Meat Plow wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:14:26 -0800, miguel wrote:
>
>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:09:31 -0800, miguel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou low-life common laugher. Thou saucy
>>>>>>> remorseless. Thou ineffectual fellow of no merits. Thou boozy manikin.
>>>>>>> Ye brown-nosed and ye whined:
>>>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, Kadaitcha Man! I told you your luck would change
>>>>>>>>>> after January. It certainly did, as you managed to defeat a strong
>>>>>>>>>> field of worthy kookologists. All hail Kadaitcha Man!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>> Woo Hoo! Commiserations to the others, and thanks to all for the
>>>>>>>>> support and vote of confidence.
>>>>>>>> It's a shame this wasn't awarded posthumously, *****.
>>>>>>> Aw, poor you.
>>>>>>> Say, Cranston, you do realise that you spewed 4k of froth at Kali in one
>>>>>>> post, don't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course there is variance in application of standards across
>>>>>>> individuals and situations. Of course this isn't a black and white
>>>>>>> issue. Very few things are. But what the **** does that have to do with
>>>>>>> the double standard I identified?
>>>>>>> Again: the kook crew here feels free to netkop somebody about the BI,
>>>>>>> but if you contact an ISP about TOS violations re content, that's
>>>>>>> verboten. If I were to contact Snarky's provider about his insults,
>>>>>>> suddenly I'm a netkkkopper. It's freaky stupid is what it is. Yet nearly
>>>>>>> everybody here has bought into it.
>>>>>>> These mores are adopted to insulate those who engage in ****ty behavior
>>>>>>> from the consequences of their behavior. It's the same with taking
>>>>>>> usenet to real life. Suppose somebody hides behind their keyboard
>>>>>>> calling an enemy all sorts of rancid names and making all sorts of
>>>>>>> outlandish claims. It's considered kooky to drag that person's ass from
>>>>>>> behind his keyboard and kick the **** out of him. The reason this
>>>>>>> standard exists is merely to protect that cowardly ******* that engages
>>>>>>> in this behavior. Such a standard exists nowhere else. What could
>>>>>>> possibly justify this standard?
>>>>>>> Well, psychology isn't a real science, so I understand your inferiority
>>>>>>> complex and your need to sound like you're educated.
>>>>>>> What's next? Suggesting I need anger management?
>>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>>> Also, your pants are on fire. By the next post I'm quite sure they'll be
>>>>>>> hanging over the telephone wire.
>>>>>>> There is a difference between "presume" and "assume." One with your
>>>>>>> academic credentials should surely understand this.
>>>>>>> A real scientist would recognize that curves tend toward steep or flat.
>>>>>>> Curves aren't slow or fast. But you are a psychologist so this is
>>>>>>> probably new to you. Since you are so proud of your advanced database of
>>>>>>> knowledge perhaps you should add this little factoid to it. Next time
>>>>>>> you want to insult somebody by referencing his or her learning curve,
>>>>>>> the more precise (and precision is your paramount desire, we know) way
>>>>>>> to do it would be to suggest that they have a flat learning curve.
>>>>>>> Mathematically you could represent this as Y=0. This is, incidentally,
>>>>>>> Joan GriffinTHAL's learning curve.
>>>>>>> This is about as hard as doing reverse psychology on my grandson. When
>>>>>>> he was two.
>>>>>>> Well, are you?
>>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Feel free to provide them.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Not true. Your first less than friendly act was to respond with feigned
>>>>>>> politeness to my original question. I responded to that with equally
>>>>>>> feigned politeness, mirroring yours. Next, you asked your loaded, er,
>>>>>>> pointed question that implied your belief I was paranoid -- definitely
>>>>>>> kookbait. I responded pedantically in order to return the insult. We've
>>>>>>> traded insults pretty equally from there, although in my opinion I'm
>>>>>>> certainly winning on points because mine are so much more clever, witty
>>>>>>> and cutting than yours.
>>>>>>> Sniggler^wSchoolmarm please!
>>>>>>> Your tendency to project disliked parts of yourself onto me is well
>>>>>>> evidenced in this thread.
>>>>>>> tee hee!
>>>>>>> miguel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have k0oK tattooed in 2" high letters on your steeply sloping forehead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kookle Search Results
>>>>>>> 2 matches for "cranston".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston
>>>>>>> Busted Urinal Award
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston, trained by Bookman
>>>>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
>>>>>>> Oh. You have room to grow too.
>>>>>> Wow, *****, a little eight word sentence sure got you frothing! How much
>>>>>> time did you spend on the cut and paste?
>>>>> The majority of said froth was a quote of your post.
>>>> You'd probably accuse the danimal of frothing. Quantity is not a sound
>>>> measure of emotional content. Most of you people are too dumb to realize
>>>> this, or too invested in using your fagboi retard nerd gimp weapons to
>>>> care. You surely aren't intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that
>>>> I pretty much matched Kali in output word for word.
>>>> What would that say about her posts?
>>> I'd say find someone who gives a ****.
>> I did, dumbass. Thanks for playing.
>
> Your reading skills are pathetic.
>
Please stop! I can't take any more of that!