Important Alert for duh-Mikey

[George M. Middius]

Hello Mikey! Look out for the desk! Oops, too late. I hope your medical is
paid up.

Anyway.... You recently said you believe your IQ is over 130. We all
laughed. But then, upon sober reflection, I thought, maybe they have special
IQ tests for special persons. If so, and that was the kind of test you took,
it's quite possible you scored significantly higher than average. For
retards, that is. Jolly good show.

My point today lies elsewhere, however. I have some sobering news for you:
By normal standards, your IQ is, unfortunately, quite a ways under 130. Yes,
Mickey, I have subjected you to an IQ analysis using your Usenet posts. I
grabbed about a hundred of them(*) and gave them to a psychologist for
analysis. He, or his students, parsed them for instances of "logic
violations" and "logic affirmations". (In case you're wondering, this work
wasn't a charitable endeavor. It's part of a research project.) They also
searched for a bunch of other psych-lingo stuff. It was pretty arcane to me,
but of course it's not my field.

Bottom line: Your IQ was estimated to be around 95 to 100. Barely average,
in other words. The analysis confirmed my expections, I'm sure you'll be
pleased to learn.

So please, Mickey, stop trying to pass yourself off as exceptionally bright.
We've always had your self-immolations on Usenet to discredit your fatuous
claims, and now we have some scientific, objective, fact-based evidence.
You're an idiot, Mickey -- it's a proven fact.



(*) I only copied posts in which you attempted to assert an argument that
could be subjected to logical deconstruction or verification of facts. I
didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit instead
of wit. I also excluded any of your Kroopologism posts on the grounds that
they make you look like a nutjob.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Hello Mikey! Look out for the desk! Oops, too late. I hope your medical is
> paid up.
>
> Anyway.... You recently said you believe your IQ is over 130. We all
> laughed. But then, upon sober reflection, I thought, maybe they have
> special
> IQ tests for special persons. If so, and that was the kind of test you
> took,
> it's quite possible you scored significantly higher than average. For
> retards, that is. Jolly good show.
>
> My point today lies elsewhere, however. I have some sobering news for you:
> By normal standards, your IQ is, unfortunately, quite a ways under 130.
> Yes,
> Mickey, I have subjected you to an IQ analysis using your Usenet posts. I
> grabbed about a hundred of them(*) and gave them to a psychologist for
> analysis. He, or his students, parsed them for instances of "logic
> violations" and "logic affirmations". (In case you're wondering, this work
> wasn't a charitable endeavor. It's part of a research project.) They also
> searched for a bunch of other psych-lingo stuff. It was pretty arcane to
> me,
> but of course it's not my field.
>
> Bottom line: Your IQ was estimated to be around 95 to 100. Barely average,
> in other words. The analysis confirmed my expections, I'm sure you'll be
> pleased to learn.
>
> So please, Mickey, stop trying to pass yourself off as exceptionally
> bright.
> We've always had your self-immolations on Usenet to discredit your fatuous
> claims, and now we have some scientific, objective, fact-based evidence.
> You're an idiot, Mickey -- it's a proven fact.
>
>
>
> (*) I only copied posts in which you attempted to assert an argument that
> could be subjected to logical deconstruction or verification of facts. I
> didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit instead
> of wit. I also excluded any of your Kroopologism posts on the grounds that
> they make you look like a nutjob.
>
I concur in this generous estimation of Mikey's intelligence. In fact, it
holds out the prospect that instead of vegetating hopelessly in
institutions, cretins can be provided with keyboards to jump up and down on.
Odds are that in a few billion years, they will generate at least one
classic.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Hello Mikey! Look out for the desk! Oops, too late. I hope your medical is
> paid up.
>
> Anyway.... You recently said you believe your IQ is over 130. We all
> laughed. But then, upon sober reflection, I thought, maybe they have special
> IQ tests for special persons. If so, and that was the kind of test you took,
> it's quite possible you scored significantly higher than average. For
> retards, that is. Jolly good show.
>
> My point today lies elsewhere, however. I have some sobering news for you:
> By normal standards, your IQ is, unfortunately, quite a ways under 130. Yes,
> Mickey, I have subjected you to an IQ analysis using your Usenet posts. I
> grabbed about a hundred of them(*) and gave them to a psychologist for
> analysis. He, or his students, parsed them for instances of "logic
> violations" and "logic affirmations". (In case you're wondering, this work
> wasn't a charitable endeavor. It's part of a research project.) They also
> searched for a bunch of other psych-lingo stuff. It was pretty arcane to me,
> but of course it's not my field.
>
> Bottom line: Your IQ was estimated to be around 95 to 100. Barely average,
> in other words. The analysis confirmed my expections, I'm sure you'll be
> pleased to learn.
>
> So please, Mickey, stop trying to pass yourself off as exceptionally bright.
> We've always had your self-immolations on Usenet to discredit your fatuous
> claims, and now we have some scientific, objective, fact-based evidence.
> You're an idiot, Mickey -- it's a proven fact.
>
>
>
> (*) I only copied posts in which you attempted to assert an argument that
> could be subjected to logical deconstruction or verification of facts. I
> didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit instead
> of wit. I also excluded any of your Kroopologism posts on the grounds that
> they make you look like a nutjob.

