Have too many people entered "Your Name" here?

[Duggy]

Once upon a time "Your Name" was some who enjoyed attacking anything
that anyone said just to start a fight.

Recently he seems to be throwing tantrums when anyone proves that he
is wrong.

What's up with that?

===
= DUG.
===

[The Doctor]

In article <90b2a867-736a-4907...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

The origin of the problem must exist due to something
a privileged entiteled cnservative edm.general troll did.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Merry Christmas 2011 and Happy New Year 2012 !

[Your Name]

In article
<90b2a867-736a-4907...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>

Nobody has "proven me wrong".

I give FACTS and idiots reply with OPINIONS. But you believe whatever
garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\

[The Doctor]

In article <yourname-041...@203-118-175-120.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

Case and point about priveleged entitiled conservative trolls
in edm.general .

[Ryan P.]

On 12/3/2011 3:58 PM, Duggy wrote:
> Once upon a time "Your Name" was some who enjoyed attacking anything
> that anyone said just to start a fight.
>
> Recently he seems to be throwing tantrums when anyone proves that he
> is wrong.

To be fair... You've just described half of the regulars that post here.

[Duggy]

What's that meant to mean you stupid motherfer? Was that some taunt
directed at me? You just can't go a post without attacking someone
can you, you sick freak?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Dec 4, 8:31 am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > What's up with that?

> Nobody has "proven me wrong".

Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) is
too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13)
isn't?

===
= DUG.
===

[The Doctor]

In article <d3ae66da-7039-432b...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 4, 9:30=A0am, "Ryan P." <ryannew...@nogmailjunk.com> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2011 3:58 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>
>> > Once upon a time "Your Name" was some who enjoyed attacking anything
>> > that anyone said just to start a fight.
>>
>> > Recently he seems to be throwing tantrums when anyone proves that he
>> > is wrong.
>>

>> =A0 To be fair... You've just described half of the regulars that post he=

>re.
>
>What's that meant to mean you stupid motherfer? Was that some taunt
>directed at me? You just can't go a post without attacking someone
>can you, you sick freak?
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

How did Ryan get here to start with?

[Your Name]

In article
<c162b3c9-876e-489c...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 4, 8:31=A0am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > What's up with that?
>
> > Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>
> Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) is
> too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13)
> isn't?

FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
slightly older than Harry Potter.

But since you won't believe that either, believe whatever utter garbage
that you want to delude yourself with. :-\

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:38:00 +1300, your...@yourisp.com (Your Name)
wrote:

>In article
><c162b3c9-876e-489c...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
><p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 8:31=A0am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> > > What's up with that?
>>
>> > Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>>
>> Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) is
>> too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13)
>> isn't?
>
>FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
>slightly older than Harry Potter.

Ah, a FACT. I love those. They're so reassuring and demonstrable.

No doubt the producers, or distributors, issued clear and unequivocal
guidelines on the age groups permitted access to these exhibitions.
Were age and identity checks enforced prior to admission? Could you
provide links to the documentary evidence which supports this
assertion of a FACT.

I have to concede that Harry Potter probably appeals to a wider
audience (say four year olds to those in their hundreds) than Star
Wars (8-14?); but that's because underneath the effects, SW is pretty
dull stuff.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Your Name" <your...@yourisp.com> wrote in message
news:yourname-041...@203-118-175-104.nzwide.ihug.co.nz...

> In article
> <c162b3c9-876e-489c...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 8:31=A0am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> > > What's up with that?
>>
>> > Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>>
>> Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) is
>> too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13)
>> isn't?
>
> FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
> slightly older than Harry Potter.

Your latter statement is, at least, correct. Star Wars is 6 years older.
(Deadly Hallows pt 2 came out in 2011, Revenge of the Sith in 2005). Of
course, that's not what you were trying to say.

You claim they are aimed at different aged audiences - well providing some
evidence from the makers of these films to confirm this would go a long way.
As it is, you just sound pretty arrogant and seem to be assuming you know
best whilst firm in the belief that everybody else is wrong...

[Stephen Wilson]

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:uhemd79aqjittmmbs...@4ax.com...

>
> I have to concede that Harry Potter probably appeals to a wider
> audience (say four year olds to those in their hundreds) than Star
> Wars (8-14?); but that's because underneath the effects, SW is pretty
> dull stuff.

