[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

[blah blah blah snipped]

But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 00:15, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

[blah blah blah snipped]

But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Your way of thinking goes.
" I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
stupid."

Hmmmm, you seem to have trouble with grasping relationships,
similarities and
differences between things, either real or conceptual., wait a
minute, that
just happens to be one of the three elements of stupidity!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 11:27*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 28 Dec, 00:15, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

You claim that your face-to-face meetings with 2pid give you a leg up
on everybody else in determining 2pid's intelligence.

That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
imbecile here.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 01:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:27*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 28 Dec, 00:15, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:
But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

You claim that your face-to-face meetings with 2pid give you a leg up
on everybody else in determining 2pid's intelligence.

That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
imbecile here.-

I disagree with him, I disagree with you, I disagree with
George, neither of you three are stupid.
Arny is a different story, he
probably is not stupid, its just
that his insanity hinders wahtever intelligence he might have.

Even Bratzi isn't stupid, its just that his hatreds
control his mental functions.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
imbecile here.-

I disagree with him, I disagree with you, I disagree with
George, neither of you three are stupid.

For the record, Dumbo, I don't assess anybody's intelligence on the basis
of agreement or disagrement. That's a fantasy you concocted, I suspect in
order to avoid facing the truth about Witless the Retard.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 12:44, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
imbecile here.-

I disagree with him, I disagree with you, I disagree with
George, neither of you three are stupid.

For the record, Dumbo, I don't assess anybody's intelligence on the basis
of agreement or disagrement. That's a fantasy you concocted, I suspect in
order to avoid facing the truth about Witless the Retard.

what you think of Scott is your opinion.
I have a different one

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured in
the bosom of Scottiedom.

Your way of thinking goes.
" I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
stupid."

BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.

Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
because you don't understand how stupid he really is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 1:55*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured in
the bosom of Scottiedom.

Your way of thinking goes.
" I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
stupid."

BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.

Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
because you don't understand how stupid he really is.

Stupidity is, after all, just a "differing POV".

Clyde's an interesting study. Sometimes he says some smart stuff.
Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
whole homophobia thing.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 11:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:55*am, George M. Middius
wrote:





Clyde Slick said:

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured in
the bosom of Scottiedom.

Your way of thinking goes.
" I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
stupid."

BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.

Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
because you don't understand how stupid he really is.

Stupidity is, after all, just a "differing POV".

Clyde's an interesting study. Sometimes he says some smart stuff.
Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
whole homophobia thing.-

i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that
their different sexual orientation is abnormal.
their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
different. But those relationships should be treated with respect and
afforded
the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Dec, 11:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:55*am, George M. Middius
wrote:





Clyde Slick said:

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why
can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured
in
the bosom of Scottiedom.

Your way of thinking goes.
" I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
stupid."

BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.

Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
because you don't understand how stupid he really is.

Stupidity is, after all, just a "differing POV".

Clyde's an interesting study. Sometimes he says some smart stuff.
Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
whole homophobia thing.-

i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that
their different sexual orientation is abnormal.

So?

their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
different.

Why?

But those relationships should be treated with respect and
afforded
the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
whole homophobia thing.-

i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that

The term "homophobia" has expanded beyond its literal meaning. This
happened in the early '90s, shortly after it turned out that many of our
brave and powerful armed services personnel were well and truly TERRIFIED
of Gay people.

You are bigoted against Gays, but we don't have a ready-made term for your
kind of bigotry. Nothing corresponds directly to sexist or racist. Someday,
maybe your kind will be known as faggists.

their different sexual orientation is abnormal.

Here we go again.

Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
for straight people.

their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
different.

I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
we need Witless to translate.

But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 12:43, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
whole homophobia thing.-

i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that

The term "homophobia" has expanded beyond its literal meaning. This
happened in the early '90s, shortly after it turned out that many of our
brave and powerful armed services personnel were well and truly TERRIFIED
of Gay people.

You are bigoted against Gays, but we don't have a ready-made term for your
kind of bigotry. Nothing corresponds directly to sexist or racist. Someday,
maybe your kind will be known as faggists.


I am not bioted against gays. Gays should have full rights.
this includes the right to marry a person of the opposite sex
or enter into a civil union with the person of the same sex.
'Straights shoudl have the exact same rights to marraige with
the opposite sex and civil un ion with the same sex.
there should be no housing or employment discrimnation against gays.
Gays should have the same adoption rights as straights, considering
the best interests of the adopted child.
Your choice of
"faggist' is curious, as I thought that faggot is a bad word.





their different sexual orientation is abnormal.

Here we go again.

Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
for straight people.



and necrophilia is normal for necrophiliacs!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
different.

I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
we need Witless to translate.


But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.

I don't give lip service to faggots
LOL!!!!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
whole homophobia thing.-

i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that

The term "homophobia" has expanded beyond its literal meaning. This
happened in the early '90s, shortly after it turned out that many of our
brave and powerful armed services personnel were well and truly TERRIFIED
of Gay people.

You are bigoted against Gays, but we don't have a ready-made term for your
kind of bigotry. Nothing corresponds directly to it like sexist or racist
correspond to their respective bigotries. Someday, maybe your kind will be
known as faggists.

their different sexual orientation is abnormal.

Here we go again.

Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
for straight people.

their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
different.

I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
we need Witless to translate.

But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.