Klunk?
Archie
Given the recent postings by your boss/mistress "Chom", are you sure
you still feel protected and safe under his tutelage?
Roy
Tsk, tsk.
Kitty, kitty, kitty.
==
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:8f9237b5-8fad-4792...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah you, you stupid prick.
>
> Given the recent postings by your boss/mistress "Chom", are you sure
> you still feel protected and safe under his tutelage?
ROTFLMAO..... hay starchie.... given your predilection for contradictory
stupidity, do you really believe stating up this thread accomplishes
anything more than make you look all that much more stupid....?... do you
really believe starting up such a thread doesn't only reveal a level of
desperation which shouts to the world just how affected you are by those
whose rip your idiotic arguments to shreds without making even half an
effort...?... do you really believe that the best and most rational course
of action is to entrench yourself further into arguments you know are full
of holes...?....
prolly... 'cause insecure idiots would rather place themselves on a pedestal
and become martyrs to a cause they don't truly believe in while feeding the
self-serving myth that their enemies are in collusion rather than to stop
and think about the possibility that others may have independently
identified holes in your arguments which would be in your best interests to
re-evaluate....
iow... one can always spot a fanatic by their sheer inability to reason....
and the more vehement and bilious they become, the greater their mental and
emotional dysfunction....
"he who will not reason is a bigot, he who dares not reason is a coward and
he who cannot reason is a slave"
Chom Noamsky
Oh poor Auwchie... do you really believe the friction you get here is
some kind of organized team effort? You come here with all these
highfalutin ideas like classless societies and egalitarian models of
economics, and I say "but how does it work, Auwchie?" and you say "I
dunno, but it sounds really neat, doesn't it?" and I say, "That's great
Auwchie, it does sound neat. Now come back when you can tell me how it
works." and Auwchie says "You festering shit-eating fool, anything that
cool sounding works. Just take my word for it."
klunk
"Cut Off By Google" <think...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
news:75446842-bc45-4867...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Nov 8, 4:46 pm, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>> "Archie" <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8f9237b5-8fad-4792...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Yeah you, you stupid prick.
>>
>> > Given the recent postings by your boss/mistress "Chom", are you sure
>> > you still feel protected and safe under his tutelage?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO..... hay starchie.... given your predilection for contradictory
>> stupidity, do you really believe stating up this thread accomplishes
>> anything more than make you look all that much more stupid....?... do you
>> really believe starting up such a thread doesn't only reveal a level of
>> desperation which shouts to the world just how affected you are by those
>> whose rip your idiotic arguments to shreds without making even half an
>> effort...?... do you really believe that the best and most rational
>> course
>> of action is to entrench yourself further into arguments you know are
>> full
>> of holes...?....
>>
>> prolly... 'cause insecure idiots would rather place themselves on a
>> pedestal
>> and become martyrs to a cause they don't truly believe in while feeding
>> the
>> self-serving myth that their enemies are in collusion rather than to stop
>> and think about the possibility that others may have independently
>> identified holes in your arguments which would be in your best interests
>> to
>> re-evaluate....
>
> The only hole Klink can correctly identify is located between
> Chimpsky's cheeks.
>
>> iow... one can always spot a fanatic by their sheer inability to
>> reason....
>> and the more vehement and bilious they become, the greater their mental
>> and
>> emotional dysfunction....
>>
>> "he who will not reason is a bigot, he who dares not reason is a coward
>> and
>> he who cannot reason is a slave"
>
> As Nobody and I said long ago, your inability to come up with your own
> positions is pathetic. Bin time beckons.
lol... your desire to pigeonhole the positions of others within the feeble
box of collusion speaks volumes on your insecurity.... although, I do find
it interesting how you've resorted to referencing another's position in
order to somehow grant your pitiful assertion some credibility you obviously
otherwise believe is inadequate on its own... ;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell
There are several reasons to not explain how something like Utopia is
actually s'posed to work and none of them are particularly good.
