Carville hoax came from GOP House offices
Seneca
Reported by MSNBC, 1/25/99
The article was bylined Lee Canular, which is French for "hoax."
An article was circulated via the Internet that detailed the
allegations against one of Bill Clinton’s most vocal defenders: he had
supposedly shot a gun into a couch, plunged a hunting knife into a
wall, and "threatened the life of his wife, radio talk show host Mary
Matalin Carville, and used physical force against her."
The incident was a complete fabrication.
The paper that the article was attributed to, The Montgomery County
Ledger, doesn’t exist; individuals quoted in the "article" were made
up.
But without checking into the veracity of the article, staffers on the
Hill e-mailed it to colleagues, giving it extra credibility.
"This junk came out the offices of Congress," said one source. "It’s a
libelous slur that was perpetrated via government property. It’s
Hillary Clinton’s vast right-wing conspiracy at work."
It could not be determined who originated the article, but among the
congressional offices it apparently passed through:
Rep. Bill Thomas of California,
Rep. Michael Bilirakis of Florida,
Rep. Rick Lazio of New York,
Rep. Roger Wicker of Mississippi,
Rep. Bob Riley of Alabama,
Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma,
Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California,
Rep. Dan Miller of Florida,
Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama,
Rep. Michael Forbes of New York,
Rep. Don Manzullo of Illinois
Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah.
All are Republican.
Does that tell ya something?
Seneca
dbh
medication for 30 minutes?
I didn't think so!
dbh
Seneca wrote in message <36ac6b06....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Aircontrol
NO! Where's the proof?
Tommy Tillman
and passed it on to other Newsgroups.
They are just as guilty as the rest.
Tommy VRWC member
Seneca wrote in message <36ac6b06....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
Cgul...@home.com
Very informative ! Hillary Clinton is leading a vast right wing
conspiracy !
> Seneca
--
BE AFRAID...BE VERY AFRAID
Wednesday Addams
Lee Harrison
<tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Yes. And many of the Clinton Lackeys here also copied it,
> commented on it, and passed it on to other Newsgroups.
> They are just as guilty as the rest.
Bullshit. Our posts explicitly followed Ray Heizer's lead in
debunking this piece of GOP propaganda.
But you rightwingers think you can rewrite the facts after a
few days have passed. No such luck for you, Mr. Tillman.
[begin repost ]
--------------------
Message 3 of 5 for search return to search results help Re:
Carville Arrested!!! Out On Bail.
Author: Ray Heizer <hei...@home.com> Date: 1999/01/21
Forum: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater more headers
author posting history
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------- In article
<19990120232530...@ng-fa1.aol.com> ,
powe...@aol.comnospam (PowerLib) wrote:
> White House Political Advisor Accused of Domestic Violence
> The Montgomery County Ledger By Lee Canular, 20-January-1999
> Wednesday
> ROCKVILLE, MD -- James Carville, vocal supporter and confidant of
> President Bill Clinton, reportedly spent last Monday night in the
> Montgomery County Jail after he was arrested on suspicion of firing
> a gun into a sofa and repeatedly plunging a knife into a wall during
> a fight with his wife in their suburban home here earlier that
> evening, according to local police sources.
[snip]
> Ami DeCour contributed to this article.
-- I just called the Rockville Police ...
o I was informed they have no Lt. Bobby Masters on the force.
o The person I spoke to has never heard of the 'Montgomery
County Ledger' (Rockville is in Montgomery County).
o The person I spoke to is unaware of Carville being arrested,
nor this story.
-- In addition ...
o Harrison Jackson is not listed at
http://lawyers.martindale.com/marhub=00
o Waltham, Jackson and Curtis are not listed at
http://lawyers.martindale.com/marhub=00
-- Finally, the Carville's seemed to living in Virginia these
days:
- - -
The Ottawa Citizen January 18, 1999, Monday
'I ain't gonna shut up,' Carville says
HOWARD KURTZ; THE WASHINGTON POST
=A0=A0=A0 James Carville is in mid-tirade. His ghoulish smile
is frozen in place,= his eyes narrowed to scary-looking slits,
his bald head tilted at an unnatural angle.
SNIP
James Carville was hardly an instant success. At 40, after a
string of losing campaigns, he was depressed and out of
money. But then he won a few races, signed on as Mr. Clinton's
top 1992 campaign strategist and burst into the big time.
These days, of course, he shares a sprawling Shenandoah County
farm with his wife and two young daughters -- they had a hog
slaughter the other day = -- and is looking for a suitable
home in suburban Alexandria, Virginia.
SNIP
-- We really need to find a way to keep the idiots off the
net.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[end repost]
[begin repost of fake story]
In article <1999012107...@replay.com> ,
la...@nowhere.net (Larue) wrote:
> Oh man, ain't this great!!! The great icon of you puke lefties is
> busted for putting his family and neighbors in jeopardy by shooting
> up his house. Carville is as crazy as a shit house rat, just like
> his troopers who work like slaves on this newsgroup.
> On 21 Jan 1999 04:25:30 GMT, powe...@aol.comnospam (PowerLib)
> wrote:
>> White House Political Advisor Accused of Domestic Violence
>> The Montgomery County Ledger By Lee Canular, 20-January-1999
>> Wednesday
>> ROCKVILLE, MD -- James Carville, vocal supporter and confidant of
>> President Bill Clinton, reportedly spent last Monday night in the
>> Montgomery County Jail after he was arrested on suspicion of firing
>> a gun into a sofa and repeatedly plunging a knife into a wall
>> during a fight with his wife in their suburban home here earlier
>> that evening, according to local police sources.
>> Rockville police said neighbors called them to the Carville home at
>> about 6:40 p. m. Monday evening after hearing gunshots.
>> Carville, an internationally known political consultant and
>> Democrat
>> Party campaign manager, allegedly had twice discharged a Glock nine
>> millimeter semi-automatic pistol inside the home, damaged a living
>> room wall with an oversized hunting knife, threatened the life of
>> his wife, radio talk show host Mary Matalin Carville, and used
>> physical force against her.
>> Rockville police subsequently took him into custody on suspicion of
>> domestic violence and brandishing a weapon, both misdemeanors. He
>> was also charged with discharging a firearm in a negligent manner,
>> a violation which could be prosecuted as a felony.
>> Carville, 54, apparently was not shooting at his wife when he twice
>> fired at the couch, although she was in the room at the time, said
>> Rockville Police Lt. Bobby Masters. The woman was not injured,
>> Masters noted, and it did not appear that the safety of the
>> couple's
>> two young children was ever jeopardized.
>> Masters also indicated that officers confiscated the handgun, as
>> well as the hunting knife, two shotguns, and an AR-15 model
>> semi-automatic assault rifle, and are holding them as evidence as
>> their investigation continues. The pistol firearm, which has no
>> serial number, is believed to be unregistered.
>> After his night's detention, Mr. Carville posted bail on a
>> preliminary charge of domestic violence in the amount of $3500
>> Tuesday morning, pending formal arraignment in Montgomery County
>> Superior Court on Friday, February 12, 1999.
>> Outside the court room, Carville's attorney, Mr. Harrison Jackson
>> of
>> the Washington, D. C. firm of Waltham, Jackson and Curtis, said
>> neither of the Carvilles would be making public comments on the
>> matter. "They both just want to bring this whole thing to closure
>> as soon as possible," said Mr. Jackson.
>> Mrs. Carville did not attend the bail hearing and has not returned
>> repeated phone calls.
>> The couple is known for their co-authorship of All's Fair: Love,
>> War, and Running for President (Simon & Schuster/ Random House,
>> 1994), one of the best selling campaign memoirs in American
>> history. During their 1992 courtship, Mrs. Carville, nee Matalin,
>> was a campaign manager for President Bush's re-election effort, and
>> Mr. Carville worked for the Clinton campaign.
>> Ami DeCour contributed to this article.
[end repost of fake story]
Maybe you're talking about your rightwing pals who misquoted
and distorted the posts that exposed the story?
You're just apologizing for liars. Kiss my ass.
Lee Harrison | Vide et crede
> Tommy VRWC member
> Seneca wrote in message <36ac6b06....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>> Reported by MSNBC, 1/25/99
>> All are Republican.
>> Seneca
Lee Harrison | Vide et crede
Tommy Tillman
You guys are so easily had!
Tommy VRWC member
ps.... I also quoted it too.... so sue me!!! <Heheheheehhe>
Lee Harrison wrote in message <36ad1...@news.usenetnews.org>...
dbh
keep both oars in the water?
Has nothing to do with hate. Has everything to do with truth!
The fact that the "Clinton Cult" chose Carville as their 'poster boy' is not
my problem.... learn to live with it!
dbh
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36b53f5b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:51:32 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>
>>Have you ever witnessed Carville's actions after he's been without
>>medication for 30 minutes?
>>I didn't think so!
>>dbh
>
>So even after you know this whole thing is a hoax you continue to act
>as if your own hatred and stupidity makes it so?
>
> Jim
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>===========================================================================
>"We're not delegates who are sent here to weigh our mail every day and then
to
>vote accordingly; our work here is not an ongoing plebiscite. Some issues
are of
>such transcendent importance that you have to be willing to lose your
office over."
>
> -- Henry Hyde invites Senators to join him in a political suicide
pact!
>===========================================================================
>
Lee Harrison
pubescent, giddy, unaware of any strong lines between the
truth and lies.
You're not really mature enough to be involved in a sense of
humor yet.
So you don't know - yet - how funny you are. How tangled your
values are. How jumbled your thinking is.
How little your views matter to anybody.
Study up, Tommy. Go to school every day, and come back when
you have something to say.
In article <78jgc8$dvf$1...@nw001t.infi.net> , "Tommy Tillman"
Just Some Guy
--
Just Some Guy
"Is spite an emotion?" -- sg
Cgul...@home.com wrote in article <36ACFC35...@home.com>...
dbh
You simply can't talk fast enough nor long enough to by chance say anything
that I would give a passing thought too... go ahead and try buckwheat! You
can't get there from here....
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36ba4ed4...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:49:00 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>
>>Is it your belief that Carville doesn't take medication daily in order to
>>keep both oars in the water?
>
>All you have to do is prove your assertion or be labeled a loon.
why would I care if you believe this well known fact? You didn't get as
screwed up as you are by embracing the truth.... why start now?
>
>>Has nothing to do with hate. Has everything to do with truth!
>>The fact that the "Clinton Cult" chose Carville as their 'poster boy' is
not
>>my problem.... learn to live with it!
>
>The right wing hoax machine chose Mr. Carville because he kicks their
>butts at every turn.
your statement makes no sense, read it slowly and try again.
>
>And he has done so here as well.
somebody call the law, this turd is getting all over me!!!!!
dbh
>
> Jim
Tommy Tillman
>So Tommy. How old are you? You act about 12 or 13 years old,
>pubescent, giddy, unaware of any strong lines between the
>truth and lies.
>
Hmmm.... older than 13. Less than 100.
>You're not really mature enough to be involved in a sense of
>humor yet.
>
You take this tooooooo seriously. Lighten up. You'll get an ulcer if you
don't!
>So you don't know - yet - how funny you are. How tangled your
>values are. How jumbled your thinking is.
>
Not really. Been Republican oh... about 28 years now. Clear as rain
all that time!
>How little your views matter to anybody.
>
Touche'
>Study up, Tommy. Go to school every day, and come back when
>you have something to say.
>
Nawww.... been graduated with 3 degrees for about 25 years now. Getting
too old to go back with all the babes there!!!!
>In article <78jgc8$dvf$1...@nw001t.infi.net> , "Tommy Tillman"
><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> See, you just proved my point again!
>>
>> You guys are so easily had!
The point was that YOU quoted material in your accusation against others
doing the same thing.
Actually, we shouldn't be posting any Copyright material at all. Than
includes Conservatives too!!!! We should simply provide hot links to the
respective page on the Internet.
