Tholen is a f*ckwit
D.G. Porter
mike
news:3CE82F...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught:
> Deal with it, Davey.
the thol is toll!! draft dave tholen for president. send your words of
support to:
... and tell your friends. with your support we can have a tholen in the
whitehouse by 2010. Don't Let The Thol Say No! he's not afraid of space
rocks or background checks! -- he's the Thol! write him now, and include
your personal insights into astrology and space sex! we need a stargazer in
the whitehouse before the big one gets here.
This Is Serious!
Daniel Seriff
(in message <vC1G8.4$U91...@news.oracle.com>):
> "Kev" <brillian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a0820c7e.02051...@posting.google.com...
>> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:<3CE82F...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>...
>
>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>
> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
--
Daniel Seriff
La musique est un langage qui se signifie soi-même.
- Jean-Jacques Nattiez
Sonarrat Citalis
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
news:01HW.B90EBE3A0...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 2:29:05 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
> (in message <vC1G8.4$U91...@news.oracle.com>):
>
> > "Kev" <brillian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a0820c7e.02051...@posting.google.com...
> >> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:<3CE82F...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>...
> >
> >>> Deal with it, Davey.
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> >
> > I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
unsubstantiated or erroneous.
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Medtner, Mompou, and originals at http://www.mp3.com/Sonarrat/
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarratsig.html
Alan Sweeney
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote in
> news:3CE82F...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught:
>
> > Deal with it, Davey.
>
> the thol is toll!!
Classic invective?
mike
news:fedbaba3.02052...@posting.google.com:
"romantic invective"? no! "toll" means "fine!", "goal", "too cool!".
David Olen Baird
On Sun, 19 May 2002 23:07:04 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
<dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
>Deal with it, Davey.
---
David Olen Baird, Composer
mailto:davb...@tfs.net
vist the Garden Suite page at:
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/tgs.htm
Daniel Seriff
(in message <nHeG8.26$U91...@news.oracle.com>):
>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
Coby Beck
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 17:21:45 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
> (in message <nHeG8.26$U91...@news.oracle.com>):
>
> >>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> >>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
> > False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> > unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Daniel Seriff
(in message <nAlG8.21401$Ka.16...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>):
Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
Sonarrat Citalis
(Now this is funny. Don't shoot me!)
Sacqueboutier
> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B91008F80...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > On Tue, 21 May 2002 1:13:39 -0500, Coby Beck wrote
> > (in message <nAlG8.21401$Ka.16...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>):
> > > "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> > > news:01HW.B90F33FE0...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > >> On Mon, 20 May 2002 17:21:45 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
> > >> (in message <nHeG8.26$U91...@news.oracle.com>):
>
> > >>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> > >>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> > >>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> > >>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
> > >>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> > >>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> > >> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
> > > Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
> > Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>
> (Now this is funny. Don't shoot me!)
Non sequitur as well as classic invective from
a known and admitted antagonist who indulges
in pontification and erroneous presupposing
with classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
--
Don Patterson
DCP Music Press
don...@olg.com
Sonarrat Citalis
"Sacqueboutier" <don...@olg.com> wrote in message
news:3CEAFBE6...@olg.com...
Good! Who wrote it for you?
Kev
You just be sure to get that substanfiscated by a classic invector, young man.
Now run along, or I'll sick Tholemite on you!
Peter T. Daniels
That's that awful stuff Ozzies put on bread, no?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Daniel Seriff
(in message <SiCG8.13$sg6...@news.oracle.com>):
> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B91008F80...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>> On Tue, 21 May 2002 1:13:39 -0500, Coby Beck wrote
>> (in message <nAlG8.21401$Ka.16...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>):
>>> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
>>> news:01HW.B90F33FE0...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2002 17:21:45 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
>>>> (in message <nHeG8.26$U91...@news.oracle.com>):
>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
> (Now this is funny.
Classic pontification.
> Don't shoot me!)
Illogical, given that a target does not imply a projectile weapon.
--
Daniel Seriff
Torah! Torah! Torah!
- War cry of the kamikaze Rabbis
Daniel Seriff
(in message <3CEBC8...@att.net>):
What alleged "Ozzies" are you referring to, Daniels?
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part of
hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
Sonarrat Citalis
> >>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> >>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> >>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> >>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
> >>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> >>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> >>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
> >>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
> >> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
> > (Now this is funny.
> Classic pontification.
Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
> > Don't shoot me!)
> Illogical, given that a target does not imply a projectile weapon.
Perhaps not in your case.
Coby Beck
> > >>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> > >>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> > >>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> > >>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
intentional).
> > >>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> > >>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> > >>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
> > >>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
augment.
> > >> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a
pound.
> > > (Now this is funny.
> > Classic pontification.
> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
Daniel Seriff
(in message <V11H8.1$mR1...@news.oracle.com>):
> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B9117C120...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>> augment.
>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>> (Now this is funny.
>> Classic pontification.
> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
Classic intentional missplet.
>>> Don't shoot me!)
>> Illogical, given that a target does not imply a projectile weapon.
> Perhaps not in your case.
You are erroneously presupposing that I have a "case".
Daniel Seriff
(in message <iO8H8.37536$Ka.27...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>):
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam.
Sonarrat Citalis
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> On Thu, 23 May 2002 2:39:02 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
> (in message <V11H8.1$mR1...@news.oracle.com>):
>
> > "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> > news:01HW.B9117C120...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> >>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> >>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> >>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
> >>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> >>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> >>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
> >>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
> >>>>> augment.
> >>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
> >>> (Now this is funny.
> >> Classic pontification.
> > Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>
> Classic intentional missplet.
Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
Coby Beck
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
Lars Peder Kallar Devold
> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
Uhm...I think it means "classic expression of opinions in a dogmatic way",
but I should not be too sure, as english is not my mother tongue.
Peter T. Daniels
That's part of what it means in English, but it isn't what it means to
th*l*n.
Coby Beck
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CEE5F...@worldnet.att.net...
Judging from usage, I would translate it as: "I refuse to agree with your
point and will not tell you why"
D.G. Porter
And that's why Th*l*n is a f*ckwit.
Talk about "antagonism"! -- he's the real antagonizer!
tho...@antispam.ham
> And that's why Th*l*n is a f*ckwit.
Classic invective.
> Talk about "antagonism"!
Namely your own, Porter.
> -- he's the real antagonizer!
How ironic, considering who just called who a "fuckwit".
Do you know the meaning of "hypocrite", Porter?
D.G. Porter
Yes, and I also know what a fuckwit is and what an antagonist is.
You're a sad little shit of a human being, Davey.
Ray Hall
news:afuH8.41105$Ka.31...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Hence the title of the thread. Most people have had a more intelligent
conversation with a parrot.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links/Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 7/05/02
Daniel Seriff
(in message <mhzH8.17261$b5.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>):
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:afuH8.41105$Ka.31...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:3CEE5F...@worldnet.att.net...
>>> Lars Peder Kallar Devold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification"
>> mean?
>>>>
>>>> Uhm...I think it means "classic expression of opinions in a dogmatic
>> way",
>>>> but I should not be too sure, as english is not my mother tongue.
>>>
>>> That's part of what it means in English, but it isn't what it means to
>>> th*l*n.
>>
>> Judging from usage, I would translate it as: "I refuse to agree with your
>> point and will not tell you why"
>
> Hence the title of the thread. Most people have had a more intelligent
> conversation with a parrot.
That's giving Tholen *way* too much credit. At least you can train a parrot
to speak English.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <bVjH8.130056$xS2.10...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>):
Gad.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <XMeH8.24$mR1...@news.oracle.com>):
>
> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B912D6BD0...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>> On Thu, 23 May 2002 2:39:02 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
>> (in message <V11H8.1$mR1...@news.oracle.com>):
>>
>>> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
>>> news:01HW.B9117C120...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
>>>>>>>>>> intentional).
>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>>> augment.
>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>> Classic pontification.
>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>> Classic intentional missplet.
> Dodges the question.
Classic pontoonification.
> I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
Irrelevant, given that the meaning of "classic pontification" is not the
issue here, the issue is your intentional misspelling.
D.G. Porter
Standing up to intentional misspellings, Seriff?
Daniel Seriff
(in message <3CEEE0...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>):
Yes, Porter.
Kev
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote in message news:<Q6xH8.5568$wj7.3...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
> > And that's why Th*l*n is a f*ckwit.
>
> Classic invective.
>
tholen is the true "classic".
> > Talk about "antagonism"!
>
> Namely your own, Porter.
>
tholen is the true "classic".
> > -- he's the real antagonizer!
>
> How ironic, considering who just called who a "fuckwit".