I'd say - purely subjectively - that Star Wars is more popular amongst boys
(and was written by a man). Harry Potter - written by a woman - appeals to
more women than men.

Not a fact, just my own observation.

[The Doctor]

In article <yourname-041...@203-118-175-104.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

As you like it.

[The Doctor]

In article <qsHCq.46456$J87....@newsfe25.ams2>,

As you view it.

[Ignis Fatuus]

If it's hard fact you're after, I've observed that Star Wars puts me
to sleep, but (12-14 yr old) boys seem to think it's the dog's
bollocks. On the other hand I've enjoyed all of the Potters (although
I think the last two movies in particular were a bit pedestrian and so
badly lit that at times I found it hard to tell what was going on). In
fact I was pleasantly surprised by the first movies, as Columbus is
such a hack. We have all the Potters on DVD and now Blu-Ray, and they
get watched fairly regularly... but the secondhand SW box set was seen
once and forgotten. I saw the first and third in the cinema, and I
haven't bothered since.

Of course, I'm hardly a cross section of the global population, but I
don't know any adults who discuss their favourite SW movies. On the
other hand, Potter crops up fairly regularly in conversation. And of
course, the movies were all written, produced, and directed by men;
but I don't see that it makes much difference. Your argument on that
score is lopsided, as it contains no factual reference, and omits
girls altogether.

[Soze]

"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
news:c52nd79hlsuh8n14e...@4ax.com...

>If it's hard fact you're after, I've observed that Star Wars puts me
>to sleep, but (12-14 yr old) boys seem to think it's the dog's
>bollocks. On the other hand I've enjoyed all of the Potters (although
>I think the last two movies in particular were a bit pedestrian and so
>badly lit that at times I found it hard to tell what was going on). In
>fact I was pleasantly surprised by the first movies, as Columbus is
such a hack. We have all the Potters on DVD and now Blu-Ray, and they
>get watched fairly regularly... but the secondhand SW box set was seen
>once and forgotten. I saw the first and third in the cinema, and I
>haven't bothered since.

>Of course, I'm hardly a cross section of the global population, but I
>don't know any adults who discuss their favourite SW movies. On the
>other hand, Potter crops up fairly regularly in conversation. And of
>course, the movies were all written, produced, and directed by men;
>but I don't see that it makes much difference. Your argument on that
>score is lopsided, as it contains no factual reference, and omits
>girls altogether.

I think people of my age...that first saw Star Wars when they were
8-14...still love them. My sister, who is 7 years older than me so would
have been 15-22 when they came out, also loves them. I was utterly obsessed
with them when I was a kid and have seen them countless times. Most people I
know would happily hold a discussion on their favourite SW films! I thought
the prequels were shit though. Could be that I was in my late 20's through
to early/mid 30's when they came out or it could just be that they were
demonstrably worse than the originals. It's not unusual to find younger
people than me that prefer them though.

I've only ever seen the first HP film and it bored me to buggery. I only
know of one other person that's a fan, most people I know haven't seen them
( or if they have have never mentioned them ). I generally think of them as
movies that young people like. But, as I haven't seen much of them, I can't
really say.

[The Doctor]

In article <9k243h...@mid.individual.net>,

I sawSW when I was 8. Too bad I did nit note the DW connection
at the time.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message

news:c52nd79hlsuh8n14e...@4ax.com...

I didn't mention girls, but include them within the term "women". The Harry
Potter movies might have been adapted by men, but they were most definitely
written by a woman. I also know that my nephews love Star Wars and my nieces
prefer Harry Potter. The guys I work with like the original Star Wars
trilogy and Star Trek. The women prefer Harry Potter and Twilight.

http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Harry_Potter at least seems to back up one of
my suggestions: "Based on keyword searching for "harry potter," more women
than men are using search engines to look for Harry Potter information on
the Internet."

[Duggy]

On Dec 4, 7:34 pm, "Stephen Wilson"

<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> You claim they are aimed at different aged audiences - well providing some
> evidence from the makers of these films to confirm this would go a long way.
> As it is, you just sound pretty arrogant and seem to be assuming you know
> best whilst firm in the belief that everybody else is wrong...

Worse than that... he's making the claim to prove that the Harry
Potter films were aimed at the wrong market.

