A different show of hands

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

So 2pid is (yet again) getting his ass kicked around and who shows up?

Sugar.

They're both pretty dumb and they're both pretty ****ed off. Are they
one and the same, or perhaps related?

I vote yes. I think sugar is 2pid's chain-smoking alcoholic mother.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> So 2pid is (yet again) getting his ass kicked around and who shows up?
> Sugar.

Sieg heil!

> They're both pretty dumb and they're both pretty ****ed off. Are they
> one and the same, or perhaps related?
> I vote yes. I think sugar is 2pid's chain-smoking alcoholic mother.

They're both racist and homophobic. StynchBlob is considerably more
articulate than Witless, but Witless appears to have a real job.

They both think the world of Arnii Krooborg, too.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 22, 3:41*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
> > So 2pid is (yet again) getting his ass kicked around and who shows up?
>
> LoL.... *Poor silly ssshhhtard. He really does think his childish
> insults amount to something.

So 2pid thinks that's an "insult"?

No wonder he swallows an opinion piece on Fox that didn't bother to
ask either of the campaings one single question. LoL.

Maybe if 2pid's family "loves" him enough he'll get a decent
dictionary for Christmas.

>*Oh well.

Don't give up yet, 2pid. Christmas is still a couple of days away.
LoL.

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill hiked up her skirt and yoo-hooed:

> Are they one and the same, or perhaps related?

How many shell fragments during live-ammo training exercises pierced that dented
cranium, slicing off critical, logic-formulating synapses and making general
mush out of what little gray matter there previously was, before finally exiting
the other side, which may help explain G.I. Joe's transformation into G.I. Jill?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 22, 4:09*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill hiked up her skirt and yoo-hooed:
>
> > Are they one and the same, or perhaps related?

Blah blah blah.

What a numbskull.

[Sophistic]

Pudge the Gimp minced:

> [GeoSynch the Great(est)] is considerably more articulate...

Well, thank you for that compliment, 'lil Georgie.

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill hastily retreated:

> Blah blah blah.

The better part of valor, that is if you had any.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 22, 4:37*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill hastily retreated:
>
> > Blah blah blah.
>
Blah blah blah.

You're a bore, sugar.

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill mopped her sullen brow:

> Blah blah blah.

> You're a bore, sugar.

What's the matter, Jilly baby ... relegated to latrine clean-up duty with only a
toothbrush and your tongue to complete the job?

Better have a breath mint, you probably could use one.

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 1:55�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill mopped her sullen brow:
>
> > Blah blah blah.
> > You're a bore, sugar.
>
> What's the matter, Jilly baby ... relegated to latrine clean-up duty with only a
> toothbrush and your tongue to complete the job?
>
> Better have a breath mint, you probably could use one.

Translation: "Blah blah blah, you all have bad breath, blah blah you
all clean toilets for a living, blah blah blah I hate you all. Why
aren't you taking me seriously?"

Boon

[Sophistic]

BaBoon grunted:

> Translation: "Blah blah blah..."

No substantiation equals no credibility and no credibility equals laughingstock
journalist.

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 2:15�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon grunted:
>
> > Translation: �"Blah blah blah..."
>
> No substantiation equals no credibility and no credibility equals laughingstock
> journalist.

The ball's been in your court for quite some time.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 23, 3:55*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill mopped her sullen brow:
>
> > Blah blah blah.
> > You're a bore, sugar.

Blah, blah, blah.

Were you born with your mental deficiencies, or were they an acquired
taste?

You're boring, sugar. Just accept it and we can move on.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 23, 4:15*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon grunted:
>
> > Translation: *"Blah blah blah..."
>
> No substantiation equals no credibility and no credibility equals laughingstock
> journalist.

Says the "credible source" who has identified me as a gay black woman
from an imaginary military unit. LOL!

[Sophistic]

BaBoon dribbled:

> > No substantiation equals no credibility and no credibility equals
> > laughingstock journalist.

> The ball's been in your court for quite some time.

I'm not the one who made a claim of 150,000 readers that I couldn't back up.

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill is back to form:

> LOL!

Indeed.

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 2:36�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon dribbled:
>
> > > No substantiation equals no credibility and no credibility equals
> > > laughingstock journalist.
> > The ball's been in your court for quite some time.
>
> I'm not the one who made a claim of 150,000 readers that I couldn't back up.

Journalist who jumps through hoops for anonymous Usenet sockpuppets
equals no laughingstock journalist.

Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 2:31�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 4:15�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
>
> > BaBoon grunted:
>
> > > Translation: �"Blah blah blah..."
>
> > No substantiation equals no credibility and no credibility equals laughingstock
> > journalist.
>
> Says the "credible source" who has identified me as a gay black woman
> from an imaginary military unit. LOL!

If he wasn't so inept, he would have received the information
already. Evidently he has too much to hide.

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 2:38�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill is back to form:
>
> > LOL!
>
> Indeed.

It's clear that you're not getting any LOLs in your real life. Is
that why you're so bitter about the phrase? Do you hate happy
people? How bad is your life?

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 2:40�pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:36 pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
>
> > BaBoon dribbled:
>
> > > > No substantiation equals no credibility and no credibility equals
> > > > laughingstock journalist.
> > > The ball's been in your court for quite some time.
>
> > I'm not the one who made a claim of 150,000 readers that I couldn't back up.
>
> Journalist who jumps through hoops for anonymous Usenet sockpuppets
> equals no laughingstock journalist.
>
> Quid pro quo, Clarice.
>
> Boon

Whoops. I meant equals laughingstock journalism. I bet CISG runs
with this one, seeing how he has zip otherwise.

Boon

[Sophistic]

BaBoon reaches for the fava beans and chianti:

> > I'm not the one who made a claim of 150,000 readers that I couldn't back up.

> Journalist who jumps through hoops for anonymous Usenet sockpuppets equals no
> laughingstock journalist.

Journalistic incoherency noted.

> Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Screamed the no-credibility, laughingstock lamb.

[Sophistic]

BaBoon spun:

> If he wasn't so inept, he would have received the information already.
> Evidently he has too much to hide.

You made the 150,000 readers claim on rao. Now back it up on rao. If either you
can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility and neither,
then, does its claimant.

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 2:56�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon reaches for the fava beans and chianti:
>
> > > I'm not the one who made a claim of 150,000 readers that I couldn't back up.
> > Journalist who jumps through hoops for anonymous Usenet sockpuppets equals no
> > laughingstock journalist.
>
> Journalistic incoherency noted.

Usenet posts are journalism? Are you one of those idiots with a
"Usenet" career?

>
> > Quid pro quo, Clarice.
>
> Screamed the no-credibility, laughingstock lamb.

It hurts to be insignificant, doesn't it. Quid pro quo.

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 3:02�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon spun:
>
> > If he wasn't so inept, he would have received the information already.
> > Evidently he has too much to hide.
>
> You made the 150,000 readers claim on rao. Now back it up on rao. If either you
> can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility and neither,
> then, does its claimant.

Quid pro quo.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > > If he wasn't so inept, he would have received the information already.
> > > Evidently he has too much to hide.
> >
> > You made the 150,000 readers claim on rao. Now back it up on rao. If either you
> > can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility and neither,
> > then, does its claimant.
>
> Quid pro quo.

You know who else used that same lame epithet for you? Zakky Chimp-Boy did,
years ago.

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 3:59�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > > > If he wasn't so inept, he would have received the information already.
> > > > Evidently he has too much to hide.
>
> > > You made the 150,000 readers claim on rao. Now back it up on rao. If either you
> > > can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility and neither,
> > > then, does its claimant.
>
> > Quid pro quo.
>
> You know who else used that same lame epithet for you? Zakky Chimp-Boy did,
> years ago.

I forgot about that guy. Just like I'll forget about CISG in a few
weeks.

Boon

[Sophistic]

BaBoon howled:

> It hurts to be insignificant, doesn't it. Quid pro quo.

What really hurts is your "material" isn't even good enough for lowly
Stereophile; that one really stuck in your craw.

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 4:07�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon howled:
>
> > It hurts to be insignificant, doesn't it. �Quid pro quo.
>
> What really hurts is your "material" isn't even good enough for lowly
> Stereophile; that one really stuck in your craw.

Please provide a URL to document this. Remember, you made this claim
on RAO, and you have to back it up on RAO. If either you
can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility and
neither, then, does its claimant.

Boon

[Sophistic]

BaBoon forgot:

> I forgot about that guy. Just like I'll forget about CISG in a few weeks.

Might as well forget about your journalistic credibility while you're at it.

[Sophistic]

BaBoon aped:

> > What really hurts is your "material" isn't even good enough for lowly
> > Stereophile; that one really stuck in your craw.

> Please provide a URL to document this.

Goin' the Arny route? You ever been published in Stereophile? Why not? Zippy's
old lady was, so your so-called "material" must be way worse than her's was.

> Remember, you made this claim on RAO, and you have to back it up on RAO. If
> either you can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility
> and neither, then, does its claimant.