>
tholen is the true "classic".
> Do you know the meaning of "hypocrite", Porter?
tholen is the true "classic".
We love you, tholen. Group hug for tholen!!!!
Sonarrat Citalis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> >>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
> >>>>>>>>>> intentional).
> >>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> >>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
> >>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
> >>>>>>> augment.
> >>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
> >>>>> (Now this is funny.
> >>>> Classic pontification.
> >>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
> >> Classic intentional missplet.
> > Dodges the question.
> Classic pontoonification.
> > I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
> Irrelevant, given that the meaning of "classic pontification" is not the
> issue here, the issue is your intentional misspelling.
Then I wish to change gears, so to speak, as it was not my intention to discuss
this. So, I again reprise my question: what does "classic pontification" mean?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>> augment.
>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
> Classic intentional missplet.
>>>> Don't shoot me!)
>>> Illogical, given that a target does not imply a projectile weapon.
>> Perhaps not in your case.
> You are erroneously presupposing that I have a "case".
Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>> Classic pontification.
>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>> Classic intentional misspelling
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam.
Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>>> augment.
>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>> Classic pontification.
>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>> Classic intentional missplet.
> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
It means that someone made a claim without offering any substantiation
for it, and did so in a way that is all too common. Is it really that
hard to figure out?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>>> Classic intentional misspelling
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam.
> Irrelevant, given that I had clam are not oysters.
Further evidence that you are also an antagonist, Beck.
tho...@antispam.ham
Correct insofar as you went with it, but you also needed to explain
what "classic" means.
tho...@antispam.ham
Who is "th*l*n", Daniels?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Lars Peder Kallar Devold wrote:
>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>>> Uhm...I think it means "classic expression of opinions in a dogmatic way",
>>> but I should not be too sure, as english is not my mother tongue.
>> That's part of what it means in English, but it isn't what it means to
>> th*l*n.
> Judging from usage, I would translate it as: "I refuse to agree with your
> point and will not tell you why"
Must be Seriff's usage that you're judging, Beck.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> And that's why Th*l*n is a f*ckwit.
>> Classic invective.
>>> Talk about "antagonism"!
>> Namely your own, Porter.
Note: no response.
>>> -- he's the real antagonizer!
>> How ironic, considering who just called who a "fuckwit".
>>
>> Do you know the meaning of "hypocrite", Porter?
> Yes,
If so, then you must recognize yourself as one, Porter.
> and I also know what a fuckwit is and what an antagonist is.
If so, the you must recognize yourself as an antagonist, Porter.
> You're a sad little shit of a human being, Davey.
Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Porter.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Lars Peder Kallar Devold wrote:
>>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>>>> Uhm...I think it means "classic expression of opinions in a dogmatic way",
>>>> but I should not be too sure, as english is not my mother tongue.
>>> That's part of what it means in English, but it isn't what it means to
>>> th*l*n.
>> Judging from usage, I would translate it as: "I refuse to agree with your
>> point and will not tell you why"
> Hence the title of the thread.
Actually, the title of the thread stems from Porter's antagonism.
> Most people have had a more intelligent
> conversation with a parrot.
What do you expect from Porter?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Ray Hall wrote:
>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> Lars Peder Kallar Devold wrote:
>>>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>>>>> Uhm...I think it means "classic expression of opinions in a dogmatic way",
>>>>> but I should not be too sure, as english is not my mother tongue.
>>>> That's part of what it means in English, but it isn't what it means to
>>>> th*l*n.
>>> Judging from usage, I would translate it as: "I refuse to agree with your
>>> point and will not tell you why"
>> Hence the title of the thread. Most people have had a more intelligent
>> conversation with a parrot.
> That's giving Tholen *way* too much credit.
Given that Porter is the antagonist here who is without an intelligent
conversation.
> At least you can train a parrot to speak English.
Like you speak English, Seriff: your style of "imitation" is to use
some of the same words, but you don't know when to use them
appropriately.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>> Coby Beck wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>>>> Classic intentional misspelling
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam.
>> Irrelevant, given that I had clam are not oysters.
> Gad.
How ironic.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
>>>>>>>>>>> intentional).
>>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>>>> augment.
>>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>>> Classic intentional missplet.
>> Dodges the question.
> Classic pontoonification.
>> I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
> Irrelevant, given that the meaning of "classic pontification" is not the
> issue here, the issue is your intentional misspelling.
Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional).
>>>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>>>>> augment.
>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>>>> Classic intentional missplet.
>>> Dodges the question.
>> Classic pontoonification.
>>> I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>> Irrelevant, given that the meaning of "classic pontification" is not the
>> issue here, the issue is your intentional misspelling.
> Standing up to intentional misspellings, Seriff?
How ironic.
tho...@antispam.ham
> D.G. Porter wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional).
>>>>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>>>>>> augment.
>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a
>>>>>>>>> pound.
>>>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>>>>> Classic intentional missplet.
>>>> Dodges the question.
>>> Classic pontoonification.
>>>> I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>>> Irrelevant, given that the meaning of "classic pontification" is not the
>>> issue here, the issue is your intentional misspelling.
>> Standing up to intentional misspellings, Seriff?
> Yes, Porter.
Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> There's just no imitating a master, folks.
Especially when you don't understand the meaning of the words you're
using.
>> D.G. Porter writes:
>>> And that's why Th*l*n is a f*ckwit.
>> Classic invective.
> tholen is the true "classic".
Classic what, Kev?
>>> Talk about "antagonism"!
>> Namely your own, Porter.
> tholen is the true "classic".
Classic what, Kev?
>>> -- he's the real antagonizer!
>> How ironic, considering who just called who a "fuckwit".
> tholen is the true "classic".
Classic what, Kev?
>> Do you know the meaning of "hypocrite", Porter?
> tholen is the true "classic".
Classic what, Kev?
> We love you, tholen. Group hug for tholen!!!!
Who are you allegedly speaking for when you say "we", Kev?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional).
>>>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>>>>> augment.
>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>>>> Classic intentional missplet.
>>> Dodges the question.
>> Classic pontoonification.
>>> I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>> Irrelevant, given that the meaning of "classic pontification" is not the
>> issue here, the issue is your intentional misspelling.
> Then I wish to change gears, so to speak, as it was not my intention to discuss
> this. So, I again reprise my question: what does "classic pontification" mean?
See my other response.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Deal with it, Davey.
I'm dealing with your antagonism right now, Porter.
Your posting was unnecessary, uncalled for, and off-topic for the
newsgroup. Further evidence that you're an antagonist.
tho...@antispam.ham
> D.G. Porter wrote:
>> Deal with it, Davey.
> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
Why the vulgar language?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Kev wrote:
>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
Why?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>> Kev wrote:
>>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
Further evidence that you're an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote
>>> Kev wrote:
>>>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
Who allegedly supplied the substantiation?
tho...@antispam.ham
> mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>> the thol is toll!!
> Classic invective?
Classic antagonism on Porter's part.
tho...@antispam.ham
> D.G. Porter wrote:
>> Deal with it, Davey.
> No he's not. And that's the truthf!
Non sequitur.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
Further evidence that you're an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
Non sequitur.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> Coby Beck wrote
>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
> (Now this is funny. Don't shoot me!)
Illogical.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> Non sequitur as well as classic invective from
> a known and admitted antagonist who indulges
> in pontification and erroneous presupposing
> with classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
And evidence that you are also an antagonist, Sacque.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> Good! Who wrote it for you?
You're presupposing that somebody wrote it for him.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> You just be sure to get that substanfiscated by a classic invector,
> young man.
Huh?
> Now run along, or I'll sick Tholemite on you!
Who or what is "Tholemite", Kev, and don't you mean "sic"?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Kev wrote:
>> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>> (Now this is funny. Don't shoot me!)
>>> Non sequitur as well as classic invective from
>>> a known and admitted antagonist who indulges
>>> in pontification and erroneous presupposing
>>> with classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>> You just be sure to get that substanfiscated by a classic invector, young man.
>> Now run along, or I'll sick Tholemite on you!
> That's that awful stuff Ozzies put on bread, no?
Further evidence that you are also an antagonist, Daniels.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>> (Now this is funny.
> Classic pontification.
>> Don't shoot me!)
> Illogical, given that a target does not imply a projectile weapon.
Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Kev wrote:
>>> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
>>>>>>>>>> intentional).
>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
>>>>>>> augment.
>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>>> (Now this is funny. Don't shoot me!)
>>>> Non sequitur as well as classic invective from
>>>> a known and admitted antagonist who indulges
>>>> in pontification and erroneous presupposing
>>>> with classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>>> You just be sure to get that substanfiscated by a classic invector, young
>>> man.
