U.S. Forces in Iraq Shoot Civilians, Ignore Geneva Convention
Bo Raxo
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13087653_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US%2DTROOPS%2DADMIT%2DSHOOTING%2DIRAQI%2DCIVILIANS-name_page.html
So much for those stories of Iraqis greeting their American "liberators"
with joy. The quagmire continues to deepen.
Shooting civilians, executing the wounded, leaving the injured to die in
agony. What a shameful episode in my nation's history this is turning out
to be. When I post these stories of atrocities, many people accuse me of
hating my country.
Quite the opposite: heinous actions by something you hate hardly gets you
upset, you expect it. I love this country, and that's why these barbarous
actions make me so angry. It's a huge stain on this nation's honor, one
that will take decades to overcome (if ever).
Bo Raxo
US TROOPS ADMIT SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS
Jun 19 2003
By Naveed Raja
American troops today admitted they routinely gun down Iraqi
civilians - some of whom are entirely innocent.
As distrust of the invading forces increases amongst the local
population US soldiers said they have killed civilians without hesitation,
shot injured opponents and abandoned them to die in agony.
The testimonies of the troops on the ground further expose George
Bush's claims about the role his forces are playing in the failing
reconstruction of Iraq.
Sergeant First Class John Meadows summed up the prevailing attitude
amongst his colleagues telling the Evening Standard that Iraqi fighters were
dressed in civilian clothes.
"You can't distinguish between who's trying to kill you and who's
not," he said.
"Like, the only way to get through s*** like that was to concentrate
on getting through it by killing as many people as you can, people you know
are trying to kill you. Killing them first and getting home."
And in an admission that directly contrasts with the line coming out
from the Pentagon's spin doctors Specialist Corporal Michael Richardson
added: "There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in
uniform, I just pulled the trigger.
"It was up close and personal the whole time, there wasn't a big
distance. If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not.
Some were, some weren't."
Describing the scene during combat Richardson admitted shooting
injured soldiers and leaving them to die.
He said: "S***, I didn't help any of them. I wouldn't help the
f******. There were some you let die. And there were some you
double-tapped."
Making a shooting sign with his hand he went on: "Once you'd reached
the objective, and once you'd shot them and you're moving through, anything
there, you shoot again. You didn't want any prisoners of war. You hate them
so bad while you're fighting, and you're so terrified, you can't really
convey the feeling, but you don't want them to live."
And despite there being no link between Iraq and the September 11
attacks Richardson admitted that it gave him his motivation to fight Iraqis.
"There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and
I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I
look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I
don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."
Ranger00089
>Shooting civilians, executing the wounded, leaving the injured to die in
>agony. What a shameful episode in my nation's history this is turning out
>to be. When I post these stories of atrocities, many people accuse me of
>hating my country.
If this is tru, why not post the whole story Boraqi? The part about leaflets
being distributed for several days prior to the shootings, warning Iraqi
civilians not to go into that area?
You are a liar and a tool. Much too ignorant to realize that the falsehoods you
spew are simply hate and have no place in the intelligent world.
Steve, SFC/US Army
Bo Raxo
"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030623000237...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> Boraqi wrote;
>
> >Shooting civilians, executing the wounded, leaving the injured to die in
> >agony. What a shameful episode in my nation's history this is turning
out
> >to be. When I post these stories of atrocities, many people accuse me of
> >hating my country.
>
> If this is tru, why not post the whole story Boraqi? The part about
leaflets
> being distributed for several days prior to the shootings, warning Iraqi
> civilians not to go into that area?
I posted the entire article. If you have additional information, post the
story or a link.
Pretty funny that you ask why I don't post the whole story, and then allude
to some additional facts that I guess must be in some other article that you
can't be bothered to post.
>
> You are a liar and a tool. Much too ignorant to realize that the
falsehoods you
> spew are simply hate and have no place in the intelligent world.
>
>
> Steve, SFC/US Army
When you can't win an argument on the facts, resort to insulting your
opponent.
Ya know, I doubt anybody around here cares what you think of me, or what I
think of you (although the anger and hostility and racism you display does
suggest quite a degree of self-loathing, so perhaps there are a few people
amused by what you think of yourself). I'm trying to discuss my nation's
conduct in Iraq.
Come back when you have some actual facts or a rational argument. Your
opinion of me doesn't contribute jack shit to the discussion.
Bo Raxo
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
<cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote:
>
>"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20030623000237...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> Boraqi wrote;
>>
>> >Shooting civilians, executing the wounded, leaving the injured to
die in
>> >agony. What a shameful episode in my nation's history this is
turning
>out
>> >to be. When I post these stories of atrocities, many people
accuse me of
>> >hating my country.
>>
>> If this is true, why not post the whole story Boraqi? The part
Bo,
I would be curious to know where this article came from. It seems TO
ME to be very biased. I hope it's not really true.
I was against our invasion as much as you were and I think we all know
that Bush has FAILED to prove any of his claims about WMD or Nukes.
I also receive e-mail from troops in the field. From some Apache
pilots, Some fighter jocks, and some grunts. The stories the grunts
tell is terrible. I have read what they wrote about having to shoot
civilians. What I've heard is that the Fedayeen are using the people
as human shields. One Marine friend of mine wrote that when his unit
rolled into Tikrit, Iraqi armor fired on them. They could see Iraqi
children tied to the Iraqi armor, but had no choice, but to return
fire. I think I would have done the same.
I don't blame our troops, I blame the people who sent them there.
--
Like a game of pick up stick played by fucking lunatics
AKA
"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030623000237...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Can't you read? The soldiers said they did it, the civilians said they did
it, but only you, the renegade boy scout, say everyone misunderstands.
You're like a little yapping dog on the end of a leash.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/03
Mhw61
Exactly, and the estimate of how long they'll be there continues to climb--
from the original 90 days to maybe up to a year, to a year or two and now we're
hearing five years.
Max
"I'm raising polecats for peace."
--Ken Shabby
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
I don't agree with Steve's attack on Bo, BUT what I think he means to
say is you don't know WHY they did it.
I submit to you that while I think this war is a bad idea, if it's my
son or duaghter out there, I want them to shoot if there is any doubt.
Don't judge them, oyu aren't there. Judge the people who put them
Alan Hope
>I submit to you that while I think this war is a bad idea, if it's my
>son or duaghter out there, I want them to shoot if there is any doubt.
>Don't judge them, oyu aren't there. Judge the people who put them
>there.
There's no doubt whatsoever that whatever scorn Bo has to dish out is
dished in precisely that direction, Alex. That's been clear to me from
the start. Like all of us, whether we've been there or not, he
realises (I'm going from his posted comments only, of course) that the
men on the ground are doing an impossible job in life-threatening
conditions. His criticism is reserved, by my reading, uniqeuly for
those who put them there, including Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, none of
whom ever saw a day of active duty in combat.
--
AH
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
I was actually replying to AKA Fallon, who's position, I'm not yet
clear on.
I agree about Bo... I think. I hope.
not_over_the_hill
"Chicken-Hawks".... every damn one of them!!!
Don't you know that those who make wars never
fight the wars?
Bo Raxo
You make an excellent point and I would like to expand on it.
The rapid advance of U.S. troops sacrificed many lives (Iraqi and
U.S.) needlessly. Take the capture of Pvt. Lynch:
At the time of the RPG attack and traffic accident which lead to her
capture, her unit had been without sleep for about 60 hours. Yeah,
two and a half days without sleep. You think they were capable of
fighting, or making decisions?
And her unit was a support unit, equipped to do maintenance, not a
combat unit. Each soldier had 220 rounds of ammunition, which is
enough to last in a firefight for maybe five minutes. They weren't
equipped for combat, because they weren't a combat unit.
So why did they end up in a combat situation? Because they were on
what the Pentagon dubbed Route Blue, which is Iraq's Highway 8. Intell
had already shown that this was infested heavily with opposition, and
so the day before the planners had decided to switch to Route Jackson,
which is Iraq's Highway 1.
Trouble is, the word did not get out to many units, including Lynch's.
So they were in the wrong place entirely.
I could go on with other details, but you get the idea: these troops
were put in danger by poor workflow/communications procedures (of the
type that any modern corporation would fix with a simple email
distribution list); by planning that put them out there completely
exhausted just to make for a rapid advance that would score political
points at home; and not prepared for the battlefield conditions they
would encounter.
BTW Alex, the article comes from a U.K. tabloid called the Mirror. It
is a bit sensational, and aimed at blue collar readers, but it doesn't
publish bullshit - British tabloids tend to be gossipy and have the
occaisonal topless girl, but strive to publish only accurate stories.
You notice that the story includes quotes from actual soldiers, and
includes identifying information such as their name and rank.
Shooting wounded soliders after the battle is won, or leaving them to
die without rendering assistance, is barbaric. And it is, I think,
mostly a result of our lousy planning that insisted on a hyper-rapid
advance. If you have to reach Baghdad in ten days, you don't have
time to take prisoners (or even secure your own supply lines). If you
take a month to do it, you can, and will probably lose fewer of your
own soldiers in the process.
Certainly, a good plan would not result in the capture of a
maintenance battalion, since they are not intended to get within ten
miles of the line of battle.
Bo Raxo
Ranger00089
Who really gives a shit what the moron wrote?
Steve, SFC/US Army
Messalina
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13087653_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US%2DTROOPS%2DADMIT%2DSHOOTING%2DIRAQI%2DCIVILIANS-name_page.html
>
> So much for those stories of Iraqis greeting their American "liberators"
> with joy. The quagmire continues to deepen.
