Chloe and Taser
KimStar
Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
Kim
Mark Nobles
You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
weren't a federal agent? But of course, as a chick, you don't ever have
to worry about getting in trouble for abusing your spouse.
If this is why you go cruisin', get yourself some psychiatric help.
Bruce
"Mark Nobles" <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2006050122030475249-cmnnospam@houstonrrcom...
Most women go cruisin' not for the purpose of actually finding a man. They
go for the purpose of getting attention from men and inflating their egos,
along with the free drinks.
KimStar
"Bruce" wrote:
> "Mark Nobles" wrote:
>> "KimStar" said:
>>> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>>> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
>> You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
>> weren't a federal agent? But of course, as a chick, you don't ever have
>> to worry about getting in trouble for abusing your spouse.
>> If this is why you go cruisin', get yourself some psychiatric help.
> Most women go cruisin' not for the purpose of actually finding a man.
> They go for the purpose of getting attention from men and inflating their
> egos, along with the free drinks.
LOL! You boys need to lighten up. Don't you know a joke when it bites you in
the ass?
Kim "sounds like a couple guys aren't gettin' any" Star
Mark Nobles
Yes, of course. Domestic abuse is always good for a joke. You sick fuck.
BTR1701
"KimStar" <kimst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>
> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
And if you used it like Chloe did, you'd get to enjoy a fun trial for
aggravated assault, followed by an exciting prison term of 3 to 5 years.
BTR1701
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> "KimStar" <kimst...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
> >
> > Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
> You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
> weren't a federal agent?
It's assault even though she is a federal agent. Not just assault but
aggravated assault since it involved a weapon.
BTR1701
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
There was nothing "domestic" about the abuse she described. She was
talking about tazering random guys that hit on her in bars. That's more
like sociopathic serial crime.
WM
"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-F80031...@news.giganews.com...
Jeez... this is getting worse.
WM
mar...@earthlink.net
>weren't a federal agent?
But it *was* funny.
Mike Russell
news:Luz5g.577$fb2...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>
> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
All the zapped guys would pile up though and you'd still have change seats.
--
Mike Russell
Ken from Chicago
"Bruce" <br...@michael.baldwin> wrote in message
news:LaidnfZlZe0...@comcast.com...
But to get attention from men to inflate their egos and buy them drinks,
FIRST, women have to find a man.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Legally you can commit minor crimes to prevent more serious crimes.
Course the rub is proving the potentiality of the more serious crime.
-- Ken from Chicago
BTR1701
" WM" <munged...@earthlink.net> wrote:
How so?
BTR1701
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-6B209C...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <2006050122030475249-cmnnospam@houstonrrcom>,
> > Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "KimStar" <kimst...@yahoo.com> said:
> >>
> >> > Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
> >> >
> >> > Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
> >
> >> You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
> >> weren't a federal agent?
> >
> > It's assault even though she is a federal agent. Not just assault but
> > aggravated assault since it involved a weapon.
>
> Legally you can commit minor crimes to prevent more serious crimes.
The guy in question was just being annoying. That's not a crime at all.
Marie4547
No. That's more like "Leave me the hell alone, a**hole!"
Me Marie
ch...@my-deja.com
Shrink: "This could be because of some unresolved issues with your
mother..."
Man: "So, you don't think it's the pepper spray...?''
(~ BAH-DUMP ~)
KimStar
"BTR1701" wrote:
> "KimStar" wrote:
>> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
> And if you used it like Chloe did, you'd get to enjoy a fun trial for
> aggravated assault, followed by an exciting prison term of 3 to 5 years.
Just a personal question for you: were you were born w/o a sense of humor or
did you lose yours in an accident?
Kim "some people don't know what a smile and wink emoticon means" Star
Mary H
1) He was interferring and therefore hindering national security.
2) He wouldn't take "No" for an answer and was menacing her.
OK, the second is a stretch, but, jeez, how many times did she tell him
to go away?
I thought it was hilarious and a correct response to the situation.
She didn't have time to dick around.
KimStar
"BTR1701" wrote:
> Mark Nobles wrote:
>> Yes, of course. Domestic abuse is always good for a joke. You sick fuck.
> There was nothing "domestic" about the abuse she described. She was
> talking about tazering random guys that hit on her in bars. That's more
> like sociopathic serial crime.
That's right...tasering guys who make obnoxious pests of themselves in bars
is not domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is assault on a spouse or live-in
partner. Alternatively, I've heard it used sometimes in relation to abuse of
one's children.
But you guys need to get a grip. Don't you know what a joke is? Sheesh!
KimStar
George Kerby
On 5/2/06 9:19 AM, in article
STJ5g.20501$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com, "KimStar"
<kimst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "BTR1701" wrote:
>
>> "KimStar" wrote:
>>> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>>> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
>
>> And if you used it like Chloe did, you'd get to enjoy a fun trial for
>> aggravated assault, followed by an exciting prison term of 3 to 5 years.
>
> Just a personal question for you: were you were born w/o a sense of humor or
> did you lose yours in an accident?
>
Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is, even if it kicked them
in the ass with a size 14 Justin. Just don't worry about this one. It's a
lost case...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dano
I think...as in everyone is taking this a bit too serious maybe?
Dano
bars lookin' for a little tail now...LOL
Dano
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C07CDD33.6744%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 5/2/06 9:19 AM, in article
> STJ5g.20501$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com, "KimStar"
> <kimst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "BTR1701" wrote:
>>
>>> "KimStar" wrote:
>>>> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>>>> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
>>
>>> And if you used it like Chloe did, you'd get to enjoy a fun trial for
>>> aggravated assault, followed by an exciting prison term of 3 to 5 years.
>>
>> Just a personal question for you: were you were born w/o a sense of humor
>> or
>> did you lose yours in an accident?
>>
> Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is, even if it kicked
> them
> in the ass with a size 14 Justin. Just don't worry about this one. It's a
> lost case...
>
>
You are a one-trick pony. Are you actually IN the Bush administration?
Unbelievable.
Dano
<ch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1146578647....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
FACE
<janea...@yahoo.com>, in glistered weave writ large for all to see:
Shari couldn't have said it better........
FACE
Parto the P
"KimStar" <kimst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just a bit of harmless power fantasy pandermonkeying aimed at the female
24 fan base (though you don't *have* to be female to find it funny).
Just the other side of the ledger from the occasional guy pandering
moments of female assassins/corporate spies in black stockings and not
much else and the days of Kimmy decolletage; not to mention the
overarching Jack power fantasy.
