On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:15:14 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:00:57 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:22:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

snip

BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".

As far as you could tell.

That'd be me, but I ain't the one claiming to be smarter than everybody
with
Kevin's booming regularity.

However smart Kevin might or might not be, I think it's fair to say
that not everyone who is as regular as Kevin is as smart as he is.
Even a lot of really dim people know to eat prunes and a lot of fiber
and such.

Yes, and then there's the punny people who like to act like nobody else has
ever had a book or learning in their life. That's the people who go right
past the casually implied meaning to humour their own self-inferred
superiority.

It's difficult to tell, but I think he's trying to flirt you, Barbara.

Does anyone have a copy of the post before it was translated?

He's trying to say there are two kinds of people in the world, people
like him and people who do things differently from the way he does
them.

Whether or not there is a value judgment involved is a matter of
opinion.

BW

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:20:49 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

Brace yourself, Barbara.

You mean he's Irish?

BW

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:10:50 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:14:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".

As far as you could tell.

Do you recall a study conducted four or five years ago that found that
incompetent people are largely unaware of their incompetence, and in
fact significantly overestimate their competence?

Just wondering.

I bet you spend a whole lot of time "just wondering".

WHOOSH, again!

Ever heard of the
word "which"? Boy-oh-boy,writing the likes of "that found that", and you
teach formal writing?

Oh, my. This is NOT going to be pretty. Brace yourself, Barbara.
Sandra Dee Winsor is fixin' to lecture us on the difference between
restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

Nope, I'd have to look that up in some old texts


I would have more precisely wrote those people
"significantly overestimate their" own "competence if I was trying to fill
the overstuffed persona you are.

Would you have also figured out how to use quotation marks correctly?

I think the point is readable and not clumsy like "that found that".


What's your occupation, Sandra?

Who's Sandra?

If you tell me, I'll be glad to show you how these lecturettes on English
make you look exceedingly
foolish, ESPECIALLY when directed at me and Barbara.

I'm more of gadflying some of your own imperfections. Yes, you're some sort
of "professional writer", aren't you? Geez, it used to be that to be
considered a "professional", you had to keep to some sort of vague code of
"professional" conduct. Are you really about to trot out your pathetic
little credentials? Do you really think I didn't Googled you up when you
started to trollishly crosspost? You're both children's egos in adult
minds.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the
hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:32:10 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:10:50 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:14:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".

As far as you could tell.

Do you recall a study conducted four or five years ago that found that
incompetent people are largely unaware of their incompetence, and in
fact significantly overestimate their competence?

Just wondering.

I bet you spend a whole lot of time "just wondering".

WHOOSH, again!

Ever heard of the
word "which"? Boy-oh-boy,writing the likes of "that found that", and you
teach formal writing?

Oh, my. This is NOT going to be pretty. Brace yourself, Barbara.
Sandra Dee Winsor is fixin' to lecture us on the difference between
restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

Nope, I'd have to look that up in some old texts

Why? Most people who know enough about syntax to advise others don't
have to look it up.

You're just making this all up as you go along, aren't you?

I would have more precisely wrote those people
"significantly overestimate their" own "competence if I was trying to fill
the overstuffed persona you are.

Would you have also figured out how to use quotation marks correctly?

I think the point is readable and not clumsy like "that found that".

AHAHAHAHA! Best laugh so far in this thread.

I hope you can dance better than you can read. You have no sense of
prose rhythm whatsoever.

Maybe your problem is that you read line by line, and the line break
imposed by his newsreader threw you off.

BW

[snips]

No cluons were harmed when Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
Do you recall a study conducted four or five years ago that found
that
incompetent people are largely unaware of their incompetence, and in
fact significantly overestimate their competence?

Just wondering.

You mean this one?:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406

It even has a picture of Milton.

I don't understand why my cow-orkers keep giving me photocopies of
this article, though...


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
Before you jump all over it, Sandra, I meant to say "Barbara and I."
That's how you would've written it, right?


Well, I'll be danked! Here you are replying to your own post. Shakes head
at how seriously the over employed professionals take themselves.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the
hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:15:14 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:00:57 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:22:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

snip

BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".

As far as you could tell.

That'd be me, but I ain't the one claiming to be smarter than everybody
with
Kevin's booming regularity.

However smart Kevin might or might not be, I think it's fair to say
that not everyone who is as regular as Kevin is as smart as he is.
Even a lot of really dim people know to eat prunes and a lot of fiber
and such.

Yes, and then there's the punny people who like to act like nobody else
has
ever had a book or learning in their life. That's the people who go
right
past the casually implied meaning to humour their own self-inferred
superiority.

It's difficult to tell, but I think he's trying to flirt you, Barbara.

Does anyone have a copy of the post before it was translated?

He's trying to say there are two kinds of people in the world, people
like him and people who do things differently from the way he does
them.

Whether or not there is a value judgment involved is a matter of
opinion.

And that's part of the craft, eh?

BW

"Mark Edwards" wrote

Some of us still just have access to the usenet.

Is that the thingy what has all the pictures of nekkid chyx? Or is
that IRC?

There are binary newsgroups. A lot usenets don't carry them
though. Mine only has a few (none of the explicitly naked ones,
though a lot of that stuff shows up on the supermodels group).

--oTTo--

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:10:50 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

I would have more precisely wrote

Oops.

The oopses are half the fun and challenge of life.

BW

Kevin S. Wilson writes:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:10:50 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

I would have more precisely wrote those people
"significantly overestimate their" own "competence if I was trying to fill
the overstuffed persona you are.

Would you have also figured out how to use quotation marks correctly?

She probably would have been too busy trying to puzzle out irregular
verbs, and subjunctive mood.

--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/
Ancient use of incendiary pigs as an anti-elephant measure is
disqualified on grounds of pigs not being cows, even when on fire.
-- John D Salt

"Mark Edwards" wrote in message
...
[snips]

No cluons were harmed when "D. Winsor"
wrote:
BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant". Why do you
suppose
you meet so many who are by your estimation?

Um, I'm just guessing, but is it because you have so many friends
here?

I didn't crosspost to your domain. That's Kevie's idea of a joke on the
dumb.


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

"D. Winsor" wrote

Before you jump all over it, Sandra, I meant to say "Barbara and I."
That's how you would've written it, right?


Well, I'll be danked! Here you are replying to your own post. Shakes head at
how seriously the over employed professionals take themselves.

Had he been posing as another person you'd have a point,
but since he didn't, you don't. This competence thing
really is getting to you.

--oTTo--

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:40:42 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

And that's part of the craft, eh?

As if you knew anything about the craft.

BW

--" I would have more precisely wrote" --D. Winsor

"D. Winsor" wrote

BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant". Why do you
suppose
you meet so many who are by your estimation?

Um, I'm just guessing, but is it because you have so many friends
here?

I didn't crosspost to your domain.

Nor could you. You might want to an internet jargon manual.

That's Kevie's idea of a joke on the dumb.

His joke is more on YHBT.

--oTTo--

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:43:43 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Mark Edwards" wrote in message
...
[snips]

No cluons were harmed when "D. Winsor"
wrote:
BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant". Why do you
suppose
you meet so many who are by your estimation?

Um, I'm just guessing, but is it because you have so many friends
here?

I didn't crosspost to your domain.

You really, really should stop using words if you don't know what they
mean. You look foolish when you do.

That's Kevie's idea of a joke on the dumb.

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. When it comes to mocking and
taunting those in need of mocking and taunting, I'm an
equal-opportunity employer. I don't stop at dumb, though I have to
admit that the category to which you've assigned yourself offers
little challenge.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked