred of
gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason, I'll believe
you. I have no reason not to.

>
> > since
> > you haven't indicated what the reason is. *So what other "hateful"
> > things do I do?
>
> I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.

lol I see.

Clyde Slick

December 8th 08, 10:44 PM

On 8 Dec, 16:05, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 12:31*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > TerrierBorg is ANGRY! <grrrr!>
>
> > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against SSM. I believe it's fear
> > > > > > > and Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't remember.
> > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a possibility, but he hasn't
> > > > > > said, AFAIK.
> > > > > * *Only hatred I've * * * * * * * * * * *seen around here comes from the * * * * * * * * * * *gay community and
> > * * their
> > > > > resident
>
> > supporters.
>
> > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
> > > * * * * * * * I don't know * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *if you deserve to be included or not. * It's a * * * * * * *possibility.
>
> > woof! barkbarkbark! <snarl!>
>
> > Note that Scottie "I don't hate anybody except those I want to hate"
> > Witlessmongrel is still unable to say why he's against SSM.
>
> *One small reason would be I don't think you should be allowed to
> marry, anyone, ever.
> I do this out of the kindness of my heart to protect some poor
> misguided
> individual from ruining the rest of their life.
>
> ScottW-

george has the right to marry any woman that will have him.

Clyde Slick

December 8th 08, 10:48 PM

On 8 Dec, 17:29, ScottW > wrote:

>
> Do you think making false accusations is funny?

Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
For him, it is merely a way of life.
Where joy comes to Krueger is when
he receives his warranted abuse for his having made his false
accusations.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 12:35 AM

On Dec 8, 3:49 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:39 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 3:05 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 12:31 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Note that Scottie "I don't hate anybody except those I want to hate"
> > > > Witlessmongrel is still unable to say why he's against SSM.
>
> > > One small reason would be I don't think you should be allowed to
> > > marry, anyone, ever.
> > > I do this out of the kindness of my heart to protect some poor
> > > misguided
> > > individual from ruining the rest of their life.
>
> > And yet you claim that you don't set yourself up as a judge. LoL.
>
> LoL. When did I ever say that? Please provide a quote.

So you admit that you're uniquely unqualified to judge anything. Thank
you.

> Once again you're just making **** up. Everyone judges
> everything all the time. Your post is an attempt to pass judgement,
> albeit a feeble one.

Don't you agree that judges should be thoughtful, and not
'thoughtful'?

No, probably not. You poor guy.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 12:35 AM

On Dec 8, 4:44*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 8 Dec, 16:05, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 12:31*pm, George M. Middius >
> > wrote:
>
> > > TerrierBorg is ANGRY! <grrrr!>
>
> > > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against SSM. I believe it's fear
> > > > > > > > and Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't remember.
> > > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a possibility, but he hasn't
> > > > > > > said, AFAIK.
> > > > > > * *Only hatred I've * * * * * * * * * * *seen around here comes from the * * * * * * * * * * *gay community and
> > > * * their
> > > > > > resident
>
> > > supporters.
>
> > > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
> > > > * * * * * * * I don't know * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *if you deserve to be included or not. * It's a * * * * * * *possibility.
>
> > > woof! barkbarkbark! <snarl!>
>
> > > Note that Scottie "I don't hate anybody except those I want to hate"
> > > Witlessmongrel is still unable to say why he's against SSM.
>
> > *One small reason would be I don't think you should be allowed to
> > marry, anyone, ever.
> > I do this out of the kindness of my heart to protect some poor
> > misguided
> > individual from ruining the rest of their life.
>
> > ScottW-
>
> george has the right to marry any woman that will have him.

Try to think up a better line.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 01:23 AM

On Dec 8, 3:51 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:41 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 3:37 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.
>
> > If you could keep this in 'mind' every time you post, you'd have some
> > empathy for how the rest of us feel. LoL.
>
> Ah yes, you of the "we" minded people.
>
> You've never explained all the possibilities on why
> you need to be accepted and considered correct all the time.
> Where should we start? The possibilities are endless.

Um, dum-dum, the "we" is everybody other than you and Clyde. Clyde,
for some reason, loses his brain when it comes to you.

It isn't a "need for acceptance". It's an "observation of reality".
That's a subtle difference you won't be able to detect.

Clyde Slick

December 9th 08, 02:48 AM

On 8 Dec, 18:03, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2:48*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 8 Dec, 17:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
>
> > Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
>
> Sadly then Jenn's LoL puts her in a class beyond
> Krueger. *What do you suppose the possible reasons are
> for that? *What hatred could be inspiring that behavior?
>
> > For him, it is merely a way of life.
> > Where joy comes to Krueger is when
> > he receives his warranted abuse for his having made his false
> > accusations.
>
> * and why you and others choose to grant him his
> jollies in this is forever beyond my comprehension.
>

Ever see a bukkake movie?
Almost everybody enjoys watching a couple of dozen money shots.

Jenn[_3_]

December 9th 08, 02:51 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 1:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 1:30*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 8, 1:07*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 8, 11:17*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 7:56*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He licks his own asshole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the dump out back
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He squirms from fleas that bite him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He just yaps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And he barks about some deep stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That he can't ever understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Still stupid afler all these years
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, still stupid afler all these yearsS
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > OK, so we can now compare and contrast a "Kroodown" vs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > "2down".
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say the similarities are startling.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against SSM. I
> > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > fear
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't remember.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a possibility,
> > > > > > > > > > but he
> > > > > > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > > > > said, AFAIK.
> >
> > > > > > > > > * *Only hatred I've seen around here comes from the gay
> > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > resident supporters.
> >
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
> >
> > > > > > > *I don't know if you deserve to be included or not. * It's a
> > > > > > > possibility.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > You said that you've "seen" hatred here. *It would seem an easy
> > > > > > matter
> > > > > > to say whether you believe that applies to me or not.
> >
> > > > > I don't know if you feel hatred or not in doing some of the hateful
> > > > > things
> > > > > you do like accusing me of possibly being motivated by hate.
> > > > > * It's a possibility you do feel hate when you do those things.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > I said that it's a possibility because anything is a possibility,
> >
> > > *Wow, that's quite the rationale you've made for saying
> > > just about whatever you feel like.
> > > *Well, your possibilities are endless as well.
> > > *Where should we begin disecting your life with
> > > possibilities?
> >
> > You haven't indicated what the reason is.
>
> and that apparently grants you license to
> raise speculatory accusations in your weak
> moral perspective.

I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott. Stop making things up.

>
> > *If you say that you (sic) hatred of
> > gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason,
>
> I think your hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> reason for your support of SSM.

You're such an interesting person. While I didn't accuse you of
anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.

>
> > I'll believe
> > you. *I have no reason not to.
>
> I have a lot of reasons to question how you choose
> raise your accusations of hatred.

I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.

>
> >
> > > > since
> > > > you haven't indicated what the reason is. *So what other "hateful"
> > > > things do I do?
> >
> > > *I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.
> >
> > lol *I see.
>
> Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> I see extended exposure to the debating trade
> as conducted by Middius continues to diminish your
> morality and make you blind to what you're becoming.

An idiotic question and statement. Obviously what I was laughing at was
calling anything I did "repugnant". I've not accused you of anything.
In fact, I said that if you say that your opinion on the topic of SSM is
not born of any hatred, then I believe you.

You know Scott, several people here question your intelligence. I've
never done this. But I'm beginning to have my doubts.

Jenn[_3_]

December 9th 08, 02:52 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2:48*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 8 Dec, 17:29, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> >
> > Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
>
> Sadly then Jenn's LoL puts her in a class beyond
> Krueger. What do you suppose the possible reasons are
> for that? What hatred could be inspiring that behavior?

I don't hate you Scott. Why are you acting this way?

Clyde Slick

December 9th 08, 03:05 AM

On 8 Dec, 21:51, Jenn > wrote:

>
> You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
>

You are a real sweetie pie AFAIAK.
You just couldn't be one of those typical man hating Dykes.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 03:16 AM

Jenn said:

> You know Scott, several people here question[sic] [LOL] [ROTFL] your intelligence.

Here's the second verse, with apologies to the Moody Blues:

Why does he never get the answer
No matter how many times it's said
Just an unending stream of bark-bark-bark
He's stupid, dumb, and dense.

Cos when he stops to load his shotgun
It goes BOOM right in his furry face
It's a world of imbecility
That's ineradicable.

Why does he never get the answer
No matter how many times it's said
Because it's a bone he can't gnaw down
That's what education is for.

It's just the way he barks it
Woof! Woof! Yappity-yappity-yap!
Nothing can ever penetrate
Scottie's ultradensium skull.

When Scottie goes to do his business
He'll never learn to shut up
The hatred Scottie's been belching
Has all been meant for you.

> I've never done this. But I'm beginning to have my doubts.

It's OK to skip the "question" part and zoom ahead to the obvious
conclusion. Others have done the careful investigation for you.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 03:16 AM

Jenn said:

> > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> > >
> > > Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
> >
> > Sadly then Jenn's LoL puts her in a class beyond
> > Krueger. What do you suppose the possible reasons are
> > for that? What hatred could be inspiring that behavior?
>
> I don't hate you Scott. Why are you acting this way?

Because he can't get away with his infantile crap against me or Shhhh. You
indulge him, Mistress.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 03:17 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.

> You are a real sweetie pie AFAIAK.
> You just couldn't be one of those typical man hating Dykes.

Once again, your attempt at a joke slithers under the doorway and into the
sewer.

Jenn[_3_]

December 9th 08, 05:04 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 6:52*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 2:48*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 8 Dec, 17:29, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> >
> > > > Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
> >
> > > Sadly then Jenn's LoL puts her in a class beyond
> > > Krueger. *What do you suppose the possible reasons are
> > > for that? *What hatred could be inspiring that behavior?
> >
> > I don't hate you Scott. *Why are you acting this way?
>
> You mean like a gay person denied SSM?
>
> ScottW

Sorry, I don't get your point.

Jenn[_3_]

December 9th 08, 05:14 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 6:51*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 1:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 8, 1:30*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 8, 1:07*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 11:17*am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ps.c
> > > > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 7:56*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He licks his own asshole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the dump out back
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He squirms from fleas that bite him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just yaps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And he barks about some deep stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That he can't ever understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still stupid afler all these years
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, still stupid afler all these yearsS
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, so we can now compare and contrast a "Kroodown"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "2down".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say the similarities are startling.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against SSM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > remember.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a
> > > > > > > > > > > > possibility,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but he
> > > > > > > > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > said, AFAIK.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > * *Only hatred I've seen around here comes from the gay
> > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > resident supporters.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
> >
> > > > > > > > > *I don't know if you deserve to be included or not. * It's a
> > > > > > > > > possibility.
> >
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > You said that you've "seen" hatred here. *It would seem an easy
> > > > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > > to say whether you believe that applies to me or not.
> >
> > > > > > > I don't know if you feel hatred or not in doing some of the
> > > > > > > hateful
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > you do like accusing me of possibly being motivated by hate.
> > > > > > > * It's a possibility you do feel hate when you do those things.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > I said that it's a possibility because anything is a possibility,
> >
> > > > > *Wow, that's quite the rationale you've made for saying
> > > > > just about whatever you feel like.
> > > > > *Well, your possibilities are endless as well.
> > > > > *Where should we begin disecting your life with
> > > > > possibilities?
> >
> > > > You haven't indicated what the reason is.
> >
> > > *and that apparently grants you license to
> > > raise speculatory accusations in your weak
> > > moral perspective.
> >
> > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott. *Stop making things up.
>
> If I said you possibly harbor hatred, would you not feel accused?

