Explaining the Blair's of the world...
Stan de SD
"Erskine" <me...@noneofyourbeeswax.org> wrote in message
news:lAQva.80548$cO3.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
> news:C%Gva.524323$up3....@post-02.news.easynews.com...
> > Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
> > >> If you had any money, or credit, you'd understand.
> > >> It doesn't work if you don't have the option.
> > >
> > >I have money and credit, and don't buy much in the way of consumer
items.
> I
> > >drive an 8-year old vehicle with 220,000 miles (still runs fine), I
don't
> > >own a TV or VCR, and my consumer electronics (other than my computer
> stuff)
> > >consist of a $150 CD/stereo system from Fry's. Nobody's forced to buy
> > >consumer items - it's your choice.
> >
> > Nobody's holding a gun to your head. But tell that
> > to the liquor store owner who's being robbed for the
> > eighth time this fiscal year. His insurance premiums
> > are now 68% of his revenue.
>
> Just which group, may I ask, is committing these
> robberies?
I don't think Blair has an answer, given that this was merely a non-sequitur
thrown in an attempt to make the less observant think he actually had a
point to make.
> > >While some of the items aren't quite my taste, I don't consider them
> "junk".
> > >I get great slacks and shirts from the Eddie Bauer outlet store in
> Milpitas
> > >for about $25.
> >
> > And I bet the chicks just cream their Jordache jeans for you.
>
> Well, I don't know what Stan thinks he's doing when he
> buys from Eddie Bauer. Personally, I get my stuff a
> whole lot more cheaply than even that.
Given that I have to take a couple of hours out of my time to shop around,
when it comes time to replace travel clothes, it's worth the time and gas
money to know there is one place with reasonable prices that will have about
90% of my needs.
> As far as
> swooning the chicks goes, any chick who digs me
> more for the brands I choose than for my character
> is probably not worth knowing.
Same here.
> > >> I priced Benzes last year, and determined that they start
> > >> out priced $10K over the price of the equivelent Lexus,
> > >> and run up $1-2k per option no matter how cheesy the
> > >> upgrade is.
> > >
> > >And you're bitching about "programming by marketing"? I drive a Ford.
LOL
> >
> > Ever driven a Lexus? Mine will last another 20 years.
> > A clearly wealthy man complimented it in clearly gushing
> > terms just a week or so ago. I'm sure I convinced him to
> > buy one just by saying it's 5 years old. Your Ford will
> > be lucky to outlive your payments.
>
> I've got no car at all. In this state, nobody actually owns
> a car. Cars are practically rented from the insurance
> companies at the tune of about $1,500 a year or
> ten times as much as I spend on the bus. Besides that,
> If I absolutely cannot get to a place by bus, bicycle or
> foot, it is clearly not worth my effort to be there at all.
> > >> >Only if you have no values to begin with. Try reading "The
Millionaire
> > >Next
> > >> >Door" and you will find that a lot of people who are well-off
> financially
> > >> >aren't that obsessed with mere acquisition of consumer goods.
> > >>
> > >> How many people are trailer-park millionaires, and why do
> > >> the rest of the planet respond to marketing?
> > >
> > >I'm not referring to "trailer park" millionaires. I'm referring to
people
> > >like my aunt and uncle who are worth several million, but live in a
> modest
> > >2BR house (albeit in a nice neighborhood), aren't ostentatious, and
> prefer
> > >to invest their money as opposed to blowing in on toys and trinkets.
> >
> > And when they die, they'll leave it to charity. So turn
> > off your computer and learn something about managing a
> > burger joint.
>
> And so what if they do? Dead folks need no money.
> Money that is inherited often gets wasted.
FYI, I have no plans to inherit anyone's money, and if somebody told me I
was inheriting it, I would suggest that they will it to the charity of their
choice. Happiness is not coveting other people's money - I can earn my own.
> Stan will
> earn his money just as his wealthy aunt and uncle
> did. It's better than if he mooched it or picked at it
> like a vulture.
Blair is a prime example of what I term the "sanctimonious liberal asshole".
He obviously feels that he has some special vision, and uses it to
rationalize restricting the choices of us less-enlightened types who
obviously don't know better. So, when one of his assumed moral and
intellectual inferiors informs him in no uncertain terms that he is
perfectly capable of making his own choices and accepting the consequences
WITHOUT his divine guidance, he gets pissy about it, as can be witnessed by
his snide comments above.
I learned a long time ago that liberals justify their existence by
attempting to run other people's lives for them - I gather it's some form of
personal compensation for screwing up their own.
