On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:27:44 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

H the K (I post with a Mac) wrote:
wrote:


From Britannica.

Let's see...atoms, motion, infinity, source of sensations,
explanation of color...

*You* are underinformed. You sort of remind me of a poster here who
called himself "Reggie." He, too, was a gasbag.

You should learn to read your own citations.


D'uh...you're a regular Reggie junior, a gasbag.

Nothing is more amusing than watching everyone twist your knobs and push
your buttons.

He's blinded by his sordid prejudices.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:23:30 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

H the K (I post with a Mac) wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:26:26 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:56:11 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:48:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

...perfect for the GOP:



Palin's Latest Rogue Gaffe


There have been so many lies and distortions pointed out in Sarah
Palin's Going Rogue since it was released last week that her
memoir has already become something of a gag line.

But perhaps the most embarrassing gaffe so far is her
mis-attributed quote to UCLA basketball legend John Wooden.

As the epigram to Chapter Three, "Drill, Baby, Drill," Palin
assigns the following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach:

Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the
things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid
for it--with their lives.

Only the quote wasn't by John Wooden. It was written by a Native
American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled
"Back on the War Ponies," which appeared in a left-wing
anthology, We Are the People: Voices from the Other Side of
American History, edited by Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and
James W. Loewen.

Here's the full quote:

Our land is everything to us. It is the only place in the
world where Cheyennes talk the Cheyenne language to each other.
It is the only place where Cheyennes remember the same things
together. I will tell you one of the things we remember on our
land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their life.
My people and the Sioux defeated General Custer at the Little Big
Horn.

Oops! That's not quite the sentiment that Sister Sarah was trying
to convey as she guzzled down sugar-free Red Bull and cranked up
Toby Keith's "How Do You Like Me Now?" while jumping on her
patriotic high horse at the opening of the third chapter.

There's also no small amount of irony in the quote, given Palin's
abysmal record on Alaska Native issues during her truncated term
as governor.

I was a huge UCLA basketball fan as a kid. Whenever the Bruins
came to the Bay Area, I did whatever I could do to snag a ticket.
I loved to watch Wooden coach. But I never figured the Wizard of
Westwood as an advocate for radical land distribution.

Obviously this one slipped by Sister Sarah and her crack team of
investigative journalists Lynn Vincent, Meg Stapleton and Ivy
Frye, as well as all those dutiful fact checkers at
HarperCollins. Obviously, they didn't get the quote from anything
Wooden ever wrote, but from a cute little web site called The
Quote Garden. Isn't that sweet?

Okay, I was a little leery reading Palin's book and wondering if
she really had read Aristotle and Plato. Somehow I didn't think
so. But I thought, maybe, just maybe, she might have read Sir
John. Apparently not.

But just because we're all good sports here at HuffPo, I thought
I'd save the former Governor (can you imagine what Wooden thought
about her quitting?!) a little bit of time, and here are five
actual Wooden quotes, courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor,
that she might want to take to heart:

1. It's the little details that are vital. Little things make
big things happen.


2. Failure is not fatal but failure to change might be.

3. What you are as a person is far more important than what
you are as a basketball player.

4. Be more concerned with your character than your
reputation, because your character is what you really are, while
your reputation is merely what others think you are.

5. Never mistake activity for achievement.

We'll see if the second printing carries a correction.


Swiped from Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr..._b_373453.html




Yep, Sister Sarah...she's just perfect for the GOP.
It's a little bit like not quite knowing who Democritus was, isn't it
now?
I dunno. I know who he was. You are the one who said he wasn't a
scientist because the term did not come into use until centuries
later.
That certainly was lame. There are any number of classical world
scientists who would be accepted as scientists today no matter what
they
were called in their day. Archimedes of Syracuse, for example, a
full-fledged mathematician, physicist, astronomer.