>
> Shooting civilians, executing the wounded, leaving the injured to die in
> agony. What a shameful episode in my nation's history this is turning out
> to be. When I post these stories of atrocities, many people accuse me of
> hating my country.
>
How about just for a change I accuse you of being a bloody bore?
Could you possibly find a new dead horse to beat?
Mez
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
Isn't a chicken hawk a slang term for an older gay guy who chases
after youg boys?
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
O.K. I think I can safely say I agree. Mostly I agree that speed was
to benefit Bush vs a tactical necessity. There's a great book about
Chesty Puller on of the greatest Marine Legends. In the book it
frequently talks about advancing too quickly just so that some asshole
up the chain of command can get his attaboy. We just don't learn do
we?
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
What happened to you Steve? You used to appear to be more well
reasoned
Ranger00089
>What happened to you Steve? You used to appear to be more well
>reasoned
I am sorry if I do not live up to my previous standards when it comes to
loyalty to my country. I despise anyone that hates this country. I have no
problem with people discussing the actions of our country, but, when someone
sides with our enemy, berates our military, and refers to our government in a
hateful manner, I take it seriously. Bo is simply a hater, despite what Alan
thinks, no offense Alan, Bo has and does attack the members of the military and
not just the people who sent them there. He is despicable and deserves whatever
wrath he gets.
Fallon is a shit stirring moron. Has nothing to say and serves no useful
purpose. His/her opinion is more worthless than Joe1Orbit and Jason combined.
To state one has a problem with the way our government has handled the Iraqi
campaign is reasonable, I have some problems with it myself. But to imply that
all are liars and murderers is not only assinine but childish as well. All
leaders in this country and any free country have some very tough decisions to
make at some point. They will never and have never pleased all of us.
Some consider Kennedy a great President, he almost brought us to nuclear war.
Was his decision the right one or not? History tells us it was a good move, but
the Bay of Pigs was dishonest and cowardly. So which was he? Great, cowardly,
liar, dishonest, brilliant, brave? Maybe all of the above?
Much the same can be said of all of our ex-Presidents, I choose to be more
American than a political tool and give them each the respect of the office.
Some, run wholly by their party lines, choose to be disrespectful of the office
and thereby the country.
Steve, SFC/US Army
Chocolic
"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
Bravo! Well said, Steve.
Chocolic <clapping
Bo Raxo
"Messalina" <sec...@duelingoak.com> wrote in message
news:7111e10e.03062...@posting.google.com...
Oh yes, people being needlessly slaughtered. How dull, especially in a
crime group.
Sorry, but when my country commits atrocities, it gets me mighty pissed off.
You don't like it, killfile me.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
>Alex asked;
>
>>What happened to you Steve? You used to appear to be more well
>>reasoned
>
>I am sorry if I do not live up to my previous standards when it comes
to
>loyalty to my country. I despise anyone that hates this country. I
have no
>problem with people discussing the actions of our country, but, when
someone
>sides with our enemy, berates our military, and refers to our
government in a
>hateful manner, I take it seriously. Bo is simply a hater, despite
what Alan
>thinks, no offense Alan, Bo has and does attack the members of the
military and
>not just the people who sent them there. He is despicable and
deserves whatever
>wrath he gets.
I guess you and I will just disagree on this. I think Bo, like many
others is what KEEPS our politicians in check and our country great,
just as you do by voicing your opinion. In fact I think it takes
balls to go against the masses in support of your cause. Right or
wrong, he's making a stand. I can respect that.
>
>Fallon is a shit stirring moron. Has nothing to say and serves no
useful
>purpose. His/her opinion is more worthless than Joe1Orbit and Jason
combined.
I don't know Fallon well enough to agree or disagree.
>
>To state one has a problem with the way our government has handled
the Iraqi
>campaign is reasonable, I have some problems with it myself. But to
imply that
>all are liars and murderers is not only assinine but childish as
well.
MAybe I missed this, but I don't believe that Bo has ever said this.
All
>leaders in this country and any free country have some very tough
decisions to
>make at some point. They will never and have never pleased all of us.
> Some consider Kennedy a great President, he almost brought us to
nuclear war.
>Was his decision the right one or not? History tells us it was a good
move, but
>the Bay of Pigs was dishonest and cowardly.
Unless I'm mistaken, he stood up and took responsability for that
error.
So which was he? Great, cowardly,
>liar, dishonest, brilliant, brave? Maybe all of the above?
> Much the same can be said of all of our ex-Presidents, I choose to
be more
>American than a political tool and give them each the respect of the
office.
I choose to make them earn my respect as I'm their boss. I GIVE them
nothing until they earn it. I also think few of them earn it.
>Some, run wholly by their party lines, choose to be disrespectful of
the office
>and thereby the country.
>
>
>Steve, SFC/US Army
Don't forget Steve. You and I served our country and protected the
constitution that gives Bo the right to speak his mind. If I truly
thought Bo didn't love this country I would agree with you, but I
don't believe that. I think Bo loves this country, and like many of
us, is just disgusted by the manner in which some of our current
leaders run it.
Of course Bo is a big boy and doesn't need me taking up for him, but I
just thought this needed saying.
Messalina
Ah, the usual response of someone who refuses to understand that no
one cares about them or their ill-thought out, nonsensical opinions;
killfile me.
Anyway, you mistake me. The subject is not boring, you are. You
haven't got an original thought in your head and you write so poorly
its hard to believe anything you say. I automatically discount your
position because of the manner in which you state it. Thus it could
be concluded that you are doing your cause more harm than good.
M.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
Well, I'm even worse then Bo is at stating my cause and I can't write
for shit, so I'll just put it to ya like a plain ol' country folk...
You sir, are a fucking asshole of the first order.
Good day
Glek
news:20030624223732...@mb-m20.aol.com:
This country is more than than its government. I have not read anything that
would indicate that Bo hates this country, though he has been critical of
certain elements of the government. You can love this country but hate what
those in its government choose to do with their power. After all, the
government, including the armed forces, exist to serve us citizens as
individuals. Everyone in government is a public servant; they are all butlers
and maids. The POTUS is the head butler. The chief head butler who
serves every one of us. Most in this country are pleased with the performance
of the current head butler, but because the rest of us are displeased with
the way he is performing his duties, does not mean that we hate this country.
Also, if we are displeased with the way the security we hire (through tax
dollars) behaves, which is what the military and the police amount to, it is
within our purview to criticize them.
Was Kennedy a great butler? He was good, largely because he was willing to
defuse the Cuban Missile crisis by agreeing to remove our missiles from
Turkey. Is George W a great butler? I find him wanting. I fear he has gotten
us into a situation in Iran that could bankrupt this country. But history
will be the ultimate judge.
I also think that all the big head butlers we've had during my lifetime, with
the possible exception of Truman, have been too uppity and too quick to steal
the silverware.
I have long believed that the elected and appointed officials in government,
from the local commissioners to the district attorneys to the governors and
the POTUS and the various senators and congressmen and cabinet secretaries,
should be required to bow or curtsy to at least three of the citizens they
serve every day, saying as they do so: "It is my esteemed pleasure to serve
you, sir" (or "ma'am" or "young sir" or "young miss"). This would put their
relationship to us in perspective. (The men would bow, the women curtsy,
though I think it would do Rumsfield good if he would curtsy.)
Alan Hope
>Anyway, you mistake me. The subject is not boring, you are. You
>haven't got an original thought in your head and you write so poorly
>its hard to believe anything you say. I automatically discount your
>position because of the manner in which you state it. Thus it could
>be concluded that you are doing your cause more harm than good.
In the first place, I don't think many people would agree Bo writes
badly. You can criticise him on a lot of grounds, but not that one.
In the second place, what a stupid reason for questioning anyone's
position. You "automatically discount it"? That's just idiotic. His
positions either have merit or they don't. The form of words has no
bearing. Argue the case, or attack the style, but don't imagine for a
minute that by doing one, you're also taking care of the other.
--
AH
nan
Jesu! Revised lessons from Alan, the terrorizing abcessed* resident
rhetoric/spelling monitor. Bo is often times Coo Coo in what he
writes. Once he accused someone of "trying to be a
pseudo-intellectual." Now, really, who tries to be THAT? What a
silly attempt by Bo at ad hominem flinging.
Bo writes with 87% bluster, 99% prejudice and 75% offensiveness
usually with semi-deft, left-slanted manipulation of facts, within an
absence of context, and with an overabundance of hystrionic
self-grandiosity. Bo excels at the "liberal's" obligatory
name-calling - he is well adversed in baiting with stereotypical
labels from the leftist cliche tanks. Bo writes with closed-minded
verve and demonstrative prejudice. His lack of maturity and
forethought surpasses all expectations for an English 51A student. Bo
is not original - he paraphrases the same old Bush Bashing and
anti-American themes.
I agree with Messelina: Bo is boring, and at best, just plain
aggravating. Furthermore, Bo is NOT in the least original in his
thinking at all - he is merely a paraphrasing partisan one-eyed
parrot. One-eyedness means Bo lacks of depth perception, and that
really characterizes Bo: no depth perception.
You, Alan Mephisto always calling others "stupid", wrote:
"The form of words has no bearing." Now, you really don't believe
that, do you?
from Nan
Alan Hope
>I agree with Messelina: Bo is boring, and at best, just plain
>aggravating.
Can't be both, nan.