I found it pretty predictable once the scene was underway, and the
second jolt was kind of gilding the lily, but, all in all, a fair enough
bit of TVLand fantasizing. Though I would have at least had the schmoe
plop a hand on Chloe's knee and *then* zzzzzzzzzzaaaappp.
Even better, they should have had the guy grab her knee and then
introduce himself, "You're awfully cute for a nerd. My names Spencer,
how about you and me..." ::bzzzzztttttt:: ;-)
parto the p
WM
She made a throw-away, off-the-cuff joke about using a tazer on bar mashers
and it's now snowballed into a discussion of what psychological disorder she
suffers from. It's starting to smell a little bit like Chloe's tazer scenes
and the poster's joke are striking a little too close to home, dredging up
painful bar memories of a failed advance rewarded by a drink or a slap to
the face.
Guys, loosen your grip just a little. It was a joooooooooooooooke. Next time
you're in the bar and you break out "What's your sign?" from the 60s
Shagadelic Man-Manual, you're probably not going to get the tazer. On the
other hand, it would probably be a good idea to stick with the drinkproof
polyester shirts and pants.
Yes, the one that says "I Grok Spock" should be be fine.
8-D
WM
KimStar
" WM" wrote:
> She made a throw-away, off-the-cuff joke about using a tazer on bar
> mashers and it's now snowballed into a discussion of what psychological
> disorder she suffers from.
LOL
> It's starting to smell a little bit like Chloe's tazer scenes and the
> poster's joke are striking a little too close to home, dredging up painful
> bar memories of a failed advance rewarded by a drink or a slap to the
> face.
That was my take on it. The scene and my little joke hit a little too close
to home and touched a nerve.
> Guys, loosen your grip just a little. It was a joooooooooooooooke. Next
> time you're in the bar and you break out "What's your sign?" from the 60s
> Shagadelic Man-Manual, you're probably not going to get the tazer. On the
> other hand, it would probably be a good idea to stick with the drinkproof
> polyester shirts and pants.
>
> Yes, the one that says "I Grok Spock" should be be fine.
LOL!
Kim "glad to see not everyone has lost it" Star
KimStar
"Parto the P" wrote:
> I found it pretty predictable once the scene was underway, and the
> second jolt was kind of gilding the lily, but, all in all, a fair enough
> bit of TVLand fantasizing. Though I would have at least had the schmoe
> plop a hand on Chloe's knee and *then* zzzzzzzzzzaaaappp.
>
> Even better, they should have had the guy grab her knee and then
> introduce himself, "You're awfully cute for a nerd. My names Spencer,
> how about you and me..." ::bzzzzztttttt:: ;-)
You've gotta be kidding! The only reason she invited him to sit next to her
was so she could zap him one. She's in the middle of this hugely intense
crisis where every second counts and hundreds of lives or more are at stake.
She told the guy to buzz off and he made it clear he wasn't going away. Like
Mary H said, Chloe didn't have time to dick around. She's supposed to wait
for a drunken jerk who's too soused or otherwise too clueless to take a hint
to get fresh before the taser is justified?
It was even funnier when she barely waited longer than a second or 2 before
zapping him again when he began to come to.
I agree w/ you though that the scenes were a fantasy indulgement to the
female viewers.
KimStar
Mark Nobles
Oh, hypocrite, thy name is KimStar.
If they had done this scene with Jack zapping a drunken woman, every
woman in America would be picketing their local Fox station for making
a joke of an assault, and the FCC would be contemplating fines.
Dano
her husband talk. Get yer head outa yer ass.
BTR1701
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/06 9:19 AM, in article
> STJ5g.20501$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com, "KimStar"
> <kimst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "BTR1701" wrote:
> >
> >> "KimStar" wrote:
> >>> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
> >>> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
> >
> >> And if you used it like Chloe did, you'd get to enjoy a fun trial for
> >> aggravated assault, followed by an exciting prison term of 3 to 5 years.
> >
> > Just a personal question for you: were you were born w/o a sense of humor
> > or did you lose yours in an accident?
> >
> Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is, even if it kicked them
> in the ass with a size 14 Justin. Just don't worry about this one. It's a
> lost case...
Not as lost as you are, apparently, if you think I'm a liberal. Try
googling some of my past Usenet history and you'll find liberals over
the years hysterically labeling me everything from "fascist" to "evil
arch-conservative" (whatever that means).
I've been called a lot of things but a liberal has never been one of
them. Thanks for the chuckle, chief.
BTR1701
Absolutely. I'm just illustrating the kind of hysterical overreaction
that frequently occurs when the same type of jokes are made, only with
the genders reversed.
George Kerby
On 5/2/06 10:11 AM, in article 5fKdnYgieqAZ68rZ...@comcast.com,
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pay attention! You obviously have not been following the rantings of our Mr.
BTR1701. Read before you make a fool of yourself next time.
Ken from Chicago
Treason by the president was a crime and he was interfering.
You can knock out an annoying guy getting in the way of a cop or a Fed
chasing down kidnapper, pedophile, murderer, et.
-- Ken from Chicago
BTR1701
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
LOL! What exactly have I said that could be classified as "liberal"?
This oughta be funny...
BTR1701
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-4E9CA3...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <4dKdnREpC7SWhsrZ...@comcast.com>,
> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> news:btr1702-6B209C...@news.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <2006050122030475249-cmnnospam@houstonrrcom>,
> >> > Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "KimStar" <kimst...@yahoo.com> said:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars!
> >> >> > ; )
> >> >
> >> >> You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
> >> >> weren't a federal agent?
> >> >
> >> > It's assault even though she is a federal agent. Not just assault but
> >> > aggravated assault since it involved a weapon.
> >>
> >> Legally you can commit minor crimes to prevent more serious crimes.
> >
> > The guy in question was just being annoying. That's not a crime at all.
>
> Treason by the president was a crime and he was interfering.
>
> You can knock out an annoying guy getting in the way of a cop
Umm... no you can't. Police aren't allowed to assault and injure people
merely because they might be "in the way".
Dano
Pay attention? To your nonsense? You certainly have an inflated sense of
self importance don't you? You and your ravings could vanish in an instant
and never be noticed you twit.
Bruce
>
> "Bruce" <br...@michael.baldwin> wrote in message
> news:LaidnfZlZe0...@comcast.com...
> >
> >"Mark Nobles" <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2006050122030475249-cmnnospam@houstonrrcom... >>"KimStar"
> <kimst...@yahoo.com> said:
> > >
> > > > Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
> > > >
> > > > Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
> > > >
> > > > Kim
> > >
> > > You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
> > > weren't a federal agent? But of course, as a chick, you don't ever have
> > > to worry about getting in trouble for abusing your spouse. If this is
> > > why you go cruisin', get yourself some psychiatric help.