In fact, your comment made you look even more like a ninny.
A ninny to you? Empiricism can be traced at its meaningful earliest
to Aristotle, a philosopher subsequent to Socrates. Even still,
empirical science didn't truly develop into a structured methodology
until much later, and many attribute that seminal structure to Sir
Francis Bacon. What Democritus and his school proposed was a
philosophical and epistomological understanding of the structure of
reality. It was akin to other early philosophers describing the
universe as being composed of the 4 elementals or of mostly water. It
was that what Democritus proposed was uncannily close to what came to
be discovered empirically from the time of the Enlightenment that he
was honored with having the term "atom" adopted from his school of
thought. That's as close as it gets. Democritus was a philosopher,
simply put, and not a scientist, retroactively or otherwise.

You are uninformed.


Yeah, right:


Democritus' physical and cosmological doctrines were an elaborated
and systematized version of those of his teacher, Leucippus. To
account for the world's changing physical phenomena, Democritus
asserted that space, or the Void, had an equal right with reality, or
Being, to be considered existent. He conceived of the Void as a
vacuum, an infinite space in which moved an infinite number of atoms
that made up Being (i.e., the physical world). These atoms are
eternal and invisible; absolutely small, so small that their size
cannot be diminished (hence the name atomon, or “indivisible”);
absolutely full and incompressible, as they are without pores and
entirely fill the space they occupy; and homogeneous, differing only
in shape, arrangement, position, and magnitude. But, while atoms thus
differ in quantity, differences of quality are only apparent, owing
to the impressions caused on our senses by different configurations
and combinations of atoms. A thing is hot or cold, sweet or bitter,
or hard or soft only by convention; the only things that exist in
reality are atoms and the Void. Thus, the atoms of water and iron are
the same, but those of water, being smooth and round and therefore
unable to hook onto one another, roll over and over like small
globes, whereas those of iron, being rough, jagged, and uneven, cling
together and form a solid body. Because all phenomena are composed of
the same eternal atoms, it may be said that nothing comes into being
or perishes in the absolute sense of the words, although the
compounds made out of the atoms are liable to increase and decrease,
explaining a thing's appearance and disappearance, or “birth” and
“death.”

Just as the atoms are uncaused and eternal, so too, according to
Democritus, is motion. Democritus posited the fixed and “necessary”
laws of a purely mechanical system, in which there was no room for an
intelligent cause working with a view to an end. He explained the
origin of the universe as follows. The original motion of the atoms
was in all directions—it was a sort of “vibration”; hence there
resulted collisions and, in particular, a whirling movement, whereby
similar atoms were brought together and united to form larger bodies
and worlds. This happened not as the result of any purpose or design
but rather merely as the result of “necessity”; i.e., it is the
normal manifestation of the nature of the atoms themselves. Atoms and
void being infinite in number and extent, and motion having always
existed, there must always have been an infinite number of worlds,
all consisting of similar atoms in various stages of growth and decay.

Democritus devoted considerable attention to perception and
knowledge. He asserted, for example, that sensations are changes
produced in the soul by atoms emitted from other objects that impinge
on it; the atoms of the soul can be affected only by the contact of
other atoms. But sensations such as sweet and bitter are not as such
inherent in the emitted atoms, for they result from effects caused
merely by the size and shape of the atoms; e.g., sweet taste is due
to round and not excessively small atoms. Democritus also was the
first to attempt to explain colour, which he thought was due to the
“position” (which he differentiated from shape) of the constituent
atoms of compounds. The sensation of white, for instance, is caused
by atoms that are smooth and flat so as to cast no shadow; the
sensation of black is caused by rough, uneven atoms.

Democritus attributed popular belief in the gods to a desire to
explain extraordinary phenomena (thunder, lightning, earthquakes) by
reference to superhuman agency. His ethical system, founded on a
practical basis, posited an ultimate good (“cheerfulness”) that was
“a state in which the soul lives peacefully and tranquilly,
undisturbed by fear or superstition or any other feeling.”