When is an "IKYABWAI" not an "IKYABWAI"?
Why, when it is uttered by a clueless BaBoon and then it magically transforms
into inane irony.

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 4:16�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon aped:
>
> > > What really hurts is your "material" isn't even good enough for lowly
> > > Stereophile; that one really stuck in your craw.
> > Please provide a URL to document this.
>
> Goin' the Arny route?

Nope, you beat me to it when you insisted a claim cannot be verified
without a URL.

You ever been published in Stereophile?

No.

Why not?

I never submitted anything to them.

Zippy's
> old lady was, so your so-called "material" must be way worse than her's [sic] was.

That's some pretty strange logic.

>
> > Remember, you made this claim on RAO, and you have to back it up on RAO.. �If
> > either you can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility
> > and neither, then, does its claimant.
>
> When is an "IKYABWAI" not an "IKYABWAI"?

When it proves that the other person is a hypocrite and can't live up
to their own standards.

> Why, when it is uttered by a clueless BaBoon and then it magically transforms
> into inane irony.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to keep from pulling that trigger.
Are you spending the holidays alone? Why?

Boon

[Sophistic]

Thanks for the quick concession; better luck next time. Later.

"Boon" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 4:16?pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon aped:
>
> > > What really hurts is your "material" isn't even good enough for lowly
> > > Stereophile; that one really stuck in your craw.
> > Please provide a URL to document this.
>
> Goin' the Arny route?

Nope, you beat me to it when you insisted a claim cannot be verified
without a URL.

You ever been published in Stereophile?

No.

Why not?

I never submitted anything to them.

Zippy's
> old lady was, so your so-called "material" must be way worse than her's [sic]
> was.

That's some pretty strange logic.

>
> > Remember, you made this claim on RAO, and you have to back it up on RAO. ?If
> > either you can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no
> > credibility
> > and neither, then, does its claimant.
>
> When is an "IKYABWAI" not an "IKYABWAI"?

When it proves that the other person is a hypocrite and can't live up
to their own standards.

> Why, when it is uttered by a clueless BaBoon and then it magically transforms
> into inane irony.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to keep from pulling that trigger.
Are you spending the holidays alone? Why?

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 4:23�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:

> Thanks for the quick concession; better luck next time. Later.

Why are you running away from me? Did I cut it a little close to the
quick when I suggested that you're spending the holidays alone? I'm
sorry, CISG. Don't pull the trigger. You're a young man...you have
your whole life ahead of you!

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 4:10�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon forgot:
>
> > I forgot about that guy. �Just like I'll forget about CISG in a few weeks.
>
> Might as well forget about your journalistic credibility while you're at it.

Because YOU say so? Please.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 23, 4:38*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill is back to form:
>
> > LOL!
>
> Indeed.

Even your "indeed" isn't credible, sugar. LOL!

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill giggled:

> > > LOL!

> > Indeed.

> Even your "indeed" isn't credible, sugar. LOL!

Nor your purported witticisms, Jilly baby.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 23, 9:38*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill giggled:

No giggle, sugar. That was a purported laugh. LOL!

> > > > LOL!
> > > Indeed.
> > Even your "indeed" isn't credible, sugar. LOL!
>
> Nor your purported witticisms, Jilly baby.

A serious question: do you find yourself amusing, sugar? I find you
very dull. I don't think I'm alone.

First, just so you know, I'm not at all offended by your calling me
"Jilly" or "SGT Schultz" or whatever. I view it humorously as you
driving your own mistake further into the ground. "AHA! You're gay!"
"AHA! You're a black female soldier from 'Brigade 53!"That's the funny
part: I know calling you "sugar" offends you because you are a
homophobic. But I'm not, so calling me a girl's name is fine. LOL!

Second, I wonder how witticisms (whether "purported" or not) have
"credibility." Perhaps you can explain that one to me. Let's use it in
a sentence together, sugar: "His witticisms lacked credibility." "His
humor lacked credibility." I think that sounds pretty stupid,
ignorant, retarded, uneducated and nescient, don't you agree, concur,
assent, abide, concede, grant, yield, acquiesce, affirm, and accede?
Or maybe you meant, intended, attempted, planned, contemplated and
envisaged something entirely different. Who knows? You're as effective
at communication as 2pid is, sugar, which is to say lousy, sub-par,
terrible, awful, abominable, atrocious, dreadful and horrible. LOL!