> >
> > Most women go cruisin' not for the purpose of actually finding a man.
> > They go for the purpose of getting attention from men and inflating their
> > egos, along with the free drinks.
> >
> >
>
> But to get attention from men to inflate their egos and buy them drinks,
> FIRST, women have to find a man.
If by "find" you mean to just show up at the bar, then yeah.
double-oh
>
>
>
> On 5/2/06 9:19 AM, in article
> STJ5g.20501$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com, "KimStar"
> <kimst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "BTR1701" wrote:
> >
> >> "KimStar" wrote:
> >>> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
> >>> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
> >
> >> And if you used it like Chloe did, you'd get to enjoy a fun trial for
> >> aggravated assault, followed by an exciting prison term of 3 to 5 years.
> >
> > Just a personal question for you: were you were born w/o a sense of humor
> > or did you lose yours in an accident?
> >
> Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is, even if it kicked them
> in the ass with a size 14 Justin.
We were just waiting for a cute and completely erroneous comment like this.
Good job.
Ken from Chicago
There are exigent circumstances or mitigating factors. Besides, technically
those people could be considered "obstructing justice" or "impeding a police
investigation".
-- Ken from Chicago (not a lawyer but has seen them on tv)
Aaron
Hee hee. I love it when they turn on each other. The self-destruction
of the Republican party will be the greatest achievement of Bush's
presidency.
-Aaron
Aaron
George Kerby wrote:
> > You have to be shitting me...now he must be a liberal? Because of that?
> Pay attention! You obviously have not been following the rantings of our Mr.
> BTR1701. Read before you make a fool of yourself next time.
BWAHAHAH You're done, George. The blow-hard blows a little too hard,
this time.
"Losing...strength...credibility...shot..."
You're wrong about BTR. So...
Now you're fighting with each other. Welcome to the Democratic party.
Leave your lies at the door, please.
LOL
-Aaron
OrangeSFO
Mark Nobles wrote:
> "KimStar" <kimst...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
> >
> > Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
> >
>
> You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
> to worry about getting in trouble for abusing your spouse.
> If this is why you go cruisin', get yourself some psychiatric help.
Somebody's a bit unhinged. Have a drink pal.
OrangeSFO
banged it into her computer and retrieved every miniscule detail of the
guys life in seconds...
"Hows that rash you were treated for in 1991? I see you're two
payments behind on that Hummer...and your Viagra prescription is about
to expire."
OrangeSFO
George Kerby wrote:
> Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is
That must explain all the conservative comedians.
Dano
"OrangeSFO" <intang...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146685468.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Kerby wrote:
>
>> Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is
>
>
> That must explain all the conservative comedians.
>
Yeah...they're called politicians...the funniest of all is GW Bush...that
guys a frickin' scream.
BTR1701
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will come
to you.
BTR1701
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
No, they couldn't. Technically or otherwise. Both of those offenses
require the element of intent.
Aaron
I was assuming you were conservative, that's good enough for me.
I get it, though. You're not a liberal, or a Republican. But, you ARE
an asshole.
If you're not liberal, then you're conservative. Moderate? I use
moderate in combination with "liberal" or "conservative," as in "I am a
moderate liberal." So, which one are you? Liberal or Conservative?
If you're not a liberal, I'll consider you a Republican (as long as
you're in the U.S.), and you can like it or lump it.
You might want to consider the wisdom of not attacking everyone, from
all sides (Kerby, me, etc.).
-Aaron
KimStar
"OrangeSFO" wrote:
> Mark Nobles wrote:
>> "KimStar" said:
>> > Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>> > Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
>> You realize that using one the way she did would be assault if she
>> weren't a federal agent? But of course, as a chick, you don't ever have
>> to worry about getting in trouble for abusing your spouse.
>> If this is why you go cruisin', get yourself some psychiatric help.
> Somebody's a bit unhinged. Have a drink pal.
LOL...or maybe switch to decaf!
KimStar
BTR1701
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <1146660829.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > In article <C07CDD33.6744%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
> > > > George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is, even if it
> > > > > kicked them in the ass with a size 14 Justin. Just don't
> > > > > worry about this one. It's a lost case...
> > > >
> > > > Not as lost as you are, apparently, if you think I'm a liberal. Try
> > > > googling some of my past Usenet history and you'll find liberals
> > > > over the years hysterically labeling me everything from "fascist" to
> > > > "evil arch-conservative" (whatever that means).
> > > >
> > > > I've been called a lot of things but a liberal has never been one
> > > > of them. Thanks for the chuckle, chief.
> > >
> > > Hee hee. I love it when they turn on each other. The self-destruction
> > > of the Republican party will be the greatest achievement of Bush's
> > > presidency.
> >
> > You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
> > I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will
> > come to you.
>
> I was assuming you were conservative, that's good enough for me.
Then why did you use the word Republican? Not the same thing at all.
> I get it, though. You're not a liberal, or a Republican. But, you ARE
> an asshole.
Ah, so anyone who calls you on your inaccuracies is an asshole? How do
you fit through doors with an ego that big?
> If you're not a liberal, I'll consider you a Republican (as long as
> you're in the U.S.), and you can like it or lump it.
You can conisder me anything you like. Doesn't mean you're right.
> You might want to consider the wisdom of not attacking everyone, from
> all sides (Kerby, me, etc.).
You may want to consider the wisdom of not spouting a bunch of nonsense
if you don't like being "attacked".
Brett A. Pasternack
> BTR1701 wrote:
>>You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
>>I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will come
>>to you.
>
>
> I was assuming you were conservative, that's good enough for me.
>
> I get it, though. You're not a liberal, or a Republican. But, you ARE
> an asshole.
I've spent a LOT of time arguing with BTR. I'd call him a conservative,
yes. But if you think he's an asshole, you've leapt to a serious
misjudgement.
Aaron
Well, look at his response to Kerby calling him a liberal, and then his
response to me associating him with Republicans (I didn't even call him
one):
To Kerby:
> > > Not as lost as you are, apparently, if you think I'm a liberal.
Mean, but deserved, because Kerby already dropped an insult.
> > > I've been called a lot of things but a liberal has never been one of
> > > them. Thanks for the chuckle, chief.
More in the same vein.
Me (again note I didn't call him a Republican):
> > Hee hee. I love it when they turn on each other. The self-destruction
> > of the Republican party will be the greatest achievement of Bush's
> > presidency.