He's providing a fact disproved by the thing he is trying to prove was
a mistake.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Dec 4, 1:43 pm, Only Nixon could go to China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <d3ae66da-7039-432b-847a-5a1d24f90...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

> How dare you call me a sick freak! I'm so upset I can't think of what to post
> but that won't stop me from a thousand line screed. yaddda yadda yadda

You lying SOB. Your disingenuous claims of posting a thousand line
screed is immediately undermined by the fact that your "so-called"
screed is a mere two lines. How can you expect anyone to take you
post seriously if they are full of falsehood and frankly far too short
to be a proper rant anyway.

You and your too short posts full of falsehoods and misleading
statements are the exact reason that usenet is dying and it makes me
glad that I have had you killfiled since before you ever started
posting here in the first place.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Dec 4, 2:38 pm, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
> slightly older than Harry Potter.

FACT: JK Rowling said she aimed the books are a market as it aged.

Your fact contains a false claim.

===
= DUG.
===

[john smith]

"Your Name" <your...@yourisp.com> wrote in message
news:yourname-041...@203-118-175-104.nzwide.ihug.co.nz...

How come everyone else is deluded - but you're not?

[Your Name]

In article
<76e26e5e-42c3-48e8...@ca1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2:38=A0pm, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
> > slightly older than Harry Potter.
>
> FACT: JK Rowling said she aimed the books are a market as it aged.
>
> Your fact contains a false claim.

Whatever garbage you want to delude yoursefl with. :-\

[Your Name]

In article <VoXCq.65270$_W7....@newsfe27.ams2>, "john smith"

Apparently far too many people still obey the sticker / decal on their
modem that says "Switch brain off before use". :-(

[Duggy]

On Dec 5, 3:07 pm, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <VoXCq.65270$_W7.61...@newsfe27.ams2>, "john smith"

> > How come everyone else is deluded - but you're not?
> Apparently far too many people still obey the sticker / decal on their
> modem that says "Switch brain off before use".  :-(

I know. There's one person so stupid that when it said "Enter your
name here" they actually entered "Your Name".

===
= DUG.
===

[Sandman]

In article
<yourname-041...@203-118-175-104.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

Facts without substantiations are just words.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Duggy]

On Dec 5, 3:07 pm, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article
> <76e26e5e-42c3-48e8-98aa-b591e6f8c...@ca1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Duggy

>
> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 2:38=A0pm, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
> > > slightly older than Harry Potter.
>
> > FACT:  JK Rowling said she aimed the books are a market as it aged.
>
> > Your fact contains a false claim.
>
> Whatever garbage you want to delude yoursefl with.  :-\

In your opinion who was JK Rowling's intended audience when she wrote
the Harry Potter books?

===
= DUG.
===

[The Doctor]

In article <76e26e5e-42c3-48e8...@ca1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 4, 2:38=A0pm, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
>> slightly older than Harry Potter.
>
>FACT: JK Rowling said she aimed the books are a market as it aged.
>
>Your fact contains a false claim.
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

Such is a witc like Rowling.

[The Doctor]

In article <yourname-051...@203-118-175-226.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

john smith does so.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-EE4453.08...@News.Individual.NET...

And words without substantiations are not facts.

[Your Name]

In article <zF8Dq.121830$aq.1...@newsfe06.ams2>, "Stephen Wilson"

Actually they can be.

It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
bother wasting my time trying. I simply give the facts ... whether ytou
fools want to believe them or not is your problem, I really couldn't care
less.

[Duggy]

On Dec 6, 5:48 am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <zF8Dq.121830$aq.103...@newsfe06.ams2>, "Stephen Wilson"

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> >news:mr-EE4453.08...@News.Individual.NET...
> > > In article

> > > <yourname-0412111738000...@203-118-175-104.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

> > > yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > >> In article

> > >> <c162b3c9-876e-489c-b676-8e5e038c2...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, Duggy

> > >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Dec 4, 8:31=A0am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > >> > > > What's up with that?
>
> > >> > > Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>
> > >> > Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) is
> > >> > too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13)
> > >> > isn't?
>
> > >> FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
> > >> slightly older than Harry Potter.
>
> > >> But since you won't believe that either, believe whatever utter garbage
> > >> that you want to delude yourself with.  :-\
>
> > > Facts without substantiations are just words.
>
> > And words without substantiations are not facts.
>
> Actually they can be.
>
> It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
> bother wasting my time trying. I simply give the facts ... whether ytou
> fools want to believe them or not is your problem, I really couldn't care
> less.