From Britannica.

Let's see...atoms, motion, infinity, source of sensations,
explanation of color...

*You* are underinformed. You sort of remind me of a poster here who
called himself "Reggie." He, too, was a gasbag.

You should learn to read your own citations.

D'uh...you're a regular Reggie junior, a gasbag.
That Reggie was a real gasbag. A real pompous asshole. He was always
trying to impress people with his knowledge of music, his toys and his
command of the Queen's English.

Doesn't everyone just hate an asshole like that?

I don't hate.

"The theory of the atomists is, in fact, more nearly that of modern
science than any other theory of antiquity. However, their theories
were not wholly empirical, and their belief was devoid of any solid
foundation. The atomists can be viewed as having hit on a hypothesis
for which, two thousand years later, some evidence happened to be
found."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus




Your original argument was over word *scientist* and how, since it
wasn't in use in the days of the ancients, it could hardly be used to
describe one of them.

That is an absurd posit on its face.

Everything you have posted since on the subject is nothing more than
backpedaling. Save *that* for your right-wing buddies. And you are
indeed a gasbag.

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:48:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

...perfect for the GOP:



Palin's Latest Rogue Gaffe


There have been so many lies and distortions pointed out in Sarah
Palin's Going Rogue since it was released last week that her memoir has
already become something of a gag line.

But perhaps the most embarrassing gaffe so far is her mis-attributed
quote to UCLA basketball legend John Wooden.

As the epigram to Chapter Three, "Drill, Baby, Drill," Palin assigns the
following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach:

Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the things
we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with
their lives.

Only the quote wasn't by John Wooden. It was written by a Native
American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled "Back on
the War Ponies," which appeared in a left-wing anthology, We Are the
People: Voices from the Other Side of American History, edited by
Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and James W. Loewen.

Here's the full quote:

Our land is everything to us. It is the only place in the world
where Cheyennes talk the Cheyenne language to each other. It is the only
place where Cheyennes remember the same things together. I will tell you
one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers
paid for it--with their life. My people and the Sioux defeated General
Custer at the Little Big Horn.

Oops! That's not quite the sentiment that Sister Sarah was trying to
convey as she guzzled down sugar-free Red Bull and cranked up Toby
Keith's "How Do You Like Me Now?" while jumping on her patriotic high
horse at the opening of the third chapter.

There's also no small amount of irony in the quote, given Palin's
abysmal record on Alaska Native issues during her truncated term as
governor.

I was a huge UCLA basketball fan as a kid. Whenever the Bruins came to
the Bay Area, I did whatever I could do to snag a ticket. I loved to
watch Wooden coach. But I never figured the Wizard of Westwood as an
advocate for radical land distribution.

Obviously this one slipped by Sister Sarah and her crack team of
investigative journalists Lynn Vincent, Meg Stapleton and Ivy Frye, as
well as all those dutiful fact checkers at HarperCollins. Obviously,
they didn't get the quote from anything Wooden ever wrote, but from a
cute little web site called The Quote Garden. Isn't that sweet?

Okay, I was a little leery reading Palin's book and wondering if she
really had read Aristotle and Plato. Somehow I didn't think so. But I
thought, maybe, just maybe, she might have read Sir John. Apparently not.

But just because we're all good sports here at HuffPo, I thought I'd
save the former Governor (can you imagine what Wooden thought about her
quitting?!) a little bit of time, and here are five actual Wooden
quotes, courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor, that she might want
to take to heart:

1. It's the little details that are vital. Little things make big
things happen.


2. Failure is not fatal but failure to change might be.

3. What you are as a person is far more important than what you are
as a basketball player.

4. Be more concerned with your character than your reputation,
because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is
merely what others think you are.

5. Never mistake activity for achievement.

We'll see if the second printing carries a correction.


Swiped from Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr..._b_373453.html



Yep, Sister Sarah...she's just perfect for the GOP.