To me:
> You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
> I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will come
> to you.
See how he's lashing about? I didn't even insult him, if he's NOT a
Republican, and he STILL decided to get all snarky about it.
The point is, conservatives are finally having it out with each other,
and they have dubya to thank for the coming destruction of the
Republican party.
BTR, sure, you're not a Republican, whatever, I don't like being called
a Democrat either. But, you are a conservative, so my initial comment
made sense, and my "hee hees" were well deserved.
-Aaron
Aaron
BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > > > Most liberals wouldn't know what a sense of humor is, even if it
> > > > > > kicked them in the ass with a size 14 Justin. Just don't
> > > > > > worry about this one. It's a lost case...
> > > > >
> > > > > Not as lost as you are, apparently, if you think I'm a liberal. Try
> > > > > googling some of my past Usenet history and you'll find liberals
> > > > > over the years hysterically labeling me everything from "fascist" to
> > > > > "evil arch-conservative" (whatever that means).
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been called a lot of things but a liberal has never been one
> > > > > of them. Thanks for the chuckle, chief.
> > > >
> > > > Hee hee. I love it when they turn on each other. The self-destruction
> > > > of the Republican party will be the greatest achievement of Bush's
> > > > presidency.
> > >
> > > You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
> > > I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will
> > > come to you.
> >
> > I was assuming you were conservative, that's good enough for me.
>
> Then why did you use the word Republican? Not the same thing at all.
Using the word "Republican" and calling YOU a Republican are two
different things. In fact, I used "Republican" as an adjective, in "the
Republican party." All this means is that you conservatives are finally
having it out with each other, thanks in large part to dubya's
incompetence.
> > I get it, though. You're not a liberal, or a Republican. But, you ARE
> > an asshole.
>
> Ah, so anyone who calls you on your inaccuracies is an asshole? How do
> you fit through doors with an ego that big?
Point out the inaccuracy, since I didn't call you a Republican.
Apparently you think all comments are directed at you, so now who's the
one with the huge ego?
-Aaron
Mark Nobles
Aaron
I didn't post that, you pissant.
> > -Aaron
>
> Plonk
You ALTERED the content of my posts to insult me, and we're supposed to
be impressed that YOU plonked ME?
Man, how many ignorant idiots are there around here?
-Aaron
Brett A. Pasternack
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
>>Aaron wrote:
>>
>>>BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>>You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
>>>>I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will come
>>>>to you.
>>>
>>>
>>>I was assuming you were conservative, that's good enough for me.
>>>
>>>I get it, though. You're not a liberal, or a Republican. But, you ARE
>>>an asshole.
>>
>>I've spent a LOT of time arguing with BTR. I'd call him a conservative,
>>yes. But if you think he's an asshole, you've leapt to a serious
>>misjudgement.
>
>
> Well, look at his response to Kerby calling him a liberal, and then his
> response to me associating him with Republicans (I didn't even call him
> one):
>
> To Kerby:
>
>>>>Not as lost as you are, apparently, if you think I'm a liberal.
>
>
> Mean, but deserved, because Kerby already dropped an insult.
So, it's fair, yes?
>>>>I've been called a lot of things but a liberal has never been one of
>>>>them. Thanks for the chuckle, chief.
>
>
> More in the same vein.
Seems pretty mild. If you're getting worked up over this, you're too
thin-skinned for Usenet.
Freezer
http://www.journalfen.net/community/otf_wank/414359.html
--
My name is:
____ _
/ ___| | |
| |__ _ __ ___ ___ ____ ___ _ __ | |
| __|| '__/ _ \/ _ \/_ // _ \| '__|| |
| | | | __/ __/ / /| __/| | |_|
|_| |_| \___|\___||___|\___||_| (_)
And my anti-drug is porn.
2006 RSPW March Melee Champion
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
BTR1701
Aaron
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
> > Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> >
> >>Aaron wrote:
> >>
> >>>BTR1701 wrote:
> >>
> >>>>You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
> >>>>I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will come
> >>>>to you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I was assuming you were conservative, that's good enough for me.
> >>>
> >>>I get it, though. You're not a liberal, or a Republican. But, you ARE
> >>>an asshole.
> >>
> >>I've spent a LOT of time arguing with BTR. I'd call him a conservative,
> >>yes. But if you think he's an asshole, you've leapt to a serious
> >>misjudgement.
> >
> >
> > Well, look at his response to Kerby calling him a liberal, and then his
> > response to me associating him with Republicans (I didn't even call him
> > one):
> >
> > To Kerby:
> >
> >>>>Not as lost as you are, apparently, if you think I'm a liberal.
> >
> >
> > Mean, but deserved, because Kerby already dropped an insult.
>
> So, it's fair, yes?
In an assholey kind of way, yes. But I already said it was deserved.
What's your point?
> >>>>I've been called a lot of things but a liberal has never been one of
> >>>>them. Thanks for the chuckle, chief.
> >
> >
> > More in the same vein.
>
> Seems pretty mild. If you're getting worked up over this, you're too
> thin-skinned for Usenet.
Brett, you're missing the point. There are many ways to respond when
someone insults you and states inaccuracies about you. If you choose to
insult them right back, you're an asshole. At that point, you lose the
credibility to call others "asshole."
-Aaron
BTR1701
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> > Aaron wrote:
> > > Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> > Seems pretty mild. If you're getting worked up over this, you're too
> > thin-skinned for Usenet.
>
> Brett, you're missing the point. There are many ways to respond when
> someone insults you and states inaccuracies about you. If you choose to
> insult them right back, you're an asshole. At that point, you lose the
> credibility to call others "asshole."
Since I never called anyone in this thread "asshole", your point seems
somewhat irrelevant.
Mark Nobles
Dr. Richardson, I believe he was addressing the other Brett, Mr. Pasternack.
Funny, there's just no way to make that sentence read correctly.
Brett A. Pasternack
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
>>Aaron wrote:
>>
>>>Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Aaron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You're as lost as Kerby is if you think I'm a Republican just because
>>>>>>I'm not a liberal. In between "hee-hees" maybe the distinction will come
>>>>>>to you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I was assuming you were conservative, that's good enough for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>I get it, though. You're not a liberal, or a Republican. But, you ARE
>>>>>an asshole.