You rant too much for someone who doesn't care.

===
= DUG.
===

[Hornplayer9599]

In other words....you *can't* prove it, so you are going to try to
deflect attention away from that by insulting others. OK, got it.

--
What's considered psychotic behavior anywhere else is company policy
here.

--The Management

[Your Name]

In article <bdGdnV9gdZk5OUDT...@giganews.com>,
"Hornplayer9599" <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote:

> Your Name wrote:
> >
> > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a
> > LONG LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever
> > garbage fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so
> > I no longer bother wasting my time trying. I simply give the facts

> > ... whether you fools want to believe them or not is your problem, I

> > really couldn't care less.
>
> In other words....you *can't* prove it, so you are going to try to
> deflect attention away from that by insulting others. OK, got it.

Whatever utter garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\

[The Doctor]

In article <c1a82605-3cef-496b...@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Dec 6, 5:48=A0am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> In article <zF8Dq.121830$aq.103...@newsfe06.ams2>, "Stephen Wilson"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
>> >news:mr-EE4453.08...@News.Individual.NET...
>> > > In article
>> > > <yourname-0412111738000...@203-118-175-104.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
>> > > yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>
>> > >> In article

>> > >> <c162b3c9-876e-489c-b676-8e5e038c2...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, =
>Duggy
>> > >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> > >> > On Dec 4, 8:31=3DA0am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> > >> > > > What's up with that?
>>
>> > >> > > Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>>

>> > >> > Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) i=
>s
>> > >> > too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13=
>)
>> > >> > isn't?
>>
>> > >> FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wa=

>rs is
>> > >> slightly older than Harry Potter.
>>

>> > >> But since you won't believe that either, believe whatever utter garb=
>age
>> > >> that you want to delude yourself with. =A0:-\

>>
>> > > Facts without substantiations are just words.
>>
>> > And words without substantiations are not facts.
>>
>> Actually they can be.
>>
>> It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
>> LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
>> fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
>> bother wasting my time trying. I simply give the facts ... whether ytou
>> fools want to believe them or not is your problem, I really couldn't care
>> less.
>
>You rant too much for someone who doesn't care.
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

10/10 .

[The Doctor]

In article <bdGdnV9gdZk5OUDT...@giganews.com>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote:

Typical Stephen Wilson for you.

>--
>What's considered psychotic behavior anywhere else is company policy
>here.
>
>--The Management

[Hornplayer9599]

Your Name wrote:

> In article <bdGdnV9gdZk5OUDT...@giganews.com>,
> "Hornplayer9599" <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Your Name wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a
> > > LONG LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe
> > > whatever garbage fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I
> > > prove it, so I no longer bother wasting my time trying. I simply
> > > give the facts ... whether you fools want to believe them or not
> > > is your problem, I really couldn't care less.
> >

> > In other words....you can't prove it, so you are going to try to

> > deflect attention away from that by insulting others. OK, got it.
>
> Whatever utter garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\

If thinking that way makes you feel better, fine. I can use the
entertainment.

[Hornplayer9599]

Hornplayer9599 wrote:

> Your Name wrote:
>
> > In article <bdGdnV9gdZk5OUDT...@giganews.com>,
> > "Hornplayer9599" <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Your Name wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I
> > > > realised a LONG LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to
> > > > believe whatever garbage fills their tiny minds no matter how
> > > > many ways I prove it, so I no longer bother wasting my time
> > > > trying. I simply give the facts ... whether you fools want to
> > > > believe them or not is your problem, I really couldn't care
> > > > less.
> > >
> > > In other words....you can't prove it, so you are going to try to
> > > deflect attention away from that by insulting others. OK, got it.
> >
> > Whatever utter garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\
>

> If your thinking that way makes you feel better, fine. I can use the
> entertainment.

Fixed for clarity.

[Hornplayer9599]

Your Name wrote:

> In article <bdGdnV9gdZk5OUDT...@giganews.com>,
> "Hornplayer9599" <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Your Name wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a
> > > LONG LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe
> > > whatever garbage fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I
> > > prove it, so I no longer bother wasting my time trying. I simply
> > > give the facts ... whether you fools want to believe them or not
> > > is your problem, I really couldn't care less.
> >

> > In other words....you can't prove it, so you are going to try to

> > deflect attention away from that by insulting others. OK, got it.
>
> Whatever utter garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\

Thank you for proving my point.

