OT ~ Is Obama The King Of Narcissist Egotisim?

[JanO...@aol.com]

Is Obama The King Of Narcissist Egotism? I think so. Many think so.

President Barack Obama used the first-person pronouns “I” and “me” a
combined 117 times in a speech that lasted about 25 minutes and 32
seconds
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/i-me-obama-uses-first-person-pronoun-117-times-1-speech

You be the judge. Many Politicians are like this. But 117 times in 25
minutes?

Perhaps he can get a shrink under the new Obama Care Health Law.

Jan Eric Orme

[JanO...@aol.com]

On Jul 9, 4:48 pm, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Is Obama The King Of Narcissist Egotism? I think so. Many think so.
>
> President Barack Obama used the first-person pronouns “I” and “me” a
> combined 117 times in a speech that lasted about 25 minutes and 32

> secondshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/i-me-obama-uses-first-person-pronoun-...

>
> You be the judge. Many Politicians are like this. But 117 times in 25
> minutes?
>
> Perhaps he can get a shrink under the new Obama Care Health Law.
>
> Jan Eric Orme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisdom from Samuel Langhorne Clemens:

http://www.thequotefactory.com/quote-by/mark-twain/politicians-are-like-diapers/69286

Jan

[RicodJour]

On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Is Obama The King Of Narcissist Egotism? I think so. Many think so.
>
> President Barack Obama used the first-person pronouns “I” and “me” a
> combined 117 times in a speech that lasted about 25 minutes and 32

> secondshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/i-me-obama-uses-first-person-pronoun-...

>
> You be the judge. Many Politicians are like this. But 117 times in 25
> minutes?
>
> Perhaps he can get a shrink under the new Obama Care Health Law.
>
> Jan Eric Orme

If you're so concerned about people's egos, why do you tell us what
you think? That's a blatant display of an overblown ego. The post's
subject line tells us what you think. What does your "I think so."
add? Right, nothing. I won't even go into the passive-aggressive
sheepherder appeal - "Many think so."

It would carry a lot more weight if you didn't use the word "I", and
even more if you abbreviated such posts to just your main concern.
Just put "I" in the subject line and we'll know it's from you. ;)

R

PS Please note there is not a single "I" in my post that refers to
anyone but you, just as you prefer, what with being the center of the
universe and all.

PPS My post - still avoiding your "I" - had nothing to do with
politics and all to do with critiquing a poorly constructed post. Do
try harder...or you'll get a poke in your "I". :)~

[Doug]

On 7/10/2012 10:53 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is Obama The King Of Narcissist Egotism? I think so. Many think so.
>>
>> President Barack Obama used the first-person pronouns “I” and “me” a
>> combined 117 times in a speech that lasted about 25 minutes and 32
>> secondshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/i-me-obama-uses-first-person-pronoun-...
>>
>> You be the judge. Many Politicians are like this. But 117 times in 25
>> minutes?
>>
>> Perhaps he can get a shrink under the new Obama Care Health Law.
>>
>> Jan Eric Orme
>
> If you're so concerned about people's egos, why do you tell us what
> you think? That's a blatant display of an overblown ego. The post's
> subject line tells us what you think. What does your "I think so."
> add? Right, nothing. I won't even go into the passive-aggressive

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>^

> sheepherder appeal - "Many think so."
>
> It would carry a lot more weight if you didn't use the word "I", and
> even more if you abbreviated such posts to just your main concern.
> Just put "I" in the subject line and we'll know it's from you. ;)
>
>

> PS Please note there is not a single "I" in my post that refers to
> anyone but you, just as you prefer, what with being the center of the
> universe and all.
>
> PPS My post - still avoiding your "I" - had nothing to do with
> politics and all to do with critiquing a poorly constructed post. Do
> try harder...or you'll get a poke in your "I". :)~
>

See your first paragraph as indicated above, mr I.

[RicodJour]

It's nice to see people reading my posts so carefully. Thanks! ;)

R

[JanO...@aol.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I find it interesting to me taken to task about ego 'today' by someone
using a handle such as Rico d'Jour. And also missing the obvious
whoosh over his head.
8^)

Jan

[Lone Haranguer]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Is Obama The King Of Narcissist Egotism? I think so. Many think so.
>>
>> President Barack Obama used the first-person pronouns “I” and “me” a
>> combined 117 times in a speech that lasted about 25 minutes and 32
>> secondshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/i-me-obama-uses-first-person-pronoun-...
>>
>> You be the judge. Many Politicians are like this. But 117 times in 25
>> minutes?
>>
>> Perhaps he can get a shrink under the new Obama Care Health Law.
>>
>> Jan Eric Orme

PPS My post - still avoiding your "I" - had nothing to do with
politics and all to do with critiquing a poorly constructed post. Do
try harder...or you'll get a poke in your "I". :)~

You avoided addressing the subject matter, that El Magnifico, Despot for life, takes credit for everything but his failures....which far outnumber his successes by a wide margin.
LZ

[RicodJour]

On Jul 10, 7:02 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You avoided addressing the subject matter, that El Magnifico, Despot for life, takes credit for everything but his failures....which far outnumber his successes by a wide margin.