If someone asked me if I hate something, I would simply answer. If I
refused to answer, I would understand why hate would be open to
speculation.

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > *If you say that you *(sic) hatred of
> > > > gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason,
> >
> > > *I think your hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> > > reason for your support of SSM.
> >
> > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
>
> Oh I'm so sorry, I meant,
> "I think your POSSIBLE hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> reason for your support of SSM."
> Is that better?

No, because I've stated that I don't hate heterosexuals. It's very
simple.

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I'll believe
> > > > you. *I have no reason not to.
> >
> > > I have a lot of reasons to question how you choose
> > > raise your accusations of hatred.
> >
> > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
>
> Really. You seem to imply that I have possible hatred
> that may or may not be a reason for opposition to SSM.
> Do you have possible racism? Possible bigotry?
> The possibilities are endless.

Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals. As I said
several times, if you say that you don't, that's good enough for me.

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > you haven't indicated what the reason is. *So what other "hateful"
> > > > > > things do I do?
> >
> > > > > *I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.
> >
> > > > lol *I see.
> >
> > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> > > I see extended exposure to the debating trade
> > > as conducted by Middius continues to diminish your
> > > morality and make you blind to what you're becoming.
> >
> > An idiotic question and statement. *Obviously what I was laughing at was
> > calling anything I did "repugnant". *I've not accused you of anything. *
> > In fact, I said that if you say that your opinion on the topic of SSM is
> > not born of any hatred, then I believe you.
>
> "if" is a simple little word which can be very repugnant when so
> phrased.
> What "if" I choose not to say?

That's fine, but then you open the possibility of people guessing what
your motivation is.

> Is it so different when you choose not to engage in defense of
> your faith?

I engage in defense of my faith all the time. I just don't think this
is the place to have in depth discussions on religion.

>
>
> >
> > You know Scott, several people here question your intelligence. *I've
> > never done this. *But I'm beginning to have my doubts.
>
> You have made this type of implied threat before.

I don't recall, but I'll take your word for it.

> Doubt all you want. That you find this sub-thread sufficiently
> painful to resort to childish threats is clear indication that at
> some level, you actually are aware of the errors of your ways.
> You just don't have the huevos to openly admit it, yet.
> You do owe me an apology and if I have offended in
> attempting to make you understand, well I am sorry that
> I couldn't make it easier for you.

When you can't understand what I was laughing at, it makes one wonder.

Jenn[_3_]

December 9th 08, 05:15 AM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 8 Dec, 21:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> >
> > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
> >
>
> You are a real sweetie pie AFAIAK.
> You just couldn't be one of those typical man hating Dykes.

Nice troll.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 05:15 AM

On Dec 8, 8:51*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 1:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 8, 1:30*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
>
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 8, 1:07*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 11:17*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > om>,
>
> > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 7:56*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He licks his own asshole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the dump out back
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He squirms from fleas that bite him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just yaps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And he barks about some deep stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That he can't ever understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still stupid afler all these years
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, still stupid afler all these yearsS
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, so we can now compare and contrast a "Kroodown" vs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "2down".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say the similarities are startling.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against SSM.. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > fear
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't remember.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a possibility,
> > > > > > > > > > > but he
> > > > > > > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > > > > > said, AFAIK.
>
> > > > > > > > > > * *Only hatred I've seen around here comes from the gay
> > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > resident supporters.
>
> > > > > > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > > > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
>
> > > > > > > > *I don't know if you deserve to be included or not. * It's a
> > > > > > > > possibility.
>
> > > > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > > > You said that you've "seen" hatred here. *It would seem an easy
> > > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > to say whether you believe that applies to me or not.
>
> > > > > > I don't know if you feel hatred or not in doing some of the hateful
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > you do like accusing me of possibly being motivated by hate.
> > > > > > * It's a possibility you do feel hate when you do those things.
>
> > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > I said that it's a possibility because anything is a possibility,
>
> > > > *Wow, that's quite the rationale you've made for saying
> > > > just about whatever you feel like.
> > > > *Well, your possibilities are endless as well.
> > > > *Where should we begin disecting your life with
> > > > possibilities?
>
> > > You haven't indicated what the reason is.
>
> > *and that apparently grants you license to
> > raise speculatory accusations in your weak
> > moral perspective.
>
> I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott. *Stop making things up.
>
>
>
> > > *If you say that you *(sic) hatred of
> > > gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason,
>
> > *I think your hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> > reason for your support of SSM.
>
> You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
>
>
>
> > > I'll believe
> > > you. *I have no reason not to.
>
> > I have a lot of reasons to question how you choose
> > raise your accusations of hatred.
>
> I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.

2pid believes that I raised a comparison between his and Bratzi's
posts as an "insult".

Please keep in mind that 2pid uses some *******ization of English that
has not been deciphered yet. "Accusations" in this context could mean
"facists", "liberals" or "Mary Mapes". It could also be some
combination.

> You know Scott, several people here question your intelligence. *I've
> never done this. *But I'm beginning to have my doubts.

Nobody "questions" 2pid's intelligence from what I've seen, Jenn. We
*know* it to be subpar.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 05:17 AM

On Dec 8, 11:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 6:52*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 8, 2:48*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > On 8 Dec, 17:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
>
> > > > > Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
>
> > > > Sadly then Jenn's LoL puts her in a class beyond
> > > > Krueger. *What do you suppose the possible reasons are
> > > > for that? *What hatred could be inspiring that behavior?
>
> > > I don't hate you Scott. *Why are you acting this way?
>
> > *You mean like a gay person denied SSM?
>
> > ScottW
>
> Sorry, I don't get your point.

Jenn, Jenn, Jenn. 2pid only makes 'points'.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 05:19 AM

On Dec 8, 10:54*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 6:52*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 2:48*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 8 Dec, 17:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
>
> > > > Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
>
> > > Sadly then Jenn's LoL puts her in a class beyond
> > > Krueger. *What do you suppose the possible reasons are
> > > for that? *What hatred could be inspiring that behavior?
>
> > I don't hate you Scott. *Why are you acting this way?
>
> *You mean like a gay person denied SSM?

So why are you so excited about "denying" rights to minorities, 2pid?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 07:12 AM

On Dec 8, 10:50*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> You do owe me an apology

No, she doesn't.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 07:21 AM

On Dec 9, 12:19*am, ScottW > wrote:

> * Only to people of repugnant morality.

LOL!

> Let's discuss your hetero sexual experiences.
> Come clean or your perversions will be open to
> speculation.

You are *such* a donk.

> *Yes, I needn't deny anything to prevent being
> subjected to your ill willed speculations.

You probably meant "ill-willed". Imbecile.

> Proof? * Anyway, I am not many people and I resent being
> stereotyped by your bigotry.

So spill it, 2pid: why are you so opposed to SSM?

> I will not descend to the level of your accusations with a denial.

Translation: Jenn has nailed it.

> *Guess away if you feel you must.
> *Only repugnant people presume malicious intent and ill-will.

And only 2pid imbeciles let it get to that point in a 'discussion'.
They hide their true intent and let other guess at their meaning.

Just like 'adults' do. LoL.

> *Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
> you engage in?

Or you could ask questions, and if Jenn didn't answer, why then you
could!

> *I realize you think you're innocent of any reprehensible
> behavior. That makes me wonder.

There's nothing to wonder about, 2pid: you're as dumb as a lamp post.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 07:54 AM

Jenn said:

> > > You know Scott, several people here question your intelligence. *I've
> > > never done this. *But I'm beginning to have my doubts.
> >
> > You have made this type of implied threat before.
>
> I don't recall, but I'll take your word for it.

Oh my gosh! Mistress, have you learned to decode Yapper's fractured
language pattern? I can't imagine how you made an "implied threat" simply
by saying Scottie isn't very smart. I hope you haven't started barking and
yapping in the middle of a conversation with your people.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 07:56 AM

Shhhh! said:

> > You do owe me an apology
>
> No, she doesn't.

Speaking for myself, I'm very sorry that RAO is saddled with a resident
moron. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Clyde Slick

December 9th 08, 11:31 AM

On 9 Dec, 00:15, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 8 Dec, 21:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> > > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
>
> > You are a real sweetie pie AFAIAK.
> > You just couldn't be one of those typical man hating Dykes.
>
> Nice troll.

it was a complement

MiNe 109

December 9th 08, 02:19 PM

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 11:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 6:52*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 8, 2:48*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > On 8 Dec, 17:29, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> >
> > > > > > Not even Krueger gets his jollies from that.
> >
> > > > > Sadly then Jenn's LoL puts her in a class beyond
> > > > > Krueger. *What do you suppose the possible reasons are
> > > > > for that? *What hatred could be inspiring that behavior?
> >
> > > > I don't hate you Scott. *Why are you acting this way?
> >
> > > *You mean like a gay person denied SSM?
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Sorry, I don't get your point.
>
> Jenn, Jenn, Jenn. 2pid only makes 'points'.

Great: my server's down all night, but comes back this morning with
another episode of "Guess What Scott's Thinking".

Stephen

MiNe 109

December 9th 08, 02:21 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> Guess away if you feel you must.
> Only repugnant people presume malicious intent and ill-will.

Scott Hall of Fame entry.

Stephen

Jenn[_3_]

December 9th 08, 03:18 PM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 9 Dec, 00:15, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> > > On 8 Dec, 21:51, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> > > > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
> >
> > > You are a real sweetie pie AFAIAK.
> > > You just couldn't be one of those typical man hating Dykes.
> >
> > Nice troll.
>
> it was a complement

I know. I think that you meant it that way. But that second sentence...

Boon

December 9th 08, 03:37 PM

On Dec 8, 11:56ï¿½pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > You do owe me an apology
>
> > No, she doesn't.
>
> Speaking for myself, I'm very sorry that RAO is saddled with a resident
> moron. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Just one?

Boon

Jenn[_3_]

December 9th 08, 04:19 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 9:14*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 6:51*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 8, 1:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 8, 1:30*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 1:07*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ps.c
> > > > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 11:17*am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > grou
> > > > > > > > > > > > ps.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 7:56*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *George M. Middius >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He licks his own asshole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the dump out back
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He squirms from fleas that bite him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just yaps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And he barks about some deep stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That he can't ever understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still stupid afler all these years
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, still stupid afler all these yearsS
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, so we can now compare and contrast a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Kroodown"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "2down".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say the similarities are startling.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scooter is still unable to say why he's against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SSM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenn says it's hatred. Too bad Witless can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remember.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if it's hatred or not. *It's a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possibility,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > said, AFAIK.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * *Only hatred I've seen around here comes from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > resident supporters.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you including me in that accusation?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > *I don't know if you deserve to be included or not. *
> > > > > > > > > > > It's a
> > > > > > > > > > > possibility.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > > > You said that you've "seen" hatred here. *It would seem an
> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > > > > to say whether you believe that applies to me or not.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I don't know if you feel hatred or not in doing some of the
> > > > > > > > > hateful
> > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > you do like accusing me of possibly being motivated by hate.
> > > > > > > > > * It's a possibility you do feel hate when you do those
> > > > > > > > > things.
> >
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > I said that it's a possibility because anything is a
> > > > > > > > possibility,
> >
> > > > > > > *Wow, that's quite the rationale you've made for saying
> > > > > > > just about whatever you feel like.
> > > > > > > *Well, your possibilities are endless as well.
> > > > > > > *Where should we begin disecting your life with
> > > > > > > possibilities?
> >
> > > > > > You haven't indicated what the reason is.
> >
> > > > > *and that apparently grants you license to
> > > > > raise speculatory accusations in your weak
> > > > > moral perspective.
> >
> > > > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott. *Stop making things up.
> >
> > > *If I said you possibly harbor hatred, would you not feel accused?
> >
> > If someone asked me if I hate something,
>
> You never did that, not that it would change anything.