Kent Paul Dolan
> intellectual inferiors
Stan Rothwell, there is no "assumed" in whether you are Blear's moral
and intellectual inferior: you consistently play "cockroach" to his
"bootheel", and the boy's in a stomping mood just at the smell of you.
> I learned a long time ago that liberals justify their existence by
> attempting to run other people's lives for them - I gather it's some form of
> personal compensation for screwing up their own.
This from the long term loser who has no identifiable life whatever,
much less something as good as "a screwed up one", but trying to tell
society's unfortunates how to live _their_ lives, and doing a horrible
job of it, probably at least as bad as your miserable,
bankruptcy-inducing "research consulting" work? I don't suppose you
can even _spell_ irony, much less recognize it in what you just wrote.
That person you are trying so hard to insult is your _mirror_ Stan
Rothwell, turn around and check out the real world, where you share
the pointless existence and low rent lifestyle of the usual skinhead
loser. Blear is able to spend money like a sailor mostly because he
produces something useful, is very good at his work, and is well
rewarded for his efforts. You? Greasy spoon celebrations over
earning less than five hundred bucks in more than a week. Of _course_
you're jealous of him and full of pointless insults to hide your
humiliation by having tried to deal with someone of normal
intelligence, far beyond your portion in life, and failed so miserably
again. Best you put him in your killfile next to Keegan, another
whose easy humiliation of you grinds your gears so badly you ran and
hid rather than learn to deal with it.
xanthian.
hc23hc
>
> there is one place with reasonable prices that will have about
> 90% of my needs.
Indeed, Stain, there is :
http://realhamster.com/intro.html
.
.
.
Blair P. Houghton
>I don't think Blair has an answer, given that this was merely a non-sequitur
>thrown in an attempt to make the less observant think he actually had a
>point to make.
The less observant don't see talk.bizarre in the Newsgroups line.
<*plonk*>
--Blair
"You'll go well with new potatoes."
Stan de SD
"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
> Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >I don't think Blair has an answer, given that this was merely a
non-sequitur
> >thrown in an attempt to make the less observant think he actually had a
> >point to make.
>
> The less observant don't see talk.bizarre in the Newsgroups line.
So that's you excuse, wacknut?
Stan de SD
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:a3eaa964.03051...@posting.google.com...
Blair P. Houghton
>All this from a guy who's homeless because he can't keep a job.
He's homeless because he can't find a job.
--Blair
"Big difference."
Blair P. Houghton
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
>news:AXjwa.657991$wa2....@news.easynews.com...
>> Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >I don't think Blair has an answer, given that this was merely a
>non-sequitur
>> >thrown in an attempt to make the less observant think he actually had a
>> >point to make.
>>
>> The less observant don't see talk.bizarre in the Newsgroups line.
>
>So that's you excuse, wacknut?
No, it's clear it's the truth. What's your excuse for missing it, fuckbag?
--Blair
"What're you gonna do, flame me?"
Stan de SD
"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
Thanks for reminding us that you didn't have anything to contribute to the
conversation. As I correctly observed at the top of this thread, you are a
frustrated little auotcrat who thinks your (mistakenly) assumed superiority
entitles him to impose your preferences on others. The fact that others have
rejected your guidance has set you off on a little tantrum, since the last
thing a self-proclaimed go-gooder wants is to be told he is not needed.
Blair P. Houghton
>
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
>news:aRzwa.403970$VV1.6...@news.easynews.com...
>> Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
>> >news:AXjwa.657991$wa2....@news.easynews.com...
>> >> Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >I don't think Blair has an answer, given that this was merely a
>> >non-sequitur
>> >> >thrown in an attempt to make the less observant think he actually had
>a
>> >> >point to make.
>> >>
>> >> The less observant don't see talk.bizarre in the Newsgroups line.
>> >
>> >So that's you excuse, wacknut?
>>
>> No, it's clear it's the truth. What's your excuse for missing it,
>fuckbag?
>
>Thanks for reminding us that you didn't have anything to contribute to the
>conversation.
I was contributing. You rolled in and vomited ad hominem all
over me. I'm wiping my dickie on your head.
>As I correctly observed at the top of this thread, you are a
>frustrated little auotcrat who thinks your (mistakenly) assumed superiority
>entitles him to impose your preferences on others. The fact that others have
>rejected your guidance has set you off on a little tantrum, since the last
>thing a self-proclaimed go-gooder wants is to be told he is not needed.
You're projecting, Hitlerrhoid.
--Blair
"Tell Godwin hi for me."