Oh, wait, you mean he's the President...a politician! I'd almost
forgotten that part.

I would be very interested to learn of a career politician who's
platform was something along the lines of, "I'm batting .138 and damn
proud of it!" or "Yep, that fiasco was entirely my fault. Vote for
me!"

It's one thing to vilify the opposing sports team - that makes things
interesting, but it's stoopid and counterproductive to do that in
politics. Tides come in, and tides go out, but we're all in this
together, no?

R

[RicodJour]

On Jul 10, 6:03 pm, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I find it interesting to me taken to task about ego 'today' by someone
> using a handle such as Rico d'Jour. And also missing the obvious
> whoosh over his head.
> 8^)

I'm just busting on ya, nothing personal. It is curious how the world
revolves and we all end up revisiting our past opinions and beliefs -
least the more contemplative people do. Sometimes those opinions and
beliefs change, sometimes they don't.

What's your take on the following thread from seven years ago in light
of current events?

http://tinyurl.com/6umo7og

I'd seriously like to know.

R

[Lone Haranguer]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 10, 7:02 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You avoided addressing the subject matter, that El Magnifico, Despot for life, takes credit for everything but his failures....which far outnumber his successes by a wide margin.
> Oh, wait, you mean he's the President...a politician! I'd almost
> forgotten that part.

You must not have a TV set.

>
> I would be very interested to learn of a career politician who's
> platform was something along the lines of, "I'm batting .138 and damn
> proud of it!" or "Yep, that fiasco was entirely my fault. Vote for
> me!"

El Magnifico's failures are too numerous and too obvious to fool
even the dumbest Democrat yet he goes out to tell his list of
lies every day.

He's become another Baghdad Bob.

|
| It's one thing to vilify the opposing sports team - that makes
things interesting, but it's stoopid and counterproductive to do
that in politics.

But the Democrats have no positive accomplishments so all they
can do is pile dirt on their opponents.

| Tides come in, and tides | go out, but we're all in this
together, no?

There are freshwater tides and tides in the sewer ponds.
Democrats swim in the latter.
LZ

[RicodJour]

On Jul 10, 10:51 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 7:02 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You avoided addressing the subject matter, that El Magnifico, Despot for life, takes credit for everything but his failures....which far outnumber his successes by a wide margin.
> > Oh, wait, you mean he's the President...a politician!  I'd almost
> > forgotten that part.
>
> You must not have a TV set.

I own a pacifier. Don't have much need for it.

> > I would be very interested to learn of a career politician who's
> > platform was something along the lines of, "I'm batting .138 and damn
> > proud of it!" or "Yep, that fiasco was entirely my fault.  Vote for
> > me!"
>
> El Magnifico's failures are too numerous and too obvious to fool
> even the dumbest Democrat yet he goes out to tell his list of
> lies every day.
>
> He's become another Baghdad Bob.
>
> |
> | It's one thing to vilify the opposing sports team - that makes
> things interesting, but it's stoopid and counterproductive to do
> that in politics.
>
> But the Democrats have no positive accomplishments so all they
> can do is pile dirt on their opponents.

You do realize that the reason there is a two party system is because
anymore parties would require compromise and coalitions, right?
People are throwing chaff in the air to distract you, and you're
saying, "Look! Chaff!"

> | Tides come in, and tides | go out, but we're all in this
> together, no?
>
> There are freshwater tides and tides in the sewer ponds.
> Democrats swim in the latter.

Of course. It's always the other guy's fault. Got it.

I used to see things in black and white. I envy you that you can
simplify your worldview to make it more palatable. I'm not so lucky.

R

[Lone Haranguer]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 10, 10:51 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 7:02 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You avoided addressing the subject matter, that El Magnifico, Despot for life, takes credit for everything but his failures....which far outnumber his successes by a wide margin.
>>> Oh, wait, you mean he's the President...a politician! I'd almost
>>> forgotten that part.
>> You must not have a TV set.
> I own a pacifier. Don't have much need for it.