You take a strong stance against SSM and its supporters. You make
over-generalized statements about gay people. You won't say why you
oppose SSM, after being asked the reason several times. I didn't accuse
of you hating anyone. Based on all of the above, I said that I don't
know. That's because I don't know.

> I will not be compelled to answer simply because
> refusing gives you license to speculation IYO.
>
> > I would simply answer. *If I
> > refused to answer,
>
> So refusing to answer your questions opens
> any line of speculation as far as you're concerned?

No, it means that I don't know.

>
> > I would understand why hate would be open to
> > speculation.
>
> Only to people of repugnant morality.

I see.

>
> >
> >
> > > > > > *If you say that you *(sic) hatred of
> > > > > > gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason,
> >
> > > > > *I think your hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> > > > > reason for your support of SSM.
> >
> > > > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> > > > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
> >
> > > *Oh I'm so sorry, I meant,
> > > "I think your POSSIBLE hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> > > *reason for your support of SSM."
> > > Is that better?
> >
> > No, because I've stated that I don't hate heterosexuals.
>
> Not before in this thread.

I've never been asked or accused of that before.

> So what other ridiculous speculative
> accusation should I conjure up for your denial?
> Let's discuss your hetero sexual experiences.
> Come clean or your perversions will be open to
> speculation.

My hetero sexual (sic) experiences are nobody's business.

>
> > *It's very
> > simple.
>
> Yes, I needn't deny anything to prevent being
> subjected to your ill willed speculations.

I hold no ill willed speculations. I said "I don't know".

>
> >
> >
> > > > > > I'll believe
> > > > > > you. *I have no reason not to.
> >
> > > > > I have a lot of reasons to question how you choose
> > > > > raise your accusations of hatred.
> >
> > > > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
> >
> > > *Really. *You seem to imply that I have possible hatred
> > > that may or may not be a reason for opposition to SSM.
> > > Do you have possible racism? Possible bigotry?
> > > The possibilities are endless.
> >
> > Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.
>
> Proof?

You're kidding, right?

> Anyway, I am not many people and I resent being
> stereotyped by your bigotry.

I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.

>
>
> > *As I said
> > several times, if you say that you don't, that's good enough for me.
>
> I will not descend to the level of your accusations with a denial.

I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
>
>
> >
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > you haven't indicated what the reason is. *So what other
> > > > > > > > "hateful"
> > > > > > > > things do I do?
> >
> > > > > > > *I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.
> >
> > > > > > lol *I see.
> >
> > > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> > > > > I see extended exposure to the debating trade
> > > > > as conducted by Middius continues to diminish your
> > > > > morality and make you blind to what you're becoming.
> >
> > > > An idiotic question and statement. *Obviously what I was laughing at
> > > > was
> > > > calling anything I did "repugnant". *I've not accused you of anything.
> > > > *
> > > > In fact, I said that if you say that your opinion on the topic of SSM
> > > > is
> > > > not born of any hatred, then I believe you.
> >
> > > *"if" is a simple little word which can be very repugnant when so
> > > phrased.
> > > * What "if" I choose not to say?
> >
> > That's fine, but then you open the possibility of people guessing what
> > your motivation is.
>
> Guess away if you feel you must.
> Only repugnant people presume malicious intent and ill-will.

I'm not guessing about anything. I said that I don't know what your
motivations are. YOU are the person presuming ill will.

>
> >
> > > * Is it so different when you choose not to engage in defense of
> > > your faith?
> >
> > I engage in defense of my faith all the time. *I just don't think this
> > is the place to have in depth discussions on religion.
>
> Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
> you engage in?

Why would you?

>
> >
> > > > You know Scott, several people here question your intelligence. *I've
> > > > never done this. *But I'm beginning to have my doubts.
> >
> > > *You have made this type of implied threat before.
> >
> > I don't recall, but I'll take your word for it.
> >
> > > *Doubt all you want. That you find this sub-thread sufficiently
> > > painful to resort to childish threats is clear indication that at
> > > some level, you actually are aware of the errors of your ways.
> > > You just don't have the huevos to openly admit it, yet.
> > > You do owe me an apology and if I have offended in
> > > attempting to make you understand, well I am sorry that
> > > I couldn't make it easier for you.
> >
> > When you can't understand what I was laughing at, it makes one wonder.
>
> I realize you think you're innocent of any reprehensible
> behavior. That makes me wonder.

Wonder all you want. It has no effect on me.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 05:57 PM

Jenn said:

> > > > You just couldn't be one of those typical man hating Dykes.
> > >
> > > Nice troll.
> >
> > it was a complement[sic]
>
> I know. I think that you meant it that way. But that second sentence...

Oddly, Sacky prides himself on his sensitivity.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 06:00 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> Great: my server's down all night, but comes back this morning with
> another episode of "Guess What Scott's Thinking".

Speaking of guessing, what's yours? The subject being why Witless is
opposed to SSM. I've guessed fear, and Jenn suggested hatred (but then
backed away from it). Krooger guessed it was something in the bible, but
then Sacky denied that idea.

Yapper's only answer was that he can't stop us from guessing. So take your
guess.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 06:01 PM

Boon said:

> > Speaking for myself, I'm very sorry that RAO is saddled with a resident
> > moron. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
>
> Just one?

I believe Witless is the only one who fits that category. The other head
cases say stupid things, but their primary problems are not stunted mental
development. Speaking of which, did you find anything in your DSM that
matches Stynchie?

Boon

December 9th 08, 07:55 PM

On Dec 9, 10:01ï¿½am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > > Speaking for myself, I'm very sorry that RAO is saddled with a resident
> > > moron. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
>
> > Just one?
>
> I believe Witless is the only one who fits that category. The other head
> cases say stupid things, but their primary problems are not stunted mental
> development. Speaking of which, did you find anything in your DSM that
> matches Stynchie?

No, I just think he's another miserable guy who's taking out his anger
on Usenet. ****ty job, boring life, not enough sex.

Boon

MiNe 109

December 9th 08, 08:41 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > Great: my server's down all night, but comes back this morning with
> > another episode of "Guess What Scott's Thinking".
>
> Speaking of guessing, what's yours? The subject being why Witless is
> opposed to SSM. I've guessed fear, and Jenn suggested hatred (but then
> backed away from it). Krooger guessed it was something in the bible, but
> then Sacky denied that idea.
>
> Yapper's only answer was that he can't stop us from guessing. So take your
> guess.

There but for the grace of God goes Scott. Any weakening of legal and
societal restrains and who knows what happens to his Randian
self-control.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 08:47 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > Great: my server's down all night, but comes back this morning with
> > > another episode of "Guess What Scott's Thinking".
> >
> > Speaking of guessing, what's yours? The subject being why Witless is
> > opposed to SSM. I've guessed fear, and Jenn suggested hatred (but then
> > backed away from it). Krooger guessed it was something in the bible, but
> > then Sacky denied that idea.
> >
> > Yapper's only answer was that he can't stop us from guessing. So take your
> > guess.
>
> There but for the grace of God goes Scott. Any weakening of legal and
> societal restrains and who knows what happens to his Randian
> self-control.

Do you know something we don't know about his past? He told us about his
mama being an addict, but not a word about himself. I wouldn't be
surprised to learn Witless had an extended dalliance with magic mushrooms
or poppers. Of course, if he confessed to such indulgences, we'd probably
have a major clue as to how he turned into the knot of anger and stupidity
we know today.

MiNe 109

December 9th 08, 09:17 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > Great: my server's down all night, but comes back this morning with
> > > > another episode of "Guess What Scott's Thinking".
> > >
> > > Speaking of guessing, what's yours? The subject being why Witless is
> > > opposed to SSM. I've guessed fear, and Jenn suggested hatred (but then
> > > backed away from it). Krooger guessed it was something in the bible, but
> > > then Sacky denied that idea.
> > >
> > > Yapper's only answer was that he can't stop us from guessing. So take your
> > > guess.
> >
> > There but for the grace of God goes Scott. Any weakening of legal and
> > societal restrains and who knows what happens to his Randian
> > self-control.
>
> Do you know something we don't know about his past? He told us about his
> mama being an addict, but not a word about himself. I wouldn't be
> surprised to learn Witless had an extended dalliance with magic mushrooms
> or poppers. Of course, if he confessed to such indulgences, we'd probably
> have a major clue as to how he turned into the knot of anger and stupidity
> we know today.

That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.

Think "Losin' It" (San Diego local) or "After Hours" as a starting
point. (NB: references useful only to people about my age.)

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 9th 08, 11:00 PM

> Jenn said:
ScottW > wrote:

> I did? I don't recall engaging much against SSM. I have
> taken a stance against some of its supporters and their tactics.

And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".

You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
so you may actually only hate black gay people.

> Sounds like an over-generalized statement about me.
> If you don't want to be over-general, you should
> consider providing some specifics.

2pid roars back in front in the irony competition. He's leading by a
wide margin now.

> > *You won't say why you
> > oppose SSM, after being asked the reason several times.
>
> *Yes and I never will after being threatened if I don't.

Let's speculate then. I think it's because 2pid hates gays. Anybody
else?

> > * I didn't accuse
> > of you hating anyone. *Based on all of the above, I said that I don't
> > know. *That's because I don't know.
>
> *But you choose to believe it's possible. What makes it possible?
> What prevents it from being impossible. Reality is you don't know.

Wow! 2pid accuses Jenn of not knowing something after she said she
doesn't know something!

This is 'progress' in a 'discussion' with 2pid.

> > No, it means that I don't know.
>
> *Not knowing is quite a different thing than presuming
> possibilities.

A "presumption" is different than a "speculation", 2pid.

Voicing a "possibility" is different from making a "presumption",
2pid. LoL.

> > > > I would understand why hate would be open to
> > > > speculation.
>
> > > * Only to people of repugnant morality.
>
> > I see.
>
> *No, it's obvious you don't.

I've asked for your definition of "morality", 2pid. It's very clear
that it's one of your private definitions.

> > > > No, because I've stated that I don't hate heterosexuals.
>
> > > *Not before in this thread.
>
> > I've never been asked or accused of that before.
>
> *Should you feel compelled to respond to such
> accusation? *I don't.

OK, 2pid: you don't hate gays. Then why do you hate them so much?

> > My hetero sexual (sic) experiences are nobody's business.
>
> *Oh well then....
> *Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
> business?

Why are you so afraid to spell out why you are opposed to them, 2pid?

Why do you call your opposition "alleged"? It's "obvious".

> > > > Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.
>
> > > Proof?
>
> > You're kidding, right?
>
> * No, and define many people why your at it.

She's "at it", 2pid, because she's gay.

Oh, that's not what you meant? Sometimes it's hard to tell you and
GOIA apart.

> > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
>
> * Many homosexuals don't know when their insinuations
> are offensive or not.