>>> Now run along, or I'll sick Tholemite on you!
>> That's that awful stuff Ozzies put on bread, no?
> What alleged "Ozzies" are you referring to, Daniels?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>> (Now this is funny.
>> Classic pontification.
> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
It means that Seriff is an antagonist.
>>> Don't shoot me!)
>> Illogical, given that a target does not imply a projectile weapon.
> Perhaps not in your case.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling intentional).
>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical augment.
>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a pound.
>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
> Classic intentional misspelling
Evidence that you are also an antagonist, Beck.
tho...@antispam.ham
357> the thol is toll!! draft dave tholen for president. send your words of
357> support to:
357> .... and tell your friends. with your support we can have a tholen in the
357> whitehouse by 2010. Don't Let The Thol Say No! he's not afraid of space
357> rocks or background checks! -- he's the Thol! write him now, and include
357> your personal insights into astrology and space sex! we need a stargazer in
357> the whitehouse before the big one gets here.
357> This Is Serious!
358> "romantic invective"? no! "toll" means "fine!", "goal", "too cool!".
To discuss classical music, please press 1.
To discuss composers of classical music, please press 2.
To discuss performers of classical music, please press 3.
To be an antagonist, please hold, and your antagonism will
be dealt with in the order received by the first available
representative.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Sonarrat Citalis writes:
> > Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>
> It means that someone made a claim without offering any substantiation
> for it, and did so in a way that is all too common. Is it really that
> hard to figure out?
He finally gives a straight answer, finally revealing what we have
always been sure of: he doesn't know the meaning of "pontification."
"Pontificate" does _not_ mean 'make a claim without offering any
substantiation for it'.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Sonarrat Citalis writes:
>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>> It means that someone made a claim without offering any substantiation
>> for it, and did so in a way that is all too common. Is it really that
>> hard to figure out?
> He finally gives a straight answer,
Someone finally asked a straight question, Daniels. You should try
that approach sometime rather than relying on antagonism.
> finally revealing what we have always been sure of: he doesn't know
> the meaning of "pontification."
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> "Pontificate" does _not_ mean 'make a claim without offering any
> substantiation for it'.
Classic pontification.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <b3KH8.6042$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>> Then I wish to change gears, so to speak, as it was not my intention to
>> discuss
>> this. So, I again reprise my question: what does "classic pontification"
>> mean?
>
> See my other response.
Which "other response" would that be? I see 46 posts from you today. Try
being more specific.
--
Daniel Seriff
Torah! Torah! Torah!
- War cry of the kamikaze Rabbis
Daniel Seriff
(in message <R0KH8.6040$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>>> Standing up to intentional misspellings, Seriff?
>
>> Yes, Porter.
>
> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
I'm just correcting intentional misspellings, Tholen.
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part of
hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
Daniel Seriff
(in message <JGGH8.2$iO4...@news.oracle.com>):
> Then I wish to change gears, so to speak, as it was not my intention to
> discuss
> this. So, I again reprise my question: what does "classic pontification"
> mean?
Sorry, just messing with you. Simply observe Tholen to get an idea of what
"classic pontification" is.
pontificate: be pompously dogmatic
http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/pontificate
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
Daniel Seriff
(in message <OXJH8.6036$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> Daniel Seriff writes:
>
>> Ray Hall wrote:
>
>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>>>> Lars Peder Kallar Devold wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification"
>>>>>>> mean?
>
>>>>>> Uhm...I think it means "classic expression of opinions in a dogmatic
>>>>>> way",
>>>>>> but I should not be too sure, as english is not my mother tongue.
>
>>>>> That's part of what it means in English, but it isn't what it means to
>>>>> th*l*n.
>
>>>> Judging from usage, I would translate it as: "I refuse to agree with your
>>>> point and will not tell you why"
>
>>> Hence the title of the thread. Most people have had a more intelligent
>>> conversation with a parrot.
>
>> That's giving Tholen *way* too much credit.
>
> Given that Porter is the antagonist here who is without an intelligent
> conversation.
Classic antagonism.
>> At least you can train a parrot to speak English.
>
> Like you speak English, Seriff:
Yes, I do.
> your style of "imitation" is to use
> some of the same words, but you don't know when to use them
> appropriately.
Classic antagonism.
--
Daniel Seriff
La musique est un langage qui se signifie soi-même.