Tommy VRWC member
dbh
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36e281d1...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:29:40 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>
>>You would have a lot more fun calling someone a 'loon' who cares.
>>You simply can't talk fast enough nor long enough to by chance say
anything
>>that I would give a passing thought too... go ahead and try buckwheat! You
>>can't get there from here....
>
My faith dictates that I give aid to the mentally impaired, down trodden,
lower class when possible. Responding to you makes me feel good all over.
Due in no part to the substance of your comments so don't get your hopes up!
>
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
>><36ba4ed4...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:49:00 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is it your belief that Carville doesn't take medication daily in order
to
>>>>keep both oars in the water?
>>>
>>>All you have to do is prove your assertion or be labeled a loon.
>>
>>why would I care if you believe this well known fact? You didn't get as
>>screwed up as you are by embracing the truth.... why start now?
>>>
>>>>Has nothing to do with hate. Has everything to do with truth!
>>>>The fact that the "Clinton Cult" chose Carville as their 'poster boy' is
>>not
>>>>my problem.... learn to live with it!
>>>
>>>The right wing hoax machine chose Mr. Carville because he kicks their
>>>butts at every turn.
>>
>>your statement makes no sense, read it slowly and try again.
>
>Check your bruised butt for details.
your statement makes no sense!.... try again mullet!
>
>>>And he has done so here as well.
>>
>>somebody call the law, this turd is getting all over me!!!!!
>>dbh
>
>That's the stench of your own ignorance. Go take a shower.
if ignorance did have a stench you'd be real lonely and a shower wouldn't
get the job done!
>
>Now what exactly does all this have to do with your right wing hoax
>concerning James Carville?
>
> Jim
You tell me buckwheat? I am tolerant to most anything except immature
responses to serious areas of concern. I expressed a sincere belief that I
have regarding your 'poster boy' Carville. I honestly could care less if you
believe. Really prefer that you stay numb to these obvious truths.... you're
never going to change to the 'right' side and you are truly too stupid to be
of any value to the 'wrong' side.
Now if you have any honest questions that might establish a basis for
intelligent debate I will respond, otherwise you'll need to find someone
else to share your silliness with.
dbh
>
Scott Erb
people actually believed the hoax.
Yet many "conservatives" bitterly attack and denounce Carville. For what?
Giving them a taste of their own medicine. Carville simply does for the
other side what people like Rush Limbaugh (and Carville's own wife) do for
the Republicans. Many conservatives love to hear "liberals" lambasted by
a firey confident conservatives, but hate it when a firey confident
liberal lambasts conservatives. They call him hateful, mean, vicious,
etc., even though they don't recognize that the firey folk on their side
are doing the same thing.
Its selective perception. Carville's wife understands it. Mary knows
that James is doing what she does, only from a different perspective, and
that is part of politics, not a reason for personal hatred. He's a dream
husband, she says, faithful, loyal, intelligent, and good company.
But, of course, that's not the message the anti-Carville folk want to
hear.
cheers, scott
Art Vandelay
wrote:
As a conservative, I can't stand Carville. Now I know why liberals
hate Limbaugh so much. As you mentioned, Carville, like Limbaugh,
does a great job of energizing his side and infuriating the
opposition. He's good at what he does.
I still don't understand how Matalin and Carville can be married. It
boggles my mind. They appear to be very happy, but I can't imagine
them discussing politics without yelling and screaming at each other.
Maybe they have a no politics at home rule.
dbh
ok by me. It is my opinion based on articles I've read/heard that he takes
medication daily to protect himself from little green men. Don't know the
man, can't prove my point but based on personal observations, I choose to
believe it. (I think I have that right)
It it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck, runs around
with other ducks... I choose to call it a duck. You, on the other hand,
choose to call it a liberal poster boy named Carville...
Works for me, hope it does for you.
dbh
Scott Erb wrote in message <78negc$t0m$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
Thomas Andrews
>We all are free to choose our heroes..... you choose Carville as yours....
>ok by me.
Show me where Scott chose Carville as a hero, or indicated that he felt
Carville was a hero.
=thomas
>
>Scott Erb wrote in message <78negc$t0m$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>>James Carville's wife called him a "dream husband," and was shocked that
>>people actually believed the hoax.
>>
>>Yet many "conservatives" bitterly attack and denounce Carville. For what?
>>Giving them a taste of their own medicine. Carville simply does for the
>>other side what people like Rush Limbaugh (and Carville's own wife) do for
>>the Republicans. Many conservatives love to hear "liberals" lambasted by
>>a firey confident conservatives, but hate it when a firey confident
>>liberal lambasts conservatives. They call him hateful, mean, vicious,
>>etc., even though they don't recognize that the firey folk on their side
>>are doing the same thing.
>>
>>Its selective perception. Carville's wife understands it. Mary knows
>>that James is doing what she does, only from a different perspective, and
>>that is part of politics, not a reason for personal hatred. He's a dream
>>husband, she says, faithful, loyal, intelligent, and good company.
>>
>>But, of course, that's not the message the anti-Carville folk want to
>>hear.
>>cheers, scott
>>
>
>
--
Thomas Andrews thom...@yahoo.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
Ken Starr: "I think that is an unfair question."
Barney Frank: "You're the expert on unfair questions. If
you're telling me it's an unfair question, I'll withdraw it."
Lee Harrison
<tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Lee Harrison wrote in message <36ae2...@news.usenetnews.org>...
[snip]
>>You're not really mature enough to be involved in a sense of
>>humor yet.
> You take this tooooooo seriously. Lighten up. You'll get an ulcer
> if you
> don't!
I'm aware that republicans take these smears and lies lightly.
I wonder if you'd remain cool if somebody ran the same story
about your daddy and mommy?
First we'd have to pry into your private life to find out
where you live, your street address and phone number, and
those of your relatives and friends, if any exist.
Then we just take the fraudulent story about Carville and put
your information in there.
It would take me a couple of hours to put it together, post it
on Usenet and all over the internet, and call up a few
"Christian" media outlets to make sure your troubles get fair
exposure.
How mentally and emotionally stable are your mommy & daddy,
Tommy?
Once the rumors begin to be published, they'll need lots of
inner strength - or muscle relaxers - to get through the
"media interest."
And your neighbors and friends will never look at you the same
again, even knowing that the story was fake.
After people have allowed themselves to feel a certain way
about a friend or family member, there's just no going back.
Poor mommy & daddy Tillman. Poor Tommy.
Nobody really cares as long as it's you and not them.
>>So you don't know - yet - how funny you are. How tangled your
>>values are. How jumbled your thinking is.
> Not really. Been Republican oh... about 28 years now. Clear as
> rain
> all that time!
>
>>How little your views matter to anybody.
> Touche'
>
>>Study up, Tommy. Go to school every day, and come back when
>>you have something to say.
>
> Nawww.... been graduated with 3 degrees for about 25 years now.
> Getting
> too old to go back with all the babes there!!!!
Really? What field are your three degrees in? Nose-picking,
dirt-eating, and humming silently to yourself?
dbh
obvious? You want to know why Scott believes Carville is a hero.... ask him
yourself.
Don't bother me with your dribble..... please! You can't even keep the post
in proper order..... give me a break!
dbh
Thomas Andrews wrote in message <78npv1$6fq$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
Scott Erb
>
>When did it become my responsibility to enlighten lazy liberals to the
>obvious? You want to know why Scott believes Carville is a hero.... ask
him
>yourself.
>Don't bother me with your dribble..... please!
Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Actually, I don't have "heros." I
simply pointed out that Carville's wife calls him a "dream husband," and
that many who condemn him are the same who support conservative firebrands
who talk like Carville but against the other side (an assessment agreed
with by one thoughtful conservative poster).
I think the fact Mary and James have a good marriage shows that if people
put politics in perspective they won't hate or despise those who think
differently than themselves.
I suspect most posters to these groups don't put politics in perspective.
;)
The National Credibility Bureau Inc
dbh wrote in message ...
>When did it become my responsibility to enlighten lazy liberals to the
>obvious? You want to know why Scott believes Carville is a hero.... ask him
>yourself.
The truth about Carville is this. He is a bi-polar raving lunatic married to
a spaced out whiney broad.
x-no-archive: yes
I know, I know. You're not a lawyer, but
you play one on the internet.
Throughout the course of human events
members of the human race have continuously
strived to put their feet in their mouths. We
take it as our duty to point these events out in
the sincere hope that one will learn that it is
really us against them, not Republicans vs
Democrats. Politicians are like the World
Wrestling Federation, when the match ends
they all go to dinner together. The difference
being, who's buying the dinner. Us!
The National Credibility Bureau Inc.
Home of The Dream Team 2000
Bradley/McCain
dbh
dbh
Scott Erb wrote in message <78o141$316a$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Actually, I don't have "heros." I
>simply pointed out that Carville's wife calls him a "dream husband," and
dbh
I know I'm too tough for you but you really shouldn't snip the best parts of
my post .....you know the parts where you have absolutely no idea how to
respond.... just re-read my post of 10:52 am today. It answers all of your
'challenging' questions.
dbh
Give me a break.... this one is still damp!
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36e3c292...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:52:44 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
>><36e281d1...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:29:40 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>
>>>>You would have a lot more fun calling someone a 'loon' who cares.
>>>>You simply can't talk fast enough nor long enough to by chance say
>>>>anything that I would give a passing thought too... go ahead and try
buckwheat! You
>>>>can't get there from here....
>
>>>Then why are you answering me?
>
>>My faith dictates that I give aid to the mentally impaired, down trodden,
>>lower class when possible. Responding to you makes me feel good all over.
>>Due in no part to the substance of your comments so don't get your hopes
up!
>
>So you answered me again?
eh yea, you qualify in all three catagories twit!
>
>How long have you been an Assholetarian?
well.... I must admit you are a wordsmith beyond equal!!!!!
Guards,........ oh guards!
>
>Now what does this have to do with your James Carville hoax?
>
> Jim
Find previous post, read slow. Try not and ask the same questions for a
third time...... there is a limit to my generosity and patience.
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
Tommy Tillman
>In article <78n38m$qjh$1...@nw001t.infi.net> , "Tommy Tillman"
><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> Lee Harrison wrote in message <36ae2...@news.usenetnews.org>...
>
>[snip]
>
>>>You're not really mature enough to be involved in a sense of
>>>humor yet.
>
>> if you
>> don't!
>
>I'm aware that republicans take these smears and lies lightly.
>I wonder if you'd remain cool if somebody ran the same story
>about your daddy and mommy?
>
I'd shrug it off with a laugh, considering the source. Lighten up!
>First we'd have to pry into your private life to find out
>where you live, your street address and phone number, and
>those of your relatives and friends, if any exist.
>
White House
Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC
>Then we just take the fraudulent story about Carville and put
>your information in there.
>
Might get interesting... go on!
>It would take me a couple of hours to put it together, post it
>on Usenet and all over the internet, and call up a few
>"Christian" media outlets to make sure your troubles get fair
>exposure.
>
Cool!
>How mentally and emotionally stable are your mommy & daddy,
>Tommy?
>
With my crowd, they were pretty stable. They HAD to be!
>Once the rumors begin to be published, they'll need lots of
>inner strength - or muscle relaxers - to get through the
>"media interest."
>
They'd get a big belly laugh out of it. Might even get me to post some
false stories about myselft to make it even better!
And they buy lots of papers and magazines to keep!
>And your neighbors and friends will never look at you the same
>again, even knowing that the story was fake.
>
They would probably think I faked it myself!
>After people have allowed themselves to feel a certain way
>about a friend or family member, there's just no going back.
>
They'd think I was mad as a hatter... no, they think that already!
>Poor mommy & daddy Tillman. Poor Tommy.
>
Hmmm... maybe financially, but that's another story!
>Nobody really cares as long as it's you and not them.