Funny. I came to the same conclusion about one week ago without the
benefit of your specialists.. As a result I ceased any exchange of
views with your patient.
I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
doing without slightest attempt at supporting his claims by a quote-
and no wonder when it is all pure spur -of -the-moment fabrication..
Ludovic Mirabel

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Hello Mikey! Look out for the desk! Oops, too late. I hope your medical is
> paid up.
>
> Anyway.... You recently said you believe your IQ is over 130. We all
> laughed. But then, upon sober reflection, I thought, maybe they have
> special
> IQ tests for special persons. If so, and that was the kind of test you
> took,
> it's quite possible you scored significantly higher than average. For
> retards, that is. Jolly good show.
>
> My point today lies elsewhere, however. I have some sobering news for you:
> By normal standards, your IQ is, unfortunately, quite a ways under 130.
> Yes,
> Mickey, I have subjected you to an IQ analysis using your Usenet posts. I
> grabbed about a hundred of them(*) and gave them to a psychologist for
> analysis. He, or his students, parsed them for instances of "logic
> violations" and "logic affirmations". (In case you're wondering, this work
> wasn't a charitable endeavor. It's part of a research project.) They also
> searched for a bunch of other psych-lingo stuff. It was pretty arcane to
> me,
> but of course it's not my field.
>
> Bottom line: Your IQ was estimated to be around 95 to 100. Barely average,
> in other words. The analysis confirmed my expections, I'm sure you'll be
> pleased to learn.
>
> So please, Mickey, stop trying to pass yourself off as exceptionally
> bright.
> We've always had your self-immolations on Usenet to discredit your fatuous
> claims, and now we have some scientific, objective, fact-based evidence.
> You're an idiot, Mickey -- it's a proven fact.
>
>
>
> (*) I only copied posts in which you attempted to assert an argument that
> could be subjected to logical deconstruction or verification of facts. I
> didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit instead
> of wit. I also excluded any of your Kroopologism posts on the grounds that
> they make you look like a nutjob.
>
>
>
So, assuming you are actually telling the truth, a risky bet at best, then
you cherry picked whatever you thught would make your case.

How many of your insane rants did you contribute?

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :

> I didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit instead
> of wit.

Imagine the disastrous results that Dave Weil can have to such test !!! :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

a écrit :

> George M. Middius wrote:

[snip]


> Funny. I came to the same conclusion about one week ago without the
> benefit of your specialists..


Obviously, you are a normal guy.
Middius imperatively needs "siccncciece" support. :-D




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Ludo a écrit :

> I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
> of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
> makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
> doing.


OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.
This is the big, big problem with your above conclusion Ludo.
Doing that, you implicitly include yourself in your description of the
"frontal cortex-disadvantaged".

Common sense and its corrolary *happiness* have nothing to do with
intelligence.
As long as you will prefer the *strass* to the reality you will remain
like *your* "frontal cortex-disadvantaged"... A life casualty. :-(