- Jean-Jacques Nattiez
Daniel Seriff
(in message <gRJH8.6033$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> Coby Beck writes:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>> Lars Peder Kallar Devold wrote:
>
>>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>
>>>> Uhm...I think it means "classic expression of opinions in a dogmatic
>>>> way",
>>>> but I should not be too sure, as english is not my mother tongue.
>
>>> That's part of what it means in English, but it isn't what it means to
>>> th*l*n.
>
>> Judging from usage, I would translate it as: "I refuse to agree with your
>> point and will not tell you why"
>
> Must be Seriff's usage that you're judging, Beck.
Classic pontification.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <3CEF81...@worldnet.att.net>):
I love it. The irony is almost cosmic.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <oyLH8.6072$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> Peter T. Daniels writes:
>
>>> Sonarrat Citalis writes:
>
>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>
>>> It means that someone made a claim without offering any substantiation
>>> for it, and did so in a way that is all too common. Is it really that
>>> hard to figure out?
>
>> He finally gives a straight answer,
>
> Someone finally asked a straight question, Daniels.
People ask you straight questions all the time, but this is the first I've
ever seen you answer without being a ass about it.
> You should try that approach sometime rather than relying on antagonism.
It's never stopped *you* before.
>> finally revealing what we have always been sure of: he doesn't know
>> the meaning of "pontification."
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>> "Pontificate" does _not_ mean 'make a claim without offering any
>> substantiation for it'.
>
> Classic pontification.
pontification:
1 a : to officiate as a pontiff b : to celebrate pontifical mass
2 : to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
pompous:
1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>
2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT
dogmatic:
1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma
dogmatism:
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
Daniel Seriff
(in message <4_JH8.6038$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
The much-awaited Tholen digest, volume 1:
1> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
2> Note: no response.
2> If so, then you must recognize yourself as one, Porter.
2> If so, the you must recognize yourself as an antagonist, Porter.
2> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Porter.
3> Actually, the title of the thread stems from Porter's antagonism.
3> What do you expect from Porter?
4> Correct insofar as you went with it, but you also needed to explain
4> what "classic" means.
5> It means that someone made a claim without offering any substantiation
5> for it, and did so in a way that is all too common.
Classic pontification.
5> Is it really that hard to figure out?
6> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
7> How ironic.
8> Further evidence that you are also an antagonist, Beck.
9> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
10> Evidence that you are also an antagonist, Beck.
11> It means that Seriff is an antagonist.
12> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
13> You're presupposing that somebody wrote it for him.
14> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
15> Further evidence that you are also an antagonist, Daniels.
16> Who or what is "Tholemite", Kev, and don't you mean "sic"?
17> And evidence that you are also an antagonist, Sacque.
18> Illogical.
19> Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
20> Non sequitur.
21> Further evidence that you're an antagonist, Seriff.
22> Who allegedly supplied the substantiation?
23> Further evidence that you're an antagonist, Seriff.
24> Why?
Why not?
25> Why the vulgar language?
26> Classic antagonism on Porter's part.
27> Non sequitur.
28> I'm dealing with your antagonism right now, Porter.
28> Your posting was unnecessary, uncalled for, and off-topic for the
28> newsgroup. Further evidence that you're an antagonist.
I see that you still aren't interested in serious discussion, Tholen.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 5:51:29 -0500, tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote
> (in message <R0KH8.6040$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>
> >>> Standing up to intentional misspellings, Seriff?
> >
> >> Yes, Porter.
> >
> > Further evidence that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
>
> I'm just correcting intentional misspellings, Tholen.
Is that your clam?
D.G. Porter
Classic pontification in pompously assuming othrwise?
.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <3CF00C...@worldnet.att.net>):
No, that's my lobster. You'll recognize the clam when you see it. It has
rather obvious clam-like properties.
D.G. Porter
they say.
Hear me now, O Thou bleak and unbearable group!
Thou art base, and antagonistic!
And a loon, with his ISP bravely on-line
Now hurls back one-liners to thee!
I am I, David Tholen!
I post from Hawaii.
And boldy I stand up to you!
And the long lines of newsgroups
Shall carry my rantings!
And follow whatever you do!
Follow whatever you do.
Useful as dry kitty poo.
D.G. Porter
Erroneous assumption. [And here's the substantiation:] No dictionary
provides that definition.