>
That pretty much sums it up for me, doesn't it. I'll go stand in the
corner till it's alright to come back out, OK?
>>>So you don't know - yet - how funny you are. How tangled your
>>>values are. How jumbled your thinking is.
>
>> Not really. Been Republican oh... about 28 years now. Clear as
>> rain
>> all that time!
>>
>>>How little your views matter to anybody.
>
>> Touche'
>>
>>>Study up, Tommy. Go to school every day, and come back when
>>>you have something to say.
>>
>> Nawww.... been graduated with 3 degrees for about 25 years now.
>> Getting
>> too old to go back with all the babes there!!!!
>
>Really? What field are your three degrees in? Nose-picking,
>dirt-eating, and humming silently to yourself?
>
Well, since YOU asked.... BS Physics, BS Computer Science, and BS
Science Education in the Public Schools.
Tommy VRWC Member in good standing
Jerry Watson
On Wed, 27 Jan 99 16:50:19 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
wrote:
[snip]
>I think the fact Mary and James have a good marriage shows that if people
>put politics in perspective they won't hate or despise those who think
>differently than themselves.
>
>I suspect most posters to these groups don't put politics in perspective.
>;)
Despite the fact that Mary Matlin is an "enabler" in an "abusive"
relationship. Wait, don't get your nitie in a knot. The "abusive"
relationship I refer to is her acting, as a woman, as a spokeswoman for
the GOP. Now that's some kind of masochism.
bsdwatson
David Annis
wrote:
>In article <HTKr2.3$14....@news12.ispnews.com>, d...@trit.net says...
>>
>>When did it become my responsibility to enlighten lazy liberals to the
>>obvious? You want to know why Scott believes Carville is a hero.... ask
>him
>>yourself.
>>Don't bother me with your dribble..... please!
>
>Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Actually, I don't have "heros." I
>simply pointed out that Carville's wife calls him a "dream husband," and
>that many who condemn him are the same who support conservative firebrands
>who talk like Carville but against the other side (an assessment agreed
>with by one thoughtful conservative poster).
>
>I think the fact Mary and James have a good marriage shows that if people
>put politics in perspective they won't hate or despise those who think
>differently than themselves.
>
>I suspect most posters to these groups don't put politics in perspective.
>;)
Sir,
Well done!
I do believe you have hit the nail on the head!
******************************************************
* Dave Annis | With age comes wisdom, if you *
* Sheboygan, WI | stay awake along the way! *
******************************************************
dbh
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<371ce911...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:26:48 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>
>>We've been through this before loser....
>>I know I'm too tough for you but you really shouldn't snip the best parts
of
>>my post .....
>
Thanks for the confirmation buckwheat!
>
>>you know the parts where you have absolutely no idea how to
>>respond.... just re-read my post of 10:52 am today. It answers all of your
>>'challenging' questions.
>
>You really are a self centered little twit aren't you?
Self centered? of course! I know who I am, of where I speak and am confident
of my importance. No way you would ever understand and I'm certain you'll
never live the experience.
>
>Meanwhile, today 44 Senators put you out of your misery.
OK, if you say so... ?
>
>>Give me a break.... this one is still damp!
>
>Tears of laughter, perhaps.
"only the fool laughs in sorrow"
>>>So you answered me again?
>>
>>eh yea, you qualify in all three catagories twit!
>
>But I thought you said I wan't worth bothering with?
I probably should have said that, but don't recall doing so. Probably will
say it soon if you keep acting silly.
>
>>>How long have you been an Assholetarian?
>>
>>well.... I must admit you are a wordsmith beyond equal!!!!!
>>Guards,........ oh guards!
>
>It appears you are member of the clergy.
>
OK
>>>Now what does this have to do with your James Carville hoax?
>
>>Find previous post, read slow. Try not and ask the same questions for a
>>third time...... there is a limit to my generosity and patience.
>
>As there is a severe limit to your IQ.
I believe we all have limits buckwheat.... do you believe yours to be
hidden?
>
>Now tell us again what all this posturing has to do with your James
>Carville hoax?
> Jim
I repeat,............ my understanding is that your 'poster boy' is required
to take daily medication in order to operate within liberal parameters of
sanity. Why that upsets you so is not clear. Do you think that this is a big
secret? Anyone of sound mind that would observe him for 5-minutes would
quickly suspect that the elevator doesn't always go to the top. This fact
coupled with the recent report made it easy for most people to accept the
story as probable. It wasn't much of a reach!
dbh
>
Zepp
<bsdw...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On Wed, 27 Jan 99 16:50:19 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>I think the fact Mary and James have a good marriage shows that if people
>>put politics in perspective they won't hate or despise those who think
>>differently than themselves.
>>
>>I suspect most posters to these groups don't put politics in perspective.
>>;)
>
>Despite the fact that Mary Matlin is an "enabler" in an "abusive"
>relationship. Wait, don't get your nitie in a knot. The "abusive"
>relationship I refer to is her acting, as a woman, as a spokeswoman for
>the GOP. Now that's some kind of masochism.
That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
splendid freedom.
A pity that it earns you no respect.
>
>bsdwatson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clinton buddy] Larry Flynt will be the guest of Hillary Rodham Clinton in
the gallery. They will be up there applauding. Anchors, news readers,
analysts, the criminal defense bar, Carlos Minnom (sp?), and Elizabeth Birch,
and virtually everybody in the D.C. Establishment will praise the speech to
the hilt."
Knickers, quoting Rush, and showing the editorial acumen
and good sense that made Knickers, Rush, and the sleazy
supermarket tabloids synonymous with one another.
Pay your taxes so the rich won't have to.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LightwaveDave
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36bb4f36...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 26 Jan 1999 21:10:41 GMT, "Just Some Guy" <j...@whereever.nothere>
>wrote:
>
>>I wonder if she ever gave Bill bjs...
>
>
> Jim
Oh Jimmy, for shame. And to think you actually took
a guy to task yesterday for calling someone a "bitch".
My what a hypocrite you are.
dbh
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
>><371ce911...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:26:48 -0500, "dbh" <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks for the confirmation buckwheat!
>
Isn't that compost you're thinking about?
>
>You are welcome.
>
>>>>you know the parts where you have absolutely no idea how to
>>>>respond.... just re-read my post of 10:52 am today. It answers all of
your
>>>>'challenging' questions.
>>>
>>>You really are a self centered little twit aren't you?
>
>>Self centered? of course! I know who I am, of where I speak and am
confident
>>of my importance. No way you would ever understand and I'm certain you'll
>>never live the experience.
>
>Like we all read your BS?
you certainly do!
>
>You even know the time you said nothing of importance.
>
??????? I'll have to pass on that one ???????
>>>Meanwhile, today 44 Senators put you out of your misery.
>>
>>OK, if you say so... ?
>
>Very good. It is best to face your defeats and then move on.
I have no experience at facing defeats... appreciate your extensive
experience in this area... should I ever be faced with such a situation,
I'll know who to go to.
>
>>>>>So you answered me again?
>>>>
>>>>eh yea, you qualify in all three catagories twit!
>>>
>>>But I thought you said I wan't worth bothering with?
>>
>>I probably should have said that, but don't recall doing so. Probably will
>>say it soon if you keep acting silly.
>
>But earlier in this post you knew the exact time you made some witless
statement.
Impressive isn't it? I even know what time it is right now.... what do you
think about that?
>
>Are you tiring of your own BS so quickly?
Now you've really hurt my feelings...
>
>>>>>How long have you been an Assholetarian?
>>>>
>>>>well.... I must admit you are a wordsmith beyond equal!!!!!
>>>>Guards,........ oh guards!
>>>
>>>It appears you are member of the clergy.
>>>
>>OK
>
>You will pardon us if we don't kiss your ring.
Jim, anyone reading your post knows exactly what it is of mine you'd like to
kiss!
>
>You never know where it has been.
and you really don't care!
>
>>>>>Now what does this have to do with your James Carville hoax?
>>>
>>>>Find previous post, read slow. Try not and ask the same questions for a
>>>>third time...... there is a limit to my generosity and patience.
>>>
>>>As there is a severe limit to your IQ.
>>
>>I believe we all have limits buckwheat.... do you believe yours to be
>>hidden?
>
>The Subject header isn't hidden.
Try to say something of substance every 10 post or so... this is just boring
silly kidstuff!!!! If you can't do better just say so and I'll stop picking
on you...
>
>You right wing loons got caught trying to fake a news story.
and your point is what? Carville is normal? Clinton is honest? Earth is
flat? Monica's your sister? Flynt's your daddy?..........Do you have
somerthing to say or is that all you have?
>
>>>Now tell us again what all this posturing has to do with your James
>>>Carville hoax?
>
>>I repeat,............ my understanding is that your 'poster boy' is
required
>>to take daily medication in order to operate within liberal parameters of
>>sanity. Why that upsets you so is not clear. Do you think that this is a
big
>>secret? Anyone of sound mind that would observe him for 5-minutes would
>>quickly suspect that the elevator doesn't always go to the top. This fact
>>coupled with the recent report made it easy for most people to accept the
>>story as probable. It wasn't much of a reach!
>
>It is called posting on topic.
>
>Ever heard of it.
I must have missed that national 'ng' meeting.... too bad! You know which
one I'm referring to. The one where you were elected "Posting Sheriff"
You wannabe little puss.... too sad to be funny.
>
>Oh....I forgot. You just post because you like the sound of your own
>keyboard.
where does this silliness come from? Are you still in diapers? If you're
going to try and slam...... first learn how!!!!! Stop this schoolyard crap!
>
>44 Senators ended your impeachment wet dream yesterday.
There you go again dreaming of that kiss.... you're just getting yourself
all worked up for nothing....... cause it's not going to happen, wet or
otherwise..... you really get off on this '44 senator' bit don't you... Got
a little surprise for you,..... 56 is bigger than 44... hate to burst your
bubble but somebody was going to do it.... just as well be me... mudduck!
>
>Learn to live with it.
>
Oh Jim, live with it I will..... very well as a matter of fact. Thanks for
your interest.
Best to you.
dbh
>
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>========================================================================
>"Dornan/Quayle: Because we're going to get our asses kicked anyway."
>
> -- Zepp's suggested slogan for the Democratic Party's dream GOP Ticket
>========================================================================
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Jeffrey Scott Linder
[ deletia ]
>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>splendid freedom.
Positively breathtaking.
[ yet more deletia ]
JSL
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Yet many "conservatives" bitterly attack and denounce Carville. For what?
>Giving them a taste of their own medicine. Carville simply does for the
>other side what people like Rush Limbaugh (and Carville's own wife) do for
>the Republicans. Many conservatives love to hear "liberals" lambasted by
>a firey confident conservatives, but hate it when a firey confident
>liberal lambasts conservatives. They call him hateful, mean, vicious,
>etc., even though they don't recognize that the firey folk on their side
>are doing the same thing.
Carville is merely the photographic negative of the ultra-extreme
religious right. He and those who publish wanted posters of abortion
doctors are ethical cousins.
I find them BOTH distasteful.
Eagle Eye
dbh <d...@trit.net> wrote:
>Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
><36e281d1...@news.mindspring.com>...
>My faith dictates that I give aid to the mentally impaired, down trodden,
>lower class when possible. Responding to you makes me feel good all over.
>Due in no part to the substance of your comments so don't get your hopes up!
Don't pass yourself off as a person trying to help the "mentally impaired"
when it's obvious you're repeating false rumors about Mr. Carville's mental
stability. I counsel people with emotional problems and I take offense at
your statements. I think James Carville is an actor. He gets on TV and
gives a firey tirade, with plenty of lies and misdirection, to help his
"side" -- as do Republican strategists, I might add. Mr. Carville simply
has more "flair" to his act than most.
There's no indication he has any condition requiring psychoactive
medication. None.
Next you'll start making jokes about people you hate being paraplegics,
or will you go into the racial slurs and "jokes" about homosexuals.
