on 2004-12-15 at 16:36 > wrote:

>He is serious though and hiding his ignorance behind a wall of jest when
>cornered.

i think we can all agree that KevingS is serious. seriously
*what*, though, is something i think you are spectacularly
under qualified to determine. m'kaythen?

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

shelly wrote:
>
> on 2004-12-15 at 16:44 > wrote:
>
> >And you expect the consensus of a few fools to hold weight?
>
> so now you're claiming that KevingS is *not* serious? make up
> your mind, Mr. WafflePants! and, also, too, how much weight
> are we talking about? it makes a difference, you know.
> okaythanks.


Well you two alone break the 1922 Washington Naval Tonnage Limit... so
there isn't any weight left

-CAL

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:36:47 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
>shelly wrote:
>>
>> on 2004-12-15 at 16:17 > wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah I do, just read my post again taking not of the ditinction of
>> >internet and USENET :
>>
>> please to be speaking teh English here on teh Usernet!
>>
>> >First, "NNPT" is something you just made up
>> >Second, "NNTP" is not a system it is a protocol.
>> >Third, USENET was established in 1979 and it used the UUCP
>> >Fourth, where the hell are you getting your wrong facts from? Al Gore
>> >maybe?
>>
>> you *still* don't understand how this works, do you?
>
>He is serious though and hiding his ignorance behind a wall of jest when
>cornered.
>
CAL probably thinks he didn't answer your question, but I'm pretty
sure he did.

Now ask him what he means by "hiding his ignorance behind a wall of
jest."

For the time being, we'll set aside the matter of what he means by
"cornered."

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

on 2004-12-15 at 16:44 > wrote:

>And you expect the consensus of a few fools to hold weight?

so now you're claiming that KevingS is *not* serious? make up
your mind, Mr. WafflePants! and, also, too, how much weight
are we talking about? it makes a difference, you know.
okaythanks.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:38:20 GMT, Rose Marie Holt
> wrote:

>Wait a sec. If he were making it up as he goes along (not that he *is*,
>but if he were) then why would an explanation be relevant?

You're questioning the logic of someone who can "make" people post to
the USENET (tm)? You sure like to live dangerously.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:38:20 GMT, Rose Marie Holt
> wrote:

>Wait a sec. If he were making it up as he goes along (not that he *is*,
>but if he were) then why would an explanation be relevant?

You're questioning the logic of someone who can "make" people post to
the USENET (tm)? You sure like to live dangerously.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

on 2004-12-15 at 09:51 > wrote:

>CAL probably thinks he didn't answer your question, but I'm
>pretty sure he did.

oh, he's been answering it all along, bay-BEE.

>Now ask him what he means by "hiding his ignorance behind a
>wall of jest."

i'm not sure, but i think he accused you of some sort of
forbidden self-love. maybe he should ask his priest about it
before trying to explain it to us?

>For the time being, we'll set aside the matter of what he
>means by "cornered."

it's that stuff that's made of former cow parts and is sold in
a little tin. at least, that's what i implied from his post.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

Glitter Ninja wrote:
>
> cl > writes:
> >Glitter Ninja wrote:
> >>
> >> Compuserve? I knew a guy on Compuserve back in '93! Was that you or
> >> did you know him?
>
> >Did you like the farmyard sex fetish picts you requested from him?
>
> So it *was* you. That's what I figured. There couldn't be two people
> on Usenet at the same time who were stupid enough to think that people
> would pay for grainy photos of a cucumber glued to a Smurf doll.

Yeah but they did the trick well enough for you to hear the 1 hour
Martinizing crew say "Ms., we can't remove that from the comforter so
just use it for camoflaging"

_CAL

on 2004-12-15 at 16:48 > wrote:

>Well you two alone break the 1922 Washington Naval Tonnage
>Limit... so there isn't any weight left

you should tread carefully, then. you wouldn't want to get
too close to the event horizon. also, either you misspelled
light or you flunked astrophysics 101.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

cl > writes:
>Glitter Ninja wrote:
>>
>> Compuserve? I knew a guy on Compuserve back in '93! Was that you or
>> did you know him?