I guess they weren't invented when I was a child.

>
>>> I would be very interested to learn of a career politician who's
>>> platform was something along the lines of, "I'm batting .138 and damn
>>> proud of it!" or "Yep, that fiasco was entirely my fault. Vote for
>>> me!"
>> El Magnifico's failures are too numerous and too obvious to fool
>> even the dumbest Democrat yet he goes out to tell his list of
>> lies every day.
>>
>> He's become another Baghdad Bob.
>>
>> |
>> | It's one thing to vilify the opposing sports team - that makes
>> things interesting, but it's stoopid and counterproductive to do
>> that in politics.
>>
>> But the Democrats have no positive accomplishments so all they
>> can do is pile dirt on their opponents.
> You do realize that the reason there is a two party system is because
> anymore parties would require compromise and coalitions, right?
> People are throwing chaff in the air to distract you, and you're
> saying, "Look! Chaff!"

I use the term "bullshit".

>
>> | Tides come in, and tides | go out, but we're all in this
>> together, no?
>>
>> There are freshwater tides and tides in the sewer ponds.
>> Democrats swim in the latter.
> Of course. It's always the other guy's fault. Got it.

Obama got his Senate seat by digging out sleazy divorce files on
his opponent. What more need be said? He certainly didn't run
on legislative accomplishments.

>
> I used to see things in black and white. I envy you that you can
> simplify your worldview to make it more palatable. I'm not so lucky.

I was born in 1934, seen a lot of the world and have developed an
accurate grading system.
LZ
>
> R

[RicodJour]

On Jul 10, 11:34 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Obama got his Senate seat by digging out sleazy divorce files on
> his opponent.  What more need be said?  He certainly didn't run
> on legislative accomplishments.

So you're saying that politicians shouldn't get divorced?
Shouldn't leave damaging evidence behind?
Or that sleazy behavior should be hidden/rewarded/ignored?

I have a simpler way of looking at things:
If someone wants to be a politician or cop, don't let them.
I would be a dandy politician except for two things. I don't really
care too much about what polls say so I'd never get elected, and I
would never subject my family to the ordeal so I'd never run for
office.

Politicians get elected so the sheeple will have a punching bag and
someone to blame. When people start treating everyone with respect
and civility - even people they disagree with, then you'll find
conscientious people willing to run for office. Don't hold your
breath - it might be a while. Actually, in your case, maybe holding
your breath/tongue might shorten the time.

Go into a restaurant and say to your waiter, "Waiting on tables is
demeaning and for losers. I'd like a medium rare steak and a baked
potato." When the food arrives inspect it and see if you can find
what's in there besides cow and carbohydrates.

Playing the Red State/ Blue State, democrat/republican game is asking
for someone to spit in your food.

> I was born in 1934, seen a lot of the world and have developed an
> accurate grading system.

Here's a test of your grading system. Are you an above average
driver? Have you ever heard anyone say they weren't a good driver?
So on a self-graded scale everyone is a good driver.

Self-grading is a useless endeavour. It inevitably leads to
unaccountable and unsubstantiated spikes at the higher end of the bell
curve. Grading others is a useless endeavour. It inevitably leads to
unaccountable and unsubstantiated spikes at the lower end of the bell
curve.

In real life everything averages out in the end and grading is found
to be arbitrary and myopic.

R

[JanO...@aol.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the Lance Teams back then were amazing in their planning
regardless of if he was using
some sort of inhancement. I am not up to date on his current war with
those after him. I have not watched a Tour Race in some years now.

These days I am much more a Tennis Fan. To the point that we had
Courtside Box Seats last March for the Final Weekend at the Indian
Wells Tennis Garden. Viewed some magnificent Tennis there.

Jan

[JanO...@aol.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not so if the person is one who cares about those around them and has
good knowledge of safe and sane reponsibility on public roads. My
Father-In-Law "Pop" was one of those. Having good knowledge about
Safety he came to us in his late eighties and told us he wanted to
take himself off the highway. Not a surprise given his background in
automobiles and also him being unselfish. No doubt the honor in the
past of two Bronze Stars and the Croix de Guerre helped him to his
wisdom. He passed at 93 in 2007. I drove him to the bowling alley the
week he died and many weeks before. He left my home with a flag over
him.

We can certainly expect this kind of person in the Presidency. If we
get it or not we must sure as all hell want it for that position even
if we don't get it, as we did not in 2008 and don't have now. All too
far from it actually. Would this President do the honorable thing if
he was a bad driver? NOPE. His ego won't allow it. The only way to
combat STUPID is to vote it out of office. One small step for mankind.