>>>>
>>>>I've spent a LOT of time arguing with BTR. I'd call him a conservative,
>>>>yes. But if you think he's an asshole, you've leapt to a serious
>>>>misjudgement.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, look at his response to Kerby calling him a liberal, and then his
>>>response to me associating him with Republicans (I didn't even call him
>>>one):
>>>
>>>To Kerby:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Not as lost as you are, apparently, if you think I'm a liberal.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mean, but deserved, because Kerby already dropped an insult.
>>
>>So, it's fair, yes?
>
>
> In an assholey kind of way, yes. But I already said it was deserved.
> What's your point?
That it doesn't go very far toward justifying your claim.
>>>>>>I've been called a lot of things but a liberal has never been one of
>>>>>>them. Thanks for the chuckle, chief.
>>>
>>>
>>>More in the same vein.
>>
>>Seems pretty mild. If you're getting worked up over this, you're too
>>thin-skinned for Usenet.
>
>
> Brett, you're missing the point. There are many ways to respond when
> someone insults you and states inaccuracies about you. If you choose to
> insult them right back, you're an asshole. At that point, you lose the
> credibility to call others "asshole."
OK, so who has lost more credibility--the one who said "thanks for the
chuckle, chief" or the one who said "you are an asshole"? If only one of
them qualifies as an insult, I'm pretty sure I know which one.
Aaron
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> > Brett, you're missing the point. There are many ways to respond when
> > someone insults you and states inaccuracies about you. If you choose to
> > insult them right back, you're an asshole. At that point, you lose the
> > credibility to call others "asshole."
>
> OK, so who has lost more credibility--the one who said "thanks for the
> chuckle, chief" or the one who said "you are an asshole"? If only one of
> them qualifies as an insult, I'm pretty sure I know which one.
They're both insults, if you choose to be insulted by them.
I called a spade a spade. That's not necessarily an insult. It's a
statement of fact.
If the spade doesn't want to be a spade, and doesn't believe it is a
spade, but instead a shovel, then it will be insulted by my calling it
a spade.
This is not my problem.
-Aaron
Brett A. Pasternack
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
>>>Brett, you're missing the point. There are many ways to respond when
>>>someone insults you and states inaccuracies about you. If you choose to
>>>insult them right back, you're an asshole. At that point, you lose the
>>>credibility to call others "asshole."
>>
>>OK, so who has lost more credibility--the one who said "thanks for the
>>chuckle, chief" or the one who said "you are an asshole"? If only one of
>>them qualifies as an insult, I'm pretty sure I know which one.
>
>
> They're both insults, if you choose to be insulted by them.
By that logic, anything anyone says is an insult.
> I called a spade a spade. That's not necessarily an insult. It's a
> statement of fact.
>
> If the spade doesn't want to be a spade, and doesn't believe it is a
> spade, but instead a shovel, then it will be insulted by my calling it
> a spade.
And by that logic, nothing is.
Which is about consistant with the rest of your hypocrisy in this thread.
Aaron
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
> > Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> >
> >>>Brett, you're missing the point. There are many ways to respond when
> >>>someone insults you and states inaccuracies about you. If you choose to
> >>>insult them right back, you're an asshole. At that point, you lose the
> >>>credibility to call others "asshole."
> >>
> >>OK, so who has lost more credibility--the one who said "thanks for the
> >>chuckle, chief" or the one who said "you are an asshole"? If only one of
> >>them qualifies as an insult, I'm pretty sure I know which one.
> >
> >
> > They're both insults, if you choose to be insulted by them.
>
> By that logic, anything anyone says is an insult.
Anything can be an insult.
"The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
That can be insulting to at least two different types of people. The
point is: should it be?
Think about it, and then get back to me.
> > I called a spade a spade. That's not necessarily an insult. It's a
> > statement of fact.
> >
> > If the spade doesn't want to be a spade, and doesn't believe it is a
> > spade, but instead a shovel, then it will be insulted by my calling it
> > a spade.
>
> And by that logic, nothing is.
You really aren't very smart, are you?
I have always felt that statements of fact should not be considered
insults. After all, the purpose of an insult is to call someone
something WORSE than what they are.
"You liberal!" is not an insult, unless you are not a liberal. If you
are not, you can CHOOSE to be insulted.
Clearly, the OTHER Brett chooses to be insulted by quite a lot.
> Which is about consistant with the rest of your hypocrisy in this thread.
*ahem* Consistent.
Ok, Brett. Whatever you say.
The OTHER Brett attacked a conservative that called him a liberal, and
then a liberal that called him a conservative (and Republican, fine).
Now, you're attacking another liberal who called this guy who's
attacking everyone an asshole.
You need to get your priorities straight, Brett. Piss off, until you
do.
-Aaron
George Kerby
On 5/10/06 7:45 AM, in article
1147265125.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Aaron"
<aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
LOL! Liberals in action...
"I just love it when they start attacking each other!"
耍aron S
C April/2006
ch...@my-deja.com
I just caught up on Season 3 of the Sopranos on DVD.
Dr. Melfi on the stairway was probably more excruciating than anything
I've ever seen on my TeeVee screen (or in real life, for that
matter)...no Tasers for her character, unfortunantly.
Aaron
George Kerby wrote:
> LOL! Liberals in action...
Tell me about it, George! I certainly have been thinking about the
irony of what happened here.
Well, it's not like you didn't already know Dems couldn't get together
on anything important.
At least I'm the one attacking, not defending, the conservative! I like
to consider that the "moral highground." =)
-Aaron
BTR1701
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> > Aaron wrote:
> > > Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> > > I called a spade a spade. That's not necessarily an insult. It's a
> > > statement of fact.
> > >
> > > If the spade doesn't want to be a spade, and doesn't believe it is a
> > > spade, but instead a shovel, then it will be insulted by my calling it
> > > a spade.
> >
> > And by that logic, nothing is.
>
> You really aren't very smart, are you?
He's actually quite intelligent.
Pity he's a lib. ;-)
You on the other hand aren't faring nearly so well.
> The OTHER Brett attacked a conservative that called him a liberal, and
> then a liberal that called him a conservative (and Republican, fine).
My name is not Brett, idiot.
Brett A. Pasternack
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
>>Aaron wrote:
>>
>>>Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Brett, you're missing the point. There are many ways to respond when
>>>>>someone insults you and states inaccuracies about you. If you choose to
>>>>>insult them right back, you're an asshole. At that point, you lose the
>>>>>credibility to call others "asshole."
>>>>
>>>>OK, so who has lost more credibility--the one who said "thanks for the
>>>>chuckle, chief" or the one who said "you are an asshole"? If only one of
>>>>them qualifies as an insult, I'm pretty sure I know which one.
>>>
>>>
>>>They're both insults, if you choose to be insulted by them.