--
AH
Mhw61
>>aggravating.
>
>Can't be both, nan.
Of course you can, and Nan proves it with every post she makes.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
O.K. I'll admit it.... Nan is wacked.
nan
Alan,
Prove that Bo cannot be at once boringly aggravating and aggravatingly
boring!
Bo, in vain attempts to project his self-styled "liberality," clads
himself with sophomoric affectations. Furthermore, he types faster
than he thinks.
Messelina is correct is her assessment of Bo. Bo is boring because his
responses are predictible reverberated sophistic banalities.
When Bo grows up and begins to THINK instead of spurting, he might be
less boring, or at best, less aggravating.
from Nan
nan
> "Messalina" <sec...@duelingoak.com> wrote in message
> news:7111e10e.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Bo Raxo" <cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
> news:<bd5irl$36v$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > >
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13087653_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US%2DTROOPS%2DADMIT%2DSHOOTING%2DIRAQI%2DCIVILIANS-name_page.html
> > >
> > > So much for those stories of Iraqis greeting their American "liberators"
> > > with joy. The quagmire continues to deepen.
> > >
> > > Shooting civilians, executing the wounded, leaving the injured to die in
> > > agony. What a shameful episode in my nation's history this is turning
> out
> > > to be. When I post these stories of atrocities, many people accuse me
> of
> > > hating my country.
> > >
> > -snip-
> >
> > How about just for a change I accuse you of being a bloody bore?
> > Could you possibly find a new dead horse to beat?
> >
> > Mez
>
> Oh yes, people being needlessly slaughtered.
Bo, You must be referring to the mass grave sites in Irag.
You seem to confuse slaughter with self-defensive prerogatives.
I don't think you "hate my country" - you suffer from irrational
partisan hatred which translates in print to anti-Americanism. You
are ever acting-out in your chosen role of chronic spoiler. Every
issue you undertake and every point you attempt to make betrays the
disconstructive perversity in your attitude. When you get a negative
or critical response, you reply with name-calling, or with histrionic
comments like, "Sorry, but when my country commits atrocities, it gets
me mighty pissed off." Or with hostile invitations to "killfile" you.
> How dull, especially in a crime group.
I suggest when our "slaughtering" American troops return, you should
spit at them with the velocity of a double hump-backed camel. Then,
you'll feel better.
The sound of your fury is an idiot's tale.
from Nan
nan
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:30:51 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >nan goes:
> >
> >>I agree with Messelina: Bo is boring, and at best, just plain
> >>aggravating.
> >
> >Can't be both, nan.
>
>
> O.K. I'll admit it.... Nan is wacked.
Gee, Scorp, I appreciate your above careful deliberation. Although
brief, it doesn't quite measure up to the intellectual stretch you
made in the rude quip to Messelina (classicly speaking, not a "sir"):
"You sir, are a fucking asshole of the first order.
Good day"
What a *clever* way you choose to avoid an intelligent exchange.
Any objective reading of Bo's posts gives instant rise to this obvious
interpretation:
Bo is sophomoric and belligerant. In writing paraphrases of the
obligatory Party lines, for Bo is always on an exuberant partisan's
tangent, Bo writes nothing which bespeaks of a carefully deliberated
thought process. Bo deludes himself into believing his stinging
rhetoric is the stirring product emanating from the ardent exercise of
actual thinking.
Bo lacks depth perception, therefore he cannot perceive wider
contextual perimeters. His self-grandiosity, in spite of himself,
doesn't enhance his writing which is clearly NOT objective and NOT
balanced - his biases constrict his intellect. I don't disagree with
issues Bo brings-up, I disagree the manner in which he treats the
issues and the manner in which he treats responders.
Regards, from Nan
Bo Raxo
"nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.03062...@posting.google.com...
So in a discussion of people being needlessly killed, and human rights
abuses by the country that should be the champion of such rights instead of
their abuser, the best idea you can come up with to contribute is that you
don't like me.
My, what a petty little person you are. Take a look at the subject line and
strain that tiny brain of yours really, really hard, asking yourself the
question: In a story of civilians being shot and wounded soliders being left
to die in agony, is your opinion of me even remotely relevant? Could there
be, perhaps, larger issues?
Go eat some fiber and try to unclench. Nobody cares what you think of me
(or the reverse), people come here to read about *gasp* crime. American
troops shooting civilians is an atrocity; the fact that I irritate you
*gasp* is not.
Bo Raxo
Insert pseudo-intellectual "adjective-adverb, adverb-adjective" tautology
here.
nan
> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f49fa86.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:<cfpmfv0d9jo5o065l...@4ax.com>...
> > > nan goes:
> > >
> > > >I agree with Messelina: Bo is boring, and at best, just plain
> > > >aggravating.
> > >
> > > Can't be both, nan.
> >
> > Alan,
> > Prove that Bo cannot be at once boringly aggravating and aggravatingly
> > boring!
> >
> > Bo, in vain attempts to project his self-styled "liberality," clads
> > himself with sophomoric affectations. Furthermore, he types faster
> > than he thinks.
> >
> > Messelina is correct is her assessment of Bo. Bo is boring because his
> > responses are predictible reverberated sophistic banalities.
> >
> > When Bo grows up and begins to THINK instead of spurting, he might be
> > less boring, or at best, less aggravating.
> >
> > from Nan
>
> So in a discussion of people being needlessly killed, and human rights
> abuses by the country that should be the champion of such rights instead of
> their abuser, the best idea you can come up with to contribute is that you
> don't like me.
Bo, of what "country" do you speak??? If one wants
stats,facts&history and TRUTHFUL reports on human rights abuses and on
innocent people killed, "needlessly" or otherwise, one would NEVER use
YOUR highly biased, partisan propaganda as a credible source!!! Jesu,
are you serious?
Bo wrote: "American troops shooting civilians is an atrocity;"
PUT YOUR STATEMENT INTO FULL FACTUAL CONTEXT AND CITE YOUR SOURCES,
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE A LIBELOUS PROVOCATEUR, IDIOT!
BO, you have to PROVE your assertion American troops are arbitrarily
shooting civilians as your above-quoted defamative statement implies.
Bo, your mind constricts and strangulates with partisan prejudices
which dictate your focal points.
My caveat to the world is:
Bo Raxo's biases are molto chiaro: his glaring prejudices foreshorten
and distort the truer contextual perspective on these profound issues.
Bo, your commentary is at alert-level for being heavily contaminated
with bias and partisan angst. Everyone MUST be alerted to seditious
and unscrupulous party-partisan spoilers - those who are fanatically
devoted to party and not to principle. Radical party-liners are
destructive spoilers. Fanatical party loyalty empowered the
inquisition, "reign of terror", bolshevikism, fascism, nazism, baath,
and other oppressive despotic regimes.
What do you mean - I don't "like" you? I adore you - I've known so
many young and some older "idealistic liberal" pretenders who lacked
depth perception just like you.
>
> My, what a petty little person you are.
BECAUSE I am critical of the blatantly biased "editorial" character of
your commentary, and BECAUSE I scrutinize those glaring biases and
focal distortions???
Too, too bad, Kid, you are not above scrutiny just because your
learned toadys are hypocritical and uncourageous.
> Take a look at the subject line and
> strain that tiny brain of yours really, really hard, asking yourself the
> question: In a story of civilians being shot and wounded soliders being left
> to die in agony, is your opinion of me even remotely relevant? Could there
> be, perhaps, larger issues?
My opinion is relevant because it questions the credibility of your
highly charged partisan viewpoints and your "editorial" reporting
which paraphrases every anti-American, quasi-neoMarxist WEB site. THIS
is curious, isn't it?
>
<Snip assinine immature stupid-stuff>
> Bo Raxo
> Insert pseudo-intellectual "adjective-adverb, adverb-adjective" tautology
> here.
Chiasmus, chiasmus a tutti: Bo is boringly aggravating and
aggravatingly
boring!
WORSE than boring: Bo is NOT capable of credible commentary. Bo's
viewpoints are NOT objectively constructed in the focus of a fair
scope. His mind is tightly held shut by overbearing biases. Bo tries
to compensate for his deficiencies by flaunting sophomoric
affectations - pseudo-byronic "liberal" hero poses. Bo, like most
brattish runs-off-the-mouths, is cowardly, whiney and waspish in
confrontation or under fire.
Remember this, Bo, because I do:
In a post some while ago, I made a reference to persons who were
praying on the behalf of victims of an awful event - maybe it was the
Sydney wildfires. You little phoney petty pukey-putz! you attacked me
for being a religious NUT because I mentioned "prayers and praying" in
my post!
You are responsible for characterizing yourself, Bo, as an intolerant
fanatic and an intolerable phoney-liberal. Your crap is standard
pseudo-liberal issue.
from Nan
formica63
It's important to acknowledge that bad things are happening, and not to
write off the genuine concerns and fears of others. It's always amazing to
me when someone like Nan not only rubbishes the genuine losses and terror of
people outside the US, but even more insultingly reduces the question of the
US' relation to the world to one of internecine or domestic politics,
liberals vs conservatives, or Republicans vs Democrats. These
misrecognitions epitomise the blinkered, insular view of the world that the
worst ambassadors of the US flaunt to the rest of the world.
Here's a book to interest those of you who maintain some interest in peace,
love and understanding. My experience in these parts is that the kinds of
ambivalence this book describes are as yet little understood by Americans.