LMAO!

> > > > * As I said
> > > > several times, if you say that you don't, that's good enough for me..
>
> > > I will not descend to the level of your accusations with a denial.
>
> > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
>
> * I won't say. Now what?

Then we can speculate and it's fair game.

I think it's because you hate gays. LoL.

> > I'm not guessing about anything. *I said that I don't know what your
> > motivations are. *YOU are the person presuming ill will.
>
> *No, you are implying the possibility of ill-will in the absence of
> your knowledge. * Possibilities of mine aren't influenced by
> you or your lack of knowledge.
> *Who ordained you center of all perspective?

Um, 2pid, we all get to have our own "perspective".

Just chalk up our perception that you hates gays to our having a
"differing POV".

> > > > I engage in defense of my faith all the time. *I just don't think this
> > > > is the place to have in depth discussions on religion.
>
> > > *Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
> > > you engage in?
>
> > Why would you?
>
> *I won't, but anything is possible for you when you don't know.

The duh-duh-donkey no doubt 'thinks' he 'won'.

Another strong resemblance to GOIA is exposed.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 11:30 PM

Shhhh! said:

> > > *You won't say why you
> > > oppose SSM, after being asked the reason several times.
> >
> > *Yes and I never will after being threatened if I don't.

<snicker>

The "threat" that Witless's undies in a wad was Jenn's mild, edgewise
implication that Scottie might suffer a teensy bit in the IQ department.
What a dire, menacing threat! Jenn threatens to speak the truth about
duh-Scottie in front of everybody. Ooh!

> Let's speculate then. I think it's because 2pid hates gays. Anybody else?

I think he's two-thirds gripped by fear and one-third by hatred. If I'm
right, the hatred is misdirected outward because he secretly hates himself
for being attracted to men.

> > > I didn't accuse of you hating anyone.

I accuse him!

> > > *Based on all of the above, I said that I don't know.*That's because I don't know.

> > *But you choose to believe it's possible. What makes it possible?
> > What prevents it from being impossible. Reality is you don't know.
>
> Wow! 2pid accuses Jenn of not knowing something after she said she
> doesn't know something!

Yapper is trying to distract Mistress with those big, sad eyes. All you're
doing is prodding Scottie with a red-hot poker.

> This is 'progress' in a 'discussion' with 2pid.

..... until he pulls a Krooger and says you 'misinterpreted' what he meant.

> > > > * Only to people of repugnant morality.

> > > I see.

> > *No, it's obvious you don't.

> I've asked for your definition of "morality", 2pid. It's very clear
> that it's one of your private definitions.

Good question. My theory is that for Witlessmongrel, "morality" has become
an empty rhetorical buzzword. This is primarily a result of Scottie being
entombed in the right-wing echo chamber, and secondarily of his overpowering
need to simplify every issue into its most basic, black-vs-white components.

> > > > > No, because I've stated that I don't hate heterosexuals.

> > > > *Not before in this thread.

> > > I've never been asked or accused of that before.

> > *Should you feel compelled to respond to such
> > accusation? *I don't.

> OK, 2pid: you don't hate gays. Then why do you hate them so much?

Is that a trick question?

> > *Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
> > business?

> Why are you so afraid to spell out why you are opposed to them, 2pid?
> Why do you call your opposition "alleged"? It's "obvious".

I see what's happening here. You're trying to infer Scottie's opinion from
what he actually said. Two-point penalty. Referee! Stephen, we need you here
right away!

> > > > > Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.
> >
> > > > Proof?
> >
> > > You're kidding, right?
> >
> > * No, and define many people why your at it.
>
> She's "at it", 2pid, because she's gay.
> Oh, that's not what you meant? Sometimes it's hard to tell you and
> GOIA apart.

This cul-de-sac is too perilous for me. You're on your own.

> > > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
> >
> > * Many homosexuals don't know when their insinuations
> > are offensive or not.
>
> LMAO!

Scottie knows what others mean despite what they say. That's probably why
Normals are always "misinterpreting" what Yapper yaps.

> > *Who ordained you center of all perspective?
>
> Um, 2pid, we all get to have our own "perspective".
> Just chalk up our perception that you hates gays to our having a
> "differing POV".

Scottie's "debating trade" motto is "Don't try to infer my meaning from what
I may or may not say, have said, or will say."

Do you find this exhausting?

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 9th 08, 11:37 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > > Yapper's only answer was that he can't stop us from guessing. So take your
> > > > guess.
> > >
> > > There but for the grace of God goes Scott. Any weakening of legal and
> > > societal restrains and who knows what happens to his Randian
> > > self-control.
> >
> > Do you know something we don't know about his past? He told us about his
> > mama being an addict, but not a word about himself. I wouldn't be
> > surprised to learn Witless had an extended dalliance with magic mushrooms
> > or poppers. Of course, if he confessed to such indulgences, we'd probably
> > have a major clue as to how he turned into the knot of anger and stupidity
> > we know today.
>
> That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
> Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.

Thompson is no more, but what is "the Dev"? Google wasn't helpful.

> Think "Losin' It" (San Diego local) or "After Hours" as a starting
> point. (NB: references useful only to people about my age.)

"Losin' It" was a silly teener flick from the 70s, right? I saw "After
Hours" and as I recall, it didn't specifically address the druggie culture.

As happens so often, your point is lost on me.

Clyde Slick

December 9th 08, 11:45 PM

On 9 Dec, 10:18, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Dec, 00:15, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Dec, 21:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you of
> > > > > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
>
> > > > You are a real sweetie pie AFAIAK.
> > > > You just couldn't be one of those typical man hating Dykes.
>
> > > Nice troll.
>
> > it was a complement
>
> I know. *I think that you meant it that way. *But that second sentence...-

you could be one of them?
Not on your worst day.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 12:01 AM

On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have..

So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
marriage?

What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)

Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".

Duh.

> Of all your piles of excrement you leave daily, I doubt
> if even George will consume that one.

Sorry, 2pid. It is not correct to call something a "pile of excrement"
simply because you do not understand it.

Back to doggy training for 2pid. Oh well. LoL.

Clyde Slick

December 10th 08, 12:56 AM

On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people"..
>
> > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> marriage?
>
> What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> Duh.

duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
the disparate levels of opportunity
are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
it should be class based, not race based.
And I understand and gladly accept that
a relatively high percentage of blacks and other minorities will
get deserved preferences, based on lack of opportunity.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 02:04 AM

On Dec 9, 6:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > marriage?
>
> > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> > PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> > ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> > Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> > of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> > Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> > Duh.
>
> duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
> the disparate levels of opportunity
> are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> it should be class based, not race based.

Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
institutionalized discrimination.

> And I understand and gladly accept that
> a relatively high percentage of blacks and other minorities will
> get deserved preferences, based on lack of opportunity.

That can only be because they have been lazy. ;-)

Clyde Slick

December 10th 08, 02:22 AM

On 9 Dec, 21:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 6:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > > marriage?
>
> > > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> > > PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> > > ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> > > Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> > > of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> > > Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> > > Duh.
>
> > duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
> > the disparate levels of opportunity
> > are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> > it should be class based, not race based.
>
> Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> institutionalized discrimination.
>
> > And I understand and gladly accept that
> > a relatively high percentage of blacks and other minorities will
> > get deserved preferences, based on lack of opportunity.
>
> That can only be because they have been lazy. ;-)- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

Clyde Slick

December 10th 08, 02:26 AM

On 9 Dec, 21:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 6:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > > marriage?
>
> > > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> > > PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> > > ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> > > Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> > > of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> > > Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> > > Duh.
>
> > duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
> > the disparate levels of opportunity
> > are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> > it should be class based, not race based.
>
> Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> institutionalized discrimination.
>

When they live in poverty, drug ridden neighborhoods, have
only dysfunctional public schools in their neighborhood.
come from broken homes, live in gang controlled areas.

> > And I understand and gladly accept that
> > a relatively high percentage of blacks and other minorities will
> > get deserved preferences, based on lack of opportunity.
>
> That can only be because they have been lazy. ;-)- Ascunde citatul -
>

those are your stupid words

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 10th 08, 02:36 AM

Shhhh! said:

> > duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
> > the disparate levels of opportunity
> > are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> > it should be class based, not race based.
>
> Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> institutionalized discrimination.

I know! Check it out:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/k/c-m-kornbluth/marching-morons.htm

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 03:29 AM

On Dec 9, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 9 Dec, 21:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 6:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > > > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > > > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > > > marriage?
>
> > > > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.

Clyde Slick

December 10th 08, 03:50 AM

On 9 Dec, 22:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Dec, 21:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 6:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > > > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > > > > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > > > > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > > > > marriage?
>
> > > > > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> > > > > PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> > > > > ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> > > > > Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> > > > > of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> > > > > Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> > > > > Duh.
>
> > > > duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
> > > > the disparate levels of opportunity
> > > > are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> > > > it should be class based, not race based.
>
> > > Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> > > institutionalized discrimination.
>
> > When they live in poverty, drug *ridden neighborhoods, have
> > only dysfunctional public schools in their neighborhood.
> > come from broken homes, live in gang controlled areas.
>
> And that is due to institutionalized discrimination because...
>
> (or)
>
> These whites you mention have been discriminated against by...
>
> Take your pick, Clyde.
>
> > > > And I understand and gladly accept that
> > > > a relatively high percentage of blacks and other minorities will
> > > > get deserved preferences, based on lack of opportunity.
>
> > > That can only be because they have been lazy. ;-)
>
> > those are your stupid words
>
> So to you, whites have been discriminated against equally with
> minorities.
>

Its nota matter of whites vs minotities.
Its a matter of unequal opportunity.
the determinant dor that is class.

As the time goes by and each generation matures, minorities are
moving further up the scale. I work with many minority
professional engineers, I come into professional contact
with mane upper middle calss and wealthy minorities.
I don't think thiri children need any preferences, and
I find it offensie that they would get preferences, when
there are so many more children from lower classes that lack
so many of the opportunities if the children of wealthy minorities.

I don't think that the kids of Robert Johnson, Barak Obama
and Jesse Jackson should be getting preferences.
I think that these preferences should be going to children of
lesser means, whether they are minotities, or not.

MINe109

December 10th 08, 03:58 AM

On Dec 9, 5:30*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:

Scott:
> > Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
> > business?
> Why are you so afraid to spell out why you are opposed to them, 2pid?
> Why do you call your opposition "alleged"? It's "obvious".

George:
I see what's happening here. You're trying to infer Scottie's opinion
from
what he actually said. Two-point penalty. Referee! Stephen, we need
you here
right away!

Apparently the rules committee governing "Guess What Scottie's
Thinking" has adopted a new scoring category based on passive-
aggressiveness.

Stephen

MINe109

December 10th 08, 03:59 AM

On Dec 9, 5:37*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
>
>
> > > > > Yapper's only answer was that he can't stop us from guessing. So take your
> > > > > guess.
>
> > > > There but for the grace of God goes Scott. Any weakening of legal and
> > > > societal restrains and who knows what happens to his Randian
> > > > self-control.
>
> > > Do you know something we don't know about his past? He told us about his
> > > mama being an addict, but not a word about himself. I wouldn't be
> > > surprised to learn Witless had an extended dalliance with magic mushrooms
> > > or poppers. Of course, if he confessed to such indulgences, we'd probably
> > > have a major clue as to how he turned into the knot of anger and stupidity
> > > we know today.
>
> > That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
> > Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.
>
> Thompson is no more, but what is "the Dev"? Google wasn't helpful.
>
> > Think "Losin' It" (San Diego local) or "After Hours" as a starting
> > point. (NB: references useful only to people about my age.)
>
> "Losin' It" was a silly teener flick from the 70s, right? I saw "After
> Hours" and as I recall, it didn't specifically address the druggie culture.
>
> As happens so often, your point is lost on me.