>>
>>By that logic, anything anyone says is an insult.
>
>
> Anything can be an insult.
>
> "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
>
> That can be insulting to at least two different types of people. The
> point is: should it be?
>
> Think about it, and then get back to me.
I've thought about it long enough to know that you've failed to make a
point here.
"Thanks for the chuckle" is not, to any rational person, an insult.
>>>I called a spade a spade. That's not necessarily an insult. It's a
>>>statement of fact.
>>>
>>>If the spade doesn't want to be a spade, and doesn't believe it is a
>>>spade, but instead a shovel, then it will be insulted by my calling it
>>>a spade.
>>
>>And by that logic, nothing is.
>
>
> You really aren't very smart, are you?
>
> I have always felt that statements of fact should not be considered
> insults. After all, the purpose of an insult is to call someone
> something WORSE than what they are.
>
> "You liberal!" is not an insult, unless you are not a liberal.
So "You are an asshole" is an insult if the person in question is not an
asshole. Which means that you insulted BTR.
> Clearly, the OTHER Brett chooses to be insulted by quite a lot.
Who?
>>Which is about consistant with the rest of your hypocrisy in this thread.
>
>
> *ahem* Consistent.
>
> Ok, Brett. Whatever you say.
>
> The OTHER Brett attacked a conservative that called him a liberal, and
> then a liberal that called him a conservative (and Republican, fine).
He (presuming you mean BTR) didn't attack. He merely disputed.
> Now, you're attacking another liberal who called this guy who's
> attacking everyone an asshole.
>
> You need to get your priorities straight, Brett. Piss off, until you
> do.
I've got my priorities straight. Just because you're on my side of the
political fence doesn't mean that you get a free pass on insults and
hypocrisy.
Aaron
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> I've got my priorities straight. Just because you're on my side of the
> political fence doesn't mean that you get a free pass on insults and
> hypocrisy.
Yet another way in which the Republican party benefits its members more
than our party does its own members. If it is the case that I was the
only one being insulting (and I was NOT) and therefore hypocritical
(therefore NOT), you might have a point (though whether this was a good
idea or not is not clear).
-Aaron
Aaron
BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > I called a spade a spade. That's not necessarily an insult. It's a
> > > > statement of fact.
> > > >
> > > > If the spade doesn't want to be a spade, and doesn't believe it is a
> > > > spade, but instead a shovel, then it will be insulted by my calling it
> > > > a spade.
> > >
> > > And by that logic, nothing is.
> >
> > You really aren't very smart, are you?
>
> He's actually quite intelligent.
I know this. But his failure to see my point is discouraging.
> Pity he's a lib. ;-)
LOL
Pity you're a conservative.
Pity ANYONE is a conservative these days. I pity them all.
> You on the other hand aren't faring nearly so well.
I'm doing better than you think. After all, this is just usenet.
There's a whole REAL world out there for people to see the REAL me. I'm
much nicer to Republican scum in person than on usenet, for example.
> > The OTHER Brett attacked a conservative that called him a liberal, and
> > then a liberal that called him a conservative (and Republican, fine).
>
> My name is not Brett, idiot.
Fine, asshole. Since it is not, explain this statement by Mark Nobles:
"Dr. Richardson, I believe he was addressing the other Brett, Mr.
Pasternack. "
^^^^^^
This was in reply to you. What was I supposed to think your first name
was, based on this?
Is this some sort of reference about which I'm clearly not familiar?
And, why is someone an idiot just because they don't know your first
name? That's quite a large group of idiots. Perhaps I should let them
all know how you feel about them, and we can all pay you a visit.
You're definitely proving my point, "BTR," and more and more I'm
realizing I should ignore Brett's defense of you.
-Aaron
George Kerby
On 5/10/06 4:44 PM, in article
btr1702-195EF1...@news.giganews.com, "BTR1701"
<btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
My apologies, BTR. I *DID* have my lines crossed last week.
(Much like has been going on inhere the past few days)
BTR1701
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
Why should I have to explain it? I didn't say it. Ask the person who did.
Brett A. Pasternack
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
>
>>I've got my priorities straight. Just because you're on my side of the
>>political fence doesn't mean that you get a free pass on insults and
>>hypocrisy.
>
>
> Yet another way in which the Republican party benefits its members more
> than our party does its own members.
Yes, well, that's the price of having ethical standards.
> If it is the case that I was the
> only one being insulting (and I was NOT)
You specifically said that BTR shouldn't be insulting people even if
they insulted him first. Why do you change the standard for yourself?
Aaron
I would, but he plonked me.
Why don't you call him an idiot, and ask HIM why he thinks your name is
Brett.
As I said, how is not knowing your first name reason to call someone an
idiot?
-Aaron
Aaron
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
> > Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've got my priorities straight. Just because you're on my side of the
> >>political fence doesn't mean that you get a free pass on insults and
> >>hypocrisy.
> >
> >
> > Yet another way in which the Republican party benefits its members more
> > than our party does its own members.
>
> Yes, well, that's the price of having ethical standards.
What's the total price tag on that so far, Brett?
And don't pretend that agreeing with me, that he's being an asshole,
would be some huge ethical wrongdoing on your part. That's ridiculous.
We're not dealing with people's lives, or even really reputations,
here.
> > If it is the case that I was the
> > only one being insulting (and I was NOT)
>
> You specifically said that BTR shouldn't be insulting people even if
> they insulted him first.
Not quite. I said that I didn't insult him, and yet he chose to insult
me. It's a bit different, but I'm getting really bored with this whole
discussion.
> Why do you change the standard for yourself?
I don't. I am an asshole, at times. I'm not afraid to admit or hear it.
I try to avoid "responding in kind," but I usually fail.
But if he's "most certainly not an asshole," as you said, then he
wouldn't respond in kind so easily. This is all so very simple to
understand, if you try.
-Aaron
BTR1701
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
Well, there ya go. That should be a hint for you.
> Why don't you call him an idiot, and ask HIM why he thinks your name is
> Brett.
>
> As I said, how is not knowing your first name reason to call someone an
> idiot?
No, it's more your whole zeitgeist that earns you the title.
Mark Nobles
Thanks. I really am not an idiot, just so very, very old. It had been a
long time since I read Blood Prey and BTR had morphed into Brett. Sorry
'bout that to both of you. It was a mistake that was exacerbated by
BTR's responding to a message addressed to Brett.
But the assuming that all conservatives agree on all matters, or that
all conservatives are Republican, is simply idiotic. For instance, I am
against both gun control and prayer in school; where do I fall in your
political spectrum?