--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Hello Mikey! Look out for the desk! Oops, too late. I hope your medical
>> is
>> paid up.
>>
>> Anyway.... You recently said you believe your IQ is over 130. We all
>> laughed. But then, upon sober reflection, I thought, maybe they have
>> special
>> IQ tests for special persons. If so, and that was the kind of test you
>> took,
>> it's quite possible you scored significantly higher than average. For
>> retards, that is. Jolly good show.
>>
>> My point today lies elsewhere, however. I have some sobering news for
>> you:
>> By normal standards, your IQ is, unfortunately, quite a ways under 130.
>> Yes,
>> Mickey, I have subjected you to an IQ analysis using your Usenet posts. I
>> grabbed about a hundred of them(*) and gave them to a psychologist for
>> analysis. He, or his students, parsed them for instances of "logic
>> violations" and "logic affirmations". (In case you're wondering, this
>> work
>> wasn't a charitable endeavor. It's part of a research project.) They also
>> searched for a bunch of other psych-lingo stuff. It was pretty arcane to
>> me,
>> but of course it's not my field.
>>
>> Bottom line: Your IQ was estimated to be around 95 to 100. Barely
>> average,
>> in other words. The analysis confirmed my expections, I'm sure you'll be
>> pleased to learn.
>>
>> So please, Mickey, stop trying to pass yourself off as exceptionally
>> bright.
>> We've always had your self-immolations on Usenet to discredit your
>> fatuous
>> claims, and now we have some scientific, objective, fact-based evidence.
>> You're an idiot, Mickey -- it's a proven fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> (*) I only copied posts in which you attempted to assert an argument that
>> could be subjected to logical deconstruction or verification of facts. I
>> didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit
>> instead
>> of wit. I also excluded any of your Kroopologism posts on the grounds
>> that
>> they make you look like a nutjob.
>>
>>
>>
> So, assuming you are actually telling the truth, a risky bet at best, then
> you cherry picked whatever you thught would make your case.
>
> How many of your insane rants did you contribute?
>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>
> So, assuming you are actually telling the truth, a risky bet at best, then
> you cherry picked whatever you thught would make your case.
>
> How many of your insane rants did you contribute?
>
>

Too bad, George, this one came in just a tad too late.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:09:51 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Ludo a écrit :
>
>> I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
>> of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
>> makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
>> doing.
>
>
>OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.

At least you never have to worry about beging accused of this.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:09:51 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>Ludo a écrit :
>>
>>> I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
>>> of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
>>> makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
>>> doing.
>>
>>
>>OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.
>
> At least you never have to worry about beging accused of this.

Yes I know and you're still hoping it could happens to you... :-D



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >> I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
> >> of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
> >> makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
> >> doing.

> >OTOH there is[sic] also *very* intelligent persons who exactly[sic] act like this.

> At least you never have to worry about beging accused of this.

I neglected to mention in my initial report that the researcher wanted to
know what Mikey does for a living. His model is somewhat tentative in the
achievement area and it has to be calibrated with an external reference. I
told him to assume Mikey is an assistant bookkeeper or similar level.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:14:16 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>>
>>>Ludo a écrit :
>>>
>>>> I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
>>>> of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
>>>> makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
>>>> doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.
>>
>> At least you never have to worry about being accused of this.
>
>Yes I know

My condolences, my little pinhead.

[Lionel]

George MinusBorg Middius wrote :

> I neglected to mention in my initial report that the researcher wanted to
> know what Mikey does for a living. His model is somewhat tentative in the
> achievement area and it has to be calibrated with an external reference. I
> told him to assume Mikey is an assistant bookkeeper or similar level.


Looks like a crappy version of PCABX.
George your naive faith in the "siccncciece" is... admirable !!!


Poor George, I hope that "at least" your charlatan is a good lover... :-D

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:14:16 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>Ludo a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
>>>>> of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
>>>>> makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
>>>>> doing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.
>>>
>>> At least you never have to worry about being accused of this.
>>
>>Yes I know
>
> My condolences,

For what ?

> my little pinhead.

Says the old dickhead. :-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> George MinusBorg Middius wrote :
>
>> I neglected to mention in my initial report that the researcher wanted to
>> know what Mikey does for a living. His model is somewhat tentative in the
>> achievement area and it has to be calibrated with an external reference.
>> I
>> told him to assume Mikey is an assistant bookkeeper or similar level.
>
>
> Looks like a crappy version of PCABX.
> George your naive faith in the "siccncciece" is... admirable !!!
>
Yes, but this is soft science in a martian environment.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to return a "sample."

[paul packer]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:28:09 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>George M. Middius a écrit :
>
>> I didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit instead
>> of wit.
>
>Imagine the disastrous results that Dave Weil can have to such test !!! :-D

Now how did we know you were going to say that, Lionel? And in just
that way too!