Jan Eric Orme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[RicodJour]

On Jul 11, 3:38 am, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I think the Lance Teams back then were amazing in their planning
> regardless of if he was using
> some sort of inhancement. I am not up to date on his current war with
> those after him. I have not watched a Tour Race in some years now.

Lance was amazingly lucky in so many ways - escaping major crashes and
mechanical breakdowns, for example. He was an uber-control freak that
demanded and got things his way. Those were exciting years to watch
the Tour.

This year's is also shaping up to be something special, and if you
don't mind watching gorgeous European scenery in HD, you could do
worse than to tune in to a nice mountain stage or two. There's a new
crop of youngsters coming to the fore and it's exciting to watch.

R

[RicodJour]

On Jul 11, 4:19 am, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> Not so if the person is one who cares about those around them and has
> good knowledge of safe and sane reponsibility on public roads. My
> Father-In-Law "Pop" was one of those. Having good knowledge about
> Safety he came to us in his late eighties and told us he wanted to
> take himself off the highway. Not a surprise given his background in
> automobiles and also him being unselfish. No doubt the honor in the
> past of two Bronze Stars and the Croix de Guerre helped him to his
> wisdom. He passed at 93 in 2007. I drove him to the bowling alley the
> week he died and many weeks before. He left my home with a flag over
> him.
>
> We can certainly expect this kind of person in the Presidency. If we
> get it or not we must sure as all hell want it for that position even
> if we don't get it, as we did not in 2008 and don't have now. All too
> far from it actually. Would this President do the honorable thing if
> he was a bad driver? NOPE. His ego won't allow it. The only way to
> combat STUPID is to vote it out of office. One small step for mankind.

Your FIL must have been quite a guy, and it's obvious that you hold
him in the highest regard, as you rightfully should. How would you
have reacted if someone were disrespectful to him? I'm guessing that
you'd have been looking to take the person out back of the woodshed
and teach them a lesson in respect.

That's the funny thing. Respect. A teacher once said in a 9th grade
class, "Respect is simply giving someone the benefit of the doubt. It
is not something that has to be earned, it is something that you give
to other people. It says more about you than your disrespect will say
about them."

You weren't there when your FIL was awarded those medals, you weren't
there when he performed the deeds that won him those medals. There
was no videotape clearly indicating the heroic actions. All you've
heard are stories, and the firsthand stories at the time were what
brought him forward to win those medals. Yet I'm sure you, and the
people awarding those medals, have and had no doubts about him.
Right? I don't doubt _you_ for telling me about the grand old guy,
and you're obviously very close to the story and could not help but
have some bias.

There's the old saying about there being two sides to each story, and
I'd imagine that the people on the opposing side might not have agreed
with or appreciated what your FIL did. It was war. Did your FIL hold
the burning hatred for those he fought against until his dying
breath? Did he curse and swear about the Gerries and the Japs his
entire life? I have no doubt he did not, as people do not have such
admiration for bitter old men as you so clearly have for your FIL.
Tell me if I'm wrong.

If your FIL was able to move beyond the hate for people that were
trying to kill him and his buddies and end their way of life during
wartime, it is sad that some people are not able to move beyond hatred
that stems from petty politics, and feel the need to be bitter old men
cursing "them others."

I'd suggest that anytime someone feels that burning need to disparage
someone, they should think of people like your FIL and how they'd like
him to be treated, think of the other person's family, and their own,
and how they'd like them to be treated. Offering up any less is
diminishing themselves as much as it is harming them others, and
setting up arbitrary and capricious distinctions to simplify thinking
is a mental deceit. It also gives us the current media-fueled bitch-
slapping excuse for politics we have now, and that would keep
exemplary people like your FIL from running for office.

I wrote this quickly and the very last thing I am trying to do is
insult you or your FIL. If there's anything in here that hurts your
feelings, it was not intended. You are a lucky man to have had such a
grand old guy in your life, and he was a lucky guy to have you in his.

R

[nothermark]

At least half of Armstrong's problems are a group of folks similar to
Bruce who are focused on getting him at any cost. It is no secret
that some of the drugs he was on when fighting cancer are banned when
in competition. They are trying to use that, among other things, to
discredit him.