2pid needs a dictionary that works, you need a thesaurus that works.
Maybe you two should get together and play library. I'll bet you look
good wearing glasses when your hair is pulled back, sugar. Maybe 2pid
will make some noise for you so you can tell him to be quiet. Then you
can "punish" (kiss, spank, lick, cuddle, spoon, tongue, caress or
fornicate with) him if he doesn't. ;-)

You're zero-for-zero. sugar. LOL!

Ta ta, sugar! LOL!

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill flitted:

> No giggle, sugar. That was a purported laugh. LOL!

You must be quite a hit on the USO tours, all dolled up in drag, shamelessly
flirting with all those drunken, horny grunts you can sink your fey, little
nails into.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 24, 1:57*am, "Soporific" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill flitted:
>
> > No giggle, sugar. That was a purported laugh. LOL!
>
> You must be quite a hit on the USO tours

They all love me, sugar, just like you do.

My god, you're boring.

<snore>

[Boon]

On Dec 23, 11:57�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> G.I. Jill flitted:
>
> > No giggle, sugar. That was a purported laugh. LOL!
>
> You must be quite a hit on the USO tours, all dolled up in drag, shamelessly
> flirting with all those drunken, horny grunts you can sink your fey, little
> nails into.

Shhh! just pretty much destroyed your credibility. All you can do in
return is reveal your homosexual fantasies about him. That says
volumes about your "purported" intelligence and wit. LOL!

Boon

[Sophistic]

BaBoon aped:

> Shhh! just pretty much destroyed your credibility.

More lame, inane gussied up as irony.

> All you can do in return is reveal your homosexual fantasies about him.

You're the fag hag who gravitates towards the Boy George and G.I. Jill
constellation; more vicariousness on your part?

> That says volumes about your "purported" intelligence and wit. LOL!

Intellectual bankruptcy masquerading as irony noted.

[Sophistic]

BaBoon apred:

> Remember, you made this claim on RAO, and you have to back it up on RAO. If
> either you can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility
> and neither, then, does its claimant.

Sincere flattery noted.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 9:23*pm, "Soporific" > wrote:
> BaBoon aped:
>
> > Shhh! just pretty much destroyed your credibility.
>
> More lame, inane gussied up as irony.

Except for one thing, sugar: it's true.

[Boon]

On Dec 26, 7:23�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon aped:
>
> > Shhh! just pretty much destroyed your credibility.
>
> More lame, inane gussied up as irony.
>
> > All you can do in return is reveal your homosexual fantasies about him.
>
> You're the fag hag who gravitates towards the Boy George and G.I. Jill
> constellation; more vicariousness on your part?
>
> > That says volumes about your "purported" intelligence and wit. LOL!
>
> Intellectual bankruptcy masquerading as irony noted.

I agree with Shhh! You've really turned into a big, one-note bore.

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 26, 7:53�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon apred:
>
> > Remember, you made this claim on RAO, and you have to back it up on RAO.. �If
> > either you can't or you refuse to, then that initial claim has no credibility
> > and neither, then, does its claimant.
>
> Sincere flattery noted.

ZZZZZZZZZ.

Boon

[Boon]

On Dec 26, 8:07�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:23�pm, "Soporific" > wrote:
>
> > BaBoon aped:
>
> > > Shhh! just pretty much destroyed your credibility.
>
> > More lame, inane gussied up as irony.
>
> Except for one thing, sugar: it's true.

It's like reading pink noise. I get it. He hates us. Let's move on.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 2:52*am, Boon > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 8:07 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 9:23 pm, "Soporific" > wrote:
>
> > > BaBoon aped:
>
> > > > Shhh! just pretty much destroyed your credibility.
>
> > > More lame, inane gussied up as irony.
>
> > Except for one thing, sugar: it's true.
>
> It's like reading pink noise. *I get it. *He hates us. *Let's move on.

This is one reason I think 2pid and sugar are related: they'll keep
continually yapping no matter how badly their ass has been handed to
them. LOL!

[Boon]

On Dec 27, 2:46�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2:52�am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 8:07 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 26, 9:23 pm, "Soporific" > wrote:
>
> > > > BaBoon aped:
>
> > > > > Shhh! just pretty much destroyed your credibility.
>
> > > > More lame, inane gussied up as irony.
>
> > > Except for one thing, sugar: it's true.
>
> > It's like reading pink noise. �I get it. �He hates us. �Let's move on.
>
> This is one reason I think 2pid and sugar are related: they'll keep
> continually yapping no matter how badly their ass has been handed to
> them. LOL!

I find it especially cowardly that when CSIG is proven wrong, he
doesn't acknowledge it. He merely moves onto something else quickly
(and usually much less substantial) and keeps trying.

Boon