>Did you like the farmyard sex fetish picts you requested from him?

So it *was* you. That's what I figured. There couldn't be two people
on Usenet at the same time who were stupid enough to think that people
would pay for grainy photos of a cucumber glued to a Smurf doll.

Stacia

cl > writes:
>Glitter Ninja wrote:
>>
>> Compuserve? I knew a guy on Compuserve back in '93! Was that you or
>> did you know him?

>Did you like the farmyard sex fetish picts you requested from him?

So it *was* you. That's what I figured. There couldn't be two people
on Usenet at the same time who were stupid enough to think that people
would pay for grainy photos of a cucumber glued to a Smurf doll.

Stacia

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:52:39 -0500, shelly >
wrote:

>on 2004-12-15 at 16:44 > wrote:
>
>>And you expect the consensus of a few fools to hold weight?
>
>so now you're claiming that KevingS is *not* serious?

Oh, I'm serious alright. Very serious. But as you pointed out
elsewhere, the question CAL should be asking himself is, "What is
Kevin serious about?"

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:48:08 GMT, cl > wrote:

>Well you two alone break the 1922 Washington Naval Tonnage Limit... so
>there isn't any weight left

Back to calling people fat again, huh, Pro? And not just here, but in
another on-topic thread in AFB. That's pretty lame, you know.

Actually, it's not. It's pathetic.

Now point us to a pic of yourself, one that clearly shows that your
weight is proportional to your height. It'll still be pathetic when
you resort to calling people fat, but we'll at least know you put your
money where your mouth is when it comes to personal fitness.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:02:50 GMT, cl > wrote:

>
>Glitter Ninja wrote:
>>
>> cl > writes:
>> >Glitter Ninja wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Compuserve? I knew a guy on Compuserve back in '93! Was that you or
>> >> did you know him?
>>
>> >Did you like the farmyard sex fetish picts you requested from him?
>>
>> So it *was* you. That's what I figured. There couldn't be two people
>> on Usenet at the same time who were stupid enough to think that people
>> would pay for grainy photos of a cucumber glued to a Smurf doll.
>
>Yeah but they did the trick well enough for you to hear the 1 hour
>Martinizing crew say "Ms., we can't remove that from the comforter so
>just use it for camoflaging"

I do believe CAL here just copped to being stupid. Certainly took him
long enough.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> Besides, my point was that CAL would've first had to have had
security
> clearance, and I doubt that he ever did. You had security clearance
--
> all be it an expired clearance -- and that makes all the difference.
> --
> Kevin S. Wilson

"all be it"? How Zen.

Cam

Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:02:50 GMT, cl > wrote:
>>Glitter Ninja wrote:

>>> So it *was* you. That's what I figured. There couldn't be two people
>>> on Usenet at the same time who were stupid enough to think that people
>>> would pay for grainy photos of a cucumber glued to a Smurf doll.
>>
>>Yeah but they did the trick well enough for you to hear the 1 hour
>>Martinizing crew say "Ms., we can't remove that from the comforter so
>>just use it for camoflaging"

>I do believe CAL here just copped to being stupid. Certainly took him
>long enough.

At least you were able to translate what he wrote. It is no fun to poke
him with sticks when he spouts off word salads in response. I take that
back; word salads would be fun. A comeback that involves "Martinizing"
is NO FUN. If he's not going to play right, I'm taking my toys and going
home.

Stacia

"Cam" > wrote in news:1103133165.311518.201160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> Besides, my point was that CAL would've first had to have had
> security
>> clearance, and I doubt that he ever did. You had security clearance
> --
>> all be it an expired clearance -- and that makes all the difference.
>> --
>> Kevin S. Wilson
>
> "all be it"? How Zen.