[JanO...@aol.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pop had no use or time to dwell on any hate or for that matter any
hero status. I like to say that he was 5'-6 and 10' Tall. His Army
carreer started before the war and ended after he continued to serve
in France after it was over. He never brought up anything about the
medals and when asked what he had done he always said something like,
"I don't really know why the chose me. I did nothing more than anybody
else."

He was like that. A "regular guy." But even in his 90's when it came
time for "sweepstakes" in his senior bowling league, aka bowling for
dollars...Pop
would always rise to the occasion and bowl WAY over his average!

We had a Family Birthday Party for him at the Bowling Alley when he
was 90. I took all of his young buck Great Grandchildren aside and
told them, "That little old short dude GGPa is going to Kick Your Ass
in Bowling today so you better Bring It! Because you are gonna get
whipped!!!" They all said. "NO WAY!" It wasn't even close. Pop indeed
"Kicked Ass!"

He gave real status to, "They don't make 'em like that anymore." He
was a Kansas Farm Boy and I am proud to say I was too. So many
stories. How
many Kansas Farm Boy's do you know that test fired a 16" Coastal Gun
as the "Gunny" then went on th become a NCO in Europe?
http://www.skylighters.org/camphero/index.html

Jan

[RicodJour]

On Jul 11, 3:07 pm, "JanOrm...@aol.com" <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Pop had no use or time to dwell on any hate or for that matter any
> hero status. I like to say that he was 5'-6 and 10' Tall. His Army

> career started before the war and ended after he continued to serve

> in France after it was over. He never brought up anything about the
> medals and when asked what he had done he always said something like,
> "I don't really know why the chose me. I did nothing more than anybody
> else."

Great people don't need to tear people down to make themselves feel
big.

> He was like that. A "regular guy." But even in his 90's when it came
> time for "sweepstakes" in his senior bowling league, aka bowling for
> dollars...Pop
> would always rise to the occasion and bowl WAY over his average!
>
> We had a Family Birthday Party for him at the Bowling Alley when he
> was 90. I took all of his young buck Great Grandchildren aside and
> told them,  "That little old short dude GGPa is going to Kick Your Ass
> in Bowling today so you better Bring It! Because you are gonna get
> whipped!!!" They all said. "NO WAY!" It wasn't even close. Pop indeed
> "Kicked Ass!"

:) I love stories like that.

> He gave real status to, "They don't make 'em like that anymore." He
> was a Kansas Farm Boy and I am proud to say I was too. So many
> stories. How
> many Kansas Farm Boy's do you know that test fired a 16" Coastal Gun
> as the "Gunny" then went on th become a NCO in Europe?
> http://www.skylighters.org/camphero/index.html

Interesting link. Right now I'm in the Hamptons about 30 miles west
of Montauk. Thanks for posting it.

R

[Lone Haranguer]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 10, 11:34 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Obama got his Senate seat by digging out sleazy divorce files on
>> his opponent. What more need be said? He certainly didn't run
>> on legislative accomplishments.
> So you're saying that politicians shouldn't get divorced?

Nope.

> Shouldn't leave damaging evidence behind?

Files were sealed bUt Obama's lickspittles managed to get their
hands on them.
It was personal stuff that didn't need airing

Or that sleazy behavior should be hidden/rewarded/ignored?

Personal behavior betweeb spouses in a marriage that are not
illegal are not the same as the sleazy behavior of Obama's life.
Why do you think he keeps his entire personal history under guard
by squadrons of lawyers?

Have you checked how both Obama and his wife lost their licenses
to practice law?

I have a simpler way of looking at things: If someone wants to
be a politician or cop, don't let them. I would be a dandy
politician except for two things. I don't really care too much
about what polls say so I'd never get elected, and I would never
subject my family to the ordeal so I'd never run for office.
Politicians get elected so the sheeple will have a punching bag
and someone to blame. When people start treating everyone with
respect and civility - even people they disagree with, then
you'll find conscientious people willing to run for office. Don't
hold your breath - it might be a while.

Actually, in your case, maybe holding your breath/tongue might
shorten the time. Go into a restaurant and say to your waiter,
"Waiting on tables is demeaning and for losers. I'd like a medium
rare steak and a baked potato." When the food arrives inspect it
and see if you can find what's in there besides cow and
carbohydrates. Playing the Red State/ Blue State,
democrat/republican game is asking for someone to spit in your food.

I don't eat out that often.

>> I was born in 1934, seen a lot of the world and have developed an
>> accurate grading system.
> Here's a test of your grading system. Are you an above average
> driver? Have you ever heard anyone say they weren't a good driver?
> So on a self-graded scale everyone is a good driver.