It's a little bit like not quite knowing who Democritus was, isn't it
now?

--


What the hell does this have to do with Don?

Rob

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:15:23 -0500, Rob wrote:



What the hell does this have to do with Don?

Rob

Nothing. Harry wanted everyone to think of Don yesterday, so he coined
the thread title.
--

John H

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:06:57 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:23:30 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

H the K (I post with a Mac) wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:26:26 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:56:11 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:48:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

...perfect for the GOP:



Palin's Latest Rogue Gaffe


There have been so many lies and distortions pointed out in Sarah
Palin's Going Rogue since it was released last week that her
memoir has already become something of a gag line.

But perhaps the most embarrassing gaffe so far is her
mis-attributed quote to UCLA basketball legend John Wooden.

As the epigram to Chapter Three, "Drill, Baby, Drill," Palin
assigns the following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach:

Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the
things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid
for it--with their lives.

Only the quote wasn't by John Wooden. It was written by a Native
American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled
"Back on the War Ponies," which appeared in a left-wing
anthology, We Are the People: Voices from the Other Side of
American History, edited by Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and
James W. Loewen.

Here's the full quote:

Our land is everything to us. It is the only place in the
world where Cheyennes talk the Cheyenne language to each other.
It is the only place where Cheyennes remember the same things
together. I will tell you one of the things we remember on our
land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their life.
My people and the Sioux defeated General Custer at the Little Big
Horn.

Oops! That's not quite the sentiment that Sister Sarah was trying
to convey as she guzzled down sugar-free Red Bull and cranked up
Toby Keith's "How Do You Like Me Now?" while jumping on her
patriotic high horse at the opening of the third chapter.

There's also no small amount of irony in the quote, given Palin's
abysmal record on Alaska Native issues during her truncated term
as governor.

I was a huge UCLA basketball fan as a kid. Whenever the Bruins
came to the Bay Area, I did whatever I could do to snag a ticket.
I loved to watch Wooden coach. But I never figured the Wizard of
Westwood as an advocate for radical land distribution.

Obviously this one slipped by Sister Sarah and her crack team of
investigative journalists Lynn Vincent, Meg Stapleton and Ivy
Frye, as well as all those dutiful fact checkers at
HarperCollins. Obviously, they didn't get the quote from anything
Wooden ever wrote, but from a cute little web site called The
Quote Garden. Isn't that sweet?

Okay, I was a little leery reading Palin's book and wondering if
she really had read Aristotle and Plato. Somehow I didn't think
so. But I thought, maybe, just maybe, she might have read Sir
John. Apparently not.

But just because we're all good sports here at HuffPo, I thought
I'd save the former Governor (can you imagine what Wooden thought
about her quitting?!) a little bit of time, and here are five
actual Wooden quotes, courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor,
that she might want to take to heart:

1. It's the little details that are vital. Little things make
big things happen.


2. Failure is not fatal but failure to change might be.

3. What you are as a person is far more important than what
you are as a basketball player.

4. Be more concerned with your character than your
reputation, because your character is what you really are, while
your reputation is merely what others think you are.

5. Never mistake activity for achievement.

We'll see if the second printing carries a correction.


Swiped from Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr..._b_373453.html




Yep, Sister Sarah...she's just perfect for the GOP.
It's a little bit like not quite knowing who Democritus was, isn't it
now?
I dunno. I know who he was. You are the one who said he wasn't a
scientist because the term did not come into use until centuries
later.
That certainly was lame. There are any number of classical world
scientists who would be accepted as scientists today no matter what
they
were called in their day. Archimedes of Syracuse, for example, a
full-fledged mathematician, physicist, astronomer.