Amazing. How do you do it, Kevin? When I saw this, you could of knocked
me over with a feather.


--
Dave Boyd
"Sufficient unto the Dave is the evil thereof." MAT 6:34
Remove UCETRAP to reply

Glitter Ninja wrote:

>
> At least you were able to translate what he wrote. It is no fun to poke
> him with sticks when he spouts off word salads in response. I take that
> back; word salads would be fun. A comeback that involves "Martinizing"
> is NO FUN. If he's not going to play right, I'm taking my toys and going
> home.
>
> Stacia

Speaking of salads, I forgot you goobs might not have had yours tossed
in a while so the Martinizing/comforter comment might escape you.

-CAL

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:45:40 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
Ninja) wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson > writes:
>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:02:50 GMT, cl > wrote:
>>>Glitter Ninja wrote:
>
>>>> So it *was* you. That's what I figured. There couldn't be two people
>>>> on Usenet at the same time who were stupid enough to think that people
>>>> would pay for grainy photos of a cucumber glued to a Smurf doll.
>>>
>>>Yeah but they did the trick well enough for you to hear the 1 hour
>>>Martinizing crew say "Ms., we can't remove that from the comforter so
>>>just use it for camoflaging"
>
>>I do believe CAL here just copped to being stupid. Certainly took him
>>long enough.
>
> At least you were able to translate what he wrote.
>
Allow me to translate. Hold onto your sides; CAL is making with the
funn-i.

"Yeah but they [the pornographic photos] did the trick well enough . .
.. "

In his opening gambit, CAL implicitly acknowledges that he (a) is
stupid enough to think that people would pay for grainy photos of a
cucumber glued to a Smurf doll and that (b) he has somehow managed to
get the photos to you despite the fact that you aren't stupid enough
to pay for them.

"or you to hear the 1 hour Martinizing crew say . . . "

Here CAL is implying that there is a causal relationship at work, that
something about the photos caused you to visit a 1-Hour Martinizing
shop to get something cleaned.

"'"Ms.,"

This part is a bit tricky to translate, because no one outside of
CAL's bizarro world with the pink sky would use it as a form of direct
address, rather than as a courtesy title before the the surname or
full name of the person being addressed. Literate people would say
"Ms. Glitter Ninja" or, in the absence of a full name, "Miss" or
"Ma'am."

" we can't remove that from the comforter . . . "

Another tricky passage, primarily because CAL seems incapable of using
a demonstrative pronoun (in this case, "that") as an adverb modifying
the noun it refers to, forcing us to guess what "that" might refer to.
Let's assume it refers to a stain, which would make sense in this
particular context.

But let's pause here a moment, because CAL has arrived at the ZINGER
in his scathing, belittling post. Remember the causal relationship?
CAL is oh-so-cleverly implying that you did something as a result of
possessing the pornographic photos, and that what you did has resulted
in a stain on the comforter.

That's right! CAL called you a masturbator. (I told you you were in
for a rough ride full of hilarity.)

"so just use it for camoflaging"

This last bit we can safely ignore, as it is clearly the punchline to
some joke CAL heard while . . . um . . . working in the men's room at
the Greyhound station. That the punchline doesn't really apply to the
conversation at hand is typical of CAL-speak.

HTH.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:48:08 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
> >Well you two alone break the 1922 Washington Naval Tonnage Limit... so
> >there isn't any weight left
>
> Back to calling people fat again, huh, Pro? And not just here, but in
> another on-topic thread in AFB. That's pretty lame, you know.
> Actually, it's not. It's pathetic.

Why? Only a lack of excercise and restraint is the cause of obesity of
most. It is preventable.

Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.


> Now point us to a pic of yourself, one that clearly shows that your
> weight is proportional to your height. It'll still be pathetic when
> you resort to calling people fat, but we'll at least know you put your
> money where your mouth is when it comes to personal fitness.