[The Doctor]

In article <_ZydnTp_XPw81kPT...@giganews.com>,

LOL

[Pork Coffee]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 09:57:18 -0000, "Stephen Wilson"
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Ignis Fatuus" <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
>news:uhemd79aqjittmmbs...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I have to concede that Harry Potter probably appeals to a wider
>> audience (say four year olds to those in their hundreds) than Star
>> Wars (8-14?); but that's because underneath the effects, SW is pretty
>> dull stuff.
>
>I'd say - purely subjectively - that Star Wars is more popular amongst boys
>(and was written by a man).

It's got Harrison Ford, Ewan McGregor, and Porkins. Chicks dig them.

>Harry Potter - written by a woman - appeals to
>more women than men.
>
>Not a fact, just my own observation.
>

Hanky Huckleberry

[Pork Coffee]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:21:14 +0000, Ignis Fatuus
<Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 09:57:18 -0000, "Stephen Wilson"
><stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ignis Fatuus" <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
>>news:uhemd79aqjittmmbs...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> I have to concede that Harry Potter probably appeals to a wider
>>> audience (say four year olds to those in their hundreds) than Star
>>> Wars (8-14?); but that's because underneath the effects, SW is pretty
>>> dull stuff.
>>
>>I'd say - purely subjectively - that Star Wars is more popular amongst boys

>>(and was written by a man). Harry Potter - written by a woman - appeals to

>>more women than men.
>>
>>Not a fact, just my own observation.
>>

>If it's hard fact you're after, I've observed that Star Wars puts me
>to sleep, but (12-14 yr old) boys seem to think it's the dog's
>bollocks. On the other hand I've enjoyed all of the Potters (although
>I think the last two movies in particular were a bit pedestrian and so
>badly lit that at times I found it hard to tell what was going on). In
>fact I was pleasantly surprised by the first movies, as Columbus is
>such a hack. We have all the Potters on DVD and now Blu-Ray, and they
>get watched fairly regularly... but the secondhand SW box set was seen
>once and forgotten. I saw the first and third in the cinema, and I
>haven't bothered since.
>
>Of course, I'm hardly a cross section of the global population, but I
>don't know any adults who discuss their favourite SW movies.

You need cooler friends.

>On the
>other hand, Potter crops up fairly regularly in conversation. And of
>course, the movies were all written, produced, and directed by men;
>but I don't see that it makes much difference. Your argument on that
>score is lopsided, as it contains no factual reference, and omits
>girls altogether.

Hanky Huckleberry

[Pork Coffee]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 16:33:31 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 4, 8:31 am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> > What's up with that?
>
>> Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>
>Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) is
>too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13)
>isn't?

Harry Potter choked Ginny, killed a bunch of wizard kids, beat the
crap out of Ron, fell in lava and went on fire, right? Man, that
traumatized me for a week. Poor Hermione having to go into exile like
that.... such a downer ending.

>
>===
>= DUG.
>===

Hanky Huckleberry

[Sandman]

In article
<yourname-061...@203-118-175-68.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:

> > And words without substantiations are not facts.
>
> Actually they can be.
>
> It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
> bother wasting my time trying.

Which means that we who are not "morons" won't believe you either.
Don't do it for the "morons", do it for yourself.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Duggy]

On Dec 7, 8:43 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article
> <yourname-0612110848580...@203-118-175-68.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

>  yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > > And words without substantiations are not facts.
>
> > Actually they can be.
>
> > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> > LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> > fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
> > bother wasting my time trying.
>
> Which means that we who are not "morons" won't believe you either.
> Don't do it for the "morons", do it for yourself.

Too many people have entered him and he's talking gibberish now.

===
= DUG.
===

[Sandman]

In article
<70da2238-22ef-41e9...@e19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > And words without substantiations are not facts.
> >
> > > Actually they can be.
> >
> > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> > > LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> > > fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
> > > bother wasting my time trying.
> >
> > Which means that we who are not "morons" won't believe you either.
> > Don't do it for the "morons", do it for yourself.
>
> Too many people have entered him and he's talking gibberish now.