You proud of your bigotry?
Also, you imply that the Kennemur child (voltai) is mentally impaired.
He's just hateful and immature. He'll grow up some day.
"Why was I with her? She reminds me of you. In fact,
she reminds me more of you than you do!"
-- Groucho Marx
K. Knopp
<a...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 99 11:29:49 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
> wrote:
>
> >James Carville's wife called him a "dream husband," and was shocked that
> >people actually believed the hoax.
> >
> >Yet many "conservatives" bitterly attack and denounce Carville. For what?
> >Giving them a taste of their own medicine. Carville simply does for the
> >other side what people like Rush Limbaugh (and Carville's own wife) do for
> >the Republicans. Many conservatives love to hear "liberals" lambasted by
> >a firey confident conservatives, but hate it when a firey confident
> >liberal lambasts conservatives. They call him hateful, mean, vicious,
> >etc., even though they don't recognize that the firey folk on their side
> >are doing the same thing.
> >
> >Its selective perception. Carville's wife understands it. Mary knows
> >that James is doing what she does, only from a different perspective, and
> >that is part of politics, not a reason for personal hatred. He's a dream
> >husband, she says, faithful, loyal, intelligent, and good company.
> >
> >But, of course, that's not the message the anti-Carville folk want to
> >hear.
> >cheers, scott
>
> As a conservative, I can't stand Carville. Now I know why liberals
> hate Limbaugh so much. As you mentioned, Carville, like Limbaugh,
> does a great job of energizing his side and infuriating the
> opposition. He's good at what he does.
>
> I still don't understand how Matalin and Carville can be married. It
> boggles my mind. They appear to be very happy, but I can't imagine
> them discussing politics without yelling and screaming at each other.
> Maybe they have a no politics at home rule.
I believe it's the same principal as how two actors who play the voices
of a cat and dog on an animated cartoon can be married. They really
aren't the characters that they play on TV.
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
<78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>[ deletia ]
>
>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>splendid freedom.
>
>Positively breathtaking.
>
>[ yet more deletia ]
>
>JSL
>
Jeffrey Scott Linder
What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
learned.
JSL
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
I figured that out a long time ago.
And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple pronunciation
that it is so, doesn't make it so...
(Emphasis on the word "simple")
Milt
Zepp
Linder) wrote:
>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>
>>>[ deletia ]
>>>
>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>
>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>
>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>
>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>learned.
So tell us, Jeffy: how IS the Contract doing these days? Still
vibrant and healthy? And how's Mrs. Contract? And all the
subordinate clauses?
>
>JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
><794cep$c46$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>
>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>
>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>
>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>
>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>learned.
>>
>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth if it
>was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
>I figured that out a long time ago.
>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple pronunciation
>that it is so, doesn't make it so...
Except of course, this one particular time:
=============================================================
Milt <mi...@no.spam> wrote:
>Mark McGilvray wrote:
>> Milt wrote:
>>
>> > Mark McGilvray wrote:
>> >
>> > > Milt wrote:
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>> >
>> > > > > Where are you getting these numbers, Milt? Please cite your source for this
>> > > > > amazing assertion.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > How about any history book, or the Department of Education will suffice. What
>> > > > did you think; that the literacy rate has always been 99%?
>> > >
>> > > Never has been, never will be - this is pure fiction.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Department of education, 1995. Oh, excuse me, it's only 98.7%... Go look it up. If
>> > you don't think it's correct, show us what you have...
>> >
>> > > <snip>
>> >
>> > > Milt, if you want to be taken seriously, get ahold of some facts and their
>> > > sources.
>> >
>> > I did. Where are yours?
>> >
>> > Milt
>>
>> Jesus Christ, you moron, what am I going to do go to a bookstore or a library and ask
>> for, "Department of Education, 1995". Are you really this stupid?
> I'm a moron? You have a computer, and since you are here, I'll presume you have access
>to the internet. Look it up.
Well MIlt, I took the time to look up you claim that the average per
pupil expenditure in public schools was something like $8.5K. It
would appear that you're either lying, making stuff up, or used a
source for which you can't give a link or the primary source.
The info I found was at the Dept of Education Website. I have
misplaced the URL so I will give the source for their data as listed
in their tables.
Table 32-Estimated total expenditures of educations institutions, by
level, control of institution, and source of funds 1979-80 to 1993-94.
Total public (private) expenditures (in billions of current dollars)
for elementary and secondary schools.:
Year Public Private Total
79-80 $96.0 ($7.2) 103.2
84-85 137.0 (12.4) 149.4
89-90 212.5 (18.2) 230.7
90-91 229.4 (19.5) 248.9
92-93 252.9 (21.5) 274.4
93-94 265.3 (22.2) 287.5
(Source:US Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core of Data; "Financial Statistics of Institutions
of Highre Education" survey; Integrated Postsecondary Education
Suystem Data (IPEDS) "Finace" survey, undpublished data (table
prepared July 1996)).
Table 16. Estimated total school-age population, by state 1970 to
1995 (in thousands)
United States
Year Total, All Ages 5-17 years old
1985 237,924 44,782
1990 248,710 45,166
1993 257,783 47,419
1994 260,341 48,291
1995 262,755 49,149
(Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Cnesus, CUrrent
Population Reports, Series P-25, No 1095 at the national level,
CPH-L-74 (1990 data) ; and forthcoming state level P-25 Reports.
(Table prepared July 1996))
So a little Math and this is what we get
Per pupil Expenditure
Year Total(public and private)
94 $5953
(My math)
>Does your Mommy wipe your ass when you go potty, too?
Does your Mommy wash your mouth out with soap when you lie?
JSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>(Emphasis on the word "simple")
Would you like another example Milt or would you like to address this
one first?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:07:40 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>
>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>
>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>
>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>
>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>learned.
>So tell us, Jeffy: how IS the Contract doing these days?
One would think that you should know after the education you received
on the subject.
>Still vibrant and healthy?
The parts that have passed, yes!
>And how's Mrs. Contract? And all the
>subordinate clauses?
You tell me. While you're at it, has that ice in your glass melted
yet? Can you present your data?
JSL
Art Vandelay
>It's a love thing.
>
>You should try it sometimes instead of the politics of hate.
This from a supporter of Carville?
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>>
>>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>>
>>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>>learned.
>>>
proved later. Mine was a little off, too; the actual figure is $7800 per
pupil. (1995) You forgot a couple of things; one is capital expenditures,
which are not included in the above figure, and you forgot to take out the
kids who don't go to school, the kids who are home-schooled, and the kids
who go to private school.
Moron.
Milt
>
>
>
zepp, a weasel
>
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
><794cep$c46$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>
>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>
>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>
>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>
>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>learned.
>>
>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth if it
>was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
>
>I figured that out a long time ago.
>
>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple pronunciation
>that it is so, doesn't make it so...
>
>(Emphasis on the word "simple")
>
Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
ballot!
>Milt
>
>
>
>
>
**********************************************************
I say keep the trial going until there is a conviction.
--M. Simon, showing the keen legal mind and sense of fairness
we expect from right-wing dirtbags.
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
gdy52150
got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>>Milt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>**********************************************************
>I say keep the trial going until there is a conviction.
>
>--M. Simon, showing the keen legal mind and sense of fairness
> we expect from right-wing dirtbags.
>************************************************************
>
>Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
home of "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of
The Month Award"
Do your patriotic duty an reward your favorite
cackling loon by voting today
at http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
><796sc4$4el$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>><794cep$c46$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>>>
>>>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>>>learned.
>>>>
>>>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth if
>it
>>>was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
>>
>>>I figured that out a long time ago.
>>
>>>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple
>pronunciation
>>>that it is so, doesn't make it so...
>>
>>>(Emphasis on the word "simple")
>>
>>Would you like another example Milt or would you like to address this
>>one first?
>>
>>JSL
>>
>I remember that lame example.
Lame?
>It wasn't even close to accurate, which I
>proved later.
You did no such thing. I challenge you to post that "proof" Milt.
>Mine was a little off, too; the actual figure is $7800 per
>pupil. (1995)
What is "(1995)". Is that your source?
>You forgot a couple of things; one is capital expenditures,
>which are not included in the above figure, and you forgot to take out the
>kids who don't go to school, the kids who are home-schooled, and the kids
>who go to private school.
I "left out" nothing Milt. Those are the numbers from the DOE. If
you have number to the contrary please post them and settle this
debate. In other words , put up or shut up.
>Moron.
You should really see a shrink about your projection problem.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:47:36 -0500, "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>><794cep$c46$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>>
>>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>>
>>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>>learned.
>>>
>>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth if it
>>was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
>>
>>I figured that out a long time ago.
>>
>>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple pronunciation
>>that it is so, doesn't make it so...
>>
>>(Emphasis on the word "simple")
>>
>Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>ballot!
I would be honored.
Of course you might want to look at the time Milt was exposed as a
liar while you are at it.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:33:38 GMT, zeppn...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a
>weasel) wrote:
>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
What do I get if I win?
JSL
gdy52150
bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
>
>JSL
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
shit. If figuring out how much was spent on education per pupil were as
simple as you suggest, then why would we need to even have a census? It's
not that simple. Like I said; there is nothing in the stats you gave that
refers to capital budgets, and your figures include non-public school
students.
>>Mine was a little off, too; the actual figure is $7800 per
>>pupil. (1995)
>
>What is "(1995)". Is that your source?
That's called a year, Jeffrey. The current one is 1999...
>
>>You forgot a couple of things; one is capital expenditures,
>>which are not included in the above figure, and you forgot to take out the
>>kids who don't go to school, the kids who are home-schooled, and the kids
>>who go to private school.
>
>I "left out" nothing Milt.
You "left out" everything!!
>Those are the numbers from the DOE. If
>you have number to the contrary please post them and settle this
>debate. In other words , put up or shut up.
Fuck you. You post TWO NUMBERS which have no corrolation to each other, you
do a quick math problem, declare your result, and then ask everyone else to
prove their assertion that you're wrong? The DOE web page alone has dozens
of stats which jack your estimate up considerably. The basic cost per pupil,
as of 1995, was just under $6000, but that included ALL students, including
those in private schools. Also not included was the cost of new school
buildings, Head Start programs, special education programs, school breakfast
and lunch programs, and other smaller programs. When the students in private
schools are removed from the mix, and these other factors are put into the
mix, the average school district spent $7758 per public school student.
>
>>Moron.
>
>You should really see a shrink about your projection problem.
Moron.
Milt
>
>JSL
>
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>
>>>
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>><794cep$c46$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>>>
>>>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>>>learned.
>>>>
>>>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth if
it
>>>was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
>>>
>>>I figured that out a long time ago.
>>>
>>>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple
pronunciation
>>>that it is so, doesn't make it so...
>>>
>>>
>
>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>>ballot!
>
>
>Of course you might want to look at the time Milt was exposed as a
>liar while you are at it.
>
>JSL
>
yourself as a liar...
If you really are an academic, then you are the stone-dumbest one I've ever
seen..
Milt
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:33:38 GMT, zeppn...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a
>
>What do I get if I win?
>
>
Huzzahs all around! And the incredible honor of being up there with the
likes of Tommy odell and T Mark Gibson as one of the great idiots on Usenet.
Personally, I would rather vote for the others. You're simply a harmless
gnat compared to odell...
Milt
Zepp
[snip]
>>>>Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
>>>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>>>>ballot!
>>
>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>>
>>What do I get if I win?
>>
>>JSL
>>
>Huzzahs all around! And the incredible honor of being up there with the
>likes of Tommy odell and T Mark Gibson as one of the great idiots on Usenet.
>
>Personally, I would rather vote for the others. You're simply a harmless
>gnat compared to odell...
Remember, Milt, that there's already an award for lunacy: the KOTM.
