Note to Marc Phillips

[Lionel Chapuis]

Marc Phillips wrote :

"Dude, no one here knows what the **** you are talking about. I bet
French people don't even know what the **** you are talking about.
I noticed today that you responded to a post with the scintillating
admission that you actually had no response. I have a theory that the
more a person talks, the stupider they are. You, my friend, are one
dumb mofo."

I answered :
Questions please.

In the sentence :
"I have a theory that the more a person talks, the stupider they are"

"*a* person talk" is singular OK ?

"the stupider *they* are" is plural OK ?

My questions are :
- Is it correct ?
- Is it a freudian slip ?
- Are you a cretin ?

----------------------------------------------

Do you miss this one boonie-boy ?

----------------------------------------------

Arnold ? Oily ?
Is someone can help me concerning this matter ?
I read here that this man has already written something (LOL).
It is very important for me to know the true of it.

Thank,
Lionel

PS : if I get correct answers I promise to stop posts for 2 days. ;-)

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
Lionel Chapuis <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:

> Marc Phillips wrote :
>
> "Dude, no one here knows what the **** you are talking about. I bet
> French people don't even know what the **** you are talking about.
> I noticed today that you responded to a post with the scintillating
> admission that you actually had no response. I have a theory that the
> more a person talks, the stupider they are. You, my friend, are one
> dumb mofo."
>
> I answered :
> Questions please.
>
> In the sentence :
> "I have a theory that the more a person talks, the stupider they are"
>
> "*a* person talk" is singular OK ?
>
> "the stupider *they* are" is plural OK ?
>
> My questions are :
> - Is it correct ?
> - Is it a freudian slip ?
> - Are you a cretin ?
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Do you miss this one boonie-boy ?
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Arnold ? Oily ?
> Is someone can help me concerning this matter ?
> I read here that this man has already written something (LOL).
> It is very important for me to know the true of it.
>
> Thank,
> Lionel
>
> PS : if I get correct answers I promise to stop posts for 2 days. ;-)

It's tolerated in informal speech because it avoids use of a gendered
singular pronoun. It's not Freudian nor a slip. He is not a Cretin: he
is an inhabitant of California.

See you in two days.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

"Lionel Chapuis" (LOL! LOt"S!) said:

> PS : if I get correct answers I promise to stop posts for 2 days. ;-)

The correct answer is: You are a witless nincompoop.

Bye.

[Lionel Chapuis]

MiNE 109 a écrit :
>
> It's tolerated in informal speech because it avoids use of a gendered
> singular pronoun. It's not Freudian nor a slip. He is not a Cretin: he
> is an inhabitant of California.
>
> See you in two days.
>
> Stephen

I'm afraid that your language poetry is more and more diluted with easiness.
I was showing regards for you because you are the RAO's linguist,
Stephen and now you are treating with my enemies. You are on a dangerous
way Stephen, I tell you that, dangerous way...

[George M. Middius]

"Lionel Chapuis" (LOL! LOt"S!) said:

> Stephen and now you are treating with my enemies.

Isn't that cute? The insane sockpuppet creature already has
"enemies". Krooger must be so proud. ;-)

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
Lionel Chapuis <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:

> MiNE 109 a écrit :
> >
> > It's tolerated in informal speech because it avoids use of a gendered
> > singular pronoun. It's not Freudian nor a slip. He is not a Cretin: he
> > is an inhabitant of California.
> >
> > See you in two days.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> I'm afraid that your language poetry is more and more diluted with easiness.
> I was showing regards for you because you are the RAO's linguist,
> Stephen and now you are treating with my enemies. You are on a dangerous
> way Stephen, I tell you that, dangerous way...
>

You asked a question and invited anyone to reply. I did so. You promised
to take a two day break. You haven't.

I hope you choose your lovers more carefully than you choose your
enemies.

Stephen

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:16:45 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Lionel Chapuis <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
> >
> >> MiNE 109 a écrit :
> >> >
> >> > It's tolerated in informal speech because it avoids use of a gendered
> >> > singular pronoun. It's not Freudian nor a slip. He is not a Cretin: he
> >> > is an inhabitant of California.
> >> >
> >> > See you in two days.
> >> >
> >> > Stephen
> >>
> >> I'm afraid that your language poetry is more and more diluted with
> >> easiness.
> >> I was showing regards for you because you are the RAO's linguist,
> >> Stephen and now you are treating with my enemies. You are on a dangerous
> >> way Stephen, I tell you that, dangerous way...
> >>
> >
> >You asked a question and invited anyone to reply. I did so. You promised
> >to take a two day break. You haven't.
> >
> >I hope you choose your lovers more carefully than you choose your
> >enemies.
>
> Sorry Stephen, that's not the way the French do it.
>

Eet eez ze zame ting, no?

Stephen

[dave weil]

Hmmmm, interesting. This is of course my new posting address and I
notice that Bellsouth also scrambles the X-trace, as Comcast did. I
note that this seems to be the default, mainly for Mr. Krueger's
benefit when he tries to claim that I'm "covering my tracks".

[Lionel Chapuis]

MiNE 109 a écrit :
> In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:16:45 GMT, MiNE 109 >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Lionel Chapuis <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's tolerated in informal speech because it avoids use of a gendered
>>>>>singular pronoun. It's not Freudian nor a slip. He is not a Cretin: he
>>>>>is an inhabitant of California.
>>>>>
>>>>>See you in two days.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stephen
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid that your language poetry is more and more diluted with
>>>>easiness.
>>>>I was showing regards for you because you are the RAO's linguist,
>>>>Stephen and now you are treating with my enemies. You are on a dangerous
>>>>way Stephen, I tell you that, dangerous way...
>>>>
>>>
>>>You asked a question and invited anyone to reply. I did so. You promised
>>>to take a two day break. You haven't.
>>>
>>>I hope you choose your lovers more carefully than you choose your
>>>enemies.
>>
>>Sorry Stephen, that's not the way the French do it.
>>
>
>
> Eet eez ze zame ting, no?
>
> Stephen

Not really !

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> "Lionel Chapuis" (LOL! LOt"S!) said:
>
>
>>Stephen and now you are treating with my enemies.
>
>
> Isn't that cute? The insane sockpuppet creature already has
> "enemies". Krooger must be so proud. ;-)
>
>
Middious,
You oblige me to use subterfuges.
You are so coward that you are afraid to discuss directly with me.
You've done that yesterday with Phillips, Morein, message and today with
Stephen.

Middious tell me, who are you ? what is your real life ? what are you
doing on RAO ? I have posted something to Morein yesterday, sincerely I
think you are a much more interesting case than Krueger.
Courage ! Middious explain me !

Sorry Stephen, it was the only way.