Oops, my bad.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Another entry for The List: Scottie Witlessmongrel just showed he doesn't
know what "vetting" means. (I neglected to note it earlier.) He misused
the word in the context of the ****uplicans' shriekfest over President
Obama's education speech.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> school kids.
>
> ScottW

Right you are~~!!!!
,why would czars need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > school kids.
>
> > ScottW
>
> Right you are~~!!!!
> ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?

Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
intended.)

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > school kids.
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > Right you are~~!!!!
> > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> intended.)

I think you missed my point.
It was about sentence structure
try to parse this:
"Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
school kids."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 8:07*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > school kids.
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > Right you are~~!!!!
> > > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> > Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> > intended.)
>
> I think you missed my point.
> It was about sentence structure
> try to parse this:
> "Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> school kids."

2pid's meaning is obvious and clear: Obama's czars need vetting more
than Obama's czars need Obama's speeches to school kids.

Apparently Obama's czars like fast American-made sports cars. 2pid was
pointing out their patriotism. No Porches for them!

It's kind of scary, isn't it? I understood exactly what 2pid intended.

[ScottW2]

On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 8:07*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > school kids.
>
> > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > Right you are~~!!!!
> > > > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> > > Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> > > intended.)
>
> > I think you missed my point.
> > It was about sentence structure
> > try to parse this:
> > "Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > school kids."
>
> 2pid's meaning is obvious and clear: Obama's czars need vetting more
> than Obama's czars need Obama's speeches to school kids.
>
> Apparently Obama's czars like fast American-made sports cars. 2pid was
> pointing out their patriotism. No Porches for them!
>
> It's kind of scary, isn't it? I understood exactly what 2pid intended.

You're both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.

Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
vetting.

ScottW

[vinyl anachronist]

> �You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.

I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
cages at a Ukrainian zoo.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 9, 4:00*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 8:07*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > > school kids.
>
> > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > Right you are~~!!!!
> > > > > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> > > > Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> > > > intended.)
>
> > > I think you missed my point.
> > > It was about sentence structure
> > > try to parse this:
> > > "Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > school kids."
>
> > 2pid's meaning is obvious and clear: Obama's czars need vetting more
> > than Obama's czars need Obama's speeches to school kids.
>
> > Apparently Obama's czars like fast American-made sports cars. 2pid was
> > pointing out their patriotism. No Porches for them!
>
> > It's kind of scary, isn't it? I understood exactly what 2pid intended.
>
> *You're both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> vetting.
>

\maybe that is what you meant, but it sure wasn't
what you said.
"At least" you got it right the second time

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 9, 5:58*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> cages at a Ukrainian zoo.

THey don't hose out the chimp cages over there.
You must have seen something that just looked like it!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

vinyl anachronist said:

> > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> cages at a Ukrainian zoo.

LOL (really). BTW, why did you snip the attribution of Scottie the
Chimp-Sweeper's attempt at a flame? I had to retrieve the post to make sure
it was one of Witless's gems.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Sacky tries to get Witlessmongrel to shape up.

> > *Obamas[sic] czars need vetting[sic] more than his speeches to school kids need
> > vetting[sic].

> \maybe that is what you meant, but it sure wasn't
> what you said.
> "At least" you got it right the second time

tsk. Scottie has told us before that he depends on Normals to 'interpret'
his barking.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 5:27*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> > the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> > cages at a Ukrainian zoo.
>
> LOL (really). BTW, why did you snip the attribution of Scottie the
> Chimp-Sweeper's attempt at a flame? I had to retrieve the post to make sure
> it was one of Witless's gems.

Who else could it have been? Even Clyde is more literate than 2pid is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 5:28*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Sacky tries to get Witlessmongrel to shape up.
>
> > > *Obamas[sic] czars need vetting[sic] more than his speeches to school kids need
> > > vetting[sic].
> > \maybe that is what you meant, but it sure wasn't
> > what you said.
> > "At least" you got it right the second time
>
> tsk. Scottie has told us before that he depends on Normals to 'interpret'
> his barking.

If you two keep this up 2pid will bite right through his rawhide chew
toy in frustration.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
> >
> > > I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> > > the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> > > cages at a Ukrainian zoo.
> >
> > LOL (really). BTW, why did you snip the attribution of Scottie the
> > Chimp-Sweeper's attempt at a flame? I had to retrieve the post to make sure
> > it was one of Witless's gems.
>
> Who else could it have been? Even Clyde is more literate than 2pid is.

It could have been one of the other members of RAO's simian gang. Of course,
I strongly suspected it was Witless, but I retrieved the message to make
sure.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Sep 9, 5:27�pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> > the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> > cages at a Ukrainian zoo.
>
> LOL (really). BTW, why did you snip the attribution of Scottie the
> Chimp-Sweeper's attempt at a flame? I had to retrieve the post to make sure
> it was one of Witless's gems.