So.. he's the Borg now? :)



--
Sandman[.net]

[Duggy]

On Dec 7, 9:48 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article

> <70da2238-22ef-41e9-afde-7513d2035...@e19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And words without substantiations are not facts.
>
> > > > Actually they can be.
>
> > > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> > > > LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> > > > fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
> > > > bother wasting my time trying.
>
> > > Which means that we who are not "morons" won't believe you either.
> > > Don't do it for the "morons", do it for yourself.
>
> > Too many people have entered him and he's talking gibberish now.
>
> So.. he's the Borg now? :)

Borg? Pah.

Picard and Data where having a contest to see how many different sets
of memories they could absorb.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article <mr-7AF2BF.11...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

As I said, I simply give the facts, whether anyone else believes it or not
is their problem - I really don't care less what anyone believes and have
got the time nor inclination to bother going around and around the smae
cirlce trying to prove or instill some common sense in people.

[Your Name]

In article
<70da2238-22ef-41e9...@e19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 8:43=A0pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <yourname-0612110848580...@203-118-175-68.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

> > =A0yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And words without substantiations are not facts.
> > >
> > > Actually they can be.
> > >
> > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> > > LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage

> > > fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no long=

> er
> > > bother wasting my time trying.
> >
> > Which means that we who are not "morons" won't believe you either.
> > Don't do it for the "morons", do it for yourself.
>
> Too many people have entered him and he's talking gibberish now.

It's not gibberish ... as I said (if you could actually read), since names
are apparently meaningless, I decided to replace nouns with the word
"wibble". Of course it also helps that such silliness brings me way down
to the same moronic level of intelligence as 95% of Internet users like
you.

[Sandman]

In article
<yourname-081...@203-118-175-227.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:

> > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> > > LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> > > fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer
> > > bother wasting my time trying.
> >
> > Which means that we who are not "morons" won't believe you either.
> > Don't do it for the "morons", do it for yourself.
>
> As I said, I simply give the facts, whether anyone else believes it or not
> is their problem

I don't see it as a problem at all. Any claims about facts are ignored
when not accompanied with substantiation, I just felt it polite to
tell you that.

Please, continue typing words without meaning.


--
Sandman[.net]

[AC]

Your Name wrote:
> In article

> <90b2a867-736a-4907...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> Once upon a time "Your Name" was some who enjoyed attacking anything
>> that anyone said just to start a fight.
>>
>> Recently he seems to be throwing tantrums when anyone proves that he
>> is wrong.

>>
>> What's up with that?
>
> Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>

> I give FACTS and idiots reply with OPINIONS. But you believe whatever

> garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\

ROFLMAO.

That is brilliant.

You claim "FACT" but use "OPINION" to prove it!!!! That is the dumbest
shit I have read on Usenet yet!!! Amazing.

Honestly, that is so incredibly stupid I have to respect it. It is genius.

Hats off.

--
AC

[AC]

Your Name wrote:
> In article

> <76e26e5e-42c3-48e8...@ca1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Duggy

> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 2:38=A0pm, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:

>>> FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars is
>>> slightly older than Harry Potter.
>>

>> FACT: JK Rowling said she aimed the books are a market as it aged.
>>
>> Your fact contains a false claim.
>

> Whatever garbage you want to delude yoursefl with. :-\

Not so cool with facts now?

That is exactly what she did, and that the whole selling point of the
series.

You really are the cutting edge of rank stupid.

--
AC

[AC]

No you don't. You lie and make things up.

If I were you I'd get some professional help.

--
AC

[AC]

They do have meaning. They define what he/she is.

Granted not the meaning it wants to convey, but its more than enough for
the casual observer to build a reasonable picture of it.

--
AC

[AC]

Not yours, which is why you are so frustrated. Still, you are getting
all this attention, so its not a complete loss to you.

--
AC

[The Doctor]

In article <mr-181CF7.21...@News.Individual.NET>,

edm.general are full of the above mentioned people.

[The Doctor]

Join edm.general .

[Hornplayer9599]

When you start talking facts & common sense, we will let you know.
Until then, by all means continue, you are very entertaining.

[Hornplayer9599]

Oh, he's cool with facts, AC.....as long as they are /his/ facts. If
what everyone else says doesn't agree with him, it is either deluded
garbage, or deluded opinions.