Stan de SD
"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
> Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
> >news:aRzwa.403970$VV1.6...@news.easynews.com...
> >> Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
> >> >news:AXjwa.657991$wa2....@news.easynews.com...
> >> >> Stan de SD <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> >I don't think Blair has an answer, given that this was merely a
> >> >non-sequitur
> >> >> >thrown in an attempt to make the less observant think he actually
had
> >a
> >> >> >point to make.
> >> >>
> >> >> The less observant don't see talk.bizarre in the Newsgroups line.
> >> >
> >> >So that's you excuse, wacknut?
> >>
> >> No, it's clear it's the truth. What's your excuse for missing it,
> >fuckbag?
> >
> >Thanks for reminding us that you didn't have anything to contribute to
the
> >conversation.
>
> I was contributing.
You were making an ass of yourself.
You rolled in and vomited ad hominem all
> over me. I'm wiping my dickie on your head.
Those are my toes, shorty.
> >As I correctly observed at the top of this thread, you are a
> >frustrated little auotcrat who thinks your (mistakenly) assumed
superiority
> >entitles him to impose your preferences on others. The fact that others
have
> >rejected your guidance has set you off on a little tantrum, since the
last
> >thing a self-proclaimed go-gooder wants is to be told he is not needed.
>
> You're projecting, Hitlerrhoid.
Usenet Rule #237 - associate others with Hitler when you are going to lose
the argument.
Wacknut.
Nikolaus Maack
> Usenet Rule #237 - associate others with Hitler when you are going to lose
> the argument.
Usenet Rule #238 - when you're losing an argument, make up rules to
defend your position.
Usenet Rule #239 - an assortment of crack whore porn stars died for your
bandwidth.
Usenet Rule #240 - if you can't debate, then berate!
Usenet Rule #241 - the person who can't shut up, wins.
Sorry -- #239 isn't so much a rule as an observation.
james g. keegan jr.
news:hoBwa.72302$4P1.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> "Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
> news:aRzwa.403970$VV1.6...@news.easynews.com...
>> No, it's clear it's the truth. What's your excuse for
>> missing it, fuckbag?
>
> Thanks for reminding us that you didn't have anything to
> contribute to the conversation.
stop projecting, please.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Thanks for reminding us that you didn't
> have anything to contribute to the
> conversation.
This from the loser whose contribution to
solving the problems of homelessness is to
rag on the homeless for being homeless?
Giggle.
xanthian.
james g. keegan jr.
news:a3eaa964.03051...@posting.google.com:
stan has to do that because he is afraid. he seems to beleive that
the homeless are in some way less than he is, and he knows he is
not much.
Stan de SD
Hey, the best thing people can do to fight homelessness is not become
homeless themselves. Given your current situation, it's apparent that I have
done more to fight homelessness than you have.
james g. keegan jr.
news:PKaxa.548$rO.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> Hey, the best thing people can do to fight homelessness is not
> become homeless themselves. Given your current situation, it's
> apparent that I have done more to fight homelessness than you
> have.
you must think that fighting homelessness is mocking the homeless.
Blair P. Houghton
"think"?
Odd word to use in that direction.
--Blair
"Unless 'mocking' is immanent."
james g. keegan jr.
you're right. please allow me to deltete the word "think" and
replace it with the word "feel."
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>> "Stan Rothwell, perpetual loser" <stan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Thanks for reminding us that you didn't
>>> have anything to contribute to the
>>> conversation.
>> This from the loser whose contribution to
>> solving the problems of homelessness is to
>> rag on the homeless for being homeless?
> Hey, the best thing people can do to fight homelessness is
> not become homeless themselves. Given your current
> situation, it's apparent that I have done more to fight
> homelessness than you have.
That must be the kind of reasoning you use in that
"research" you do that leads your clients to bankruptcy.
Has the term "logic" ever brushed by your location in the
memeverse? If so, next time grab yourself a big double
cluefull.
xanthian.
But more likely, not; logic and homeless bashing aren't a
wonderful fit, and never make it to the altar together.
Jafo
Kent Paul Dolan wrote in reply to Stan Rothwell:
>That must be the kind of reasoning you use in that
>"research" you do that leads your clients to bankruptcy.
>
>Has the term "logic" ever brushed by your location in the
>memeverse? If so, next time grab yourself a big double
>cluefull [sic].
And by what "logic" have you determined that his clients are in
bankruptcy, or have arrived at that sad point by following his
reasoning?
Your post would appear to be more a tearful and frustrated cry
in the dark than an example of any sort of reasoned logic.
--
Jafo