Oh, who knows. Something about small doses, perhaps.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 9, 7:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 5:27*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > > I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> > > the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> > > cages at a Ukrainian zoo.
>
> > LOL (really). BTW, why did you snip the attribution of Scottie the
> > Chimp-Sweeper's attempt at a flame? I had to retrieve the post to make sure
> > it was one of Witless's gems.
>
> Who else could it have been? Even Clyde is more literate than 2pid is.

"at least"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 7:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 5:27*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > > > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > > > I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> > > > the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> > > > cages at a Ukrainian zoo.
>
> > > LOL (really). BTW, why did you snip the attribution of Scottie the
> > > Chimp-Sweeper's attempt at a flame? I had to retrieve the post to make sure
> > > it was one of Witless's gems.
>
> > Who else could it have been? Even Clyde is more literate than 2pid is.
>
> "at least"

Will you always react thus when I pay you a heartfelt compliment?

[ScottW2]

On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 4:00*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 9, 8:07*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > > > school kids.
>
> > > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > > Right you are~~!!!!
> > > > > > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> > > > > Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> > > > > intended.)
>
> > > > I think you missed my point.
> > > > It was about sentence structure
> > > > try to parse this:
> > > > "Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > school kids."
>
> > > 2pid's meaning is obvious and clear: Obama's czars need vetting more
> > > than Obama's czars need Obama's speeches to school kids.
>
> > > Apparently Obama's czars like fast American-made sports cars. 2pid was
> > > pointing out their patriotism. No Porches for them!
>
> > > It's kind of scary, isn't it? I understood exactly what 2pid intended..
>
> > *You're both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > vetting.
>
> \maybe that is what you meant, but it sure wasn't
> what you said.
> "At least" you got it right the second time

Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
school kids.

Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
or meaningfully different.
This should be a hoot.
I expect George, Fraud boy, and Shhtard to all equally share in
demonstrating the idiotic lengths they will go to look foolish.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 9:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 4:00*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 9, 8:07*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > > > > school kids.
>
> > > > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > > > Right you are~~!!!!
> > > > > > > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> > > > > > Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> > > > > > intended.)
>
> > > > > I think you missed my point.
> > > > > It was about sentence structure
> > > > > try to parse this:
> > > > > "Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > school kids."
>
> > > > 2pid's meaning is obvious and clear: Obama's czars need vetting more
> > > > than Obama's czars need Obama's speeches to school kids.
>
> > > > Apparently Obama's czars like fast American-made sports cars. 2pid was
> > > > pointing out their patriotism. No Porches for them!
>
> > > > It's kind of scary, isn't it? I understood exactly what 2pid intended.
>
> > > *You're both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > > *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > > vetting.
>
> > \maybe that is what you meant, but it sure wasn't
> > what you said.
> > "At least" you got it right the second time
>
> Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> school kids.
>
> Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> or meaningfully different.
> This should be a hoot.
> I expect George, Fraud boy, *and Shhtard to all equally share in
> demonstrating the idiotic lengths they will go to look foolish.

Why would we look foolish? You've done enough for four people (and
many more). LoL.

[ScottW2]

On Sep 9, 7:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 9:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 4:00*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 9, 8:07*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > > > > > school kids.
>
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > > > > Right you are~~!!!!
> > > > > > > > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> > > > > > > Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> > > > > > > intended.)
>
> > > > > > I think you missed my point.
> > > > > > It was about sentence structure
> > > > > > try to parse this:
> > > > > > "Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > > school kids."
>
> > > > > 2pid's meaning is obvious and clear: Obama's czars need vetting more
> > > > > than Obama's czars need Obama's speeches to school kids.
>
> > > > > Apparently Obama's czars like fast American-made sports cars. 2pid was
> > > > > pointing out their patriotism. No Porches for them!
>
> > > > > It's kind of scary, isn't it? I understood exactly what 2pid intended.
>
> > > > *You're both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > > > *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > > > vetting.
>
> > > \maybe that is what you meant, but it sure wasn't
> > > what you said.
> > > "At least" you got it right the second time
>
> > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > school kids.
>
> > Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> > or meaningfully different.
> > This should be a hoot.
> > I expect George, Fraud boy, *and Shhtard to all equally share in
> > demonstrating the idiotic lengths they will go to look foolish.
>
> Why would we look foolish?