It *is* possible to distrust and question the US without "hating" it, and
indeed while still admiring many aspects of the country which make it a
rightful home of democracy, liberty, and free speech. It really is. I've
exemplified that for years here: at once a huge love of many principles of
American life and a seasoned distrust of US unilateralism, waste, and
ignorance. If you think it's possible to just switch off the criticism and
label it "Anti-American," you're wrong.
Review:
The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates And Infuriates The World
by Mark Hertsgaard (Author)
From Booklist
Hertsgaard was already circling the globe investigating other nations'
perceptions of America when last September's terrorist attacks lent an
unanticipated urgency to his findings. Few of those he interviewed in the 15
countries he visited express anything like the deep hatred of the U.S. that
motivated the terrorists. Many voice warm admiration for America's dynamic
economy, vibrant culture, and open political system. However, these same
people also complain bitterly about how Americans dominate a world we poorly
understand, sanctimoniously boast of democratic virtues while ignoring our
complicity in the crimes of authoritarian regimes, and destroy other
countries' deep-rooted cultural traditions by exporting our crass culture of
self-indulgence and haste. Readers troubled by these criticisms may discount
some of them as a reflection of the author's avowedly left-wing perspective.
But much more than authorial tendentiousness lies behind the widespread and
intense distrust of America that confronts us in these pages. And as
difficult as sober self-criticism may be amidst the flag-waving that now
defines the national mood, Hertsgaard summons us to that task. Bryce
Christensen
url:
Form.
nan
> <snip inchoate ranting from nan>
ZIP BACK to the "inchoate" CONTEXT, which in great part was:
> > Bo, in vain attempts to project his self-styled "liberality," clads
> > himself with sophomoric affectations. Furthermore, he types faster
> > than he thinks.
> >
> > Messelina is correct is her assessment of Bo. Bo is boring because his
> > responses are predictible reverberated sophistic banalities.
> >
> > When Bo grows up and begins to THINK instead of spurting, he might be
> > less boring, or at best, less aggravating.
> >
> > from Nan
>Bo responds:
> So in a discussion of people being needlessly killed, and human rights
> abuses by the country that should be the champion of such rights instead of
> their abuser, the best idea you can come up with to contribute is that you
> don't like me.
Bo, of what "country" do you speak??? If one wants
stats,facts&history and TRUTHFUL reports on human rights abuses and on
innocent people killed, "needlessly" or otherwise, one would NEVER use
YOUR highly biased, partisan propaganda as a credible source!!! Jesu,
are you serious?
Bo wrote: "American troops shooting civilians is an atrocity;"
Nan replies:
PUT YOUR STATEMENT INTO FULL FACTUAL CONTEXT AND CITE YOUR SOURCES,
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE A LIBELOUS PROVOCATEUR, IDIOT!
BO, you have to PROVE your assertion American troops are arbitrarily
shooting civilians as your above-quoted defamative statement implies.
Bo, your mind constricts and strangulates with partisan prejudices
which dictate your focal points.
My caveat to the world is:
Bo Raxo's biases are molto chiaro: his glaring prejudices foreshorten
and distort the truer contextual perspective on these profound issues.
Bo, your commentary is at alert-level for being heavily contaminated
with bias and partisan angst. Everyone MUST be alerted to seditious
and unscrupulous party-partisan spoilers - those who are fanatically
devoted to party and not to principle. Radical party-liners are
destructive spoilers. Fanatical party loyalty empowered the
inquisition, "reign of terror", bolshevikism, fascism, nazism, baath,
and other oppressive despotic regimes.
What do you mean - I don't "like" you? I adore you - I've known so
many young and some older "idealistic liberal" pretenders who lacked
depth perception just like you.
Bo says to Nan:
> My, what a petty little person you are.
BECAUSE I am critical of the blatantly biased "editorial" character of
your commentary, and BECAUSE I scrutinize those glaring biases and
focal distortions???
Too, too bad, Kid, you are not above scrutiny just because your
learned toadys [ref. to Formica&AH] are hypocritical and uncourageous.
> Take a look at the subject line and
> strain that tiny brain of yours really, really hard, asking yourself the
> question: In a story of civilians being shot and wounded soliders being left
> to die in agony, is your opinion of me even remotely relevant? Could there
> be, perhaps, larger issues?
My opinion is relevant because it questions the credibility of your
highly charged partisan viewpoints and your "editorial" reporting
which paraphrases every anti-American, quasi-neoMarxist WEB site. THIS
is curious, isn't it?
> <Snip Bo's assinine immature stupid-stuff>
Bo signs off with:
> Bo Raxo
> Insert pseudo-intellectual "adjective-adverb, adverb-adjective" tautology
> here.
Nan plays Baroque:
Chiasmus, chiasmus a tutti: Bo is boringly aggravating and
aggravatingly boring!
WORSE than boring: Bo is NOT capable of credible commentary. Bo's
viewpoints are NOT objectively constructed in the focus of a fair
scope. His mind is tightly held shut by overbearing biases. Bo tries
to compensate for his deficiencies by flaunting sophomoric
affectations - pseudo-byronic "liberal" hero poses. Bo, like most
brattish runs-off-the-mouths, is cowardly, whiney and waspish in
confrontation or under fire.
Remember this, Bo, because I do:
In a post some while ago, I made a reference to persons who were
praying on the behalf of victims of an awful event - maybe it was the
Sydney wildfires. You little phoney petty pukey-putz! you attacked me
for being a religious NUT because I mentioned "prayers and praying" in
my post!
You are responsible for characterizing yourself, Bo, as an intolerant
fanatic and an intolerable phoney-liberal. Your crap is standard
pseudo-liberal issue.
So, Melissa, the foregoing is the context you so hypocritically
"snipped".
from Nan
nan
Melissa wrote:
> It's important to acknowledge that bad things are happening, and not to
> write off the genuine concerns and fears of others.
What can one say but "DUH!" Or, charge you, Melissa/Formica, to deeply
reflect upon the meaning of your own words, and reflect upon how
selectively narrow is and insensitive is your scope when acknowledging
all things greatly bad and fearful. You're outlandishly hypocritical -
so small-minded it's beyond the test of ruthless parody.
It always amazes me that there is never relief from your,
Melissa/Formica, intellectual dishonesty. A typical example: You
selectively ignore Bo's Death Wish for Cheney taunt "rubbished" in his
net address which epitomizes your (PHONEY) concerns about meanspirited
and "blinkered" representations of malignant American partisanship.
Melissa: You forfeited CREDIBILITY a long time ago because your woeful
record of having no OBJECTIVITY. For all your self-proclaimed
academic "mastery", you are as petty and prejudiced as the most lowly
uneducated rube.
Melissa/Formica's chronic practice of GROSS misrepresentation and
GROSS misattribution *concatenative* (her word for connective) with
her pedantic ploys of obvuscation. As ever-evident, Form interjects
barrages of polysyllabic bomblast to fog-over her already
Veblenian-insensible convoluted ideation.
M/F wrote: "...insular view of the world..."
One quick statement about this:
Most Americans have highly varied and independent views of the world
and their place in it. Among those Americans who are allegedly
"insular" in their worldview, it's their frickin right to be as
"insular" as they want to be. There is no frickin mandate to
"de-insulate" according to some foreign cabalistic ideology or U.S.
congressional legislation!!!
The focus of any worldview, whether wide or narrow or in between, can
ONLY be egocentric. I repeat: all worldviews are
egocentric/groupcentric, conceived through the prism of ME, MYSELF and
I, or Us/Ours ONLY: ego est. There is no absolute and perfect truth
nor is there any absolute and perfect all-encompassing worldview. As
long as WE Americans are free, we can see what the frig-hell we want
to see. FREE to care or not to care, or just to care about the
vagaries of our immediate wretched struggles in life while cultivating
our own gardens.
from Nan
Nancy Rudins
Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll pick up a copy. I still have
two books that await my attention ("The Shadow of the Winter Palace" and
"The Iron Triangle"). It may be a while before I actually read it but
I will read it.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
"...our desires and our posessions are the strongest fetters of
despotism." E. Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
formica63
> > <snip inchoate ranting from nan>
Nan:
> MALISSA, to avoid your misrepresentations, let's unsnip my "rants" and
> ZIP BACK to the "inchoate" CONTEXT, which in great part was:
<snip inchoate ranting>
Nan:
> So, Melissa, the foregoing is the context you so hypocritically
> "snipped".
Yep.
Form.
formica63
> "formica63" <pit...@patter.coma> wrote in message
news:<WNuLa.2854$p8.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>
> Melissa wrote:
> > It's important to acknowledge that bad things are happening, and not to
> > write off the genuine concerns and fears of others.
Nan:
> What can one say but "DUH!"
One wishes.
>Or, charge you, Melissa/Formica, to deeply
> reflect upon the meaning of your own words, and reflect upon how
> selectively narrow is and insensitive is your scope when acknowledging
> all things greatly bad and fearful. You're outlandishly hypocritical -
> so small-minded it's beyond the test of ruthless parody.
How so?
> It always amazes me that there is never relief from your,
> Melissa/Formica, intellectual dishonesty. A typical example: You
> selectively ignore Bo's Death Wish for Cheney taunt "rubbished" in his
> net address which epitomizes your (PHONEY) concerns about meanspirited
> and "blinkered" representations of malignant American partisanship.
I don't remember suggested Bo was exempt from this aspect of the critique?
> Melissa: You forfeited CREDIBILITY a long time ago because your woeful
> record of having no OBJECTIVITY. For all your self-proclaimed
> academic "mastery", you are as petty and prejudiced as the most lowly
> uneducated rube.
I am happy to sit alongside any "rube." "Rubes" are human beings, worthy of
respect, like anyone else.
> Melissa/Formica's chronic practice of GROSS misrepresentation and
> GROSS misattribution *concatenative* (her word for connective) with
> her pedantic ploys of obvuscation.
"Concatenative" is certainly not my word. It's yours, and I doubt anyone
else would want to claim its butt-ugly hide. Perhaps you mean
"concatenated"?
As ever-evident, Form interjects
> barrages of polysyllabic bomblast to fog-over her already
> Veblenian-insensible convoluted ideation.
Huh? I'm not shy of syllables, but my comment was hardly laden with them.
Compare your own ranting excesses, an embarassing eructation of malaprop and
disorganised puns and cliches.
>
> M/F wrote: "...insular view of the world..."
>
> One quick statement about this:
> Most Americans have highly varied and independent views of the world
> and their place in it. Among those Americans who are allegedly
> "insular" in their worldview, it's their frickin right to be as
> "insular" as they want to be. There is no frickin mandate to
> "de-insulate" according to some foreign cabalistic ideology or U.S.
> congressional legislation!!!
Sure. The consequence of insularity is, of course, ignorance, bigotry, and
other kinds of stupidity and danger, but you're right: everyone's entitled
to be just as stupid and vulnerable as they want to be.
> The focus of any worldview, whether wide or narrow or in between, can
> ONLY be egocentric. I repeat: all worldviews are
> egocentric/groupcentric, conceived through the prism of ME, MYSELF and
> I, or Us/Ours ONLY: ego est.
Speak for yourself. And of course, you do. All worldviews resolve
themselves to the individual. Only you advocate the self as also their
furthest reach.
There is no absolute and perfect truth
> nor is there any absolute and perfect all-encompassing worldview.
No, of course not. So what?
As
> long as WE Americans are free, we can see what the frig-hell we want
> to see. FREE to care or not to care, or just to care about the
> vagaries of our immediate wretched struggles in life while cultivating
> our own gardens.
Yes, of course you can. You can choose to be just exactly the pig-stupid,
blinkered and useless narcissitic bore you wish to be. I'd suggest, though,
that you shut the fuck up about Iraq, however, if you choose to remain so.
Form.
nan
> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f49fa86.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:<cfpmfv0d9jo5o065l...@4ax.com>...
> > > nan goes:
> > >
> > > >I agree with Messelina: Bo is boring, and at best, just plain
> > > >aggravating.
> > >
> > > Can't be both, nan.
> >
> > Alan,
> > Prove that Bo cannot be at once boringly aggravating and aggravatingly
> > boring!
> >
> > Bo, in vain attempts to project his self-styled "liberality," clads
> > himself with sophomoric affectations. Furthermore, he types faster
> > than he thinks.
Just listen to this - there is no doubt Bo is NOT rational and NOT
reasonable.
In this post, Bo sounds like he's winding up for a RL "hate-crime"!
Message 4 in thread
From: Bo Raxo (cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com)
Subject: Re: Prayers For Australia: Horrible Fires
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Date: 2003-01-19 16:10:37 PST
Excuse me for thinking that when you used the word "prayer" in the
subject
line it referred to what everyone understands the word prayer to be.
I should have known that like so many other words (liberal, freedom)
it has
a completely different meaning in Nan-speak.
And oh gee, I'm so glad to know your morning routine (you forgot to
mention
whether you take a shit before, after, or while sitting in the
window), and
lots of other facts that really convey that you're as dull as
dishwater.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bo fits the profile of the belligerant (and vulgar) pseudo-liberal,
who in *anybody's speak*, is rude, radical and irrational.
Bo, by virtue of his rude intolerance, phoney-liberal, Bush-Whacking
offensive posts in the atc, convinced 137 independent voters to join
the Republican party.
Obviously, Bo's responses are predictible reverberated sophistic
banalities and regurgerated leftist partyline belligerences.
I pray Bo is struck with insight before his belligerant state of mind
unhinges in Real Life with a series of hate-crimes - like downtrodding
people
BO!!! The odium of the People.
From Nan
nan
Evading the point which is you are petty and prejudiced in spite of
your self-proclaimed academic "mastery."
>
> > > Melissa/Formica's chronic practice of GROSS misrepresentation and
> > GROSS misattribution *concatenative* (her word for connective) with
> > her pedantic ploys of obvuscation.
>
> "Concatenative" is certainly not my word. It's yours, and I doubt anyone
> else would want to claim its butt-ugly hide. Perhaps you mean
> "concatenated"?
If that is the form of the word you used to define, in part, your
insulting reference to Luk alleging the nearly-outdated Babbitty "mode
of aspiration," and if the word means "connection" in the sense of
interlocked as in a chain, then that is certainly the word, although
used in a different by me in this post. The verb concatenate, shown in
my Oxford Universal Dictionary, is the base for concatenately,
concatenation and concatenative, and of course, concatenated.
>
> As ever-evident, Form interjects
> > barrages of polysyllabic bomblast to fog-over her already
> > Veblenian-insensible convoluted ideation.
>
> Huh? I'm not shy of syllables, but my comment was hardly laden with them.
In all these years, I never thought to compare you to Veblen, but the
fact he wrote as elaborately muddled as you do, so much so he
confounded his editors and his academic peers, as you do, I can only
say, in humbled spirit, your writing is as cogent as Veblen and as
Unibomber Ted in his Manifesto.
> Compare your own ranting excesses, an embarassing eructation of malaprop and
> disorganised puns and cliches.
What you may believe, or want to assert are my "disorganized puns",
whatever that means, are cryptic messages written for my purposes, not
yours. I need a cite to clarify it/them for you. Do you mean, "The
manure of the Master Donkey is a sign" or "Bo is the odiom of the
people."
Now when it comes to organized cliches, you do excel: the Babbitt
cliche is just too, too - what can I say, too much of cliche for
disorganization.
> > M/F wrote: "...insular view of the world..."
> >
> > One quick statement about this:
> > Most Americans have highly varied and independent views of the world
> > and their place in it. Among those Americans who are allegedly
> > "insular" in their worldview, it's their frickin right to be as
> > "insular" as they want to be. There is no frickin mandate to
> > "de-insulate" according to some foreign cabalistic ideology or U.S.
> > congressional legislation!!!
>
> Sure. The consequence of insularity is, of course, ignorance, bigotry, and
> other kinds of stupidity and danger,
According to YOUR prejudiced definition of insularity, but not
according to my definition in reference to Americans.
You presume your self-proclaimed "academic mastery" forbades your
being ignorant, bigotted. You arrogantly believe you cannot be so
stupid as to be destructive to the point of endangering young people
with the indoctrination of the unnatural, dehumanized egocentricities
of your ideation.
> but you're right: everyone's entitled
> to be just as stupid and vulnerable as they want to be.
AND, Americans have the right, and it is NOT an entitlement, to reject
stupid, nonpractable and dissociated worldview constructs as well as
self-serving elitist envisioning. Americans' only vulnerability lies
in the subversive influences of intellectually dishonest educators in
a subverted academia.
>
> > The focus of any worldview, whether wide or narrow or in between, can
> > ONLY be egocentric. I repeat: all worldviews are
> > egocentric/groupcentric, conceived through the prism of ME, MYSELF and
> > I, or Us/Ours ONLY: ego est.
>
> Speak for yourself. And of course, you do. All worldviews resolve
> themselves to the individual. Only you advocate the self as also their
> furthest reach.
I don't advocate the self as the furthest reach at all - it is
relative to the individual or to the centric group. I do advocate
that no one has the right to impose upon others the furthest point of
his reach.
>
> > There is no absolute and perfect truth
> > nor is there any absolute and perfect all-encompassing worldview.
>
> No, of course not. So what?
At this point, I should point out to you, your persective is not a
definitive one, and you do not relate well at all to decent, normal
persons.
> > As
> > long as WE Americans are free, we can see what the frig-hell we want
> > to see. FREE to care or not to care, or just to care about the
> > vagaries of our immediate wretched struggles in life while cultivating
> > our own gardens.
>
> Yes, of course you can. You can choose to be just exactly the pig-stupid,
> blinkered and useless narcissitic bore you wish to be.
But, Melissa/Formica - the very cliched derrogatory terms you use
above apply to you from my perspective. I have no doubt you try to
*shame* your students in a similar manner with derrogatory taunts. I
willing to bet you attend workshops on mind control techniques with
which to effectuate *shame* in students for their "traditional"
inclinations and values.
I'd suggest, though,
> that you shut the fuck up about Iraq, however, if you choose to remain so.
>
> Form.
You are out of your mind, you stupid, stupid woman! Jesu! I will
never shut up about anything or any subject by your fascistic order!!!
I will always refer to your intellectual dishonesty, and question
your integrity as an educator.
from Nan
formica63
> > > Melissa: You forfeited CREDIBILITY a long time ago because your woeful
> > > record of having no OBJECTIVITY. For all your self-proclaimed
> > > academic "mastery", you are as petty and prejudiced as the most lowly
> > > uneducated rube.
Form:
> > I am happy to sit alongside any "rube." "Rubes" are human beings,
worthy of
> > respect, like anyone else.
Nan:
> Evading the point which is you are petty and prejudiced in spite of
> your self-proclaimed academic "mastery."
Hardly. It's quite precisely the point that you are so fucking rude about
uneducated people. That's not *my* prejudice, but yours.