BTR1701
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Wherever it is, it's the same place I am. (By the way, Blood Prey is now
at 150 pages, if you haven't read it in a while.)
Mark Nobles
> (By the way, Blood Prey is now at 150 pages, if you haven't read it in
> a while.)
I have the 3/14/6 version with 147 pages; it's the one on your download
page. I actually haven't read but a couple of pages of it.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
"Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>" wrote:
> If you're not liberal, then you're conservative. Moderate? I use
> moderate in combination with "liberal" or "conservative," as in "I am
> a moderate liberal." So, which one are you? Liberal or Conservative?
Well, congratulations, this matches exactly the definition of
"one-dimensional". You've officially arrived at the point where you
regard your neighbors as categories, instead of human beings. Their
entire lives, experiences, beliefs, and values reduce to a single word,
and you don't have to trouble yourself about even pretending you'll try
to understand them.
The "liberal-conservative" false dichotomy (look it up) is *literally*
one-dimensional. It's the smallest, stupidest, most useless kind of
thinking. If the mental tools at your disposal are so primitive, you've
got no hope of understanding -- let alone influencing -- the opinions of
other people.
Next time you wonder why the country is in such a mess, and why US
politics is so nasty, go look in a mirror. The answer will be staring
back at you: the inability (or perhaps refusal) to recognise the
humanity of other people. You've made quite clear to your correspondent
that you don't care what he thinks, or how he describes himself: you
want to know what box you should put him in. And once you've got him
there, you'll never bother yourself about him again.
> If you're not a liberal, I'll consider you a Republican (as long as
> you're in the U.S.), and you can like it or lump it.
Wow, talk about a short attention span. Do you really mean that your
mind has no room for anything that can't be described in exactly one
word?
How do you expect to convince others of your ideas when you boast about
how limited those ideas are?
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Where all think alike, none think very much." -- Walter Lippman
BTR1701
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's the latest incarnation. I've got a bunch of new material
already written. Just have to figure out a way to tie it all together.
Quiet Desperation
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> Well, congratulations, this matches exactly the definition of
> "one-dimensional". You've officially arrived at the point where you
> regard your neighbors as categories, instead of human beings.
How is that different from 95% of the human race?
Alexander Reinhard
>
> "Mark Nobles" <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2006050214522311272-cmnnospam@houstonrrcom...
>> "KimStar" <kimst...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "BTR1701" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "KimStar" wrote:
>>>>> Wow. Chloe really took care of that pesty creep PDQ.
>>>>> Wish I could git me one of them for when I go cruisin' the bars! ; )
>>>
>>>> And if you used it like Chloe did, you'd get to enjoy a fun trial for
>>>> aggravated assault, followed by an exciting prison term of 3 to 5
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> Just a personal question for you: were you were born w/o a sense of
>>> humor or did you lose yours in an accident?
>>>
>>> Kim "some people don't know what a smile and wink emoticon means" Star
>>
>> Oh, hypocrite, thy name is KimStar.
>>
>> If they had done this scene with Jack zapping a drunken woman, every
>> woman in America would be picketing their local Fox station for making a
>> joke of an assault, and the FCC would be contemplating fines.
>>
> What are you talking about...Jack shot an innocent woman in the leg to
> make
> her husband talk. Get yer head outa yer ass.
These situations are not comparable. Annoying drunken people are much more
frequent than wifes of persons guilty of high treason.
But who cares: Chloe is cool!
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
In reply to my observation that one of the participants here has
> officially arrived at the point where you regard your neighbors as
> categories, instead of human beings.
"Quiet Desperation <x...@x.com>" asked:
> How is that different from 95% of the human race?
Most people don't boast about it as if it were a virtue. We've all
got bad habits, and I'd guess just about everybody sees other people
as groups of "them" instead of as individuals.
However, when confronted with an actual individual, people usually try
to get past their mindless category-think. Someone having an exchange
with another person and boasting -- as part of the exchange -- about how
they refuse to be taken out of their category-think, is unusual.
Most people at least *pretend* they're reasonable, so others will think
they're worth talking to. Mr Aaron actively boasted about how he is
not reasonable, has no intention of listening, and doesn't want to be
reasonable. Even by Usenet standards, that's pretty sad.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"They will not be taken in, so they cannot be taken out." -- Aslan
Aaron
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> In reply to my observation that one of the participants here has
> > officially arrived at the point where you regard your neighbors as
> > categories, instead of human beings.
>
> "Quiet Desperation <x...@x.com>" asked:
> > How is that different from 95% of the human race?
>
> Most people don't boast about it as if it were a virtue. We've all
> got bad habits, and I'd guess just about everybody sees other people
> as groups of "them" instead of as individuals.
>
> However, when confronted with an actual individual, people usually try
> to get past their mindless category-think. Someone having an exchange
> with another person and boasting -- as part of the exchange -- about how
> they refuse to be taken out of their category-think, is unusual.
>
> Most people at least *pretend* they're reasonable, so others will think
> they're worth talking to. Mr Aaron actively boasted about how he is
> not reasonable, has no intention of listening, and doesn't want to be
> reasonable. Even by Usenet standards, that's pretty sad.
I agree. It's taken me a long time to get to this point. Before 2000, I
never paid any attention to Republican/Democrat/Conservative/Liberal.
Now I get physically sick when I think about the administration running
this country. As a result, "Republicans" make me sick and
"conservatives" aren't much better.
So, congratulations, Mr. Bush, for your great accomplishments, because
I know I'm not the only one who became this way with your great help.
As a corollary, thank you to all the folks who put him in office,
twice.
> Darren Provine
-Aaron
Aaron
BTR1701 wrote:
> > I would, but he plonked me.
>
> Well, there ya go. That should be a hint for you.
Hah. Predictable.
I'm sure you've never been plonked before, eh?
I could understand a plonk at THIS point, but since his plonk was so
preemptive and baseless, and since I know I'm not a troll, I didn't
take the "hint" as you call it.
> > Why don't you call him an idiot, and ask HIM why he thinks your name is
> > Brett.
> >
> > As I said, how is not knowing your first name reason to call someone an
> > idiot?
>
> No, it's more your whole zeitgeist that earns you the title.
Why are you conversing with an idiot? Doesn't it bore you? I know I
hate conversing with idiots, but that's just me I guess.
-Aaron
Aaron
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> Next time you wonder why the country is in such a mess, and why US
> politics is so nasty, go look in a mirror. The answer will be staring
> back at you: the inability (or perhaps refusal) to recognise the
> humanity of other people. You've made quite clear to your correspondent
> that you don't care what he thinks, or how he describes himself: you
> want to know what box you should put him in. And once you've got him
> there, you'll never bother yourself about him again.
Good points. Consider the current administration of this country, which
exhibits precisely the qualities you are now criticizing in me. I, as
many others like me, have struggled for a long time to "do the right
thing" and "have hope" and "recognize the humanity of other people,"
and it hasn't done us any good.
Are you saying I just need to "stay the course" a little longer, and
good will prevail? Good never seems to prevail, especially where power
is concerned. And it is the people that put this administration in
power, the "conservatives," or "Republicans," or whatever term is
acceptable to you, that have prevailed despite their failure to
recognize the humanity of the rest of us.
I used to be what you are telling me to be again, so you can stop right
now. It didn't work for me, or any of us, then. Once we get these
assholes out of control of this country, I'll try it again. But, just
try and reason with one of them now. All you get is a stubborn refusal
to admit the truth, so plain for the rest of us to see.
I'm sick of it, Darren. I can't be that "nice guy" any longer.
> > If you're not a liberal, I'll consider you a Republican (as long as
> > you're in the U.S.), and you can like it or lump it.
>
> Wow, talk about a short attention span. Do you really mean that your
> mind has no room for anything that can't be described in exactly one
> word?
>
> How do you expect to convince others of your ideas when you boast about
> how limited those ideas are?
I've never met a conservative who could be convinced about anything
critical regarding this administration. I've lost hope of achieving
anything through reasonable discourse, facts, or appeals to humanity. I
know I'm not alone in this feeling.
> Darren Provine
-Aaron
depech...@yahoo.ca
BTR1701
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > > I would, but he plonked me.
> >
> > Well, there ya go. That should be a hint for you.
>
> Hah. Predictable.
>
> I'm sure you've never been plonked before, eh?
Many times. Usually by cowards who want to get the last word in and then
play ostrich and pretend that if they never see my response, it must not
exist and they can declare "victory".
> > > Why don't you call him an idiot, and ask HIM why he thinks your name is
> > > Brett.
> > >
> > > As I said, how is not knowing your first name reason to call someone an
> > > idiot?
> >
> > No, it's more your whole zeitgeist that earns you the title.
>
> Why are you conversing with an idiot? Doesn't it bore you?
Not really. Idiots can be very amusing in the right doses.
Aaron
BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <1147716223.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > I would, but he plonked me.
> > >
> > > Well, there ya go. That should be a hint for you.
> >
> > Hah. Predictable.
> >
> > I'm sure you've never been plonked before, eh?
>
> Many times. Usually by cowards who want to get the last word in and then
> play ostrich and pretend that if they never see my response, it must not
> exist and they can declare "victory".
Like changing the wording of my post to read "I am and asshole" and
then plonking me?
*glances at Mark*
Not that anyone here would do something like that.
Also, not that I give a crap. As you said, cowards (and worse).
> > > > Why don't you call him an idiot, and ask HIM why he thinks your name is
> > > > Brett.
> > > >
> > > > As I said, how is not knowing your first name reason to call someone an
> > > > idiot?
> > >
> > > No, it's more your whole zeitgeist that earns you the title.
> >
> > Why are you conversing with an idiot? Doesn't it bore you?
>
> Not really. Idiots can be very amusing in the right doses.
I try. Glad you get something out of all of this. =)
-Aaron
Mike Russell
news:e4a39h$3kr$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>
> [re] my observation that one of the participants here has
...
> Most people at least *pretend* they're reasonable, so others will think
> they're worth talking to. Mr Aaron actively boasted about how he is
> not reasonable, has no intention of listening, and doesn't want to be
> reasonable. Even by Usenet standards, that's pretty sad.
The person in question, Aaron, has contributed positively with a large
variety of posts over the last months. IMHO, this is not a fair
characterization of his attitudes, or overall contribution to the group.
--
Mike Russell
www.mike.russell-home.net
Aaron
Thank you, Mike. I appreciate your support.
However, Dr. Nancy's...err..."Sweetie" did make some good points about
how I come across. It is important to keep a realistic view on the
impression one makes, assuming one would like to be taken seriously.
I realize and readily admit that when dealing with Republicans--fine,
"conservatives"--I do not always post with the above considerations at
the forefront.
> Mike Russell
-Aaron
FACE
<aaro...@msn.com>, in glistered weave writ large for all to see:
>I realize and readily admit that when dealing with Republicans--fine,
>"conservatives"--I do not always post with the above considerations at
>the forefront.
>
>> Mike Russell
>
>-Aaron
The definition of liberalism from the Random House encyclopedia goes:
"The liberal doctrines, which evolved in the late 18th century, were an
outgrowth of John Locke's theories, reflecting his faith in man's rational
nature and urging limits on governmental power"
I wonder if you believe in that because that sounds like a modern
conservative.
FACE
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
In a previous article, "Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>" wrote:
> If you're not liberal, then you're conservative. Moderate? I use
> moderate in combination with "liberal" or "conservative," as in "I am
> a moderate liberal." So, which one are you? Liberal or Conservative?
I pointed out that this matches exactly the definition of one-
dimensional thinking: Mr Aaron says he recognises only one dimension,
"liberal <-> conservative".
"Mike Russell <RE-MO...@curvemeister.comre-move>" wrote:
> The person in question, Aaron, has contributed positively with a large
> variety of posts over the last months. IMHO, this is not a fair
> characterization of his attitudes, or overall contribution to the
> group.
Of course he may have been having a bad day, or have had any number of
other problems which caused him to write the idiotic and offensive tripe
quoted at the top of this article. He is free at any time to write a
correction, retraction, or expansion, if he sees fit.
OTOH, many people -- if not most people -- who are pretty reasonable
on most topics are also irrational on others. Traditionally, one is
advised to avoid politics and religion, precisely because those topics
are ones on which many people become irrationally hostile when others
disagree.
Perhaps for Mr Aaron, "liberal <-> conservative" is an issue on which he
is so emotionally tied up he cannot be rational, and he meant exactly
what he said above: he simply cannot see any other dimensions regarding
one's political positions. That wouldn't make him a bad person, or even
really make him any different than anybody else. All it would mean is
that he's irrational on this topic, instead of some other one.
In any case, I am not a mind reader. All I have to go on is what was
written about this particular topic, and what was written betrays a
mindset totally unworthy of any attempt at discussion on this particular
issue.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what you don't believe
yourself." -- Abba Eban