Shhtard makes a strong early break for the fools lead.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 10:17*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 9:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 9, 4:00*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 9, 8:07*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 9, 7:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 9, 1:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 11:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > *Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > > > > > > school kids.
>
> > > > > > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > > > > > Right you are~~!!!!
> > > > > > > > > ,why would czars *need Obama's lame speeches to school kids?
>
> > > > > > > > Poor Obama! He just can't seem to do one thing right! (No pun
> > > > > > > > intended.)
>
> > > > > > > I think you missed my point.
> > > > > > > It was about sentence structure
> > > > > > > try to parse this:
> > > > > > > "Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > > > school kids."
>
> > > > > > 2pid's meaning is obvious and clear: Obama's czars need vetting more
> > > > > > than Obama's czars need Obama's speeches to school kids.
>
> > > > > > Apparently Obama's czars like fast American-made sports cars. 2pid was
> > > > > > pointing out their patriotism. No Porches for them!
>
> > > > > > It's kind of scary, isn't it? I understood exactly what 2pid intended.
>
> > > > > *You're both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > > > > *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > > > > vetting.
>
> > > > \maybe that is what you meant, but it sure wasn't
> > > > what you said.
> > > > "At least" you got it right the second time
>
> > > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > school kids.
>
> > > Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> > > or meaningfully different.
> > > This should be a hoot.
> > > I expect George, Fraud boy, *and Shhtard to all equally share in
> > > demonstrating the idiotic lengths they will go to look foolish.
>
> > Why would we look foolish?
>
> *Shhtard makes a strong early break for the fools lead.

2pid needs vetting more than a mongrel with big pouty lips..

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > school kids.
> >
> > > > Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> > > > or meaningfully different.
> > > > This should be a hoot.
> > > > I expect George, Fraud boy, *and Shhtard to all equally share in
> > > > demonstrating the idiotic lengths they will go to look foolish.
> >
> > > Why would we look foolish?
> >
> > *Shhtard makes a strong early break for the fools lead.
>
> 2pid needs vetting more than a mongrel with big pouty lips..

Your a dog hater.

It's been established beyond doubt that Terrierdork is incapable of
understanding mockery.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 10:51*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > > school kids.
>
> > > > > Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> > > > > or meaningfully different.
> > > > > This should be a hoot.
> > > > > I expect George, Fraud boy, *and Shhtard to all equally share in
> > > > > demonstrating the idiotic lengths they will go to look foolish.
>
> > > > Why would we look foolish?
>
> > > *Shhtard makes a strong early break for the fools lead.
>
> > 2pid needs vetting more than a mongrel with big pouty lips..
>
> Your a dog hater.

I'm waiting for 2pid to pounce on the extra period I accidentally
included with both paws and take the "fools" lead. LoL.

> It's been established beyond doubt that Terrierdork is incapable of
> understanding mockery.

I know. I personally find that hilarious. When he's in a woofdown it's
harder though because he becomes a parody of himself.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 9, 8:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 7:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 9, 5:27*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > > > > You're [sic] both have the comprehension skills of Pelosi.
>
> > > > > I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you have
> > > > > the written communication skills of a guy who hoses out the chimpanzee
> > > > > cages at a Ukrainian zoo.
>
> > > > LOL (really). BTW, why did you snip the attribution of Scottie the
> > > > Chimp-Sweeper's attempt at a flame? I had to retrieve the post to make sure
> > > > it was one of Witless's gems.
>
> > > Who else could it have been? Even Clyde is more literate than 2pid is..
>
> > "at least"
>
> Will you always react thus when I pay you a heartfelt compliment?- Hide quoted text -
>

I merely corrected your syntax to proper RAO format, in respect
pf one of our former tree dwelling posters.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 9, 10:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > vetting.

>
> Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> school kids.
>
> Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> or meaningfully different.
> This should be a hoot.
>
> ScottW-

the first, is parsed as follows
A needs B more than C needs B

your original is parsed as follows:
A needs B more than (A needs) C

Try substituting this,

Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> school kids

with this parrallelogram

You need vitamins more than junk food

Now, does than mean that you meed vitamins more than you
need junk food, or
does it mean that you need vitamins more than
junk foood needs viatmins ?????

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless boasts of his disdain for education.

> > You need vitamins more than junk food
> >
> > Now, does than mean that you meed vitamins more than you
> > need junk food, or
> > does it *mean that you need vitamins *more than
> > junk foood needs viatmins ?????
>
> I think a 5 year old can determine which is correct.

Are you more clueless than you seem or stupid?