> > > > Melissa/Formica's chronic practice of GROSS misrepresentation and
> > > GROSS misattribution *concatenative* (her word for connective) with
> > > her pedantic ploys of obvuscation.
> >
> > "Concatenative" is certainly not my word. It's yours, and I doubt
anyone
> > else would want to claim its butt-ugly hide. Perhaps you mean
> > "concatenated"?
Nan:
> If that is the form of the word you used to define, in part, your
> insulting reference to Luk alleging the nearly-outdated Babbitty "mode
> of aspiration," and if the word means "connection" in the sense of
> interlocked as in a chain, then that is certainly the word, although
> used in a different by me in this post.
I'll say. However, I do not have any idea whether I used the word
"concatenate" in that context. My point was, however, that
"concatenatative" or whatever it was you wrote was not "my word," as you
claimed.
The verb concatenate, shown in
> my Oxford Universal Dictionary, is the base for concatenately,
> concatenation and concatenative, and of course, concatenated.
> >
> > As ever-evident, Form interjects
> > > barrages of polysyllabic bomblast to fog-over her already
> > > Veblenian-insensible convoluted ideation.
> >
> > Huh? I'm not shy of syllables, but my comment was hardly laden with
them.
>
> In all these years, I never thought to compare you to Veblen, but the
> fact he wrote as elaborately muddled as you do, so much so he
> confounded his editors and his academic peers, as you do, I can only
> say, in humbled spirit, your writing is as cogent as Veblen and as
> Unibomber Ted in his Manifesto.
I wish. Both were very powerful writers.
>
> > Compare your own ranting excesses, an embarassing eructation of malaprop
and
> > disorganised puns and cliches.
>
> What you may believe, or want to assert are my "disorganized puns",
> whatever that means, are cryptic messages written for my purposes, not
> yours. I need a cite to clarify it/them for you. Do you mean, "The
> manure of the Master Donkey is a sign" or "Bo is the odiom of the
> people."
It's generally assumed one writes for others, not oneself. The key concept
here is "communication." But please don't imagine I do not understand your
references: they are still "disorganised," a word I use in its pathological
sense.
>
> Now when it comes to organized cliches, you do excel: the Babbitt
> cliche is just too, too - what can I say, too much of cliche for
> disorganization.
Others call it sanity, Nan.
> > > M/F wrote: "...insular view of the world..."
> > >
> > > One quick statement about this:
> > > Most Americans have highly varied and independent views of the world
> > > and their place in it. Among those Americans who are allegedly
> > > "insular" in their worldview, it's their frickin right to be as
> > > "insular" as they want to be. There is no frickin mandate to
> > > "de-insulate" according to some foreign cabalistic ideology or U.S.
> > > congressional legislation!!!
> >
> > Sure. The consequence of insularity is, of course, ignorance, bigotry,
and
> > other kinds of stupidity and danger,
>
> According to YOUR prejudiced definition of insularity, but not
> according to my definition in reference to Americans.
Of course. Your definitions are so labile.
>
> You presume your self-proclaimed "academic mastery" forbades your
> being ignorant, bigotted. You arrogantly believe you cannot be so
> stupid as to be destructive to the point of endangering young people
> with the indoctrination of the unnatural, dehumanized egocentricities
> of your ideation.
I believe rather that I'm not so smart as to do anything faintly like
"indoctrinate" people when I'm correcting their grammar.
> > but you're right: everyone's entitled
> > to be just as stupid and vulnerable as they want to be.
>
> AND, Americans have the right, and it is NOT an entitlement, to reject
> stupid, nonpractable and dissociated worldview constructs as well as
> self-serving elitist envisioning.
It's dissociated to acknowledge the world, but not to pretend it's not
there? Right.
> Americans' only vulnerability lies
> in the subversive influences of intellectually dishonest educators in
> a subverted academia.
What a stupid comment. Tell that to the people who perished 9-11. You're
an idiot, Nan.
<snip>
> > > There is no absolute and perfect truth
> > > nor is there any absolute and perfect all-encompassing worldview.
> >
> > No, of course not. So what?
>
> At this point, I should point out to you, your persective is not a
> definitive one, and you do not relate well at all to decent, normal
> persons.
You could have fooled me. The only people here who have trouble relating to
me are the ng Papin sisters, namely you and Sharonpo. You really do believe
this stuff, don't you? It's sad.
> > > As
> > > long as WE Americans are free, we can see what the frig-hell we want
> > > to see. FREE to care or not to care, or just to care about the
> > > vagaries of our immediate wretched struggles in life while cultivating
> > > our own gardens.
> >
> > Yes, of course you can. You can choose to be just exactly the
pig-stupid,
> > blinkered and useless narcissitic bore you wish to be.
>
> But, Melissa/Formica - the very cliched derrogatory terms you use
> above apply to you from my perspective. I have no doubt you try to
> *shame* your students in a similar manner with derrogatory taunts.
No, that's not right, and your fantasies about my work are just that:
projections. Look at this thread. I recommended a book. You whaled into
me like a distempered rhino without even *noticing* that I was recommending
a book, a book not by an academic, but by an American journalist, a book
whose premise, with which I agree, is that the US is hugely admired in the
world. And now, after writing this choking venomous slander about my
recommendation, you lift your skirst at my "derogatory" taunts? You are
totally out of kilter!
>I
> willing to bet you attend workshops on mind control techniques with
> which to effectuate *shame* in students for their "traditional"
> inclinations and values.
Huh? I *teach* traditional inclinations and values. "Mind control"
techniques? You mean, like eradicating split infinitives?
>
> I'd suggest, though,
> > that you shut the fuck up about Iraq, however, if you choose to remain
so.
> >
> > Form.
>
> You are out of your mind, you stupid, stupid woman! Jesu! I will
> never shut up about anything or any subject by your fascistic order!!!
Note the word: "suggest."
> I will always refer to your intellectual dishonesty, and question
> your integrity as an educator.
Uh huh.
Form.
Sharonpo
>You could have fooled me. The only people here who have trouble relating to
>me are the ng Papin sisters, namely you and Sharonpo. You really do believe
>this stuff, don't you? It's sad.
You need to get over your obsession with me. You know as well as I do that
you're considered professionally incompetent. I don't know why you persist in
dragging my name into your futile arguments, but I suppose it's done because
you know if I see it, I'll respond to it.
Your reckless bombast has driven your "friends" deeply underground. Do you not
wonder why?
Leave me out of your diatribes, Melissa. If I want to talk to you, I'll let you
know. Stop sniping for attention.
nan
> Nan:
> > > > Melissa: You forfeited CREDIBILITY a long time ago because your woeful
> > > > record of having no OBJECTIVITY. For all your self-proclaimed
> > > > academic "mastery", you are as petty and prejudiced as the most lowly
> > > > uneducated rube.
>
> Form:
> > > I am happy to sit alongside any "rube." "Rubes" are human beings,
> worthy of
> > > respect, like anyone else.
>
> Nan:
> > Evading the point which is you are petty and prejudiced in spite of
> > your self-proclaimed academic "mastery."
>
> Hardly. It's quite precisely the point that you are so fucking rude about
> uneducated people. That's not *my* prejudice, but yours.
>
spaces!
>
> > > > > Melissa/Formica's chronic practice of GROSS misrepresentation and
> > > > GROSS misattribution *concatenative* (her word for connective) with
> > > > her pedantic ploys of obvuscation.
> > >
> > > "Concatenative" is certainly not my word. It's yours, and I doubt
> anyone
> > > else would want to claim its butt-ugly hide. Perhaps you mean
> > > "concatenated"?
>
> Nan:
> > If that is the form of the word you used to define, in part, your
> > insulting reference to Luk alleging the nearly-outdated Babbitty "mode
> > of aspiration," and if the word means "connection" in the sense of
> > interlocked as in a chain, then that is certainly the word, although
> > used in a different by me in this post.
>
> I'll say. However, I do not have any idea whether I used the word
> "concatenate" in that context. My point was, however, that
> "concatenatative" or whatever it was you wrote was not "my word," as you
> claimed.
You used the word to define, as I demanded, your term "mode of
aspiration."
Then, to muddle the matter, you referred to Veblen, and so on...
>
> The verb concatenate, shown in
> > my Oxford Universal Dictionary, is the base for concatenately,
> > concatenation and concatenative, and of course, concatenated.
> > >
> > > As ever-evident, Form interjects
> > > > barrages of polysyllabic bomblast to fog-over her already
> > > > Veblenian-insensible convoluted ideation.
> > >
> > > Huh? I'm not shy of syllables, but my comment was hardly laden with
> them.
> >
> > In all these years, I never thought to compare you to Veblen, but the
> > fact he wrote as elaborately muddled as you do, so much so he
> > confounded his editors and his academic peers, as you do, I can only
> > say, in humbled spirit, your writing is as cogent as Veblen and as
> > Unibomber Ted in his Manifesto.
>
> I wish. Both were very powerful writers.
If confused ideation, irrational concatenations and deviated
disconstructions are so "powerful" that the writing confounds the most
astute editors and academic peers, then you don't have to wish - you
are there. Re:Veblen - he described natural, normal social dynamics
in rhetorical diffusion and it became a "theory." I never use this
expression, but it serves: LOL, LOL.
> >
> > > Compare your own ranting excesses, an embarassing eructation of malaprop
> and
> > > disorganised puns and cliches.