Coby Beck
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
news:01HW.B915590F0...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 7:35:32 -0500, tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote
> (in message <oyLH8.6072$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>
> > Peter T. Daniels writes:
> >
> >>> Sonarrat Citalis writes:
> >
> >>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification"
mean?
> >
> >>> It means that someone made a claim without offering any substantiation
> >>> for it, and did so in a way that is all too common. Is it really that
> >>> hard to figure out?
> >
> >> He finally gives a straight answer,
> >
> > Someone finally asked a straight question, Daniels.
>
> People ask you straight questions all the time, but this is the first I've
> ever seen you answer without being a ass about it.
Incorrect. He was still "a ass" [sic] about it. Note the classic,
erroneous and unsubstantiated invectivity of the pontifical utterance above
(uttered in a metaphorical sense). Specifically: "Is it really that hard to
figure out?"
Wasn't he sure, Seriff?
> >> "Pontificate" does _not_ mean 'make a claim without offering any
> >> substantiation for it'.
> >
> > Classic pontification.
>
> pontification:
> 1 a : to officiate as a pontiff b : to celebrate pontifical mass
> 2 : to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
>
> pompous:
> 1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>
> 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
> 3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT
>
> dogmatic:
> 1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism <a dogmatic critic>
> 2 : of or relating to dogma
>
> dogmatism:
> 1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
> arrogant
> 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined
premises
Classic substantiation, typical of one who lacks a logical opponent.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:xOJH8.6030$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Coby Beck writes:
>
> > Daniel Seriff wrote:
>
> >> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>
> > Irrelevant, given that I had clam are not oysters.
>
> Further evidence that you are also an antagonist, Beck.
Incorrect. I love seafood.
D.G. Porter
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2002 19:55:40 -0500, D.G. Porter wrote
> (in message <3CEEE0...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>):
>
> > Daniel Seriff wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 23 May 2002 18:16:42 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
> >> (in message <XMeH8.24$mR1...@news.oracle.com>):
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> >>>> On Thu, 23 May 2002 2:39:02 -0500, Sonarrat Citalis wrote
> >>>> (in message <V11H8.1$mR1...@news.oracle.com>):
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that....oh, fuck it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been waiting to hear this line for months!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam (misspelling
> >>>>>>>>>>>> intentional).
> >>>>>>>>>>> False; I may not have substantiated it, but that does not make it
> >>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated or erroneous.
> >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant; it is still a clam.
> >>>>>>>>> Classic invective, to be expected from a clam with no liturgical
> >>>>>>>>> augment.
> >>>>>>>> Illogical, given that invective is on sale at Target for $1.99 a
> >>>>>>>> pound.
> >>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
> >>>>>> Classic pontification.
> >>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
> >>> Dodges the question.
> >>
> >> Classic pontoonification.
> >>
> >>> I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
> >>
> >> issue here, the issue is your intentional misspelling.
> >
> > Standing up to intentional misspellings, Seriff?
>
> Yes, Porter.
Bad boy.
Whatcha gonna do when Dave comes fo' you?
D.G. Porter
>
> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B915590F0...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > On Sat, 25 May 2002 7:35:32 -0500, tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote
> > (in message <oyLH8.6072$wj7.4...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> >
> > > Peter T. Daniels writes:
> > >
> > >>> Sonarrat Citalis writes:
> > >
> > >>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification"
> mean?
> > >
>
> > >> substantiation for it'.
> > >
> > > Classic pontification.
> >
> > pontification:
> > 1 a : to officiate as a pontiff b : to celebrate pontifical mass
> > 2 : to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
> >
> > pompous:
> > 1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>
> > 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
> > 3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT
> >
> > dogmatic:
> > 1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism <a dogmatic critic>
> > 2 : of or relating to dogma
> >
> > dogmatism:
> > 1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
> > arrogant
> > 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined
> premises
>
> Classic substantiation, typical of one who lacks a logical opponent.
ROTFL!!
Daniel Seriff
(in message <3CF021...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>):
> "I see that you still aren't interested in serious discussion, Tholen."
> Most people have had more intelligent conversations with a parrot, so
> they say.
>
> Hear me now, O Thou bleak and unbearable group!
> Thou art base, and antagonistic!
> And a loon, with his ISP bravely on-line
> Now hurls back one-liners to thee!
>
> I am I, David Tholen!
> I post from Hawaii.
> And boldy I stand up to you!