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 10, 2:55*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 10:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > > > vetting.
>
> > > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > school kids.
>
> > > Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> > > or meaningfully different.
> > > This should be a hoot.
>
> > > ScottW-
>
> > the first, is parsed as follows
> > A needs B more than C needs B
>
> > *your original is parsed as follows:
> > A needs B more than (A needs) C
>
> *That is ridiculous.
>
> Obama's czars need vetting more than Obama's czars need his lame
> speechs to school kids. * LoL.
>
> *Needs more than is not a phrase any rational person would parse.
>
>
>
> > Try substituting this,
>
> > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
>
> > > school kids
>
> > with this parrallelogram
>
> > You need vitamins more than junk food
>
> > Now, does than mean that you meed vitamins more than you
> > need junk food, or
> > does it *mean that you need vitamins *more than
> > junk foood needs viatmins ?????
>
> *I think a 5 year old can determine which is correct.
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 10, 2:55*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 10:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > > > vetting.
>
> > > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > school kids.
>
> > > Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> > > or meaningfully different.
> > > This should be a hoot.
>
> > > ScottW-
>
> > the first, is parsed as follows
> > A needs B more than C needs B
>
> > *your original is parsed as follows:
> > A needs B more than (A needs) C
>
> *That is ridiculous.
>

No t is not, it is the usual parsing of the syntax you employed.


> Obama's czars need vetting more than Obama's czars need his lame
> speechs to school kids. * LoL.
>
> *Needs more than is not a phrase any rational person would parse.
>

LOL!!!
are you that that lacking in self awareness?!?!?!?!that is NOT the
problem )needs more than)the problems are the lack of clarity of the
subjects and the objects
of that statement



>
>
> > Try substituting this,
>
> > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
>
> > > school kids
>
> > with this parrallelogram
>
> > You need vitamins more than junk food
>
> > Now, does than mean that you meed vitamins more than you
> > need junk food, or
> > does it *mean that you need vitamins *more than
> > junk foood needs viatmins ?????
>
> *I think a 5 year old can determine which is correct.
>

Then I suggest that you get a five year old to write your posts for
you

You are either
A- a complete imbecile
(I know that is not true)
B - totally lacking in self awareness
(possible)
C= argumentative to the point of allowing yourself
to appear to be completely ridiculous
(very evident)
D- being self aware but Completely unwilling to admit even the
most frivolous shortcoming
(very evident)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 10, 2:29*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:20*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Witless boasts of his disdain for education.
>
> > > > You need vitamins more than junk food
>
> > > > Now, does than mean that you meed vitamins more than you
> > > > need junk food, or
> > > > does it *mean that you need vitamins *more than
> > > > junk foood needs viatmins ?????
>
> > > *I think a 5 year old can determine which is correct.
>
> > Are you more clueless than you seem or stupid?
>
> *George steps up like a 4 year old whose junk food,
> vitamin deficient diet, has stunted his development.

Goerge, 2pid's answer is "I am both stupid and clueless". LMAO!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 10, 10:29*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2:55*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 7:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 10:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 9, 3:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > *Obamas czars need vetting more than his speeches to school kids need
> > > > > vetting.
>
> > > > Obama's czars need vetting more than his lame speeches to
> > > > school kids.
>
> > > > Go ahead, try and explain how the two sentences are substantially
> > > > or meaningfully different.
> > > > This should be a hoot.
>
> > > > ScottW-
>
> > > the first, is parsed as follows
> > > A needs B more than C needs B
>
> > > *your original is parsed as follows:
> > > A needs B more than (A needs) C
>
> > *That is ridiculous.
>
> No t is not, it is the usual parsing of the syntax you employed.
>
> > Obama's czars need vetting more than Obama's czars need his lame
> > speechs to school kids. * LoL.
>
> > *Needs more than is not a phrase any rational person would parse.
>
> LOL!!!
> are you that that lacking in self awareness?!?!?!?!

Rhetorical question ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

> that is NOT the
> problem )needs more than)the problems are the lack of clarity of the
> subjects and the objects
> of that statement

Are you just now becoming aware of 2pid's communcation
disabilities?!?!?!?!?!?!

> > *I think a 5 year old can determine which is correct.
>
> Then I suggest that you get a five year old to write your posts for
> you

Do you really want to see that vast improvewmet?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

> You are either
> A- a complete imbecile
> (I know that is not true)

I have a 'differing POV'.

> B - totally lacking in self awareness
> (possible)

(Proven)

> C= argumentative to the point of allowing yourself
> to appear to be completely ridiculous
> (very evident)

(Agreed)

> D- being self aware but Completely unwilling to admit even the
> most frivolous shortcoming
> (very evident)

(See point on "imbecility")

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 11, 2:33*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 8:29*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > Then I suggest that you get a five year old to write your posts for
> > you
>
> *I think I'll get one to read them....oops too late.

Agreed.

2pid's loves his favorite mongrel more than his wife.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Set, 15:33, ScottW2 > wrote:

>
> *If you don't parse "needs more than", *the subjects and objects are
> all that is left


That is waht you completely ****ed up,

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Set, 15:33, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 8:29*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 2:55*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 10, 7:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > Then I suggest that you get a five year old to write your posts for
> you



I think I'll get one to read them....

get one to proof read them