> >
> > What you may believe, or want to assert are my "disorganized puns",
> > whatever that means, are cryptic messages written for my purposes, not
> > yours. I need a cite to clarify it/them for you. Do you mean, "The
> > manure of the Master Donkey is a sign" or "Bo is the odiom of the
> > people."
>
> It's generally assumed one writes for others, not oneself. The key concept
> here is "communication." But please don't imagine I do not understand your
> references: they are still "disorganised," a word I use in its pathological
> sense.
Oh, PRIME BULLSHIT! I KNOW you do not understand my cryptic
allusions.
Tranference again: most of your posts as well as YOUR formal body of
work parse "disorganized" exposing your thinking process is in chronic
disarray and dissemble. My writing/communication in the atc is
strictly informal, spontaneous and conversational.
> > Now when it comes to organized cliches, you do excel: the Babbitt
> > cliche is just too, too - what can I say, too much of cliche for
> > disorganization.
>
> Others call it sanity, Nan.
It was insane of you to come up with the moldy leftover leftist cliche
BABBITT!
Insane and inane as you wrote to me, in effect,
"Luk is the perfect impersonation of BABBITT."
You deserve endless ridicule for that blundering hoax of a phoney show
of
your self-proclaimed "academic mastery" as well as your subsequent
dissembling blusters in attempt to slither out of the disgrace.
>
> > > > M/F wrote: "...insular view of the world..."
> > > >
> > > > One quick statement about this:
> > > > Most Americans have highly varied and independent views of the world
> > > > and their place in it. Among those Americans who are allegedly
> > > > "insular" in their worldview, it's their frickin right to be as
> > > > "insular" as they want to be. There is no frickin mandate to
> > > > "de-insulate" according to some foreign cabalistic ideology or U.S.
> > > > congressional legislation!!!
> > >
> > > Sure. The consequence of insularity is, of course, ignorance, bigotry,
> and
> > > other kinds of stupidity and danger,
> >
> > According to YOUR prejudiced definition of insularity, but not
> > according to my definition in reference to Americans.
>
> Of course. Your definitions are so labile.
Nope, I just really know Americans - all classes and diversities - I
don't think I've missed any of them during the past 60+ years'
experiences, interactions, observations and contemplations. However,
I've gained very little insight about Americans from icy academia
treatises or from my intolerant misanthropic "liberal" friends or from
social-theme novels.
Well, ONLY DEEP HUMANISTIC STIRRINGS AND INSIGHTS FROM STEINBECK
NOVELS!!!
> >
> > You presume your self-proclaimed "academic mastery" forbades your
> > being ignorant, bigotted. You arrogantly believe you cannot be so
> > stupid as to be destructive to the point of endangering young people
> > with the indoctrination of the unnatural, dehumanized egocentricities
> > of your ideation.
>
> I believe rather that I'm not so smart as to do anything faintly like
> "indoctrinate" people when I'm correcting their grammar.
Then, I believe rather you are smart enough to indoctrinate young
people
when you are not correcting their grammar.
> > > but you're right: everyone's entitled
> > > to be just as stupid and vulnerable as they want to be.
> >
> > AND, Americans have the right, and it is NOT an entitlement, to reject
> > stupid, nonpractable and dissociated worldview constructs as well as
> > self-serving elitist envisioning.
>
> It's dissociated to acknowledge the world, but not to pretend it's not
> there? Right.
Read it again, Melissa/Formica: the operative concept is "dissociated
worldview constructs." Who do you think "pretends" the world is not
there?
>
> > Americans' only vulnerability lies
> > in the subversive influences of intellectually dishonest educators in
> > a subverted academia.
>
> What a stupid comment. Tell that to the people who perished 9-11. You're
> an idiot, Nan.
I am not talking about external forces such as terrorism, you IDIOT!
I point to America's academically bankrupt educational systems as
causing a grievous vulnerability for present and future generations.
UK has 'ems too.
I haven't slandered your book recommendation in any post in this
thread.
You just vere-off, deflect and digress with salamanders when the
discussion
gets too close to the nitty-gritty for you.
> >I
> > willing to bet you attend workshops on mind control techniques with
> > which to effectuate *shame* in students for their "traditional"
> > inclinations and values.
>
> Huh? I *teach* traditional inclinations and values. "Mind control"
> techniques? You mean, like eradicating split infinitives?
No, I don't mean "split infinitives" and you know it. I mean more in
the sense of split definitives.
> >
> > I'd suggest, though,
> > > that you shut the fuck up about Iraq, however, if you choose to remain
> so.
> > >
> > > Form.
> >
> > You are out of your mind, you stupid, stupid woman! Jesu! I will
> > never shut up about anything or any subject by your fascistic order!!!
>
> Note the word: "suggest."
The fascistic tone of "shut the fuck up" is not a benign "suggest" to
me.
>
> > I will always refer to your intellectual dishonesty, and question
> > your integrity as an educator.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> Form.
Yeah, etc.
from Nan
Alan Hope
>Oh, PRIME BULLSHIT! I KNOW you do not understand my cryptic
>allusions.
>Tranference again: most of your posts as well as YOUR formal body of
>work parse "disorganized" exposing your thinking process is in chronic
>disarray and dissemble. My writing/communication in the atc is
>strictly informal, spontaneous and conversational.
It's my considered view that nan is displaying a (written) form of
dysphasia common among the brain-damaged, psychotic or demented. This
consists in hearing (or reading) a word, which then sparks a sort of
"riffing" on that word, far into the territory of incoherence. We have
seen her propensity to malapropism, which I suggest is a sign not of
her poor vocabulary (a large proportion of the nonsense-words she uses
do exist, and are nonsensical only in the context in which she places
them) but rather of her lack of any desire to make her words fit her
meaning. It's enough (examples abound in every post) that the word she
chooses *sound like* it might fit. This approximation to meaning can
be seen in the sentence above beginning, "Transference again: ... ".
The words in that sentence all exist, and show some evidence of a
sophisticated vocabulary, but put together, they are quite devoid of
meaning. The outward manifestation of this condition comes to resemble
a sort of glossolalia. Interestingly, a very high proportion of the
words so misused belong to the vocabulary of psychiatry, and it is
interesting to speculate that they may demonstrate echolalia also:
that she has picked them up in the course of treatment for a mental
health problem.
So her writing (communication is too strong a word) is indeed
informal, to an almost pathological degree. It is also spontaneous in
the extreme, in that it appears to be almost reflexive. It would be
wrong, however, to describe it as conversational: conversation
necessarily involves the exchange of information between (or among)
participants, which is very much not the case here.
It would be wrong, however, to speculate here as to whether the
condition is caused by dementia, by an underlying psychosis or organic
aetiology, or by brain-damage caused by, say, substance abuse. Only a
full psychiatric and medical evaluation would allow a proper
conclusion to be drawn in that regard.
--
AH
nan
Jesu! What a flaming defamation!
The murdering Papin sisters were incestual lesbian lovers.
Melissa's naking misattribution really points to the inner
turmoil of her psyche.
The worse trait I've ever attributed to Melissa is intellectual
dishonesty,
and she is always proving the plain truth of it. It is evident
Melissa's repressed self-hatred manifests itself outwardly in hostile
snips and quips,
and by acting-out with specialized resentment and antagonism.
Self-admittedly, Melissa enraged all the New Zealanders who are
devotees
to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and probably enraged many who are not.
Well, Sharonpo, when the clock strikes thirteen, we know Melissa is
here.
Hope all's well with your family and your life, from Nan
formica63
> >
> > >You could have fooled me. The only people here who have trouble
relating to
> > >me are the ng Papin sisters, namely you and Sharonpo. You really do
believe
> > >this stuff, don't you? It's sad.
Sharon:
> > You need to get over your obsession with me. You know as well as I do
that
> > you're considered professionally incompetent. I don't know why you
persist in
> > dragging my name into your futile arguments, but I suppose it's done
because
> > you know if I see it, I'll respond to it.
No, that's not right. Reread what I said. I post on a wide variety of
topics. You post about me.
> > Your reckless bombast has driven your "friends" deeply underground. Do
you not
> > wonder why?
Nope. I'm in touch with my friends. And many of your quondam "friends" as
well, as a matter of fact. Don't blame me -- I'm friendly by disposition.
> > Leave me out of your diatribes, Melissa. If I want to talk to you, I'll
let
> > you know. Stop sniping for attention.
Oh, please. If your doddering sibling hadn't quoted you, I'd not even know
you were still above ground. Making an assumption, of course.
Nan:
> Jesu! What a flaming defamation!
> The murdering Papin sisters were incestual lesbian lovers.
>
> Melissa's naking misattribution really points to the inner
> turmoil of her psyche.
Oh, please. Folie a deux. Read Janet Flanner's wonderful article, from the
New Yorker. She wrote under the soubriquet Genet, if that helps. _You knew
that, of course!_
> The worse trait I've ever attributed to Melissa is intellectual
> dishonesty,
> and she is always proving the plain truth of it. It is evident
> Melissa's repressed self-hatred manifests itself outwardly in hostile
> snips and quips,
> and by acting-out with specialized resentment and antagonism.
Oh, please. I'm occasionally snippy with you when you go on an anile
rampage. I'm a pussycat.
> Self-admittedly, Melissa enraged all the New Zealanders who are
> devotees
> to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and probably enraged many who are not.
Not all of them. A few of them. I'm learning to live with this knowledge
after five years. As for Kiwis not Randian fanatics, I know a fair few of
them, and I dare say many more than you. In fact, my best chum when I was
working on my [redacted] dissertation was a lass from Invercargill. I
imagine you'll have to look that up.