They both involve involuntary journeys to the dark side.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 10th 08, 04:08 AM

Looks like the Krooborg has deputized Terrierborg to traffic in lame
IKYABWAIs.

> > > Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> > > institutionalized discrimination.
> >
> > I know! Check it out:
> >http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/k/c-m-kornbluth/marching-morons.htm

> Is that your biography?

Scottie, if you were to travel east for a while to console somebody who was
busted in a "gotcha" sting, we on RAO would be deprived of your luminous
wit. Can the country afford to keep you from us while Chicago burns?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 08:39 AM

On Dec 9, 9:43*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 4:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > marriage?
>
> > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> > PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> > ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> > Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> > of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> > Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> * What a silly concept....help a few and claim an entire race
> benefits.

It's indeed better than "help nobody and claim that the playing field
is equal".

> * and in so doing forcing a few others, who had nothing at all to do
> with
> the "crime", to suffer as a consequence. *Who will compensate those
> for their loss?

Those white guys? Talk to Hannity, as I'm sure that you do. LoL.

> *The only right thing to do is strive to eliminate discrimination and
> strive for the color blind society King advocated.

Sure. And when it arrives, I'll be the first to applaud.

> You want institutional advocacy for one race over another as
> compensation, yet you're simply trading one form of discrimination for
> another. A new generation of racial victims suffering for nothing more
> than the color of their skin.

So it goes. Those poor white guys!

> When will it end?

I don't know, 2pid. Why do you hate gays?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 08:43 AM

On Dec 9, 9:50*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 9 Dec, 22:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Dec, 21:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 9, 6:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > > > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > > > > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > > > > > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > > > > > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > > > > > marriage?
>
> > > > > > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> > > > > > PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> > > > > > ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> > > > > > Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> > > > > > of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> > > > > > Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> > > > > > Duh.
>
> > > > > duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
> > > > > the disparate levels of opportunity
> > > > > are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> > > > > it should be class based, not race based.
>
> > > > Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> > > > institutionalized discrimination.
>
> > > When they live in poverty, drug *ridden neighborhoods, have
> > > only dysfunctional public schools in their neighborhood.
> > > come from broken homes, live in gang controlled areas.
>
> > And that is due to institutionalized discrimination because...
>
> > (or)
>
> > These whites you mention have been discriminated against by...
>
> > Take your pick, Clyde.
>
> > > > > And I understand and gladly accept that
> > > > > a relatively high percentage of blacks and other minorities will
> > > > > get deserved preferences, based on lack of opportunity.
>
> > > > That can only be because they have been lazy. ;-)
>
> > > those are your stupid words
>
> > So to you, whites have been discriminated against equally with
> > minorities.
>
> Its nota matter of whites vs minotities.
> Its a matter of unequal opportunity.
> the determinant dor that is class.

Whatever you actually meant is hard to decipher here.

> As the time goes by and each generation matures, minorities are
> moving further up the scale. I work with many minority
> professional engineers, I come into professional contact
> with mane upper middle calss and wealthy minorities.
> I don't think thiri children need any preferences, and
> I find it offensie that they would get preferences, when
> there are *so many more children from lower classes that lack
> so many of the opportunities if the children of wealthy minorities.

So you agree with Affirmative Action. Kudos to you.

> I don't think that the kids of Robert Johnson, Barak Obama
> and Jesse Jackson should be getting preferences.
> I think that these preferences should be going to children of
> lesser means, whether they are minotities, or not.

Or not. Look, when you can show me generations of institutionalized
discrimination against bushie's kids, maybe I'll even agree with you.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 08:46 AM

On Dec 9, 10:00*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 6:36*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race.
> > > > the disparate levels of opportunity
> > > > are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> > > > it should be class based, not race based.
>
> > > Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> > > institutionalized discrimination.
>
> > I know! Check it out:http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/k/c-m-kornbluth/marching-morons.htm
>
> *Is that your biography? *Middiot can't make a cogent point to get a
> date with a boy toy.

Does this have something to do with the subject at hand?

If yes, please explain. If no, please acknowledge your defeat (again),

> *How about the Conscription Act of 1863. *White men were drafted,
> blacks were ahead of the game, they could volunteer.
>
> *You are arguing that one wrong needs to be corrected by another.

No, just that one wrong needs to be corrected.

It's in your power to correct it, 2pid. Isn't it the "moral" thing to
do?

MiNe 109

December 10th 08, 01:01 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:

> > That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
> > Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.
>
> Thompson is no more, but what is "the Dev"? Google wasn't helpful.

How soon we forget! Roy Briggs, AKA the Devil.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

December 10th 08, 02:31 PM

On 10 Dec, 03:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:50*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Dec, 22:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 9 Dec, 21:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 9, 6:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 9 Dec, 19:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 9, 5:24*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > And you've gloated when rights are denied by "the will of the people".
>
> > > > > > > > > You did that when some states have acted against Affirmative Action,
>
> > > > > > > > *Affirmative Action is a right? * What an odd idea of rights you have.
>
> > > > > > > So you don't gloat when minorities are further trampled on by the
> > > > > > > majority, as you did in the case of Affirmative Action or votes on gay
> > > > > > > marriage?
>
> > > > > > > What a strange idea about the US you have, 2pid. Rights are voted on.
> > > > > > > PACs can influence what is a basic right and what isn't with money and
> > > > > > > ads (that's "adds" to you. LoL.)
>
> > > > > > > Blacks have a right to have the playing field leveled after centuries
> > > > > > > of institutionalized discrimination. So in that sense, yes,
> > > > > > > Affirmative Action is indeed a "right".
>
> > > > > > > Duh.
>
> > > > > > duh... the level of the playing field is not determined by race..
> > > > > > the disparate levels of opportunity
> > > > > > are due to class. If we have a preference system at all,
> > > > > > it should be class based, not race based.
>
> > > > > Duh. Tell me when white males, for example, have been "held back" by
> > > > > institutionalized discrimination.
>
> > > > When they live in poverty, drug *ridden neighborhoods, have
> > > > only dysfunctional public schools in their neighborhood.
> > > > come from broken homes, live in gang controlled areas.
>
> > > And that is due to institutionalized discrimination because...
>
> > > (or)
>
> > > These whites you mention have been discriminated against by...
>
> > > Take your pick, Clyde.
>
> > > > > > And I understand and gladly accept that
> > > > > > a relatively high percentage of blacks and other minorities will
> > > > > > get deserved preferences, based on lack of opportunity.
>
> > > > > That can only be because they have been lazy. ;-)
>
> > > > those are your stupid words
>
> > > So to you, whites have been discriminated against equally with
> > > minorities.
>
> > Its nota matter of whites vs minotities.
> > Its a matter of unequal opportunity.
> > the determinant dor that is class.
>
> Whatever you actually meant is hard to decipher here.
>
> > As the time goes by and each generation matures, minorities are
> > moving further up the scale. I work with many minority
> > professional engineers, I come into professional contact
> > with mane upper middle calss and wealthy minorities.
> > I don't think thiri children need any preferences, and
> > I find it offensie that they would get preferences, when
> > there are *so many more children from lower classes that lack
> > so many of the opportunities if the children of wealthy minorities.
>
> So you agree with Affirmative Action. Kudos to you.
>

Yeah, I really do agree wiith the concept,
except that it is applied incorrectly.
In an idealistic world, all people should have
equal opportunity, in the real world, it is just
not going to happen, but opportunities
should be equalized to the extent that it
is reasonavle possible. I just think that it
is better to do that with class based criteria rather
than race based criteria.

> > I don't think that the kids of Robert Johnson, Barak Obama
> > and Jesse Jackson should be getting preferences.
> > I think that these preferences should be going to children of
> > lesser means, whether they are minotities, or not.
>
> Or not. Look, when you can show me generations of institutionalized
> discrimination against bushie's kids, maybe I'll even agree with you.-

you are getting to the point, but still dancing around it.
Neither Obama's not Bush's kids need preferences.
But both poor black and white kids do.

Jenn[_3_]

December 10th 08, 05:11 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 9, 8:19 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> > > > > If I said you possibly harbor hatred, would you not feel accused?
> >
> > > > If someone asked me if I hate something,
> >
> > > You never did that, not that it would change anything.
> >
> > You take a strong stance against SSM and its supporters.
>
> I did? I don't recall engaging much against SSM. I have
> taken a stance against some of its supporters and their tactics.

The key word there is "some". You tend to group all gay people
together, for example, "I don't think I shall support rights for people
who condone acquiring them by depriving others of their rights."

>
> > You make
> > over-generalized statements about gay people.
>
> Sounds like an over-generalized statement about me.
> If you don't want to be over-general, you should
> consider providing some specifics.

See above for one example.

>
> > You won't say why you
> > oppose SSM, after being asked the reason several times.
>
> Yes and I never will after being threatened if I don't.

You weren't threatened.

>
> > I didn't accuse
> > of you hating anyone. Based on all of the above, I said that I don't
> > know. That's because I don't know.
>
> But you choose to believe it's possible. What makes it possible?
> What prevents it from being impossible. Reality is you don't know.

That's what I said.

>
> >
> > > I will not be compelled to answer simply because
> > > refusing gives you license to speculation IYO.
> >
> > > > I would simply answer. If I
> > > > refused to answer,
> >
> > > So refusing to answer your questions opens
> > > any line of speculation as far as you're concerned?
> >
> > No, it means that I don't know.
>
> Not knowing is quite a different thing than presuming
> possibilities.

I'm not presuming anything. I simply don't know.

> >
> > > > I would understand why hate would be open to
> > > > speculation.
> >
> > > Only to people of repugnant morality.
> >
> > I see.
>
> No, it's obvious you don't.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > If you say that you (sic) hatred of
> > > > > > > > gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason,
> >
> > > > > > > I think your hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> > > > > > > reason for your support of SSM.
> >
> > > > > > You're such an interesting person. While I didn't accuse you of
> > > > > > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
> >
> > > > > Oh I'm so sorry, I meant,
> > > > > "I think your POSSIBLE hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> > > > > reason for your support of SSM."
> > > > > Is that better?
> >
> > > > No, because I've stated that I don't hate heterosexuals.
> >
> > > Not before in this thread.
> >
> > I've never been asked or accused of that before.
>
> Should you feel compelled to respond to such
> accusation? I don't.

I don't feel compelled, but if I want people to be clear about the
situation, I answer.

>
> >
> > > So what other ridiculous speculative
> > > accusation should I conjure up for your denial?
> > > Let's discuss your hetero sexual experiences.
> > > Come clean or your perversions will be open to
> > > speculation.
> >
> > My hetero sexual (sic) experiences are nobody's business.
>
> Oh well then....
> Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
> business?

You bring up your opposition to SSM.

> >
> > > > It's very
> > > > simple.
> >
> > > Yes, I needn't deny anything to prevent being
> > > subjected to your ill willed speculations.
> >
> > I hold no ill willed speculations. I said "I don't know".
>
> But it's possible. Why do you keep leaving out the
> worst part?