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> Ludo a écrit :
>
> > I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
> > of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
> > makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
> > doing.
>
>
> OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.
> This is the big, big problem with your above conclusion Ludo.
> Doing that, you implicitly include yourself in your description of the
> "frontal cortex-disadvantaged".
>
> Common sense and its corrolary *happiness* have nothing to do with
> intelligence.
> As long as you will prefer the *strass* to the reality you will remain
> like *your* "frontal cortex-disadvantaged"... A life casualty. :-(
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your point is well-taken: intelligent people can have no use for
intelectual honesty in debate. My model was an argument at eg. the
medical rounds where you're either factual and can quote your sources
or you're a laughing stock. Pop psychology is quite, quiite different
and one can easily find support for any dearly held notion that one
holds.
Generalisations apart it remains that NYOB stands out as a forger and
a cheat even by the elastic RAO standard just like Pinkerton is an
aggressive sociopath seeking his cow-waste missiles in a gutter as soon
as crossed and desperate for an argument.
These are my lessons from the RAO debates.
Ludovic Mirabel
>
> --
> Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
> But what's new around here?
>
> Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

In >, paul packer wrote :

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:28:09 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>George M. Middius a écrit :
>>
>>> I didn't include any of those throwaway IKYABWAI posts that you emit
>>> instead of wit.
>>
>>Imagine the disastrous results that Dave Weil can have to such test !!!
>>:-D
>
> Now how did we know you were going to say that, Lionel? And in just
> that way too!


Nothing strange in that, Paul.
Since all the time you are lurking on RAO, you have unconsciously noted that
Dave Weil is *the* IKYABWAI specialist. Since you are too... polite
("politically correct" ?) you never addressed this issue on RAO which has
contributed to bury it very deeply in your inconscious.

The rest is mechanic only...

When Middius has written "IKYABWAI" your unconscious has immediatly
associated this word to Dave Weil, and solicited the only person who is
trying to help him on RAO : Lionel.
Don't worry, this kind of phenomena happens to most of us since we are
always a little bit absorbed, "absentminded".

PS : now concerning the WE of your "how did we know" I can only suggest you
*strongly* to consult a good psychologist. ASAP !!! :-D




--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>Ludo a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
>>>of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
>>>makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
>>>doing.
>>
>>
>>OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.
>>This is the big, big problem with your above conclusion Ludo.
>>Doing that, you implicitly include yourself in your description of the
>>"frontal cortex-disadvantaged".
>>
>>Common sense and its corrolary *happiness* have nothing to do with
>>intelligence.
>>As long as you will prefer the *strass* to the reality you will remain
>>like *your* "frontal cortex-disadvantaged"... A life casualty. :-(
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Your point is well-taken: intelligent people can have no use for
> intelectual honesty in debate. My model was an argument at eg. the
> medical rounds where you're either factual and can quote your sources
> or you're a laughing stock. Pop psychology is quite, quiite different
> and one can easily find support for any dearly held notion that one
> holds.
> Generalisations apart it remains that NYOB stands out as a forger and
> a cheat even by the elastic RAO standard just like Pinkerton is an
> aggressive sociopath seeking his cow-waste missiles in a gutter as soon
> as crossed and desperate for an argument.
> These are my lessons from the RAO debates.

I'm sorry Ludo but in *this* case "generalisation apart" isn't
acceptable not to say *impossible*.
Minus has written that McKelvy should have an IQ of 95 to 100.
Which is the case of *most* human beings, right ?

It is very important to note that you have associated most of the human
beings with the following description : "frontal cortex-disadvantaged".
Moreover you have written that "As a result I ceased any exchange of
views with your patient."
This *implicitely* means that because of its "poor" IQ the living
experience of the majority of the world population hasn't any interest
for you.

So my question is : if you feel so much repulsion for McKelvy why do you
feel obliged to compete with him ?





--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[paul packer]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:16:36 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:


>> Now how did we know you were going to say that, Lionel? And in just
>> that way too!
>
>
>Nothing strange in that, Paul.
>Since all the time you are lurking on RAO, you have unconsciously noted that
>Dave Weil is *the* IKYABWAI specialist. Since you are too... polite
>("politically correct" ?) you never addressed this issue on RAO which has
>contributed to bury it very deeply in your inconscious.

Please don't tell me what I've unconsciously absorbed, Lionel. If I'm
unaware of it, there's no way you can know about it.