The Mr. Sam award is for deep-down, dyed-in-the-wool stupid. So Jeff,
unentertaining as he is, has a chance. Describing O'Dell as smart or
stupid is a bit like discussing the screen refresh rate of your
printer. Jeff lacks the imagination to be crazy, so he settles for
Homer Simpsonian stupidity instead.
Of course, as just the present ballot shows, he's got competition...
>
>Milt
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clinton buddy] Larry Flynt will be the guest of Hillary Rodham Clinton in
the gallery. They will be up there applauding. Anchors, news readers,
analysts, the criminal defense bar, Carlos Minnom (sp?), and Elizabeth Birch,
and virtually everybody in the D.C. Establishment will praise the speech to
the hilt."
Knickers, quoting Rush, and showing the editorial acumen
and good sense that made Knickers, Rush, and the sleazy
supermarket tabloids synonymous with one another.
Vote for your favorite blithering idiot!
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You are pathetic Milt.
>If figuring out how much was spent on education per pupil were as
>simple as you suggest, then why would we need to even have a census?
The census? What the hell are you talking about? Besides that Milt.
You've claimed that spending was first $8.5K without proof. Since
then you've amended that to $7.8K with your proof, to this point,
being a year. 1995 to be exact.
>It's
>not that simple. Like I said; there is nothing in the stats you gave that
>refers to capital budgets, and your figures include non-public school
>students.
So? You've made 2 claims now and have not backed up either one.
>>>Mine was a little off, too; the actual figure is $7800 per
>>>pupil. (1995)
>>
>>What is "(1995)". Is that your source?
>That's called a year, Jeffrey. The current one is 1999...
So what is your source for the $7800/student in 1995?
>>
>>>You forgot a couple of things; one is capital expenditures,
>>>which are not included in the above figure, and you forgot to take out the
>>>kids who don't go to school, the kids who are home-schooled, and the kids
>>>who go to private school.
>>
>>I "left out" nothing Milt.
>You "left out" everything!!
> >Those are the numbers from the DOE. If
>>you have number to the contrary please post them and settle this
>>debate. In other words , put up or shut up.
>Fuck you. You post TWO NUMBERS which have no corrolation to each other, you
Other than the fact they are the two numbers you need to caculate
spending per student, total spending and total students.
>do a quick math problem, declare your result, and then ask everyone else to
>prove their assertion that you're wrong?
That's really funny coming from you Milt. I'm not asking you to prove
me wrong. I'm asking you to support your claim. I have stated
numbers that while, may not be perfect, they at least can be verified.
Are you suggesting that the variables you claim exist will take
spending from the $6K figure to $7.8K? What evidence do you have to
support that claim?
>The DOE web page alone has dozens
>of stats which jack your estimate up considerably. The basic cost per pupil,
>as of 1995, was just under $6000, but that included ALL students, including
>those in private schools. Also not included was the cost of new school
>buildings, Head Start programs, special education programs, school breakfast
>and lunch programs, and other smaller programs. When the students in private
>schools are removed from the mix, and these other factors are put into the
>mix, the average school district spent $7758 per public school student.
Where do you come up with that figure?
>>
>>>Moron.
>>
>>You should really see a shrink about your projection problem.
>Moron.
You misspelled "Milt".
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:18:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:33:38 GMT, zeppn...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a
>>>weasel) wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:47:36 -0500, "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>>><794cep$c46$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>>>>><78seuv$i23$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell any
>>>>>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be a
>>>>>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>>>>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>>>>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>>>>>learned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth if it
>>>>>was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
>>>>>
>>>>>I figured that out a long time ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple pronunciation
>>>>>that it is so, doesn't make it so...
>>>>>
>>>>>(Emphasis on the word "simple")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
>>>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>>>>ballot!
>>
>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>>
>>What do I get if I win?
>bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
Respect and admiration of my peers? Cool.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:34:38 -0500, "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>>>Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
>>>>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>>>>>ballot!
>>>
>>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>>>
>>>What do I get if I win?
>>>
>>>JSL
>>>
>>Huzzahs all around! And the incredible honor of being up there with the
>>likes of Tommy odell and T Mark Gibson as one of the great idiots on Usenet.
>>
>>Personally, I would rather vote for the others. You're simply a harmless
>>gnat compared to odell...
>Remember, Milt, that there's already an award for lunacy: the KOTM.
>The Mr. Sam award is for deep-down, dyed-in-the-wool stupid. So Jeff,
>unentertaining as he is, has a chance. Describing O'Dell as smart or
>stupid is a bit like discussing the screen refresh rate of your
>printer. Jeff lacks the imagination to be crazy, so he settles for
>Homer Simpsonian stupidity instead.
Please post any evidence of my stupidity Zepp. And then I'll post
your little explanation of Archimedes' prinicple. Talk about
blithering idiots.
>Of course, as just the present ballot shows, he's got competition...
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
><79a3qq$4lg$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
>>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>>>ballot!
>>
>>I would be honored.
>>
>>Of course you might want to look at the time Milt was exposed as a
>>liar while you are at it.
>>
>>JSL
>>
>The time? Christ, Linder, every time you claim to be an academic you expose
>yourself as a liar...
>If you really are an academic, then you are the stone-dumbest one I've ever
>seen..
Maybe you'ld like to review some of my publications Milt? Naw, you
couldn't begin to understand them.
JSL
gdy52150
Linder) wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:18:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>Linder) wrote:
>
>>>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:33:38 GMT, zeppn...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a
>>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>>>
>>>What do I get if I win?
>
>>bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
>
>Respect and admiration of my peers? Cool.
hysterical laughter follows
Zepp
Linder) wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:34:38 -0500, "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>>>>>Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
>>>>>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>>>>>>ballot!
>>>>
>>>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>>>>
>>>>What do I get if I win?
>>>>
>>>>JSL
>>>>
>>>Huzzahs all around! And the incredible honor of being up there with the
>>>likes of Tommy odell and T Mark Gibson as one of the great idiots on Usenet.
>>>
>>>Personally, I would rather vote for the others. You're simply a harmless
>>>gnat compared to odell...
>
>>Remember, Milt, that there's already an award for lunacy: the KOTM.
>>The Mr. Sam award is for deep-down, dyed-in-the-wool stupid. So Jeff,
>>unentertaining as he is, has a chance. Describing O'Dell as smart or
>>stupid is a bit like discussing the screen refresh rate of your
>>printer. Jeff lacks the imagination to be crazy, so he settles for
>>Homer Simpsonian stupidity instead.
>
>Please post any evidence of my stupidity Zepp. And then I'll post
>your little explanation of Archimedes' prinicple. Talk about
>blithering idiots.
Jeffy, for me to post examples of your stupidity would be redundant.
You do that every day. Let people decide for themselves!
Now, bring on Archimedes.
>
>>Of course, as just the present ballot shows, he's got competition...
>
>
>JSL
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
milt...@my-dejanews.com
<snip>
> >Nah. Don't need to. Your "logic" is all the proof I need that you're full of
> >shit.
>
> You are pathetic Milt.
You keep bringing forth old arguments that you already lost and I'm pathetic??
>
> >If figuring out how much was spent on education per pupil were as
> >simple as you suggest, then why would we need to even have a census?
>
> The census? What the hell are you talking about?
I'm saying that your attempt to extrapolate the cost of education is so
simplistic, if we applied it to the census, we wouldn't have to actually count
everyone. Not that you would understand the corrollation...
> Besides that Milt.
> You've claimed that spending was first $8.5K without proof. Since
> then you've amended that to $7.8K with your proof, to this point,
> being a year. 1995 to be exact.
And you've claimed everything you've claimed without proof. Simple math of a
couple of poorly chosen statistics doesn't constitute "proof". My figure can
be checked, and if you weren't such a lazy ass, I would source it for you.
But you can go look it up.
>
> >It's
> >not that simple. Like I said; there is nothing in the stats you gave that
> >refers to capital budgets, and your figures include non-public school
> >students.
>
> So? You've made 2 claims now and have not backed up either one.
In the original argument, I backed up everything. In fact, that is where you
came up with your lame example above; it was in response to figures I posted.
I don't have the time or inclination to go look up all my old posts to rehash
it with you. That you do is pathetic and sad, really...
>
> >>>Mine was a little off, too; the actual figure is $7800 per
> >>>pupil. (1995)
> >>
> >>What is "(1995)". Is that your source?
>
> >That's called a year, Jeffrey. The current one is 1999...
>
> So what is your source for the $7800/student in 1995?
>
Go find it for yourself. I don't want to tell you. What is your source for
your asinine figure? And why do you claim it's accurate, when no other source
corrolates with your finding?? hell; the CBO numbers from 1995 don't even
come close. (I'm not going to tell you where to find those, either.) And if
you ever figure this out again, you must include all education spending, and
only those children actually in public school; you might find the figure a
little more accurate...
> >>>You forgot a couple of things; one is capital expenditures,
> >>>which are not included in the above figure, and you forgot to take out the
> >>>kids who don't go to school, the kids who are home-schooled, and the kids
> >>>who go to private school.
> >>
> >>I "left out" nothing Milt.
>
> >You "left out" everything!!
>
> > >Those are the numbers from the DOE. If
> >>you have number to the contrary please post them and settle this
> >>debate. In other words , put up or shut up.
>
> >Fuck you. You post TWO NUMBERS which have no corrolation to each other, you
>
> Other than the fact they are the two numbers you need to caculate
> spending per student, total spending and total students.
>
Two of about a dozen, you moron...
> >do a quick math problem, declare your result, and then ask everyone else to
> >prove their assertion that you're wrong?
>
> That's really funny coming from you Milt. I'm not asking you to prove
> me wrong. I'm asking you to support your claim.
I don't have to, any more than you do. I don't want to. Your opinion of me is
not important to me. In fact, being called anything by an idiot like you is
actually a compliment...
> I have stated
> numbers that while, may not be perfect, they at least can be verified.
Verified as to their stupidity and wrong-headedness. Some figures.
> Are you suggesting that the variables you claim exist will take
> spending from the $6K figure to $7.8K? What evidence do you have to
> support that claim?
>
The other dozen or so figures from the Department of Education, for one. The
FY 1996 budget, for another. The additional expenditures for special
education, head start and school food programs, which are not included with
your figures, for another. It's a process, Jeffrey. Or should I call you
Forrest...
> >The DOE web page alone has dozens
> >of stats which jack your estimate up considerably. The basic cost per pupil,
> >as of 1995, was just under $6000, but that included ALL students, including
> >those in private schools. Also not included was the cost of new school
> >buildings, Head Start programs, special education programs, school breakfast
> >and lunch programs, and other smaller programs. When the students in private
> >schools are removed from the mix, and these other factors are put into the
> >mix, the average school district spent $7758 per public school student.
>
> Where do you come up with that figure?
Um.. from the fucking DOE. I think I just said that. (Also, the budget, the
CBO and the GAO...
>
> >>
> >>>Moron.
> >>
> >>You should really see a shrink about your projection problem.
>
> >Moron.
>
> You misspelled "Milt".
No, I misspelled "Forrest Linder"...
Milt
>
> JSL
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
milt...@earthlink.net
>
> >On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:34:38 -0500, "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >>>>>Damn! Milt, I -knew- there was a name missing on the Mr. Sam Memorial
> >>>>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
> >>>>>ballot!
> >>>
> >>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
> >>>
> >>>What do I get if I win?
> >>>
> >>>JSL
> >>>
> >>Huzzahs all around! And the incredible honor of being up there with the
> >>likes of Tommy odell and T Mark Gibson as one of the great idiots on Usenet.
> >>
> >>Personally, I would rather vote for the others. You're simply a harmless
> >>gnat compared to odell...
>
> >Remember, Milt, that there's already an award for lunacy: the KOTM.
> >The Mr. Sam award is for deep-down, dyed-in-the-wool stupid. So Jeff,
> >unentertaining as he is, has a chance. Describing O'Dell as smart or
> >stupid is a bit like discussing the screen refresh rate of your
> >printer. Jeff lacks the imagination to be crazy, so he settles for
> >Homer Simpsonian stupidity instead.