I don't know your motivations. I also don't care. But when you take a
stance and won't give reasons, one is left to wonder why. I didn't
accuse you of anything.

>
> >
> > > > > > > > I'll believe
> > > > > > > > you. I have no reason not to.
> >
> > > > > > > I have a lot of reasons to question how you choose
> > > > > > > raise your accusations of hatred.
> >
> > > > > > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
> >
> > > > > Really. You seem to imply that I have possible hatred
> > > > > that may or may not be a reason for opposition to SSM.
> > > > > Do you have possible racism? Possible bigotry?
> > > > > The possibilities are endless.
> >
> > > > Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.
> >
> > > Proof?
> >
> > You're kidding, right?
>
> No, and define many people why your at it.

Example: I listened to Colmes' radio show on Fox radio on the way home
last night. I listened for a half hour, and the topic was SSM. I heard
about 10 callers. Four of them were gross, violent statements against
gay people in general. "Faggots should just die." "Queers shouldn't
even exist, more less get married." If you deny that there is a segment
of the population who hate gay people, you are simply denying reality.

>
> >
> > > Anyway, I am not many people and I resent being
> > > stereotyped by your bigotry.
> >
> > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
>
> Many homosexuals don't know when their insinuations
> are offensive or not.

I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.

>
> >
> >
> > > > As I said
> > > > several times, if you say that you don't, that's good enough for me.
> >
> > > I will not descend to the level of your accusations with a denial.
> >
> > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
>
> I won't say. Now what?

That's fine with me.

> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > you haven't indicated what the reason is. So what other
> > > > > > > > > > "hateful"
> > > > > > > > > > things do I do?
> >
> > > > > > > > > I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.
> >
> > > > > > > > lol I see.
> >
> > > > > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> > > > > > > I see extended exposure to the debating trade
> > > > > > > as conducted by Middius continues to diminish your
> > > > > > > morality and make you blind to what you're becoming.
> >
> > > > > > An idiotic question and statement. Obviously what I was laughing
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > calling anything I did "repugnant". I've not accused you of
> > > > > > anything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, I said that if you say that your opinion on the topic of
> > > > > > SSM
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not born of any hatred, then I believe you.
> >
> > > > > "if" is a simple little word which can be very repugnant when so
> > > > > phrased.
> > > > > What "if" I choose not to say?
> >
> > > > That's fine, but then you open the possibility of people guessing what
> > > > your motivation is.
> >
> > > Guess away if you feel you must.
> > > Only repugnant people presume malicious intent and ill-will.
> >
> > I'm not guessing about anything. I said that I don't know what your
> > motivations are. YOU are the person presuming ill will.
>
> No, you are implying the possibility of ill-will in the absence of
> your knowledge. Possibilities of mine aren't influenced by
> you or your lack of knowledge.
> Who ordained you center of all perspective?

This is ironic, considering how often you presume ill-will on my part.

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Is it so different when you choose not to engage in defense of
> > > > > your faith?
> >
> > > > I engage in defense of my faith all the time. I just don't think this
> > > > is the place to have in depth discussions on religion.
> >
> > > Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
> > > you engage in?
> >
> > Why would you?
>
> I won't, but anything is possible for you when you don't know.

Have I given you reason to believe that I participate in such rituals?

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 10th 08, 05:31 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
> > > Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.
> >
> > Thompson is no more, but what is "the Dev"? Google wasn't helpful.
>
> How soon we forget! Roy Briggs, AKA the Devil.

"Forget"? Since when did you call him "the Dev"?

Also, I barely followed your point about those two movies, one of which was
too infantile to be talked about among adults IMO. What does R/G/D have in
common with Thompson, and what does either have to do with your "walk on the
wild side" theme?

I'm not trying to be a Scottie here. I'm many years out of school and I
don't think in those terms.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 09:27 PM

On Dec 10, 8:31*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 Dec, 03:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > So you agree with Affirmative Action. Kudos to you.
>
> Yeah, I really do agree wiith the concept,
> except that it is applied incorrectly.
> In an idealistic world, all people should have
> equal opportunity, in the real world, it is just
> not going to happen, but opportunities
> should be equalized to the extent that it
> is reasonavle possible. I just think that it
> is better to do that with class based criteria rather
> than race based criteria.

There will always be poor people in the US. Capitalism depends on it.
There has to be a slave class. We wouldn't tolerate one here, so we go
to Mexico or Honduras or Haiti or China or elsewhere, where we can't
see it.

> > > I don't think that the kids of Robert Johnson, Barak Obama
> > > and Jesse Jackson should be getting preferences.
> > > I think that these preferences should be going to children of
> > > lesser means, whether they are minotities, or not.
>
> > Or not. Look, when you can show me generations of institutionalized
> > discrimination against bushie's kids, maybe I'll even agree with you.-
>
> you are getting to the point, but still dancing around it.
> Neither Obama's not Bush's kids need preferences.
> But both poor black and white kids do.

This is about two poor kids. One is white, one is black. They both go
to the same school and both get identical degrees with identical
grades and identical extracurricular activities and identical
everything else.

The white kid will still have more of an opportunity. It's still based
on race as much as we in the US would like to pretend it isn't.

Other programs like Head Start will perhaps help the poor white kids.
There isn't discrimination in the job or school marketplace against
poor people, unless you consider the republicans' butchering funding
for things like education discriminatory against the poor. We'd agree
on that, BTW.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 10th 08, 09:45 PM

On Dec 10, 11:11*am, Jenn > wrote:
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 8:19 am, Jenn > wrote:

> > > You take a strong stance against SSM and its supporters.
>
> > I did? I don't recall engaging much against SSM. I have
> > taken a stance against some of its supporters and their tactics.
>
> The key word there is "some". *You tend to group all gay people
> together, for example, "I don't think I shall support rights for people
> who condone acquiring them by depriving others of their rights."

Gays are so overly sensitive.

> > *Oh well then....
> > *Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
> > business?
>
> You bring up your opposition to SSM.

2pid only brings things up to 'save' RAO. He doesn't mean that you can
actually *question* him.

> > *But it's possible. *Why do you keep leaving out the
> > worst part?
>
> I don't know your motivations. *I also don't care. *But when you take a
> stance and won't give reasons, one is left to wonder why. *I didn't
> accuse you of anything.

Gays are always so curious about others' motivations.

> > > > > Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.
>
> > > > Proof?
>
> > > You're kidding, right?
>
> > * No, and define many people why your at it.
>
> Example: *I listened to Colmes' radio show on Fox radio on the way home
> last night. *I listened for a half hour, and the topic was SSM. *I heard
> about 10 callers. *Four of them were gross, violent statements against
> gay people in general. *"Faggots should just die." *"Queers shouldn't
> even exist, more less get married." *If you deny that there is a segment
> of the population who hate gay people, you are simply denying reality.

There isn't any discrimination against gays, blacks or anybody else.

It's just that straight white guys are a better sample of "the will of
the people".

"SoCal Gay Student's Death Sparks Call For Programs"

http://cbs5.com/education/gay.student.death.2.687190.html

I'm sure this was just a "childish prank".

I always find the polls at my kids' school interesting. They very much
tend to repeat what is being said at home by their parents.

> > * Many homosexuals don't know when their insinuations
> > are offensive or not.
>
> I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.

Look, Jenn, you either threatened, presumed, accused or insinuated.
2pid knows words.

> > * I won't say. Now what?
>
> That's fine with me.

I think you're letting 2pid off the hook far too easily. We know that
when Bratzi posts his diatribes it's because Bratzi is hateful. 2pid,
OTOH, posts hateful stuff but then feigns surprise when people call
him on it.

If 2pid wants to post diatribes against gays or any other group we get
to question him on it. If 2pid refuses to answer questions about what
his motivations are, we can speculate. If 2pid doesn't like that, then
screw him. LoL.

> > *Who ordained you center of all perspective?
>
> This is ironic, considering how often you presume ill-will on my part.

2pid is royaly, you know.

> > > > *Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
> > > > you engage in?
>
> > > Why would you?
>
> > *I won't, but anything is possible for you when you don't know.
>
> Have I given you reason to believe that I participate in such rituals?

Wasn't it you who posted "I don't think I shall support people who do
not perform hedonistic religious rituals"?

MINe109

December 10th 08, 11:19 PM

On Dec 10, 11:31*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
> > > > Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.
>
> > > Thompson is no more, but what is "the Dev"? Google wasn't helpful.
>
> > How soon we forget! Roy Briggs, AKA the Devil.
>
> "Forget"? Since when did you call him "the Dev"?

I thought the categories of "writers" and "the Dev" would be enough to
identify him.

> Also, I barely followed your point about those two movies, one of which was
> too infantile to be talked about among adults IMO. What does R/G/D have in
> common with Thompson, and what does either have to do with your "walk on the
> wild side" theme?
>
> I'm not trying to be a Scottie here. I'm many years out of school and I
> don't think in those terms.

The subject was what kind of formative experience Scott may have had
that left him with a fear of gayness and was too traumatizing to
acknowledge. Something like Blue Velvet with Scott as Kyle MacLachlan?
Maybe enjoying Dean Stockwell a little too much?

It's been decades since my last film course. The only newish term I
know is "manic pixie dream girl" and it doesn't fit this context.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 10th 08, 11:41 PM

MINe109 said:

> > > > > That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
> > > > > Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.
> >
> > > > Thompson is no more, but what is "the Dev"? Google wasn't helpful.
> >
> > > How soon we forget! Roy Briggs, AKA the Devil.
> >
> > "Forget"? Since when did you call him "the Dev"?
>
> I thought the categories of "writers" and "the Dev" would be enough to
> identify him.

You think of Hunter Thompson as a writer? Wow. I'll bet most people don't
remember his "journalism" first and foremost.

> > Also, I barely followed your point about those two movies, one of which was
> > too infantile to be talked about among adults IMO. What does R/G/D have in
> > common with Thompson, and what does either have to do with your "walk on the
> > wild side" theme?
> >
> > I'm not trying to be a Scottie here. I'm many years out of school and I
> > don't think in those terms.
>
> The subject was what kind of formative experience Scott may have had
> that left him with a fear of gayness and was too traumatizing to
> acknowledge. Something like Blue Velvet with Scott as Kyle MacLachlan?

A truly revolting movie. Good context for describing Scottie's formative
experiences.

> Maybe enjoying Dean Stockwell a little too much?

<whoosh>

Couldn't you just make a "funny uncle" joke so the rest of us can keep up?

> It's been decades since my last film course. The only newish term I
> know is "manic pixie dream girl" and it doesn't fit this context.

I had to Google that.... here's what I found:

"The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of
sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace
life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." -- Nathan Rabin

So we're back to drug abuse.

Jenn[_3_]

December 11th 08, 12:02 AM

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Dec 10, 11:11*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 8:19 am, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > You take a strong stance against SSM and its supporters.
> >
> > > I did? I don't recall engaging much against SSM. I have
> > > taken a stance against some of its supporters and their tactics.
> >
> > The key word there is "some". *You tend to group all gay people
> > together, for example, "I don't think I shall support rights for people
> > who condone acquiring them by depriving others of their rights."
>
> Gays are so overly sensitive.

Yes, gays are.

>
> > > *Oh well then....
> > > *Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
> > > business?
> >
> > You bring up your opposition to SSM.
>
> 2pid only brings things up to 'save' RAO. He doesn't mean that you can
> actually *question* him.
>
> > > *But it's possible. *Why do you keep leaving out the
> > > worst part?
> >
> > I don't know your motivations. *I also don't care. *But when you take a
> > stance and won't give reasons, one is left to wonder why. *I didn't
> > accuse you of anything.
>
> Gays are always so curious about others' motivations.