Ask my insurance company, I have a motorhome, a pickup and 2 cars
insured with them and have been with the same company since I
returned from my last overseas tour in 1967.

>
> Self-grading is a useless endeavour. It inevitably leads to
> unaccountable and unsubstantiated spikes at the higher end of the bell
> curve.

I took weather observations for over a dozen years; they're all
on microfilm at Asheville NC Weather Records Center where they
are all checked for accuracy before being recorded in official
records. You can check my accuracy rate there.

> Grading others is a useless endeavour. It inevitably leads to
> unaccountable and unsubstantiated spikes at the lower end of the bell
> curve.

An important part of my job in the military was grading others.

| In real life everything averages out in the end and grading is
found to be arbitrary and myopic.

In the Air Force everyone was given tests and the higher you
scored in each area the better your chances of getting a field
of your choice.
If you ever served, I'd be interested in what your AQE scores were.

Those not interested in being graded or compared to others are
usually losers that can't stand the comparisons.
LZ

[RicodJour]

On Jul 11, 6:47 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Those not interested in being graded or compared to others are
> usually losers that can't stand the comparisons.

When they come up with a test that encompasses all of the myriad
facets of what makes up a person, has no built in bias whether
cultural, political, religious, gender or whatever, and accurately
tests for all the various forms of 'intelligence', including
langauges, compassion, emotional awareness, physical strength,
reaction time, coordination, spatial awareness, intuitive, analytic,
creative and all the rest, I'd be very interested to see the test.

If you had your choice of which three categories, and I went up
against you, you'd have to be pretty lame not to beat me. And the
converse holds true - my categories, my win. How convenient. It
surprises me that this is not obvious to you.

Judging from your post you're a good fifteen or twenty years older
than I am. So if I actually placed any credence in your losers-can't-
stand-comparisons bullshit, I'd just pick three physical categories
and spank you. Would that mean I'm 'better' than you? For the
Seinfeld afficionados out there I'm sure this is bringing up images of
"Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum! Mandlebaum!" Or would you proceed to tell
me what a stud you were back in the day - as if that balanced out the
here and now?

Currently I am taking a rather involved and lengthy test - it's called
life. You won't be the one grading me when I finish it, and I won't
be the one grading your test when your finish yours, but I wish you
luck none-the-less.

BTW, what sort of motorhome do you have?

R

[Lone Haranguer]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 11, 6:47 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Those not interested in being graded or compared to others are
>> usually losers that can't stand the comparisons.
> When they come up with a test that encompasses all of the myriad
> facets of what makes up a person, has no built in bias whether
> cultural, political, religious, gender or whatever, and accurately
> tests for all the various forms of 'intelligence', including
> langauges, compassion, emotional awareness, physical strength,
> reaction time, coordination, spatial awareness, intuitive, analytic,

> creative and all the rest, I'd be very interested to see the test.LLLL
Life is the test.

If you had your choice of which three categories, and I went up
against you, you'd have to be pretty lame not to beat me. And the
converse holds true - my categories, my win. How convenient. It
surprises me that this is not obvious to you. Judging from your

post you're a good fifteen or twenty years older than II am.

I said I was born in 1934 so it should be easy to compute.

So if I actually placed any credence in your losers-can't-
stand-comparisons bullshit, I'd just pick three physical
categories and spank you.

And I would prove that I can still pull a trigger and shoot straight.

BTW, what sort of motorhome do you have? R

Migrating right now in my old '99 Itasca 37G.
LZ

[RicodJour]

On Jul 11, 11:53 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 6:47 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Those not interested in being graded or compared to others are
> >> usually losers that can't stand the comparisons.
> > When they come up with a test that encompasses all of the myriad
> > facets of what makes up a person, has no built in bias whether
> > cultural, political, religious, gender or whatever, and accurately
> > tests for all the various forms of 'intelligence', including
> > langauges, compassion, emotional awareness, physical strength,
> > reaction time, coordination, spatial awareness, intuitive, analytic,
> > creative and all the rest, I'd be very interested to see the test.LLLL
>
> Life is the test.

Ummm, yes, I realize that. That's why I wrote, "Currently I am taking

a rather involved and lengthy test - it's called life. You won't be
the one grading me when I finish it, and I won't be the one grading
your test when your finish yours, but I wish you luck none-the-less."

You cut that part out, but at least we're agreeing on something.