>
> Please post any evidence of my stupidity Zepp. And then I'll post
> your little explanation of Archimedes' prinicple. Talk about
> blithering idiots.
Christ, Forrest! Pick a post, any Forrest Linder post at all!!
You are one of the dumbest asses on Usenet!!
>
> >Of course, as just the present ballot shows, he's got competition...
>
Mary E Knadler
If there was an award for "Verbosity", Milt would win it hands down.
He posts under so many names & uses so much bandwidth, I
think they should charge him double for any SP he uses.
Maybe you should "set" one up.
Michael Ejercito
(gdy52150) wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:18:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> Linder) wrote:
>
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> >>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
> >
> >What do I get if I win?
>
> bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
Also known as kicker of left-wing asses.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
(gdy52150) wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 13:42:47 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> Linder) wrote:
>
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:18:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> >>Linder) wrote:
> >
> >>>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> >>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
> >>>
> >>>What do I get if I win?
> >
> >>bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
> >
> >Respect and admiration of my peers? Cool.
>
> hysterical laughter follows
Whoever wins that award will earn MY respect.
Michael
gdy52150
wrote:
I don't think anyone will consider that as consoling thats more akin
to rubbing salt into a wound.
>
> Michael
Milt
Michael Ejercito wrote in message ...
>In article <36b8a521...@news.lakes.com>, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>(gdy52150) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:18:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>> Linder) wrote:
>>
>> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> >>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>> >
>> >What do I get if I win?
>>
>> bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
Nah... that person has yet to make it onto Usenet...
>
>
> Michael
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>>>>>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[ deletia ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's the advantage to being a right-wing nut, Jer--you can tell
any
>>>>>>>>>lie you want. The truth is of no possible use to you. It must be
a
>>>>>>>>>splendid freedom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Positively breathtaking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And who would know better than Jeffrey??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What? That Zepp posts things without regard to the truth? I have
>>>>>>noticed that he has stopped doing that, for the most part, since he
>>>>>>has been exposed so many times. You, on the other hand, haven't
>>>>>>learned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth
if
>>it
>>>>>was a brick and smacked yyou on the head?
>>>>>
>>>>>I figured that out a long time ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple
>>pronunciation
>>>>>that it is so, doesn't make it so...
>>>>>
>>>>>(Emphasis on the word "simple")
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Weasel Award! I'll contact GDY and sign Linder up for the March
>>>>ballot!
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course you might want to look at the time Milt was exposed as a
>>>liar while you are at it.
>>>
>>>JSL
>>>
>>The time? Christ, Linder, every time you claim to be an academic you
expose
>>yourself as a liar...
>
>>If you really are an academic, then you are the stone-dumbest one I've
ever
>>seen..
>
>Maybe you'ld like to review some of my publications Milt? Naw, you
>couldn't begin to understand them.
>
>JSL
>
>
Milt
Michael Ejercito wrote in message ...
>(gdy52150) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 13:42:47 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>> Linder) wrote:
>>
>> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:18:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>> >>Linder) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> >>>>got it, its has been recorded thusly.
>> >>>
>> >>>What do I get if I win?
>> >
>> >>bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
>> >
>>
>> hysterical laughter follows
> Whoever wins that award will earn MY respect.
>
>
> Michael
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:18:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>Linder) wrote:
>
>>>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>What do I get if I win?
>
>>bragging riots to the title blithering idiot
>
>Respect and admiration of my peers? Cool.
>
>
>
Forrest Linder strikes again...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
><79c88k$paq$4...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>><79a3qq$4lg$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>>>I would be honored.
>>>>
>>>>Of course you might want to look at the time Milt was exposed as a
>>>>liar while you are at it.
>>>>
>>>>JSL
>>>>
>>>The time? Christ, Linder, every time you claim to be an academic you
>expose
>>>yourself as a liar...
>>
>>>If you really are an academic, then you are the stone-dumbest one I've
>ever
>>>seen..
>>
>>Maybe you'ld like to review some of my publications Milt? Naw, you
>>couldn't begin to understand them.
>>
>>JSL
>>
>There's nothing to understand. Like this one, they are purely vacuous...
What's wrong Milt? Afraid?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>In article <79c823$paq$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
><snip>
>> >Nah. Don't need to. Your "logic" is all the proof I need that you're full of
>> >shit.
>>
>> You are pathetic Milt.
>You keep bringing forth old arguments that you already lost and I'm pathetic?
That I've lost? Why did you delete the majority of the post then
Milt? What are you trying to hide?
>>
>> >If figuring out how much was spent on education per pupil were as
>> >simple as you suggest, then why would we need to even have a census?
>>
>> The census? What the hell are you talking about?
>I'm saying that your attempt to extrapolate the cost of education is so
>simplistic, if we applied it to the census, we wouldn't have to actually count
>everyone. Not that you would understand the corrollation...
I'm not extrapolating anything Milt. The numbers are right
there---whoops----you deleted them. I wonder why, not!
>> Besides that Milt.
>> You've claimed that spending was first $8.5K without proof. Since
>> then you've amended that to $7.8K with your proof, to this point,
>> being a year. 1995 to be exact.
>And you've claimed everything you've claimed without proof.
Without proof? You mean the sourced tables I posted from the DOE
(that you are free to look up if you choose) that you have now
deleted?
>Simple math of a
>couple of poorly chosen statistics doesn't constitute "proof". My figure can
>be checked, and if you weren't such a lazy ass, I would source it for you.
>But you can go look it up.
You are good for a good 'ole belly laugh at times Milt, I will give
you that much.
>>
>> >It's
>> >not that simple. Like I said; there is nothing in the stats you gave that
>> >refers to capital budgets, and your figures include non-public school
>> >students.
>>
>> So? You've made 2 claims now and have not backed up either one.
>In the original argument, I backed up everything. In fact, that is where you
>came up with your lame example above; it was in response to figures I posted.
The only "figures" you posted were "$8.5K" and "$7.8K [1995]". Is
that what you mean by proof?
>I don't have the time or inclination to go look up all my old posts to rehash
>it with you. That you do is pathetic and sad, really...
In other words, you're nothing but a sniveling coward.
>>
>> >>>Mine was a little off, too; the actual figure is $7800 per
>> >>>pupil. (1995)
>> >>
>> >>What is "(1995)". Is that your source?
>>
>> >That's called a year, Jeffrey. The current one is 1999...
>>
>> So what is your source for the $7800/student in 1995?
>>
>Go find it for yourself. I don't want to tell you. What is your source for
>your asinine figure?
I posted it in the table you deleted Milt. Let me give it to you
again:
(Source:US Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core of Data; "Financial Statistics of Institutions
of Highre Education" survey; Integrated Postsecondary Education
Suystem Data (IPEDS) "Finace" survey, undpublished data (table
prepared July 1996)).
Complete with misspellings
So, in trying to find the original data I went back to the NECS and
found this little gem that should shut your yap (or just cause you to
delete the data and start another thread) once and for all.
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/general/stfis96gen.pdf
Public Elementary and Secondary School Revenues and Expenditures,
by State: Fiscal Year 1996
Table 4.--Student membership and current expenditures per pupil in
membership for public elementary and secondary schools, by function
and state: School year 1995-96
Current expenditures per pupil in membership
[reformatted to fit screen]
Year: 1995
Fall 1995 Student Membership: 44,840,481
Total $5,689
Instruction: $3,512
Support Services: $1,922
Non-Instruction $255
>And why do you claim it's accurate, when no other source
>corrolates with your finding??
No other source? What about THE source Milt? What about the
National Center for Education Statistics?
>hell; the CBO numbers from 1995 don't even
>come close. (I'm not going to tell you where to find those, either.) And if
>you ever figure this out again, you must include all education spending, and
>only those children actually in public school; you might find the figure a
>little more accurate...
I don't think so. The NCES is for Public Education.
>> >>>You forgot a couple of things; one is capital expenditures,
>> >>>which are not included in the above figure, and you forgot to take out the
>> >>>kids who don't go to school, the kids who are home-schooled, and the kids
>> >>>who go to private school.
>> >>
>> >>I "left out" nothing Milt.
>>
>> >You "left out" everything!!
>>
>> > >Those are the numbers from the DOE. If
>> >>you have number to the contrary please post them and settle this
>> >>debate. In other words , put up or shut up.
>>
>> >Fuck you. You post TWO NUMBERS which have no corrolation to each other, you
>>
>> Other than the fact they are the two numbers you need to caculate
>> spending per student, total spending and total students.
>>
>Two of about a dozen, you moron...
Poor Milt. I expect you're in a REAL lather about now.
>> >do a quick math problem, declare your result, and then ask everyone else to
>> >prove their assertion that you're wrong?
>>
>> That's really funny coming from you Milt. I'm not asking you to prove
>> me wrong. I'm asking you to support your claim.
>I don't have to, any more than you do. I don't want to. Your opinion of me is
>not important to me. In fact, being called anything by an idiot like you is
>actually a compliment...
>> I have stated
>> numbers that while, may not be perfect, they at least can be verified.
>Verified as to their stupidity and wrong-headedness. Some figures.
Verified?
>> Are you suggesting that the variables you claim exist will take
>> spending from the $6K figure to $7.8K? What evidence do you have to
>> support that claim?
>>
>The other dozen or so figures from the Department of Education, for one. The
>FY 1996 budget, for another. The additional expenditures for special
>education, head start and school food programs, which are not included with
>your figures, for another. It's a process, Jeffrey. Or should I call you
>Forrest...
Just don't call me late for dinner.....
>> >The DOE web page alone has dozens
>> >of stats which jack your estimate up considerably. The basic cost per pupil,
>> >as of 1995, was just under $6000, but that included ALL students, including
>> >those in private schools. Also not included was the cost of new school
>> >buildings, Head Start programs, special education programs, school breakfast
>> >and lunch programs, and other smaller programs. When the students in private
>> >schools are removed from the mix, and these other factors are put into the
>> >mix, the average school district spent $7758 per public school student.
>>
>> Where do you come up with that figure?
>Um.. from the fucking DOE. I think I just said that. (Also, the budget, the
>CBO and the GAO...
Are you going to now dismiss the NCES data?
>>
>> >>
>> >>>Moron.
>> >>
>> >>You should really see a shrink about your projection problem.
>>
>> >Moron.
>>
>> You misspelled "Milt".
>No, I misspelled "Forrest Linder"...
<snigger>
JSL
milt...@my-dejanews.com
linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
> >>>>zeppn...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a weasel) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
> >>>>>>>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
I fear lions and tigers, maybe. Not gnats...
Truthfinder
>
> He's a dumbass trailer-park trash.
>
> Michael
He's not even that good!!!
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> milt...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <79c823$paq$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> >> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >Nah. Don't need to. Your "logic" is all the proof I need that you're full of
> >> >shit.
> >>
> >> You are pathetic Milt.
>
> >You keep bringing forth old arguments that you already lost and I'm pathetic?
>
> That I've lost? Why did you delete the majority of the post then
> Milt? What are you trying to hide?
I'm trying to save bandwidth, dumbshit. Anyone who wishes to see the drivel you post
need only go back a little in the thread.
To encapsulate, though, Forrest here takes the total amount of money the DOE claims
was spent on education in a given year, and divides by the total number of
school-age children, and offers that as the "cost of education per pupil". Without
ever considering such costs as capital costs, special education costs, school food
programs, Head Start, and without subtracting out the number of children in home
schooling or in private schools.
> >>
> >> >If figuring out how much was spent on education per pupil were as
> >> >simple as you suggest, then why would we need to even have a census?
> >>
> >> The census? What the hell are you talking about?
>
> >I'm saying that your attempt to extrapolate the cost of education is so
> >simplistic, if we applied it to the census, we wouldn't have to actually count
> >everyone. Not that you would understand the corrollation...