Yes, gays are.

>
> > > > > > Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.
> >
> > > > > Proof?
> >
> > > > You're kidding, right?
> >
> > > * No, and define many people why your at it.
> >
> > Example: *I listened to Colmes' radio show on Fox radio on the way home
> > last night. *I listened for a half hour, and the topic was SSM. *I heard
> > about 10 callers. *Four of them were gross, violent statements against
> > gay people in general. *"Faggots should just die." *"Queers shouldn't
> > even exist, more less get married." *If you deny that there is a segment
> > of the population who hate gay people, you are simply denying reality.
>
> There isn't any discrimination against gays, blacks or anybody else.
>
> It's just that straight white guys are a better sample of "the will of
> the people".
>
> "SoCal Gay Student's Death Sparks Call For Programs"
>
> http://cbs5.com/education/gay.student.death.2.687190.html
>
> I'm sure this was just a "childish prank".
>
> I always find the polls at my kids' school interesting. They very much
> tend to repeat what is being said at home by their parents.
>
> > > * Many homosexuals don't know when their insinuations
> > > are offensive or not.
> >
> > I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.
>
> Look, Jenn, you either threatened, presumed, accused or insinuated.

Gays do that.

> 2pid knows words.
>
> > > * I won't say. Now what?
> >
> > That's fine with me.
>
> I think you're letting 2pid off the hook far too easily. We know that
> when Bratzi posts his diatribes it's because Bratzi is hateful. 2pid,
> OTOH, posts hateful stuff but then feigns surprise when people call
> him on it.
>
> If 2pid wants to post diatribes against gays or any other group we get
> to question him on it. If 2pid refuses to answer questions about what
> his motivations are, we can speculate. If 2pid doesn't like that, then
> screw him. LoL.
>
> > > *Who ordained you center of all perspective?
> >
> > This is ironic, considering how often you presume ill-will on my part.
>
> 2pid is royaly, you know.
>
> > > > > *Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
> > > > > you engage in?
> >
> > > > Why would you?
> >
> > > *I won't, but anything is possible for you when you don't know.
> >
> > Have I given you reason to believe that I participate in such rituals?
>
> Wasn't it you who posted "I don't think I shall support people who do
> not perform hedonistic religious rituals"?

MINe109

December 11th 08, 12:03 AM

On Dec 10, 5:41*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> MINe109 said:
>
> > > > > > That's just inviting speculation that would require the skills of a
> > > > > > Hunter Thompson or the Dev to do justice.
>
> > > > > Thompson is no more, but what is "the Dev"? Google wasn't helpful..
>
> > > > How soon we forget! Roy Briggs, AKA the Devil.
>
> > > "Forget"? Since when did you call him "the Dev"?
>
> > I thought the categories of "writers" and "the Dev" would be enough to
> > identify him.
>
> You think of Hunter Thompson as a writer? Wow. I'll bet most people don't
> remember his "journalism" first and foremost.

Sure they do, although many may think he's a Doonesbury character.
Fear and Loathing. Gonzo journalism.

> > > Also, I barely followed your point about those two movies, one of which was
> > > too infantile to be talked about among adults IMO. What does R/G/D have in
> > > common with Thompson, and what does either have to do with your "walk on the
> > > wild side" theme?
>
> > > I'm not trying to be a Scottie here. I'm many years out of school and I
> > > don't think in those terms.
>
> > The subject was what kind of formative experience Scott may have had
> > that left him with a fear of gayness and was too traumatizing to
> > acknowledge. Something like Blue Velvet with Scott as Kyle MacLachlan?
>
> A truly revolting movie. Good context for describing Scottie's formative
> experiences.
>
> > Maybe enjoying Dean Stockwell a little too much?
>
> <whoosh>
>
> Couldn't you just make a "funny uncle" joke so the rest of us can keep up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0c1fcOf4Vk

> > It's been decades since my last film course. The only newish term I
> > know is "manic pixie dream girl" and it doesn't fit this context.
>
> I had to Google that.... here's what I found:
>
> "The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of
> sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace
> life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." * * * * * * * * * -- Nathan Rabin

Doesn't fit at all! but I just read that the vampire of recent fad is
perhaps the male equivalent.

> So we're back to drug abuse.

Or possibly the right-wing blogger staples of Cheetos and Mountain
Dew.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 11th 08, 12:08 AM

On Dec 10, 6:02*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 11:11*am, Jenn > wrote:

> > > I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.
>
> > Look, Jenn, you either threatened, presumed, accused or insinuated.
>
> Gays do that.

It's probably a result of their "lifestyle".

Jenn[_3_]

December 11th 08, 12:10 AM

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Dec 10, 6:02*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 10, 11:11*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.
> >
> > > Look, Jenn, you either threatened, presumed, accused or insinuated.
> >
> > Gays do that.
>
> It's probably a result of their "lifestyle".

Yeah. Even a cubie dweller can figure that out.

Clyde Slick

December 11th 08, 03:56 AM

On 10 Dec, 16:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 8:31*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 10 Dec, 03:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > So you agree with Affirmative Action. Kudos to you.
>
> > Yeah, I really do agree wiith the concept,
> > except that it is applied incorrectly.
> > In an idealistic world, all people should have
> > equal opportunity, in the real world, it is just
> > not going to happen, but opportunities
> > should be equalized to the extent that it
> > is reasonavle possible. I just think that it
> > is better to do that with class based criteria rather
> > than race based criteria.
>
> There will always be poor people in the US. Capitalism depends on it.
> There has to be a slave class. We wouldn't tolerate one here, so we go
> to Mexico or Honduras or Haiti or China or elsewhere, where we can't
> see it.
>
> > > > I don't think that the kids of Robert Johnson, Barak Obama
> > > > and Jesse Jackson should be getting preferences.
> > > > I think that these preferences should be going to children of
> > > > lesser means, whether they are minotities, or not.
>
> > > Or not. Look, when you can show me generations of institutionalized
> > > discrimination against bushie's kids, maybe I'll even agree with you.-
>
> > you are getting to the point, but still dancing around it.
> > Neither Obama's not Bush's kids need preferences.
> > But both poor black and white kids do.
>
> This is about two poor kids. One is white, one is black. They both go
> to the same school and both get identical degrees with identical
> grades and identical extracurricular activities and identical
> everything else.
>
> The white kid will still have more of an opportunity. It's still based
> on race as much as we in the US would like to pretend it isn't.
>
> Other programs like Head Start will perhaps help the poor white kids.
> There isn't discrimination in the job or school marketplace against
> poor people, unless you consider the republicans' butchering funding
> for things like education discriminatory against the poor. We'd agree
> on that, BTW.

Blacks are dispropotionally represented in the lower income groups.
Focusing the Aff A programs to lower income groups will
still positively affect blacks more than whites. But just the
portions'of the minority
population that catually needs the equalization.
As it is now, Obama's kids will get a preference'over poor white kids.

Jenn[_3_]

December 11th 08, 04:07 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 10, 9:11*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 8:19 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > *If I said you possibly harbor hatred, would you not feel
> > > > > > > accused?
> >
> > > > > > If someone asked me if I hate something,
> >
> > > > > *You never did that, not that it would change anything.
> >
> > > > You take a strong stance against SSM and its supporters.
> >
> > > I did? I don't recall engaging much against SSM. I have
> > > taken a stance against some of its supporters and their tactics.
> >
> > The key word there is "some". *You tend to group all gay people
> > together, for example, "I don't think I shall support rights for people
> > who condone acquiring them by depriving others of their rights."
>
> Actually I think I split them into perps and silent supporters.
> That would be at least 2 groups.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > You make
> > > > over-generalized statements about gay people.
> >
> > > Sounds like an over-generalized statement about me.
> > > If you don't want to be over-general, you should
> > > consider providing some specifics.
> >
> > See above for one example.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > *You won't say why you
> > > > oppose SSM, after being asked the reason several times.
> >
> > > *Yes and I never will after being threatened if I don't.
> >
> > You weren't threatened.
>
> LoL. Are you going to speculate if I don't?
>
>
> >
> > > > * I didn't accuse
> > > > of you hating anyone. *Based on all of the above, I said that I don't
> > > > know. *That's because I don't know.
> >
> > > *But you choose to believe it's possible. What makes it possible?
> > > What prevents it from being impossible. Reality is you don't know.
> >
> > That's what I said.
>
> So you don't know if it's possible.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > *I will not be compelled to answer simply because
> > > > > *refusing gives you license to speculation IYO.
> >
> > > > > > *I would simply answer. *If I
> > > > > > refused to answer,
> >
> > > > > *So refusing to answer your questions opens
> > > > > any line of speculation as far as you're concerned?
> >
> > > > No, it means that I don't know.
> >
> > > *Not knowing is quite a different thing than presuming
> > > possibilities.
> >
> > I'm not presuming anything. *I simply don't know.
>
> Which is not a completely accurate repetition of what
> you said.
>
> >
> > > > > > I would understand why hate would be open to
> > > > > > speculation.
> >
> > > > > * Only to people of repugnant morality.
> >
> > > > I see.
> >
> > > *No, it's obvious you don't.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *If you say that you *(sic) hatred of
> > > > > > > > > > gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason,
> >
> > > > > > > > > *I think your hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
> > > > > > > > > reason for your support of SSM.
> >
> > > > > > > > You're such an interesting person. *While I didn't accuse you
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.
> >
> > > > > > > *Oh I'm so sorry, I meant,
> > > > > > > "I think your POSSIBLE hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > *reason for your support of SSM."
> > > > > > > Is that better?
> >
> > > > > > No, because I've stated that I don't hate heterosexuals.
> >
> > > > > *Not before in this thread.
> >
> > > > I've never been asked or accused of that before.
> >
> > > *Should you feel compelled to respond to such
> > > accusation? *I don't.
> >
> > I don't feel compelled, but if I want people to be clear about the
> > situation, I answer.
>
> Your threats removed any desire I might have had to
> clear your troubled mind.
>
> >
> > > > > *So what other ridiculous speculative
> > > > > accusation should I conjure up for your denial?
> > > > > Let's discuss your hetero sexual experiences.
> > > > > Come clean or your perversions will be open to
> > > > > speculation.
> >
> > > > My hetero sexual (sic) experiences are nobody's business.
> >
> > > *Oh well then....
> > > *Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
> > > business?
> >
> > You bring up your opposition to SSM.
>
> And in your example above I provided my reason.
> But I don't find stating a position compells anyone to
> answer why.
>
>
> >
> > > > > > *It's very
> > > > > > simple.
> >
> > > > > *Yes, I needn't deny anything to prevent being
> > > > > subjected to your ill willed speculations.
> >
> > > > I hold no ill willed speculations. *I said "I don't know".
> >
> > > *But it's possible. *Why do you keep leaving out the
> > > worst part?
> >
> > I don't know your motivations. *I also don't care. *But when you take a
> > stance and won't give reasons, one is left to wonder why.
>
> Of course, but public speculation?
>
> I wonder if she' got the clap?
> I wonder if she's had an abortion.
> I wonder if her partner shaves.
>
> > *I didn't
> > accuse you of anything.
>
> Ok, you're were just being rude.
>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll believe
> > > > > > > > > > you. *I have no reason not to.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I have a lot of reasons to question how you choose
> > > > > > > > > raise your accusations of hatred.
> >
> > > > > > > > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
> >
> > > > > > > *Really. *You seem to imply that I have possible hatred
> > > > > > > that may or may not be a reason for opposition to SSM.
> > > > > > > Do you have possible racism? Possible bigotry?
> > > > > > > The possibilities are endless.
> >
> > > > > > Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.
> >
> > > > > Proof?
> >
> > > > You're kidding, right?
> >
> > > * No, and define many people why your at it.
> >
> > Example: *I listened to Colmes' radio show on Fox radio on the way home
> > last night. *I listened for a half hour, and the topic was SSM. *I heard
> > about 10 callers. *Four of them were gross, violent statements against
> > gay people in general. *"Faggots should just die." *"Queers shouldn't
> > even exist, more less get married." *If you deny that there is a segment
> > of the population who hate gay people, you are simply denying reality.
>
> So you seem to thing that talk radio provides a representative
> sample of the American public? LoL.
> Only thing I can draw from that tidbit is why Colmes radio
> show is floundering.
>
> How many people have you personally talked to about SSM?
> More than 10? Given Colmes sample at least 4 should have
> made gross violent statements against gay people in general.
> Did they?
>
> Here's a clue. Radio and TV are not representative of America.
> You drawing your conclusion is as dumb as the jihadists
> who want to burn America because they saw an episode
> of Queer as Folk or whaterver that Showtime show was.
>
> >
> > > > > * Anyway, I am not many people and I resent being
> > > > > stereotyped by your bigotry.
> >
> > > > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
> >
> > > * Many homosexuals don't know when their insinuations
> > > are offensive or not.
> >
> > I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.
>
> Denial, denial, denial.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > * As I said
> > > > > > several times, if you say that you don't, that's good enough for
> > > > > > me.
> >
> > > > > I will not descend to the level of your accusations with a denial.
> >
> > > > I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.
> >
> > > * I won't say. Now what?
> >
> > That's fine with me.
>
> What? No threat? A pleasant improvement. Congrats.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > > you haven't indicated what the reason is. *So what
> > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > "hateful"
> > > > > > > > > > > > things do I do?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > *I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > lol *I see.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Do you think making false accusations is funny?
> > > > > > > > > I see extended exposure to the debating trade
> > > > > > > > > as conducted by Middius continues to diminish your
> > > > > > > > > morality and make you blind to what you're becoming.
> >
> > > > > > > > An idiotic question and statement. *Obviously what I was
> > > > > > > > laughing
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > calling anything I did "repugnant". *I've not accused you of
> > > > > > > > anything.
> >
> > > > > > > > In fact, I said that if you say that your opinion on the topic
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > SSM
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not born of any hatred, then I believe you.
> >
> > > > > > > *"if" is a simple little word which can be very repugnant when so
> > > > > > > phrased.
> > > > > > > * What "if" I choose not to say?
> >
> > > > > > That's fine, but then you open the possibility of people guessing
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > your motivation is.
> >
> > > > > *Guess away if you feel you must.
> > > > > *Only repugnant people presume malicious intent and ill-will.
> >
> > > > I'm not guessing about anything. *I said that I don't know what your
> > > > motivations are. *YOU are the person presuming ill will.
> >
> > > *No, you are implying the possibility of ill-will in the absence of
> > > your knowledge. * Possibilities of mine aren't influenced by
> > > you or your lack of knowledge.
> > > *Who ordained you center of all perspective?
> >
> > This is ironic, considering how often you presume ill-will on my part.
>
> I haven't presumed it, I've witnessed it.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > > * Is it so different when you choose not to engage in defense of
> > > > > > > your faith?
> >
> > > > > > I engage in defense of my faith all the time. *I just don't think
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > is the place to have in depth discussions on religion.
> >
> > > > > *Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
> > > > > you engage in?
> >
> > > > Why would you?
> >
> > > *I won't, but anything is possible for you when you don't know.
> >
> > Have I given you reason to believe that I participate in such rituals?
>
> Let me listen to Colmes radio for awhile and get back to you
> on that one.
>
> ScottW