>   If you had your choice of which three categories, and I went up
> against you, you'd have to be pretty lame not to beat me. And the
> converse holds true - my categories, my win. How convenient. It
> surprises me that this is not obvious to you. Judging from your
> post you're a good fifteen or twenty years older than II am.
>
> I said I was born in 1934 so it should be easy to compute.
>
>   So if I actually placed any credence in your losers-can't-
> stand-comparisons bullshit, I'd just pick three physical
> categories and spank you.
>
> And I would prove that I can still pull a trigger and shoot straight.

Wait - that's how you passed your tests? By cheating? James Tiberius
did that with the Kobayashi Maru scenario, but it was still cheating.

I probably should find it odd that I'm talking about taking individual
tests in a few categories and comparing the results, and you're
talking about shooting someone, but I think I have the picture now so
I'm not really surprised.

R

[Lone Haranguer]

Pulling a trigger is a physical category. So is using my
eyesight to aim with. Where is cheating involved?

>
> I probably should find it odd that I'm talking about taking individual
> tests in a few categories and comparing the results, and you're
> talking about shooting someone, but I think I have the picture now so
> I'm not really surprised.
>
> R

Too late. I've already given you low marks in the mental department.
LZ

[RicodJour]

On Jul 12, 6:30 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Wait - that's how you passed your tests?  By cheating?  James Tiberius
> > did that with the Kobayashi Maru scenario, but it was still cheating.
>
> Pulling  a trigger is a physical category.  So is using my
> eyesight to aim with.  Where is cheating involved?

Cheaters never think cheating is wrong. They always rationalize it -
you're just not very good at it.

BTW, look in the mirror, stud muffin. You're almost 80 and you're
talking like your eyesight, reflexes and reaction time are still the
same as when you were 30. Clue - they're not. You're the guy people
have to worry about all right, but not for the reasons you think.
You're the guy that trick-or-treaters and kids fetching errant balls
from your yard should worry about.

> > I probably should find it odd that I'm talking about taking individual
> > tests in a few categories and comparing the results, and you're
> > talking about shooting someone, but I think I have the picture now so
> > I'm not really surprised.
>

> Too late. I've already given you low marks in the mental department.

Please don't dissemble. It's unseemly.
You use your magic-grading techniques to award low marks as soon as
someone disagrees with you.

R

[Lone Haranguer]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 12, 6:30 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>
>>> Wait - that's how you passed your tests? By cheating? James Tiberius
>>> did that with the Kobayashi Maru scenario, but it was still cheating.
>> Pulling a trigger is a physical category. So is using my
>> eyesight to aim with. Where is cheating involved?
> Cheaters never think cheating is wrong.

So you have considerable expertise in this area?

> They always rationalize it -
> you're just not very good at it.

Who is rationalizing anything? I just mentioned that I had a
physical counter to your physical attack.

>
> BTW, look in the mirror, stud muffin. You're almost 80 and you're
> talking like your eyesight, reflexes and reaction time are still the
> same as when you were 30. Clue - they're not.

Actually my distant eyesight is still 20-20.

> You're the guy people
> have to worry about all right, but not for the reasons you think.
> You're the guy that trick-or-treaters and kids fetching errant balls
> from your yard should worry about.

Neither is allowed in my gated community.

>
>>> I probably should find it odd that I'm talking about taking individual
>>> tests in a few categories and comparing the results, and you're
>>> talking about shooting someone, but I think I have the picture now so
>>> I'm not really surprised.
>> Too late. I've already given you low marks in the mental department.
> Please don't dissemble. It's unseemly.
> You use your magic-grading techniques to award low marks as soon as
> someone disagrees with you.

I hope you disagree with me; it's embarrassing to agree with morons.
LZ
>
> R

[RicodJour]

On Jul 13, 3:31 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > They always rationalize it - you're just not very good at it.
>
> Who is rationalizing anything?  I just mentioned that I had a
> physical counter to your physical attack.

Sigh. We were talking about grading _tests_, some categories were
physical and some mental. With me so far? I said that due to your
advanced age you probably wouldn't fair quite so well in the physical
categories. How is that a physical attack? And it isn't even a
slight against you - how would you-now fare against you-30-years-ago?

That's what I mean about you being more of a danger to trick-or-
treaters than to some hypothetical attacker. You're spooked by
shadows.

> > BTW, look in the mirror, stud muffin.  You're almost 80 and you're
> > talking like your eyesight, reflexes and reaction time are still the
> > same as when you were 30.  Clue - they're not.
>
> Actually my distant eyesight is still 20-20.

That's very nice. I need reading glasses. I'm okay with that.