>
> I'm not extrapolating anything Milt. The numbers are right
> there---whoops----you deleted them. I wonder why, not!
The numbers are still there, you bonehead. Will someone please explain to Forrest
how Usenet works?? There is limited bandwidth. There is no need to repeat the
entirety of a post in order to add a few lines to it..
> >> Besides that Milt.
> >> You've claimed that spending was first $8.5K without proof. Since
> >> then you've amended that to $7.8K with your proof, to this point,
> >> being a year. 1995 to be exact.
>
> >And you've claimed everything you've claimed without proof.
>
> Without proof? You mean the sourced tables I posted from the DOE
> (that you are free to look up if you choose) that you have now
> deleted?
Yeah; you claimed something that wasn't true based solely on that. I just proved
that what you posted doesn't prove that. Live with it.
> >Simple math of a
> >couple of poorly chosen statistics doesn't constitute "proof". My figure can
> >be checked, and if you weren't such a lazy ass, I would source it for you.
> >But you can go look it up.
>
> You are good for a good 'ole belly laugh at times Milt, I will give
> you that much.
>
That's because you're too fucking stupid to even begin to understand that far more
people laugh at your drivel, Forrest...
> >>
> >> >It's
> >> >not that simple. Like I said; there is nothing in the stats you gave that
> >> >refers to capital budgets, and your figures include non-public school
> >> >students.
> >>
> >> So? You've made 2 claims now and have not backed up either one.
>
> >In the original argument, I backed up everything. In fact, that is where you
> >came up with your lame example above; it was in response to figures I posted.
>
> The only "figures" you posted were "$8.5K" and "$7.8K [1995]". Is
> that what you mean by proof?
No. In the original argument, which was about a year ago or more, and which I choose
not to research, because I have a life, I sourced the whole thing. In fact, the
numbers came from the budget, which I even told you was online at the time.
> >I don't have the time or inclination to go look up all my old posts to rehash
> >it with you. That you do is pathetic and sad, really...
>
> In other words, you're nothing but a sniveling coward.
No. IOW, I have better things to do with my life. That you have nothing better to do
in your life than try to win awards on Usenet is your sadness...
Milt
milt...@my-dejanews.com
yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
<snip>
> If there was an award for "Verbosity", Milt would win it hands down.
Of course, Mary has no idea which Milt she is talking to. How come everyone
else knows who I am, but you don't, Mary? Couldn't be that you're dumber than
the average right winger, would it?
>
> He posts under so many names & uses so much bandwidth, I
> think they should charge him double for any SP he uses.
I post using several email addresses, to avoid spam. But I always use the same
name. And you post more than I do.
And most of us wish you even knew what "verbose" meant...
Milt (The same way I sign all of my posts, when I remember to sign...)
> Maybe you should "set" one up.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> milt...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <79c823$paq$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>> > linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> >> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote in message
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >Nah. Don't need to. Your "logic" is all the proof I need that you're full of
>> >> >shit.
>> >>
>> >> You are pathetic Milt.
>>
>> >You keep bringing forth old arguments that you already lost and I'm pathetic?
>>
>> That I've lost? Why did you delete the majority of the post then
>> Milt? What are you trying to hide?
>I'm trying to save bandwidth, dumbshit. Anyone who wishes to see the drivel you post
>need only go back a little in the thread.
Not in this thread, since you renamed it. The old thread yes, not
this one.
>To encapsulate, though, Forrest here takes the total amount of money the DOE claims
>was spent on education in a given year, and divides by the total number of
>school-age children, and offers that as the "cost of education per pupil". Without
>ever considering such costs as capital costs, special education costs, school food
>programs, Head Start, and without subtracting out the number of children in home
>schooling or in private schools.
And then went on to publish more data from th NCES which talked about
only public school funding for children enrolled in public school.
>> >>
>> >> >If figuring out how much was spent on education per pupil were as
>> >> >simple as you suggest, then why would we need to even have a census?
>> >>
>> >> The census? What the hell are you talking about?
>>
>> >I'm saying that your attempt to extrapolate the cost of education is so
>> >simplistic, if we applied it to the census, we wouldn't have to actually count
>> >everyone. Not that you would understand the corrollation...
>>
>> I'm not extrapolating anything Milt. The numbers are right
>> there---whoops----you deleted them. I wonder why, not!
>The numbers are still there, you bonehead. Will someone please explain to Forrest
>how Usenet works?? There is limited bandwidth. There is no need to repeat the
>entirety of a post in order to add a few lines to it..
That's never seemed to stop you before Milt. You really should come
up with a better excuse, especially since you are protesting the
validity of the numbers.
>> >> Besides that Milt.
>> >> You've claimed that spending was first $8.5K without proof. Since
>> >> then you've amended that to $7.8K with your proof, to this point,
>> >> being a year. 1995 to be exact.
>>
>> >And you've claimed everything you've claimed without proof.
>>
>> Without proof? You mean the sourced tables I posted from the DOE
>> (that you are free to look up if you choose) that you have now
>> deleted?
>Yeah; you claimed something that wasn't true based solely on that. I just proved
>that what you posted doesn't prove that. Live with it.
What wasn't true Milt? Did I make up the numbers? I fudged the data
from the NCES?
>> >Simple math of a
>> >couple of poorly chosen statistics doesn't constitute "proof". My figure can
>> >be checked, and if you weren't such a lazy ass, I would source it for you.
>> >But you can go look it up.
>>
>> You are good for a good 'ole belly laugh at times Milt, I will give
>> you that much.
>>
>That's because you're too fucking stupid to even begin to understand that far more
>people laugh at your drivel, Forrest...
Oh, you mean other weasels? That merely assures me that I'm on the
right track.
>> >>
>> >> >It's
>> >> >not that simple. Like I said; there is nothing in the stats you gave that
>> >> >refers to capital budgets, and your figures include non-public school
>> >> >students.
>> >>
>> >> So? You've made 2 claims now and have not backed up either one.
>>
>> >In the original argument, I backed up everything. In fact, that is where you
>> >came up with your lame example above; it was in response to figures I posted.
>>
>> The only "figures" you posted were "$8.5K" and "$7.8K [1995]". Is
>> that what you mean by proof?
>No. In the original argument, which was about a year ago or more, and which I choose
>not to research, because I have a life, I sourced the whole thing. In fact, the
>numbers came from the budget, which I even told you was online at the time.
You sourced nothing Milt. You made a vauge reference to the
Department of Education. Hardly what one could call a "source".
>> >I don't have the time or inclination to go look up all my old posts to rehash
>> >it with you. That you do is pathetic and sad, really...
>>
>> In other words, you're nothing but a sniveling coward.
>No. IOW, I have better things to do with my life. That you have nothing better to do
>in your life than try to win awards on Usenet is your sadness...
Poor Milt. One has to wonder why you deleted the new data I included
in the last post? What's wrong Milt? Tired of losing? I'll include
the URL for the data Milt, since you deleted it again....
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/general/stfis96gen.pdf
JSL
Mary E Knadler
writes:
One way I know YOU are THE Milt is your so frequent use
of the word "dumb".
And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling &
insults to attempt to make a point.
THEY show how INSECURE they are!
Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
night.
yasmin2
Gary
wrote:
>One way I know YOU are THE Milt is your so frequent use
>of the word "dumb".
>
>And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling &
>insults to attempt to make a point.
>
> THEY show how INSECURE they are!
> yasmin2
I suppose when you posted in this group that Morris Dees molests
little boys you weren't actually calling him a name but it sure
sounded like it.
milt...@my-dejanews.com
> writes:
> >
> >In article <79d4u2$e...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
> >
> >> If there was an award for "Verbosity", Milt would win it
> hands down.
> >
> >Of course, Mary has no idea which Milt she is talking to. How
> come everyone else knows who I am, but you don't, Mary?
> Couldn't be that you're dumber than the average right winger,
> would it?
> >>
> >> He posts under so many names & uses so much bandwidth, I
> >> think they should charge him double for any SP he uses.
> >
> >I post using several email addresses, to avoid spam. But I
> always use the same name. And you post more than I do.
> >
> >And most of us wish you even knew what "verbose" meant...
> >
> >Milt (The same way I sign all of my posts, when I remember to
> sign...)
> >
> >
> >> Maybe you should "set" one up.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
> ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or
> Start Your Own
>
> of the word "dumb".
>
> And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling &
> insults to attempt to make a point.
>
> THEY show how INSECURE they are!
I'm not calling you a name, Mary. I am simply stating the obvious. You are
about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than Forrest Linder.
It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
As for security/insecurity, are you telling us that you're secure in your
idiocy??
>
> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
> night.
What big night is that? The acquittal?
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder
One might believe your claim if you could support your observation.
Of course most of us know the only person you're trying to convince is
yourself. You are a pitiful excuse for a human.
>As for security/insecurity, are you telling us that you're secure in your
>idiocy??
>>
>> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
>> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
>> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
>> night.
>What big night is that? The acquittal?
>Milt
JSL
mr_antone
JSL is beginning to sound like another Tommy Odell wannabe.
>
>>As for security/insecurity, are you telling us that you're secure in your
>>idiocy??
>>>
>>> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
>>> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
>>> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
>>> night.
>
>>What big night is that? The acquittal?
>
>>Milt
>
>JSL
mr_antone
Eagle Eye
Milt <mi...@law.com> wrote:
[...]
>Learned what? That you're stupid ass fuck, and wouldn't know the truth if it
>And you still have never proven me wrong on shit. Your simple pronunciation
>Milt
You know, Milt, every time I see you fill your posts with four-letter
words, I laugh at you. I picture a 14 year old boy trying to compensate
for his immaturity with "adult" words. If you're older than 14, it gets
even sillier.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
-- Groucho Marx
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Would you care to post some evidence of my "stupidity"? Milt seems
to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for the
weasels. Batter up.....
>
>>
>>>As for security/insecurity, are you telling us that you're secure in your
>>>idiocy??
>>>>
>>>> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
>>>> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
>>>> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
>>>> night.
>>
>>>What big night is that? The acquittal?
>>
>>>Milt
>>
>>JSL
>mr_antone
JSL
Mary E Knadler
your
>idiocy??
>>
>> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
>> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
>> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
>> night.
>
>What big night is that? The acquittal?
>
>Milt
>
==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
What else. You want to celebrate with YOUR President,
don't you.
He certainly is one to make people PROUD! (sarcasm intended)!
I feel must worse about losing Newt than what happens to
Clinton.
yasmin2
Michael Ejercito
> In article <79o18n$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
> >
> > One way I know YOU are THE Milt is your so frequent use
> > of the word "dumb".
> >
> > And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling &
> > insults to attempt to make a point.
> >
> > THEY show how INSECURE they are!
>
> I'm not calling you a name, Mary. I am simply stating the obvious. You are
> about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than Forrest Linder.
> It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
If you think Mary is dumb,then there is something wrong with the way
you observe things. Mary happens to be an intelligent person. Compare that
to Jim Kennemur<Glen Yeadson,and Gary Lantz.
Michael
Vote for me at http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <79pjkh$9jj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, milt...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
gee junior, that would be cruelity to dumb animals.
mr_antone
Linder) wrote:
>mr_antone@_REMOVE_geocities.com (mr_antone) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:57:47 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>Linder) wrote:
>
>>>milt...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <79o18n$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
>>>>> In <79nltc$m5v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> milt...@my-dejanews.com
>>>>> writes:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >In article <79d4u2$e...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>>> > yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> ><snip>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> If there was an award for "Verbosity", Milt would win it
>>>>> hands down.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Of course, Mary has no idea which Milt she is talking to. How
>>>>> come everyone else knows who I am, but you don't, Mary?