OK. When people start calling in about hedonistic religions rituals
that I participate in, get back to me.

Jenn[_3_]

December 11th 08, 04:15 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 10, 4:10*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 10, 6:02*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Dec 10, 11:11*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.
> >
> > > > > Look, Jenn, you either threatened, presumed, accused or insinuated.
> >
> > > > Gays do that.
> >
> > > It's probably a result of their "lifestyle".
> >
> > Yeah. *Even a cubie dweller can figure that out.
>
> Are you trying to stereotype people who work in cubes now?
> I know you might be annoyed with me but turning around
> and denigrating so many people, many of whom are no doubt
> smarter, kinder, and nicer than your or I is....check that...
> should be beneath you.
> Apparently your standards are diminishing.
>
> ScottW

You honestly can't see that I'm poking fun at you for the "even a jr.
college music teacher..." cracks, I see. Now, if you don't work in a
cubie, my mistake.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 11th 08, 04:40 PM

On Dec 10, 9:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 Dec, 16:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 8:31*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Dec, 03:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > So you agree with Affirmative Action. Kudos to you.
>
> > > Yeah, I really do agree wiith the concept,
> > > except that it is applied incorrectly.
> > > In an idealistic world, all people should have
> > > equal opportunity, in the real world, it is just
> > > not going to happen, but opportunities
> > > should be equalized to the extent that it
> > > is reasonavle possible. I just think that it
> > > is better to do that with class based criteria rather
> > > than race based criteria.
>
> > There will always be poor people in the US. Capitalism depends on it.
> > There has to be a slave class. We wouldn't tolerate one here, so we go
> > to Mexico or Honduras or Haiti or China or elsewhere, where we can't
> > see it.
>
> > > > > I don't think that the kids of Robert Johnson, Barak Obama
> > > > > and Jesse Jackson should be getting preferences.
> > > > > I think that these preferences should be going to children of
> > > > > lesser means, whether they are minotities, or not.
>
> > > > Or not. Look, when you can show me generations of institutionalized
> > > > discrimination against bushie's kids, maybe I'll even agree with you.-
>
> > > you are getting to the point, but still dancing around it.
> > > Neither Obama's not Bush's kids need preferences.
> > > But both poor black and white kids do.
>
> > This is about two poor kids. One is white, one is black. They both go
> > to the same school and both get identical degrees with identical
> > grades and identical extracurricular activities and identical
> > everything else.
>
> > The white kid will still have more of an opportunity. It's still based
> > on race as much as we in the US would like to pretend it isn't.
>
> > Other programs like Head Start will perhaps help the poor white kids.
> > There isn't discrimination in the job or school marketplace against
> > poor people, unless you consider the republicans' butchering funding
> > for things like education discriminatory against the poor. We'd agree
> > on that, BTW.
>
> Blacks are dispropotionally represented in the lower income groups.

Why do you suppose that might be?

> Focusing the Aff A programs to lower income groups will
> still positively affect blacks more than whites. But just the
> portions'of the minority
> population that catually needs the equalization.
> As it is now, Obama's kids will get a preference'over poor white kids.

Why do you suppose that might be?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 11th 08, 04:45 PM

On Dec 11, 10:15*am, Jenn > wrote:
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 4:10*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> > > > It's probably a result of their "lifestyle".
>
> > > Yeah. *Even a cubie dweller can figure that out.
>
> > * Are you trying to stereotype people who work in cubes now?
> > I know you might be annoyed with me but turning around
> > and denigrating so many people, many of whom are no doubt
> > smarter, kinder, and nicer than your or I is....check that...
> > should be beneath you.

> > Apparently your standards are diminishing.

> You honestly can't see that I'm poking fun at you for the "even a jr.
> college music teacher..." cracks, I see. *Now, if you don't work in a
> cubie, my mistake.

There's a difference, Jenn: if 2pid makes a comment like that it's
funny, friendly, concise and intelligent.

If you make a comment like that, it's accusatory, presumptuous,
threatening, denigrating, dumb, mean and filled with insinuation. I'm
surprised that I have to point that out to you.

2pid, you see, is a 'genius'. LoL.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

December 11th 08, 05:27 PM

On Dec 10, 7:48*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:11*am, Jenn > wrote:

> > I don't know your motivations. *I also don't care. *But when you take a
> > stance and won't give reasons, one is left to wonder why.
>
> Of course, but public speculation?
>
> *I wonder if she' got the clap?
> *I wonder if she's had an abortion.
> *I wonder if her partner shaves.

What position has Jenn taken where she hasn't been willing to discuss
the reasoning behind her position? If you can 'think' of one, 2pid,
speculate away!

A subtle difference lost on poor, dumb 2pid.

George M. Middius[_4_]

December 11th 08, 06:01 PM

Jenn said:

> OK. When people start calling in about hedonistic religions rituals
> that I participate in, get back to me.

That reminds of Archie Bunker shrieking at Edith because she went to a
communion ritual: "Did you eat a cookie?!"

Boon

December 11th 08, 06:16 PM

On Dec 11, 8:40ï¿½am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:56ï¿½pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Dec, 16:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 10, 8:31ï¿½am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 Dec, 03:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > So you agree with Affirmative Action. Kudos to you.
>
> > > > Yeah, I really do agree wiith the concept,
> > > > except that it is applied incorrectly.
> > > > In an idealistic world, all people should have
> > > > equal opportunity, in the real world, it is just
> > > > not going to happen, but opportunities
> > > > should be equalized to the extent that it
> > > > is reasonavle possible. I just think that it
> > > > is better to do that with class based criteria rather
> > > > than race based criteria.
>
> > > There will always be poor people in the US. Capitalism depends on it.
> > > There has to be a slave class. We wouldn't tolerate one here, so we go
> > > to Mexico or Honduras or Haiti or China or elsewhere, where we can't
> > > see it.
>
> > > > > > I don't think that the kids of Robert Johnson, Barak Obama
> > > > > > and Jesse Jackson should be getting preferences.
> > > > > > I think that these preferences should be going to children of
> > > > > > lesser means, whether they are minotities, or not.
>
> > > > > Or not. Look, when you can show me generations of institutionalized
> > > > > discrimination against bushie's kids, maybe I'll even agree with you.-
>
> > > > you are getting to the point, but still dancing around it.
> > > > Neither Obama's not Bush's kids need preferences.
> > > > But both poor black and white kids do.
>
> > > This is about two poor kids. One is white, one is black. They both go
> > > to the same school and both get identical degrees with identical
> > > grades and identical extracurricular activities and identical
> > > everything else.
>
> > > The white kid will still have more of an opportunity. It's still based
> > > on race as much as we in the US would like to pretend it isn't.
>
> > > Other programs like Head Start will perhaps help the poor white kids.
> > > There isn't discrimination in the job or school marketplace against
> > > poor people, unless you consider the republicans' butchering funding
> > > for things like education discriminatory against the poor. We'd agree
> > > on that, BTW.
>
> > Blacks are dispropotionally represented in the lower income groups.
>
> Why do you suppose that might be?
>
> > Focusing the Aff A programs to lower income groups will
> > still positively affect blacks more than whites. But just the
> > portions'of the minority
> > population that catually needs the equalization.
> > As it is now, Obama's kids will get a preference'over poor white kids.
>
> Why do you suppose that might be?-

I'm sure the Secret Service has something to do with the answer.

Boon