In fact, your comment made you look even more like a ninny.
A ninny to you? Empiricism can be traced at its meaningful earliest
to Aristotle, a philosopher subsequent to Socrates. Even still,
empirical science didn't truly develop into a structured methodology
until much later, and many attribute that seminal structure to Sir
Francis Bacon. What Democritus and his school proposed was a
philosophical and epistomological understanding of the structure of
reality. It was akin to other early philosophers describing the
universe as being composed of the 4 elementals or of mostly water. It
was that what Democritus proposed was uncannily close to what came to
be discovered empirically from the time of the Enlightenment that he
was honored with having the term "atom" adopted from his school of
thought. That's as close as it gets. Democritus was a philosopher,
simply put, and not a scientist, retroactively or otherwise.

You are uninformed.


Yeah, right:


Democritus' physical and cosmological doctrines were an elaborated
and systematized version of those of his teacher, Leucippus. To
account for the world's changing physical phenomena, Democritus
asserted that space, or the Void, had an equal right with reality, or
Being, to be considered existent. He conceived of the Void as a
vacuum, an infinite space in which moved an infinite number of atoms
that made up Being (i.e., the physical world). These atoms are
eternal and invisible; absolutely small, so small that their size
cannot be diminished (hence the name atomon, or “indivisible”);
absolutely full and incompressible, as they are without pores and
entirely fill the space they occupy; and homogeneous, differing only
in shape, arrangement, position, and magnitude. But, while atoms thus
differ in quantity, differences of quality are only apparent, owing
to the impressions caused on our senses by different configurations
and combinations of atoms. A thing is hot or cold, sweet or bitter,
or hard or soft only by convention; the only things that exist in
reality are atoms and the Void. Thus, the atoms of water and iron are
the same, but those of water, being smooth and round and therefore
unable to hook onto one another, roll over and over like small
globes, whereas those of iron, being rough, jagged, and uneven, cling
together and form a solid body. Because all phenomena are composed of
the same eternal atoms, it may be said that nothing comes into being
or perishes in the absolute sense of the words, although the
compounds made out of the atoms are liable to increase and decrease,
explaining a thing's appearance and disappearance, or “birth” and
“death.”

Just as the atoms are uncaused and eternal, so too, according to
Democritus, is motion. Democritus posited the fixed and “necessary”
laws of a purely mechanical system, in which there was no room for an
intelligent cause working with a view to an end. He explained the
origin of the universe as follows. The original motion of the atoms
was in all directions—it was a sort of “vibration”; hence there
resulted collisions and, in particular, a whirling movement, whereby
similar atoms were brought together and united to form larger bodies
and worlds. This happened not as the result of any purpose or design
but rather merely as the result of “necessity”; i.e., it is the
normal manifestation of the nature of the atoms themselves. Atoms and
void being infinite in number and extent, and motion having always
existed, there must always have been an infinite number of worlds,
all consisting of similar atoms in various stages of growth and decay.

Democritus devoted considerable attention to perception and
knowledge. He asserted, for example, that sensations are changes
produced in the soul by atoms emitted from other objects that impinge
on it; the atoms of the soul can be affected only by the contact of
other atoms. But sensations such as sweet and bitter are not as such
inherent in the emitted atoms, for they result from effects caused
merely by the size and shape of the atoms; e.g., sweet taste is due
to round and not excessively small atoms. Democritus also was the
first to attempt to explain colour, which he thought was due to the
“position” (which he differentiated from shape) of the constituent
atoms of compounds. The sensation of white, for instance, is caused
by atoms that are smooth and flat so as to cast no shadow; the
sensation of black is caused by rough, uneven atoms.

Democritus attributed popular belief in the gods to a desire to
explain extraordinary phenomena (thunder, lightning, earthquakes) by
reference to superhuman agency. His ethical system, founded on a
practical basis, posited an ultimate good (“cheerfulness”) that was
“a state in which the soul lives peacefully and tranquilly,
undisturbed by fear or superstition or any other feeling.”


From Britannica.

Let's see...atoms, motion, infinity, source of sensations,
explanation of color...

*You* are underinformed. You sort of remind me of a poster here who
called himself "Reggie." He, too, was a gasbag.

You should learn to read your own citations.

D'uh...you're a regular Reggie junior, a gasbag.
That Reggie was a real gasbag. A real pompous asshole. He was always
trying to impress people with his knowledge of music, his toys and his
command of the Queen's English.

Doesn't everyone just hate an asshole like that?

I don't hate.

"The theory of the atomists is, in fact, more nearly that of modern
science than any other theory of antiquity. However, their theories
were not wholly empirical, and their belief was devoid of any solid
foundation. The atomists can be viewed as having hit on a hypothesis
for which, two thousand years later, some evidence happened to be
found."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus




Your original argument was over word *scientist* and how, since it
wasn't in use in the days of the ancients, it could hardly be used to
describe one of them.

That is an absurd posit on its face.

Everything you have posted since on the subject is nothing more than
backpedaling. Save *that* for your right-wing buddies. And you are
indeed a gasbag.

I wouldn't have introduced your inanity if I were backpedaling. In a
fit of intellectual duplicity you tried to turn a spelling error into
an example of 'unforgivable' ignorance by another, a duplicity which
in itself was pure pap. In stating that the pre-socratic philosopher
that you alone introduced into the conversation was a scientist,
without amending the statement of fact or qualifying it in anyway, you
illustrated your own ignorance. First and foremost, he was a
philosopher. Democritus explored a variety of subjects, let alone
exploring the nature of the universe teleologically, ontologically,
epstimologically or otherwise. There is no evidence that he did so
emperically, which is the mechanism that defines modern science.
Further still, you have in your mundane, menial, and lackluster
conversations insinuated that anything that is known has to be
"proven," and this presented in antithesis to any religious faith. If
this a fundamental of science then Democritus fails and so do you.
You are a dolt.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:


I wouldn't have introduced your inanity if I were backpedaling. In a
fit of intellectual duplicity you tried to turn a spelling error into
an example of 'unforgivable' ignorance by another, a duplicity which
in itself was pure pap.

- -

As I've stated, you're a gasbag. You're just proving it all over again.

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:22:09 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:


I wouldn't have introduced your inanity if I were backpedaling. In a
fit of intellectual duplicity you tried to turn a spelling error into
an example of 'unforgivable' ignorance by another, a duplicity which
in itself was pure pap.

- -

As I've stated, you're a gasbag. You're just proving it all over again.

You're uninformed.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:22:09 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:

I wouldn't have introduced your inanity if I were backpedaling. In a
fit of intellectual duplicity you tried to turn a spelling error into
an example of 'unforgivable' ignorance by another, a duplicity which
in itself was pure pap.
- -

As I've stated, you're a gasbag. You're just proving it all over again.

You're uninformed.



snerk

Whatever you say, "Reggie"

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:26:00 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:22:09 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:

I wouldn't have introduced your inanity if I were backpedaling. In a
fit of intellectual duplicity you tried to turn a spelling error into
an example of 'unforgivable' ignorance by another, a duplicity which
in itself was pure pap.
- -

As I've stated, you're a gasbag. You're just proving it all over again.

You're uninformed.



snerk

Whatever you say, "Reggie"

And this is going to dilute the fact that you are a lesser intellect
hoping to make others look diminutive compared to you?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:26:00 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:22:09 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

wrote:

I wouldn't have introduced your inanity if I were backpedaling. In a
fit of intellectual duplicity you tried to turn a spelling error into
an example of 'unforgivable' ignorance by another, a duplicity which
in itself was pure pap.
- -

As I've stated, you're a gasbag. You're just proving it all over again.
You're uninformed.


snerk
Whatever you say, "Reggie"

And this is going to dilute the fact that you are a lesser intellect
hoping to make others look diminutive compared to you?



snerk

Lesser? Compared to who? You? Now that's a laugh, "reggie"!