>When Middius has written "IKYABWAI" your unconscious has immediatly
>associated this word to Dave Weil, and solicited the only person who is
>trying to help him on RAO : Lionel.

Does Dave know you're trying to help him? If so he's extraordinarily
ungrateful.

BTW, what kind of help does he need?

>Don't worry, this kind of phenomena happens to most of us since we are
>always a little bit absorbed, "absentminded".

Speak for yourself.

>PS : now concerning the WE of your "how did we know" I can only suggest you
>*strongly* to consult a good psychologist. ASAP !!! :-D

I was of course referring to my fellow RAO denizens, all of whom I'm
sure are as familiar with your unusual use of English as I am.

[Lionel]

In >, paul packer wrote :

> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:16:36 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Now how did we know you were going to say that, Lionel? And in just
>>> that way too!
>>
>>
>>Nothing strange in that, Paul.
>>Since all the time you are lurking on RAO, you have unconsciously noted
>>that Dave Weil is *the* IKYABWAI specialist. Since you are too... polite
>>("politically correct" ?) you never addressed this issue on RAO which has
>>contributed to bury it very deeply in your inconscious.
>
> Please don't tell me what I've unconsciously absorbed, Lionel. If I'm
> unaware of it, there's no way you can know about it.

I disagree.
You are obviously too prudish to avow yourself this kind of nasty
thoughts. ;-)


>>When Middius has written "IKYABWAI" your unconscious has immediatly
>>associated this word to Dave Weil, and solicited the only person who is
>>trying to help him on RAO : Lionel.
>
> Does Dave know you're trying to help him? If so he's extraordinarily
> ungrateful.


Fully agree.


> BTW, what kind of help does he need?


Dave loves the long, long and boring discussions that he can conclude with
his famous orgasmic scream : "you lose... again".

Since Arnold Krueger doesn't want to answer Dave's trolls anymore, I try to
provide him with such discussions. Unfortunatly for him up to now he hasn't
been able to reach the climax... :-D


>>Don't worry, this kind of phenomena happens to most of us since we are
>>always a little bit absorbed, "absentminded".
>
> Speak for yourself.


For myself, for ourselves, for themselves...


>>PS : now concerning the WE of your "how did we know" I can only suggest
>>you *strongly* to consult a good psychologist. ASAP !!! :-D

> I was of course referring to my fellow RAO denizens,


You reassure me.


> all of whom I'm
> sure are as familiar with your unusual use of English as I am.


Thank you for your efforts.



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:50:02 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Since Arnold Krueger doesn't want to answer Dave's trolls anymore, I try to
>provide him with such discussions. Unfortunatly for him up to now he hasn't
>been able to reach the climax... :-D

Apparently, neither can your wife...

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:50:02 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Since Arnold Krueger doesn't want to answer Dave's trolls anymore, I try to
>>provide him with such discussions. Unfortunatly for him up to now he hasn't
>>been able to reach the climax... :-D
>
>
> Apparently, neither can your wife...



I can imagine the sorry face of your sexual partners when at the
ejaculation you are shouting them :

"You lose... again"

:-D

PS : you are right for once, I never did that to my wife.



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:08:18 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>I can imagine the sorry face of your sexual partners

If you'd spend more time with your wife instead of ejaculating to
thoughts of my sex life, you wouldn't be in the fix that you are in.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:08:18 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I can imagine the sorry face of your sexual partners
>
>
> If you'd spend more time with your wife


How many time do you spend with your ? ;-)


> my sex life,


You haven't any sex life Dave. It's obvious.
BTW note that onanism isn't a real sex life, even not a succedaneum... ;-)


> you wouldn't be in the fix that you are in.


Seem to me that *YOU* brought the subject, hypocrite.





--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:14:48 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:08:18 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I can imagine the sorry face of your sexual partners
>>
>>
>> If you'd spend more time with your wife
>
>
>How many time do you spend with your ? ;-)

My what...wife? Obviously none. I'm not married. And I'm not going to
brag about who I AM spending my time with...

[paul packer]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:35:50 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:14:48 +0100, Lionel >
>wrote:
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:08:18 +0100, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I can imagine the sorry face of your sexual partners
>>>
>>>
>>> If you'd spend more time with your wife
>>
>>
>>How many time do you spend with your ? ;-)
>
>My what...wife? Obviously none. I'm not married. And I'm not going to
>brag about who I AM spending my time with...