Even if I were a haas, how exactly would that change how you are? If I
were to tell you I was 6ft/187# would that change you? If I told you I
need to lose 10# to get back to 8%bf would that help you any?

-CAL

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:52:17 GMT, cl > wrote:

>Speaking of salads, I forgot you goobs might not have had yours tossed
>in a while

I've been meaning to ask, CAL, how is the wife these days? Seems you
don't mention her very often.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:52:17 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
> >Speaking of salads, I forgot you goobs might not have had yours tossed
> >in a while
>
> I've been meaning to ask, CAL, how is the wife these days? Seems you
> don't mention her very often.


Absolute sweetheart other than the times that she asks me why I waste my
time screwing with you guys.


-CAL

On 15 Dec 2004 18:49:24 GMT, David Boyd >
wrote:

>"Cam" > wrote in news:1103133165.311518.201160
:
>
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>> Besides, my point was that CAL would've first had to have had
>> security
>>> clearance, and I doubt that he ever did. You had security clearance
>> --
>>> all be it an expired clearance -- and that makes all the difference.
>>> --
>>> Kevin S. Wilson
>>
>> "all be it"? How Zen.
>
>Amazing. How do you do it, Kevin?

I steal from my students.

> When I saw this, you could of knocked me over with a feather.

Good one. I almost missed it.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

on 2004-12-15 at 19:06 > wrote:

>because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.

very good! one is masturbation and the other is a hand job.
now, if you're finished obsessing over KevingS' peanus ...

>Even if I were a haas,

i believe that was Stacia. HTH!

>how exactly would that change how you are? If I were to tell
>you I was 6ft/187# would that change you? If I told you I
>need to lose 10# to get back to 8%bf would that help you any?

wait, are you inferring that your purpose here on Teh
Internets is to be helpful? how does that work?

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

shelly wrote:
>
> on 2004-12-15 at 19:06 > wrote:
>
> >because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.
>
> very good! one is masturbation and the other is a hand job.
> now, if you're finished obsessing over KevingS' peanus ...
>
> >Even if I were a haas,
>
> i believe that was Stacia. HTH!
>
> >how exactly would that change how you are? If I were to tell
> >you I was 6ft/187# would that change you? If I told you I
> >need to lose 10# to get back to 8%bf would that help you any?
>
> wait, are you inferring that your purpose here on Teh
> Internets is to be helpful? how does that work?

No inference, it is just your conscious speaking.

on 2004-12-15 at 19:39 > wrote:

[snippety dooh-dah]

>No inference, it is just your conscious speaking.

nothing gets by you, does it?

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

cl > writes:
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> Back to calling people fat again, huh, Pro? And not just here, but in
>> another on-topic thread in AFB. That's pretty lame, you know.
>> Actually, it's not. It's pathetic.

>Why? Only a lack of excercise and restraint is the cause of obesity of
>most. It is preventable.

Thank you, Doctor CAL, for that insightful bit of knowledge that I'm
sure you gleaned from the colorful pages of a U.S.A. Today.

>Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
>bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.

Attacking a person's physical appearance is about the most pathetic you
can get. More pathetic would be making fun of mentally challenged
children, although I have a feeling you're not above that, either. Maybe
a little Googling is in order.

Stacia

Glitter Ninja wrote:
>
> cl > writes:


> >Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
> >bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.
>
> Attacking a person's physical appearance is about the most pathetic you
> can get. More pathetic would be making fun of mentally challenged
> children, although I have a feeling you're not above that, either. Maybe
> a little Googling is in order.

Hey we agree! If your reread what you responded to then you would
notice I was attacking Kevin for his intelligence digs. So let he cast
the first stone...

As to 'Making fun' of someone, I would not do it except for out of
retaliation. If someone can dish it out, they sure as hell better be
able to take it.

-CAL

(Glitter Ninja) writes:
>cl > writes:

>>Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
>>bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.