>>>>> Couldn't be that you're dumber than the average right winger,
>>>>> would it?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> He posts under so many names & uses so much bandwidth, I
>>>>> >> think they should charge him double for any SP he uses.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I post using several email addresses, to avoid spam. But I
>>>>> always use the same name. And you post more than I do.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >And most of us wish you even knew what "verbose" meant...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Milt (The same way I sign all of my posts, when I remember to
>>>>> sign...)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Maybe you should "set" one up.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
>>>>> ==----------
>>>>> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or
>>>>> Start Your Own
>>>>>
>>>>> One way I know YOU are THE Milt is your so frequent use
>>>>> of the word "dumb".
>>>>>
>>>>> And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling &
>>>>> insults to attempt to make a point.
>>>>>
>>>>> THEY show how INSECURE they are!
>>>
>>>>I'm not calling you a name, Mary. I am simply stating the obvious. You are
>>>>about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than Forrest Linder.
>>>>It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
>>>
>>>One might believe your claim if you could support your observation.
>>>Of course most of us know the only person you're trying to convince is
>>>yourself. You are a pitiful excuse for a human.
>
>>JSL is beginning to sound like another Tommy Odell wannabe.
>
>Would you care to post some evidence of my "stupidity"? Milt seems
>to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for the
>weasels. Batter up.....
Sorry, I fail to see where I called you stupid.
' You are a pitiful excuse for a human. ' ==> typical Odell
rant.
Glad to see you equate Odell with stupidy.
Ball one.
>>>
>>>>As for security/insecurity, are you telling us that you're secure in your
>>>>idiocy??
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
>>>>> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
>>>>> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
>>>>> night.
>>>
>>>>What big night is that? The acquittal?
>>>
>>>>Milt
>>>
>>>JSL
>
>>mr_antone
>
>
>JSL
mr_antone
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Sorry. What +was+ your point then?
> ' You are a pitiful excuse for a human. ' ==> typical Odell
>rant.
>Glad to see you equate Odell with stupidy.
>Ball one.
What are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>>>As for security/insecurity, are you telling us that you're secure in your
>>>>>idiocy??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
>>>>>> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
>>>>>> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
>>>>>> night.
>>>>
>>>>>What big night is that? The acquittal?
>>>>
JSL
mr_antone
Linder) wrote:
Begin point:
>> ' You are a pitiful excuse for a human. ' ==> typical Odell
>>rant.
End point.
>>Glad to see you equate Odell with stupidy.
>
>>Ball one.
>
>What are you talking about?
Batter up...
Ball two.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As for security/insecurity, are you telling us that you're secure in your
>>>>>>idiocy??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh have you got your bongos & cigars all ready for the
>>>>>>> celebration. And you know I recommended the champagne
>>>>>>> for that "festive" touch! Are you all SET for the big
>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>
>>>>>>What big night is that? The acquittal?
>>>>>
>
>JSL
mr_antone
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Batter up...
>Ball two.
I get it now. Expressing an opinion about a person is a "typical
O'Dell rant" (whatever that is).
mr_antone
<ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Ejercito writes:
>
> Michael> In article <79pjkh$9jj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, milt...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> In article <79o18n$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > One way I know YOU are THE Milt is your so frequent use
> >> > of the word "dumb".
> >> >
> >> > And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling &
> >> > insults to attempt to make a point.
> >> >
> >> > THEY show how INSECURE they are!
> >>
> >> I'm not calling you a name, Mary. I am simply stating the obvious. You are
> >> about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than Forrest Linder.
> >> It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
>
> Michael> If you think Mary is dumb,then there is something wrong with the way
> Michael> you observe things. Mary happens to be an intelligent person.
>
>Mary is almost, but not quite, as dumb as you. The "not
>quite" bit is why you think she is smart.
LOL !!
>ah
>(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
mr_antone
Mary E Knadler
<ahall-...@world.std.com> writes:
>
>>>>>> Michael Ejercito writes:
>
> Michael> In article <79pjkh$9jj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
milt...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> In article <79o18n$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > One way I know YOU are THE Milt is your so frequent use
> >> > of the word "dumb".
> >> >
> >> > And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling
&
> >> > insults to attempt to make a point.
> >> >
> >> > THEY show how INSECURE they are!
> >>
> >> I'm not calling you a name, Mary. I am simply stating the
obvious. You are
> >> about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than
Forrest Linder.
> >> It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
>
> Michael> If you think Mary is dumb,then there is something wrong
with the way
> Michael> you observe things. Mary happens to be an intelligent
person.
>
>Mary is almost, but not quite, as dumb as you. The "not
>quite" bit is why you think she is smart.
>
>(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
Are you trying to become another "Milt". It is really
not that great to use name-calling & insults. If you
have info & facts to back up your statement or beliefs,
do it by all means but the other stuff is rather
"adolescent", don't you think?
yasmin2
s
Gary
wrote:
>> I'm not calling you a name, Mary. I am simply stating the obvious. You are
>> about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than Forrest Linder.
>> It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
> If you think Mary is dumb,then there is something wrong with the way
>you observe things. Mary happens to be an intelligent person. Compare that
>to Jim Kennemur<Glen Yeadson,and Gary Lantz.
>
>
> Michael
>
Its awfully hard to defend Mary in any way when you consider some of
her posts in this group.
Once she posted that if blacks take over the USA she is moving to
Australia. She didn't say what she expected to do with the
aboriginies...(SP) Perhaps she believes they are kept "in their place"
Reciently she posted that Morris Dees molests little boys. A
dispicable thing to say. When called on it she defended herself by
saying that it was ok to lie about things like that because other
people have posted lies about Reagan.
Now you might agree with her on that I don't know but as I see it that
alone makes her stupid.
Mary is a racist, a living breathing piece of shit.
And yes, she is stupid.
milt...@my-dejanews.com
linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> mr_antone@_REMOVE_geocities.com (mr_antone) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:57:47 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> >Linder) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>>In article <79o18n$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> >>> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
> >>>> writes:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >In article <79d4u2$e...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> If there was an award for "Verbosity", Milt would win it
> >>>> hands down.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Of course, Mary has no idea which Milt she is talking to. How
> >>>> come everyone else knows who I am, but you don't, Mary?
> >>>> Couldn't be that you're dumber than the average right winger,
> >>>> would it?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> He posts under so many names & uses so much bandwidth, I
> >>>> >> think they should charge him double for any SP he uses.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I post using several email addresses, to avoid spam. But I
> >>>> always use the same name. And you post more than I do.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >And most of us wish you even knew what "verbose" meant...
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Milt (The same way I sign all of my posts, when I remember to
> >>>> sign...)
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Maybe you should "set" one up.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
> >>>> ==----------
> >>>> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or
> >>>> Start Your Own
> >>>>
> >>>> of the word "dumb".
> >>>>
> >>>> And you know what my opinion is on those who use name- calling &
> >>>> insults to attempt to make a point.
> >>>>
> >>>> THEY show how INSECURE they are!
> >>
> >>>about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than Forrest Linder.
> >>>It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
> >>
> >>Of course most of us know the only person you're trying to convince is
> >>yourself. You are a pitiful excuse for a human.
>
> >JSL is beginning to sound like another Tommy Odell wannabe.
>
> Would you care to post some evidence of my "stupidity"?
He didn't say you were stupid. He said you were odell. Which may be a greater
insult...
> Milt seems
> to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for the
> weasels. Batter up.....
>
Forrest; we aren't unable to do so. We see no need to. You reinforce the image
with every post. Like this one.
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder
And what, pray tell makes me an "odell" Milt?
>> Milt seems
>> to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for the
>> weasels. Batter up.....
>>
>Forrest; we aren't unable to do so. We see no need to. You reinforce the image
>with every post. Like this one.
Yep.
JSL
Milt
Jeffrey Scott Linder <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:7a9p9h$8lk$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
This is why I call you dumb as a post, Forrest. I didn't say you were odell.
odell is far more virulent than you...
>>> Milt seems
>>> to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for the
>>> weasels. Batter up.....
>>>
>>Forrest; we aren't unable to do so. We see no need to. You reinforce the
image
>>with every post. Like this one.
>
>Yep.
Exactly. Not that you would ver get it...
>
>JSL
>
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Poor Milt. Since you are able to make a value assessment that being
an "odell" may be worse than being stupid you must have some idea of
what being an "odell" is.
So I ask again Milt, what makes me an "odell"? Or rather, what is an
"odell"?
>>>> Milt seems
>>>> to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for the
>>>> weasels. Batter up.....
>>>>
>>>Forrest; we aren't unable to do so. We see no need to. You reinforce the
>image
>>>with every post. Like this one.
>>
>>Yep.
>Exactly. Not that you would ver get it...
Poor, pathetic Milt.
JSL
milt...@my-dejanews.com
linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeffrey Scott Linder <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:7a9p9h$8lk$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
<snip>
> >>>He didn't say you were stupid. He said you were odell. Which may be a
> >greater
> >>>insult...
> >>
> >>And what, pray tell makes me an "odell" Milt?
>
> >This is why I call you dumb as a post, Forrest. I didn't say you were odell.
> >odell is far more virulent than you...
>
> Poor Milt. Since you are able to make a value assessment that being
> an "odell" may be worse than being stupid you must have some idea of
> what being an "odell" is.
>
Yes, I do. And while oyu are dumb as a post, Thomas K. O'dell is one of the
more vile pustules on Usenet. You are definitely slightly above his level. You
are not vile; just stupid as shit...
> So I ask again Milt, what makes me an "odell"? Or rather, what is an
> "odell"?
I find it hard to believe that you have been on Usenet this long, and not come
across an odell post...
>
> >>>> Milt seems
> >>>> to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for the
> >>>> weasels. Batter up.....
> >>>>
> >>>Forrest; we aren't unable to do so. We see no need to. You reinforce the
> >image
> >>>with every post. Like this one.
> >>
> >>Yep.
>
> >Exactly. Not that you would ver get it...
>
> Poor, pathetic Milt.
Uh huh. Some post, Forrest...
Milt
>
> JSL
Mary E Knadler
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) writes:
>
>"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeffrey Scott Linder <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:7a9p9h$8lk$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>>
>>>>In article <79q7ge$pin$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,>>>>> mr_antone@_REMOVE_geocities.com (mr_antone) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:57:47 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey
Scott
>>>>> >>>> ==----------
>>>>> >>>> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or
>>>>> >>>> Start Your Own
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> of the word "dumb".
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> And you know what my opinion is on those who use name-
calling &
>>>>> >>>> insults to attempt to make a point.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> THEY show how INSECURE they are!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>I'm not calling you a name, Mary. I am simply stating the
obvious.
>>You are
>>>>> >>>about the dumbest person on Usenet. You're even dumber than
Forrest
>>Linder.
>>>>> >>>It's not name-calling at all; it's an observation...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>One might believe your claim if you could support your
observation.
>>>>> >>Of course most of us know the only person you're trying to
convince is
>>>>> >>yourself. You are a pitiful excuse for a human.
>>>>>
>>>>> >JSL is beginning to sound like another Tommy Odell wannabe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you care to post some evidence of my "stupidity"?
>>>
a
>>greater
>>>>insult...
>>>
>>>And what, pray tell makes me an "odell" Milt?
>
>>This is why I call you dumb as a post, Forrest. I didn't say you were
odell.
>>odell is far more virulent than you...
>
>Poor Milt. Since you are able to make a value assessment that being
>an "odell" may be worse than being stupid you must have some idea of
>what being an "odell" is.
>
>"odell"?
>
>>>>> to be unable to do so. Maybe you can step up to the plate for
the
>>>>> weasels. Batter up.....
>>>>>
>>>>Forrest; we aren't unable to do so. We see no need to. You
reinforce the
>>image
>>>>with every post. Like this one.
>>>
>>>Yep.
>
>>Exactly. Not that you would ver get it...
>
>
>Poor, pathetic Milt.
>
>
Agreed to ALL the Milts, who or which ever they are or
how many.
yasmin2
yasmin