> And the long lines of newsgroups
> Shall carry my rantings!
> And follow whatever you do!
>
> Follow whatever you do.
> Useful as dry kitty poo.
Sweet. I like that song.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <tsVH8.140441$xS2.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>):
>>>>> It means that someone made a claim without offering any substantiation
>>>>> for it, and did so in a way that is all too common. Is it really that
>>>>> hard to figure out?
>>>
>>>> He finally gives a straight answer,
>>>
>>> Someone finally asked a straight question, Daniels.
>>
>> People ask you straight questions all the time, but this is the first I've
>> ever seen you answer without being a ass about it.
>
> Incorrect. He was still "a ass" [sic] about it.
Classic Italian food.
> Note the classic,
> erroneous and unsubstantiated invectivity of the pontifical utterance above
> (uttered in a metaphorical sense). Specifically: "Is it really that hard to
> figure out?"
Gadzooks (a.k.a. "God's hooks").
> Wasn't he sure, Seriff?
Irrelevant, given that I am having fishsticks and tater tots for dinner.
>>>> "Pontificate" does _not_ mean 'make a claim without offering any
>>>> substantiation for it'.
>>>
>>> Classic pontification.
>>
>> pontification:
>> 1 a : to officiate as a pontiff b : to celebrate pontifical mass
>> 2 : to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
>>
>> pompous:
>> 1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>
>> 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
>> 3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT
>>
>> dogmatic:
>> 1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism <a dogmatic critic>
>> 2 : of or relating to dogma
>>
>> dogmatism:
>> 1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
>> arrogant
>> 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined
> premises
>
> Classic substantiation, typical of one who lacks a logical opponent.
Sorry, this made me laugh too hard to come up with an in-character response.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <UtVH8.140442$xS2.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>):
>>>>>> Please, esplain to me what that means. (misspelling intentional)
>>
>>>>> Classic intentional misspelling
>>
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous clam.
>>
>>> Irrelevant, given that I had clam are not oysters.
>>
>> Further evidence that you are also an antagonist, Beck.
>
> Incorrect. I love seafood.
Hey! Me too! Yummy!
(classic "me too" post)
PS - If you're ever in the Jacksonville (FL) area, try to find Singleton's
Seafood Shack, just outside of town on the landward side of the Intercoastal
(it's right next to a ferry terminus across from Amelia Island). They've got
the best damn fried seafood you've ever had in your life.
Peter T. Daniels
> > People ask you straight questions all the time, but this is the first I've
> > ever seen you answer without being a ass about it.
>
> Incorrect. He was still "a ass" [sic] about it. Note the classic,
[It's Dickens]
Sonarrat Citalis
news:tsVH8.140441$xS2.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Classic substantiation, typical of one who lacks a logical opponent.
That line is the best thing to come out of this whole shebang. Bravo!
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Medtner, Mompou, and originals at http://www.mp3.com/Sonarrat/
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarratsig.html
tho...@antispam.ham
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> Classic substantiation, typical of one who lacks a logical opponent.
> That line is the best thing to come out of this whole shebang. Bravo!
On what basis do you make that claim?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels writes:
>>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis writes:
>>>>>>> Dodges the question. I repeat: What does "classic pontification" mean?
>>>>> "Pontificate" does _not_ mean 'make a claim without offering any
>>>>> substantiation for it'.
>>>> Classic pontification.
>>> pontification:
>>> 1 a : to officiate as a pontiff b : to celebrate pontifical mass
>>> 2 : to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
>>>
>>> pompous:
>>> 1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>
>>> 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
>>> 3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT
>>>
>>> dogmatic:
>>> 1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism <a dogmatic critic>
>>> 2 : of or relating to dogma
>>>
>>> dogmatism:
>>> 1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
>>> arrogant
>>> 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
>> Classic substantiation, typical of one who lacks a logical opponent.
> ROTFL!!
Ah, so you recognize Seriff as not being a logical opponent. Note how
he defeated his own purpoes by using the second definition above, the
one involving "pompous or dogmatic", and he's been spin doctoring it
ever since.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote:
>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>> Sonarrat Citalis wrote
>>>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deal with it, Davey.
>>>>>>>>> (Now this is funny.
>>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>> Classic intentional missplet.
>>>>> Dodges the question.
>>>> Classic pontoonification.
>> Yes, Porter.
Non sequitur.