> >   You're the guy people
> > have to worry about all right, but not for the reasons you think.
> > You're the guy that trick-or-treaters and kids fetching errant balls
> > from your yard should worry about.
>
> Neither is allowed in my gated community.

Hiding and still scared? Let it go, man. No one is out to get you.
Really.

R

[Lone Haranguer]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 13, 3:31 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>
>>> They always rationalize it - you're just not very good at it.
>> Who is rationalizing anything? I just mentioned that I had a
>> physical counter to your physical attack.
> Sigh. We were talking about grading _tests_, some categories were

> physical and some mental. With me so far? I said that due to your advanced age you probably wouldn't fair (fare) so well in the physical categories.
And that left wide open the physical category of shooting a rifle.

> How is that a physical attack?

You said because of my advanced age you'd be able to spank me.
So I'm using an equalizer.

> And it isn't even a
> slight against you - how would you-now fare against you-30-years-ago?

I've been a good shot most of my life.

| That's what I mean about you being more of a danger to
trick-or- treaters than to some hypothetical attacker. You're
spooked by shadows.

Which ones? I flew 48 low-level night missions in North Korea.

>>> BTW, look in the mirror, stud muffin. You're almost 80 and you're
>>> talking like your eyesight, reflexes and reaction time are still the
>>> same as when you were 30. Clue - they're not.
>> Actually my distant eyesight is still 20-20.
> That's very nice. I need reading glasses. I'm okay with that

So your eyesight has deteriorated? Too bad.

>
>>> You're the guy people
>>> have to worry about all right, but not for the reasons you think.
>>> You're the guy that trick-or-treaters and kids fetching errant balls
>>> from your yard should worry about.
>> Neither is allowed in my gated community.
> Hiding and still scared?

Who is hiding? People from this group have been at my home in AZ
and my former home in MN. Can you say the same?

> Let it go, man. No one is out to get you.
> Really.

Not even the IRS?
LZ
>
> R

[RicodJour]

On Jul 13, 9:55 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 3:31 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> RicodJour wrote:
>
> >>> They always rationalize it - you're just not very good at it.
> >> Who is rationalizing anything?  I just mentioned that I had a
> >> physical counter to your physical attack.
> > Sigh.  We were talking about grading _tests_, some categories were
> > physical and some mental.  With me so far?  I said that due to your advanced age you probably wouldn't fair (fare) so well in the physical categories.

Thanks for the correction. That was very fair of you. +1 for you.

> And that left wide open the physical category of shooting a rifle.

And in your little jump at shadows world a shooting competition
becomes a shooting _at_ people competition? How do they feel about
that at the skeet range?

> >   How is that a physical attack?
>
> You said because of my advanced age you'd be able to spank me.
> So I'm using an equalizer.

Spank = beating you in a physical test. I wouldn't poke you with a
stick, much less want to touch you.

> >   And it isn't even a
> > slight against you - how would you-now fare against you-30-years-ago?

Maybe you missed the question - how do you measure up compared to
yourself from 30 years ago? Could you beat up the Lone Hanger from 30
years ago? Shoot straighter? Run faster? Score better on a mental
or physical agility test? No, huh? Does that mean the old you was
better or are you better now?

The correct answer is that there are trade-offs in everything and
stupid standardized tests can't compare the subtleties and nuances
that make up a human life. Otherwise those "smartest guys in the
room" wouldn't have driven the economy into the ground.

> I've been a good shot most of my life.

I can kick a ball really far.

> That's what I mean about you being more of a danger to
> trick-or- treaters than to some hypothetical attacker. You're
> spooked by shadows.
>
> Which ones?  I flew 48 low-level night missions in North Korea.

Oh, okay. And what have you done more recently than 60 years ago?
Beside becoming bitter, I mean.

>>> BTW, look in the mirror, stud muffin.  You're almost 80 and you're
> >>> talking like your eyesight, reflexes and reaction time are still the
> >>> same as when you were 30.  Clue - they're not.
>
> >> Actually my distant eyesight is still 20-20.
>
> > That's very nice.  I need reading glasses.  I'm okay with that
>
> So your eyesight has deteriorated?  Too bad.

It's part of getting old and I'm okay with that. I don't pretend to
have the reflexes, hearing or vision of someone half my age, just to
bolster up my sense of self-worth.

> Who is hiding?  People from this group have been at my home in AZ
> and my former home in MN.  Can you say the same?

Are you inviting me? Fine. My brother lives in Phoenix. I'll come
visit this winter. I'm looking to paint the motorhome. Can I do it
on your driveway? It might take me the whole winter - I hope you
don't mind me using your tools. ;)

R