Mostly with Lionel, I'd suggest. :-)

[Lionel]

paul packer a écrit :
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:35:50 -0600, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:14:48 +0100, Lionel >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:08:18 +0100, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I can imagine the sorry face of your sexual partners
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you'd spend more time with your wife
>>>
>>>
>>>How many time do you spend with your ? ;-)
>>
>>My what...wife? Obviously none. I'm not married. And I'm not going to
>>brag about who I AM spending my time with...
>
>
> Mostly with Lionel, I'd suggest. :-)

:-D

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

paul packer a écrit :
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:35:50 -0600, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:14:48 +0100, Lionel >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:08:18 +0100, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I can imagine the sorry face of your sexual partners
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you'd spend more time with your wife
>>>
>>>
>>>How many time do you spend with your ? ;-)
>>
>>My what...wife? Obviously none. I'm not married. And I'm not going to
>>brag about who I AM spending my time with...
>
>
> Mostly with Lionel, I'd suggest. :-)

:-D

I told you. I'm modestly trying to help him.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a écrit :
> > Lionel wrote:
> >
> >>Ludo a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>>I can add that like many frontal cortex-disadvantaged when he's short
> >>>of an argument he resorts to forgery, quotes nonexistent sources and
> >>>makes sweeping affirmations about what his imaginary researchers are
> >>>doing.
> >>
> >>
> >>OTOH there is also *very* intelligent persons who exactly act like this.
> >>This is the big, big problem with your above conclusion Ludo.
> >>Doing that, you implicitly include yourself in your description of the
> >>"frontal cortex-disadvantaged".
> >>
> >>Common sense and its corrolary *happiness* have nothing to do with
> >>intelligence.
> >>As long as you will prefer the *strass* to the reality you will remain
> >>like *your* "frontal cortex-disadvantaged"... A life casualty. :-(
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Your point is well-taken: intelligent people can have no use for
> > intelectual honesty in debate. My model was an argument at eg. the
> > medical rounds where you're either factual and can quote your sources
> > or you're a laughing stock. Pop psychology is quite, quiite different
> > and one can easily find support for any dearly held notion that one
> > holds.
> > Generalisations apart it remains that NYOB stands out as a forger and
> > a cheat even by the elastic RAO standard just like Pinkerton is an
> > aggressive sociopath seeking his cow-waste missiles in a gutter as soon
> > as crossed and desperate for an argument.
> > These are my lessons from the RAO debates.
>
> I'm sorry Ludo but in *this* case "generalisation apart" isn't
> acceptable not to say *impossible*.
> Minus has written that McKelvy should have an IQ of 95 to 100.
> Which is the case of *most* human beings, right ?
>
> It is very important to note that you have associated most of the human
> beings with the following description : "frontal cortex-disadvantaged".
> Moreover you have written that "As a result I ceased any exchange of
> views with your patient."
> This *implicitely* means that because of its "poor" IQ the living
> experience of the majority of the world population hasn't any interest
> for you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cher Lionel, your message voices several assertions that you put into
my mouth.
Eg.
> It is very important to note that you have associated most of the human
> beings with the following description : "frontal cortex-disadvantaged".
> Moreover you have written that "As a result I ceased any exchange of
> views with your patient."
> This *implicitely* means that because of its "poor" IQ the living
> experience of the majority of the world population hasn't any interest
> for you.
Sorry, "implicitly" is not good enough. I never expressed any views
about the mental status of "most of the human beings". Only about NYOB.
I have no reliable statistical data for the rest of the world, no exact
delimitations fitting an exact definition and above all I don't intend
to be sidetracked into a pointless argument with no audio intersst

Next you assert that I feel obliged to "compete" with NYOB.
>
> So my question is : if you feel so much repulsion for McKelvy why do you
> feel obliged to compete with him ?
>
Compete in what? I grant you that if I ever attempted forgery I'd hope
to be less clumsy and transparent..
Far from "competing" this is what I said 5 days ago.
> As a result I ceased any exchange of
views with your patient." ( ie the said MC Kelvy.)
Sorry to waste my own and everyone else's time on this trivial
niggling.
Ludovic Mirabel
>
>
>
> --
> Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
> But what's new around here?
>
> Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Pooh Bear]

wrote:

> Lionel wrote:
> > a écrit :

Can I suggest you insert some blank lines between the previous text and your own
? Your post is virtually unreadable.

Graham