Attacking a person's intelligence is pathetic, according to CAL. As
trustworthy as CAL has shown himself, I thought that:

>Maybe a little Googling is in order.

It took a few seconds to pull up these gems from our friend CAL:

April, 2002, misc.fitness.weights: "Will, I'm a Christian but I don't
think you can find much similarity in beliefs outside the central theme of
salvation between me and the 'tard." -CLA

June, 2004, alt.food.barbecue: "Gess, what a bunch of 'tard around here"

I didn't even go searching for "moron" or "idiot" or any other phrases
he's obviously used.

Stacia

Glitter Ninja wrote:
>
> (Glitter Ninja) writes:
> >cl > writes:
>
> >>Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
> >>bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.
>
> Attacking a person's intelligence is pathetic, according to CAL. As
> trustworthy as CAL has shown himself, I thought that:
>
> >Maybe a little Googling is in order.
>
> It took a few seconds to pull up these gems from our friend CAL:
>
> April, 2002, misc.fitness.weights: "Will, I'm a Christian but I don't
> think you can find much similarity in beliefs outside the central theme of
> salvation between me and the 'tard." -CLA
>
> June, 2004, alt.food.barbecue: "Gess, what a bunch of 'tard around here"
>
> I didn't even go searching for "moron" or "idiot" or any other phrases
> he's obviously used.
>
> Stacia


Here I'll play with you Stacia. Here are one for you


Dec 12, alt.religion.kibology: "the spastic retard who runs the
cafeteria"

So now you are making fun of cafeteria workers Stacia?

_CAL

cl > writes:
>Glitter Ninja wrote:
>> cl > writes:

>> >Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
>> >bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.
>>
>> Attacking a person's physical appearance is about the most pathetic you
>> can get.

>Hey we agree! If your reread what you responded to then you would
>notice I was attacking Kevin for his intelligence digs.

In this ****ing contest, you're trying to convince us all that you're
smarter than us because all those incorrect things you said were "trolls".
This was in response to your realization that you were, in fact, trolled.
I would wager that everyone on ARK and most on AFB are sure that all those
mistakes you made were things you were genuinely mistaken about, and no
trolling was involved.
Kevin is saying that it's stupid to try and go back on your own words
and attempt to turn them into something they are not.
Other than that, I'm not sure that anyone is calling you specifically
stupid. Your actions, yes. You, I'm not so sure. OK, a few people have
hinted that you may have a, uh... nervous condition. I'll give you that.
But you've called the entire ARK readership stupid, you've called most
people fat (as an insult), and been generally insulting to everyone who
doesn't buy into your lackluster attempt to cover your embarassed
buttocks.
You can shove that self-righteous "cast the first stone" crap right up
those embarassed buttocks. I'm through with playing with you. Hopefully
the cat who dragged this mouse into ARK will kill it and be done with it,
and soon.

>As to 'Making fun' of someone, I would not do it except for out of
>retaliation. If someone can dish it out, they sure as hell better be
>able to take it.

So who in ARK called you fat, Dr. CAL?

Stacia

cl > writes:
>Glitter Ninja wrote:
>> cl > writes:

>> >Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
>> >bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.
>>
>> Attacking a person's physical appearance is about the most pathetic you
>> can get.

>Hey we agree! If your reread what you responded to then you would
>notice I was attacking Kevin for his intelligence digs.

In this ****ing contest, you're trying to convince us all that you're
smarter than us because all those incorrect things you said were "trolls".
This was in response to your realization that you were, in fact, trolled.
I would wager that everyone on ARK and most on AFB are sure that all those
mistakes you made were things you were genuinely mistaken about, and no
trolling was involved.
Kevin is saying that it's stupid to try and go back on your own words
and attempt to turn them into something they are not.
Other than that, I'm not sure that anyone is calling you specifically
stupid. Your actions, yes. You, I'm not so sure. OK, a few people have
hinted that you may have a, uh... nervous condition. I'll give you that.
But you've called the entire ARK readership stupid, you've called most
people fat (as an insult), and been generally insulting to everyone who
doesn't buy into your lackluster attempt to cover your embarassed
buttocks.
You can shove that self-righteous "cast the first stone" crap right up
those embarassed buttocks. I'm through with playing with you. Hopefully
the cat who dragged this mouse into ARK will kill it and be done with it,
and soon.