1. they don't know
2. they have a plan, but you're not in it
3. they have a plan, and you're in it
4. they have a plan and it's already been done and didn't work
The religious ones are only slightly less dangerous in that they
are (sometimes) willing to wait until you are dead to make their
plan happen for you.
I guess the real problemo is that the "Perfectibility of Man"
(and not even the perfection) if it is to be accomplished
is a task of Evolutionary time scale, possible across only aeons
of existential trial. We did not get to this place by any
short road, and all paths ahead look longer still. And
individuals are like gnats that live and die in the breezes
of a single day.
Dhu
--
Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu
Archie
wrote:
>
> There are several reasons to not explain how something like Utopia is
> actually s'posed to work and none of them are particularly good.
>
> 1. they don't know
> 2. they have a plan, but you're not in it
> 3. they have a plan, and you're in it
> 4. they have a plan and it's already been done and didn't work
>
> The religious ones are only slightly less dangerous in that they
> are (sometimes) willing to wait until you are dead to make their
> plan happen for you.
>
> I guess the real problemo is that the "Perfectibility of Man"
> (and not even the perfection) if it is to be accomplished
> is a task of Evolutionary time scale, possible across only aeons
> of existential trial. We did not get to this place by any
> short road, and all paths ahead look longer still. And
> individuals are like gnats that live and die in the breezes
> of a single day.
>
humans for what we are.
On the other extreme are cowards. You want to maintain the status quo
at all costs no matter what that status quo is for others - long as
you got comfort. Change scares the shit out of you. How can you spot a
coward? They use crypic language - there's always an 'out' clause.
Hide in the shadows and watch which way the wind blows.
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:78a03e2f-8b5b-4989...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
one of the salient differences between intellectuals and poseurs is the
manner in which they employ labels.... ;-)
Archie
>
> one of the salient differences between intellectuals and poseurs is the
> manner in which they employ labels....
You mean one employs inductive reasoning and the other aims to fit in
with the pack at all costs? It can't be salient. It is not connected
to reality. At all.
Archie
To try to fit the two categories in the same box and point out the
"salient differences" is to suggest that they are essentially the same
- otherwise.
Now look at the differences in the MOs. Dishonest to the core.
Not that I'm defending intellectuals - the clumsy 'fit' is dishonest.
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c8720614-7223-46fe...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
another characteristic of a fraudulent intellect is the degree of
self-conscious defensiveness exhibited when perceiving an observation of
behaviour as a threat toward character... ;-)
Chom Noamsky
> Utopians and perfectionists tend toward fascism. Socialists accept
> humans for what we are.
Sometimes humans are murderers and rapists and pedophiles and genocidal
maniacs. You just accept them for what they are?
> On the other extreme are cowards. You want to maintain the status quo
> at all costs no matter what that status quo is for others - long as
> you got comfort. Change scares the shit out of you. How can you spot a
> coward? They use crypic language - there's always an 'out' clause.
> Hide in the shadows and watch which way the wind blows.
People support change if it's demonstrably good for society. What they
don't support is ideological radicals trying to stuff utopian visions
down their throats. Especially when those ideals have led to so much
human misery and death.
You're one of the more ugly utopian ideologues I've seen (but typical).
You don't extol the virtues of a better way, but spend your life
demonizing the "enemy", the mainstream of society, who you believe are
representative of evil. You do so because you have created this massive
pedestal of virtue for yourself to stand on, which somehow gives you the
self-righteousness to condemn and pillory with impunity.
I think you need to get off that immense pedestal of virtue and rethink
yourself. Obviously your brand of 'activism' isn't working.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
> Archie wrote:
>
>> Utopians and perfectionists tend toward fascism. Socialists accept
>> humans for what we are.
>
> Sometimes humans are murderers and rapists and pedophiles and genocidal
> maniacs. You just accept them for what they are?
>
>> On the other extreme are cowards. You want to maintain the status quo
>> at all costs no matter what that status quo is for others - long as you
>> got comfort. Change scares the shit out of you. How can you spot a
>> coward? They use crypic language - there's always an 'out' clause. Hide
>> in the shadows and watch which way the wind blows.