> Well, Sharonpo, when the clock strikes thirteen, we know Melissa is
> here.
Oh, please. Stop it with the tired Orwellian asides. I don't doubt Po
hasn't an idea what you are talking about, whereas those who do know that
it's hilariously ironic for you to make these theatrical little jibes.
> Hope all's well with your family and your life, from Nan
Oh, please. All's well with Sharonpo? As if!
Under the spreading chestnut tree,
Form.
nan
Sharonpo, the clock just struck thirteen. It's sniping for attention.
Later, with regards from Nan
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
You should take this act on the road Nan.
Bo Raxo
> "formica63" <pit...@patter.coma> wrote in message news:<WNuLa.2854$p8.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > <snip inchoate ranting from nan>
> MALISSA, to avoid your misrepresentations, let's unsnip my "rants" and
> ZIP BACK to the "inchoate" CONTEXT, which in great part was:
>
> > > Bo, in vain attempts to project his self-styled "liberality," clads
> > > himself with sophomoric affectations. Furthermore, he types faster
> > > than he thinks.
> > >
> > > Messelina is correct is her assessment of Bo. Bo is boring because his
> > > responses are predictible reverberated sophistic banalities.
> > >
> > > When Bo grows up and begins to THINK instead of spurting, he might be
> > > less boring, or at best, less aggravating.
> > >
> > > from Nan
>
> >Bo responds:
> > So in a discussion of people being needlessly killed, and human rights
> > abuses by the country that should be the champion of such rights instead of
> > their abuser, the best idea you can come up with to contribute is that you
> > don't like me.
>
> Bo, of what "country" do you speak??? If one wants
> stats,facts&history and TRUTHFUL reports on human rights abuses and on
> innocent people killed, "needlessly" or otherwise, one would NEVER use
> YOUR highly biased, partisan propaganda as a credible source!!! Jesu,
> are you serious?
Well, my original post contained the country and a link to the story
in the Mirror of London. Highly biased? Hardly, it's a typical
London tabloid: a little sensational in the headlines and story
choice, but has solid reporting. Unlike the right-wing and
anti-semitic web sites you use to cite stuff. My source has a
newspaper with a daily circulation of over a million; yours exist only
as right-wing rant sites with no real-worl business or reputation to
back them up.
>
> Bo wrote: "American troops shooting civilians is an atrocity;"
>
> Nan replies:
> PUT YOUR STATEMENT INTO FULL FACTUAL CONTEXT AND CITE YOUR SOURCES,
> OTHERWISE, YOU'RE A LIBELOUS PROVOCATEUR, IDIOT!
Well, read my original post. The full article's text was included.
It quoted U.S. soldiers, including their first and last names, their
rank, and an approximate description of their MOS. Is that full,
factual, and ontextual enough for you?
>
> BO, you have to PROVE your assertion American troops are arbitrarily
> shooting civilians as your above-quoted defamative statement implies.
The article I cited, from a newspaper with a circulation of over a
million copies a day, quotes U.S. soldiers, by name.
>
> Bo, your mind constricts and strangulates with partisan prejudices
> which dictate your focal points.
My mind strangulates? Do you even read this stuff as you write it, or
does it just flow out like some brain equivalent of diarreha?
>
> My caveat to the world is:
> Bo Raxo's biases are molto chiaro: his glaring prejudices foreshorten
> and distort the truer contextual perspective on these profound issues.
Look in a mirror, honey.
>
<snip more of Nan repeating herself that Bo is a dirty liberal and his
mind is all strangled and such.>
>
> Bo says to Nan:
> > My, what a petty little person you are.
>
> BECAUSE I am critical of the blatantly biased "editorial" character of
> your commentary, and BECAUSE I scrutinize those glaring biases and
> focal distortions???
> Too, too bad, Kid, you are not above scrutiny just because your
> learned toadys [ref. to Formica&AH] are hypocritical and uncourageous.
No, because in a story about people being slaughtered needlessly and
human suffering, the only contribution you have is an attack on me.
That's what makes you petty.
>
> > Take a look at the subject line and
> > strain that tiny brain of yours really, really hard, asking yourself the
> > question: In a story of civilians being shot and wounded soliders being left
> > to die in agony, is your opinion of me even remotely relevant? Could there
> > be, perhaps, larger issues?
>
> My opinion is relevant because it questions the credibility of your
> highly charged partisan viewpoints and your "editorial" reporting
> which paraphrases every anti-American, quasi-neoMarxist WEB site. THIS
> is curious, isn't it?
> > <Snip Bo's assinine immature stupid-stuff>
Mirror of London. Hardly a liberal paper. Certainly less biased than
the "newsmax" and other right-wing rant web sites you post crap from.
Oh, Hilary wants to put us all under a one-world dictatorship,
according to your breathless (and totally off-topic) crap-posts.
>
> Bo signs off with:
> > Bo Raxo
> > Insert pseudo-intellectual "adjective-adverb, adverb-adjective" tautology
> > here.
>
> Nan plays Baroque:
> Chiasmus, chiasmus a tutti: Bo is boringly aggravating and
> aggravatingly boring!
>
"Boringly aggravating"? There's an oxymoron.
> WORSE than boring: Bo is NOT capable of credible commentary. Bo's
> viewpoints are NOT objectively constructed in the focus of a fair
> scope.
Viewpoints are inherently not objective; another oxymoron.
>His mind is tightly held shut by overbearing biases. Bo tries
> to compensate for his deficiencies by flaunting sophomoric
> affectations - pseudo-byronic "liberal" hero poses.
Pseudo-byronic --- I rather like that one. But really, it sounds like
you don't have any refutation of my source, my facts, or my arguments,
so your rant is directed at me personally. Ad hominym is the weakest
form of argument.
>Bo, like most
> brattish runs-off-the-mouths, is cowardly, whiney and waspish in
> confrontation or under fire.
Time for you to look in the mirror again.
>
> Remember this, Bo, because I do:
>
> In a post some while ago, I made a reference to persons who were
> praying on the behalf of victims of an awful event - maybe it was the
> Sydney wildfires. You little phoney petty pukey-putz! you attacked me
> for being a religious NUT because I mentioned "prayers and praying" in
> my post!
Actually, there are plenty of reasons to call you a nut. Your posts
on this thread provide ample evidence.
>
> You are responsible for characterizing yourself, Bo, as an intolerant
> fanatic and an intolerable phoney-liberal. Your crap is standard
> pseudo-liberal issue.
Hmmm, intolerant: that would be from you, who complains about a
generous fellow like George Soros because he gives money to poor
countries instead of Israel. And my crap, thank you, is hardly
standard issue: I march to my own drummer.
>
> So, Melissa, the foregoing is the context you so hypocritically
> "snipped".
>
Wait, you're arguing with me here, Melissa is a whole different
person.
Well, apparently, not to you.
> from Nan
>
Formie's response was thoughtful and well-reasoned. That you cannot
consider her ideas because you don't like the woman tells us a lot
about your prejudice and narrow-mindedness.
As if we needed more examples.
Nan, I post the full article, with a link to a mass-circulation
newspaper. You respond, cutting out the article and the citation, and
whine that I haven't given you a source for these facts. And then you
ramble on stringing together meaningless phrases (really, define
pseudo-liberal for me, I can hardly wait to find out what the hell you
mean by that) and whine and bitch and moan that I'm filled with
sophomoric byronesque...uh, something or other. I can't even mimic
your hysterics.
I try to reserve the following epithet for those who really have
earned it, and you have: you're one stupid bitch.
Lord Byron Raxo
Sharonpo
>Sharon:
>> > You need to get over your obsession with me. You know as well as I do
>that
>> > you're considered professionally incompetent. I don't know why you
>persist in
>> > dragging my name into your futile arguments, but I suppose it's done
>because
>> > you know if I see it, I'll respond to it.
>
>No, that's not right. Reread what I said. I post on a wide variety of
>topics. You post about me.
You are incredibly rude to piggy back on Nan's post to respond to me when you
make such a big deal about having me killfiled. You're having some aging
issues, aren't you?
>> > Your reckless bombast has driven your "friends" deeply underground. Do
>you not
>> > wonder why?
>Nope. I'm in touch with my friends. And many of your quondam "friends" as
>well, as a matter of fact. Don't blame me -- I'm friendly by disposition.
Thank *you*. You have just revealed more about yourself than you will ever
know. If you weren't so needy, you would be mortified by the hypocrisy you have
just broadcast worldwide.
>> > Leave me out of your diatribes, Melissa. If I want to talk to you, I'll
>let
>> > you know. Stop sniping for attention.
>Oh, please. If your doddering sibling hadn't quoted you, I'd not even know
>you were still above ground. Making an assumption, of course.
You are making an ass of yourself, again.
You need to take some time to reflect on the different "images" of Melissa
you've floated around here. You might accidently realize that you have no core
belief system; that you've played so many different roles and intruded in so
many different controversies, that you don't really know what you value.
It's very obvious (to a 6+ year observer) that you take yourself very seriously
in all venues, are professionally marginal, crave attention, overcompensate,
are hypocritical (this is a fairly new public manifestation), and are desperate
for validation.
<snip of your excuse to respond to me.>
When you quit seeing me in every post you don't like and quit dragging my name
into your paranoid universe, you'll be on the road to recovery.
Leave - me - out - of - your - dreams! OK?
Sheesh....