>As to 'Making fun' of someone, I would not do it except for out of
>retaliation. If someone can dish it out, they sure as hell better be
>able to take it.

So who in ARK called you fat, Dr. CAL?

Stacia

cl > writes:

>Dec 12, alt.religion.kibology: "the spastic retard who runs the
>cafeteria"

Oh, my dear little one, I would NEVER say that I didn't call people
stupid. I call people stupid ALL THE TIME. I can't believe you just
found one example; you did not try hard enough. Also, "spastic retard"
is one of my favorite phrases, ever since Kibo used it to describe Mr
Magoo.

>So now you are making fun of cafeteria workers Stacia?

She's not a cafeteria worker, she's the crazed orangutan who runs the
cafeteria. I'm not making fun of her, I'm directing passionate hate
towards her.

Stacia

Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in
:

>>Amazing. How do you do it, Kevin?
>
> I steal from my students.

You can always tell the ones who don't read a lot by this kind of thing.

So I thought, "Hey, Keving caught another one, in a thread ABOUT
trolling, even though his gull presumably knew better," and dipped my
bait in the same spot:

>> When I saw this, you could of knocked me over with a feather.
>
> Good one. I almost missed it.

In other words, "NO TROLLING IN MY THREAD! GO GET YOUR OWN!"

OKAYFINE!

--
Dave Boyd
"Sufficient unto the Dave is the evil thereof." MAT 6:34
Remove UCETRAP to reply

"Glitter Ninja" > wrote in message
...

Stacia wrote:

> I'm through with playing with you. Hopefully
> the cat who dragged this mouse into ARK will kill it and be done with it,
> and soon.

YES
You were WARNED abutt CAL/cl. afbers TOLD you were gettin' SCREWED when we
traded CAL for Kibo. But did you *belief* us? NONONONONO, you LAFFED at us
and acted SMUGGE. And mofurther, we have other WEAPOONS we can dispatch.
WE demand RESPEK for our Smokeaddled Branes or we will send KentH to PLAGE
UoR HOSE.

THIS IS NO DRILL

Jack Curry

David Boyd wrote:
> "Cam" > wrote in news:1103133165.311518.201160
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > "all be it"? How Zen.
>
> Amazing. How do you do it, Kevin? When I saw this, you could of
knocked
> me over with a feather.
>
>
> --
> Dave Boyd

"could of"? hunh...hunh...straining to make second Eastern religion
reference...

Cam

On 15 Dec 2004 20:34:26 GMT, David Boyd >
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in
:
>
>>>Amazing. How do you do it, Kevin?
>>
>> I steal from my students.
>
>You can always tell the ones who don't read a lot by this kind of thing.

Yes, as with the student who insisted that "nonetheless" was a phrase
consisting of the three words "none the less."

>So I thought, "Hey, Keving caught another one, in a thread ABOUT
>trolling, even though his gull presumably knew better," and dipped my
>bait in the same spot:
>
>>> When I saw this, you could of knocked me over with a feather.
>>
>> Good one. I almost missed it.
>
>In other words, "NO TROLLING IN MY THREAD! GO GET YOUR OWN!"

No, no, no. Trollerish followups are always welcome, provided that
they are subtle and funny (as yours was). What does bug me, though, as
long as you asked, is when someone jumps into the thread before it's
gathered any real steam and says, "HAW! HAW! THAT ONE GUY JUST TROLLED
YOU!! U R ST00PID!!"