>
> People support change if it's demonstrably good for society. What they
> don't support is ideological radicals trying to stuff utopian visions
> down their throats. Especially when those ideals have led to so much
> human misery and death.
>
> You're one of the more ugly utopian ideologues I've seen (but typical).
> You don't extol the virtues of a better way, but spend your life
> demonizing the "enemy", the mainstream of society, who you believe are
> representative of evil. You do so because you have created this massive
The problem is with the use of good and evil in "logic" because they
amount to binary certainties about an (apparently) transfinite universe.
In this case the way is wide into perdition: society survives by the
successive discoveries of individuals and individuals eat the bread
of others, but if you impose a static binary style "black vs white hats"
frame on the situation you get the individual and society cast in
opposition to each other.
Dhu
> pedestal of virtue for yourself to stand on, which somehow gives you the
> self-righteousness to condemn and pillory with impunity.
>
> I think you need to get off that immense pedestal of virtue and rethink
> yourself. Obviously your brand of 'activism' isn't working.
--
Archie
>
> another characteristic of a fraudulent intellect is the degree of
> self-conscious defensiveness exhibited when perceiving an observation of
> behaviour as a threat toward character...
You could have said 'defensive people are frauds'.
Or is there more to it?
No?
Fuck off you pretentious idiot.
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:02cc9819-508e-4155...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
another interesting manifestation of poor intellect which is fueled by
insecurity is the increasing vehemence of one's reactions to
intimidation.... ;-)
Archie
>
> another interesting manifestation of poor intellect which is fueled by
> insecurity is the increasing vehemence of one's reactions to
> intimidation.... ;-)
Blah blah blah...
You mention the word "insecurity" a lot. Why?
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7df3bbb0-5ff9-4613...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
at times, a poor intellect which has become frustrated with a lack of
traction can become piqued by a curiosity stemming from an instinctive
recognition of a truth, and will pause to consider the implications of
behaviour which it would prefer not to be so obvious in its transmission...
;-)
Archie
>
> > You mention the word "insecurity" a lot. Why?
>
> at times, a poor intellect which has become frustrated with a lack of
> traction can become piqued by a curiosity stemming from an instinctive
> recognition of a truth, and will pause to consider the implications of
> behaviour which it would prefer not to be so obvious in its transmission...
> ;-)
Could you elaborate?
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:704c9a95-cbdd-428d...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
as a fallback position, the insecurely inept intellect begins to emulate the
five stages of grief which inevitably arrive at bargaining before
acceptance.... ;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell
There's a formal name for this kind of rhetorical device. Not that
it matters but do either of you have any idea what you are on about?
klunk
"Duncan Patton a Campbell" <camp...@neotext.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@neotext.ca...
I'd be interested in the formal name... thx... ;-)
Neil K
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:8noKm.30072$1g6....@newsfe10.iad...
===================================================
The formal word for what you're about is bullshit.
Ridiculous bullshit
Chom Noamsky
> The problem is with the use of good and evil in "logic" because they
> amount to binary certainties about an (apparently) transfinite universe.
> In this case the way is wide into perdition: society survives by the
> successive discoveries of individuals and individuals eat the bread
> of others, but if you impose a static binary style "black vs white hats"
> frame on the situation you get the individual and society cast in
> opposition to each other.
I just get tired of Archie creating wedges instead of cultivating unity.
You don't cultivate unity by standing on pillar of self-righteousness
and battering everyone who isn't trying to climb up it. That's no
better than Rush Limbaugh and company.
klunk
"Neil K" <spri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4afa1543$0$5353$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
lol.... the response of an imbecile who's too stupid to handle thinking so
he retreats into his familiar cave of instinctually-driven thought to pound
out his stupidity like any emotionally underdeveloped child does when they
have a tantrum... good job, kneel... it's nice to know we can always count
on you to provide throwback responses to remind us of how primitive
neanderthals react when overwhelmed by concepts which make their head
hurt... ;-)