[Your Name]

In article <phQDq.135201$4a.4...@newsfe04.ams2>, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

Fine - the infestation of morons win ... I completely give up wasting any
of my time at all, believe whatever garbage you idiots want to delude
yourselves with, but it's absolutely zero surprise that the planet is
going down the toilet with so many greedy, selfish morons running around
unable to understand simple common sense, common deceny and intelligence.
:-(

[Duggy]

On Dec 8, 10:09 am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> Fine - the infestation of morons win ...

You can't win just by saying you win.

===
= DUG.
===

[Hornplayer9599]

Your Name wrote:

>
> Fine - the infestation of morons win

I didn't know that one moron--you--constituted an infestation.

>believe whatever garbage you idiots want to delude yourselves with

You are doing enough of that for the entire planet.

What a shame you've decided to return to the nursury....you were just
stating to go from entertaining to hilarious.

[john smith]

"Your Name" <your...@yourisp.com> wrote in message
news:yourname-061...@203-118-175-68.nzwide.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <zF8Dq.121830$aq.1...@newsfe06.ams2>, "Stephen Wilson"
> <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
>> news:mr-EE4453.08...@News.Individual.NET...
>> > In article
>> > <yourname-041...@203-118-175-104.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
>> > your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <c162b3c9-876e-489c...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Duggy
>> >> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >>
>> >> > On Dec 4, 8:31=A0am, yourn...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> >> > > > What's up with that?
>> >> >
>> >> > > Nobody has "proven me wrong".
>> >> >

>> >> > Tell me again how Harry Potter & the Deadly Hallows pt 2 (PG-13) is
>> >> > too scary for the intended audience but Revenge of the Sith (PG-13)
>> >> > isn't?
>> >>

>> >> FACT: the franchises were aimed at different aged audiences. Star Wars
>> >> is
>> >> slightly older than Harry Potter.
>> >>

>> >> But since you won't believe that either, believe whatever utter
>> >> garbage
>> >> that you want to delude yourself with. :-\
>> >
>> > Facts without substantiations are just words.

>>
>> And words without substantiations are not facts.
>
> Actually they can be.
>
> It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a LONG
> LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no longer

> bother wasting my time trying. I simply give the facts ... whether ytou

> fools want to believe them or not is your problem, I really couldn't care
> less.
>

Evidently you could...

[john smith]

"Your Name" <your...@yourisp.com> wrote in message

news:yourname-081...@203-118-175-227.nzwide.ihug.co.nz...

Evidently you have...

[Sandman]

In article <jboo7b$s0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,

doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:

> In article <mr-181CF7.21...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >In article
> ><yourname-081...@203-118-175-227.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
> > your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> >
> >> > > It's not up to me to "prove" anything to morons since I realised a
> >> > > LONG
> >> > > LONG LONG time ago that they will continue to believe whatever garbage
> >> > > fills their tiny minds no matter how many ways I prove it, so I no
> >> > > longer
> >> > > bother wasting my time trying.
> >> >
> >> > Which means that we who are not "morons" won't believe you either.
> >> > Don't do it for the "morons", do it for yourself.
> >>
> >> As I said, I simply give the facts, whether anyone else believes it or not
> >> is their problem
> >
> >I don't see it as a problem at all. Any claims about facts are ignored
> >when not accompanied with substantiation, I just felt it polite to
> >tell you that.
> >
> >Please, continue typing words without meaning.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sandman[.net]
>
> edm.general are full of the above mentioned people.

I don't post to edm.general though, I was crossposted there from
rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article
<yourname-081...@203-118-175-8.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:

> > If I were you I'd get some professional help.
>
> Fine - the infestation of morons win ... I completely give up wasting any
> of my time at all, believe whatever garbage you idiots want to delude
> yourselves with

Huh, it seems here as if your contribution here was meant to NOT make
these "idiots" believe what they want, which is in stark contrast to
the lack of actual substantiations for the supposed facts you claim to
have provided.

It doesn't really work both ways. Either you DON'T care what others
believe and don't provide support for your claims, or you DO care and
are thus forced to substantiate your claims. Obviously the path of
least resistance is to not care, at which point a reasonable person
would abandon the discussion altogether as to not conflict with the
entire "caring" part.


--
Sandman[.net]

[The Doctor]

In article <mr-0E9782.10...@News.Individual.NET>,

Well vitriol is found in edm.general