>OKAYFINE!

OKAYTHENBYE!

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:48:25 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
Ninja) wrote:

>cl > writes:
>>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>>
>>> Back to calling people fat again, huh, Pro? And not just here, but in
>>> another on-topic thread in AFB. That's pretty lame, you know.
>>> Actually, it's not. It's pathetic.
>
>>Why? Only a lack of excercise and restraint is the cause of obesity of
>>most. It is preventable.
>
> Thank you, Doctor CAL, for that insightful bit of knowledge that I'm
>sure you gleaned from the colorful pages of a U.S.A. Today.

A very insightful analysis from Doctor CAL. Apparently, fat people are
fair targets for scorn and mocking because they are lazy and lack will
power.

I wonder if it's too late to get back the Payless Shoe Store gift
certificates I donated to the university's "Adopt a Student Family"
program? I'm beginning to think that the only reason those three kids
need shoes at Christmas-time is because their parents lack initiative.

>>Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
>>bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.

You are using a very limited and limiting definition of
"intelligence," implying that it is a fixed entity within each
individual, much like the color of one's skin or eyes. That is
disengenous, at best.

You are also simplisticly characterizing what's going on he If
someone has called you stupid, they are most likely commenting on your
actions and your statements within this thread. If it makes you feel
better, substitute "gullible" for "stupid." Or substitute "ignorant of
easily obtainable facts." Or substitute "prone to reducing complex
ideas into simplistic generalizations." Or substitute "given to
responding in a way one wouldn't expect an incredulous person of
average literacy would respond."

> Attacking a person's physical appearance is about the most pathetic you
>can get. More pathetic would be making fun of mentally challenged
>children, although I have a feeling you're not above that, either. Maybe
>a little Googling is in order.
>
It won't be a pretty sight, Stacia.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:29:07 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
Ninja) wrote:

>cl > writes:
>>Glitter Ninja wrote:
>>> cl > writes:
>
>>> >Is it anymore pathetic than attacking a person's intelligence? Not one
>>> >bit because one is in the individuals hands and the other isn't.
>>>
>>> Attacking a person's physical appearance is about the most pathetic you
>>> can get.
>
>>Hey we agree! If your reread what you responded to then you would
>>notice I was attacking Kevin for his intelligence digs.
>
> But you've called the entire ARK readership stupid, you've called most
>people fat (as an insult), and been generally insulting to everyone who
>doesn't buy into your lackluster attempt to cover your embarassed
>buttocks.

He's gone a step further, following me into other, on-topic threads in
AFB to call me fat.

> You can shove that self-righteous "cast the first stone" crap right up
>those embarassed buttocks. I'm through with playing with you. Hopefully
>the cat who dragged this mouse into ARK will kill it and be done with it,
>and soon.

I've considered doing exactly that, in the spirit of the holiday
season. But he's like Columbo; he just keeps coming back with a few
more questions.

>>As to 'Making fun' of someone, I would not do it except for out of
>>retaliation. If someone can dish it out, they sure as hell better be
>>able to take it.
>
> So who in ARK called you fat, Dr. CAL?

You are asking CAL to draw a distinction between the following
statements, a distinction he is trying to convince us does not exist.

1. Based on your writing style and your responses to the threads
posted here, I have concluded that you are not the brightest bulb in
the GE 4-pack.

2. HAW! HAW! YOU'RE A BIG FAT DISGUSTING SLOB!!!

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:13:19 GMT, cl > wrote:

>Here I'll play with you Stacia. Here are one for you
>
>Dec 12, alt.religion.kibology: "the spastic retard who runs the
>cafeteria"
>
>So now you are making fun of cafeteria workers Stacia?

I'm going to give you a couple of hints here, CAL, about the
difference between what Stacia said and you calling me (and others)
fat:

The person who runs the cafeteria isn't really spastic.
The person who runs the cafeteria isn't really retarded.

See the difference?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr