Bob in Georgia and Ginger the BBQGirl have asked me to post this.
If you haven't been to one of these, you might want to consider it.
You may contact me for further info. Motel info and directions.
Howdy Everyone,

This is to let everyone know that we are planning
a fall BBQ mailing list get-together for the weekend
of October 6th-9th.

Since this is a holiday weekend (Columbus Day), we
decided to extend the fest into Monday. This invitation
is open to all participants of this list, as well as The
Smoke Ring, Outhouse and AFB lists.

This is an event for the entire family. Pictures of our
past Hatch's can be viewed at our web site:
http://www.bobinga.com/hth/hth.htm

There is a trampoline, fish pond and plenty of animals
for the kids. And our new friend Delilah has volunteered
to lead a some of the more adventurous gals in an
all-female hog butchering. (which should prove to be THE
event of the year for the BBQ paparazzi folks! <G>)

This is a purely social event and a great opportunity
to put some faces with names and/or see some old friends.
Guests are not expected to bring anything*, pay anything,
cook anything or participate in any way other than by
enjoying themselves.

This is being held at our farm in south-central Georgia.
Guests can either pitch a tent or choose from a number
of motels within a :15 minute drive. Or if you're going
to be passing nearby, just come for a day. We'd be
delighted to have you.

Everyone who is interested speak so that we'll
be assured of over-eating all weekend!

I'm sending out another email with directions and motel
information immediately following this one.

Bob and Ginger in Gad

*Guests are responsible for bringing their own beverages,
except coffee, water, etc. Adult beverages are fine.
Also, if possible, a folding chair.



--
James A. "Big Jim" Whitten

www.lazyq.com

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:41:55 -0400, Big Jim wrote:
>
>> And our new friend Delilah has volunteered
>> to lead a some of the more adventurous gals in an
>> all-female hog butchering. (which should prove to be THE
>> event of the year for the BBQ paparazzi folks! <G>)
>
> Female hogs or for female participants only? If the latter, I'm
> gonna cry sexual discrimination!
>
> It seems an odd event to be "female only". Sounds like I don't
> want to meat Delilah, and it probably would be mutual.
>
> -sw

I am sure they will let you help.
Some of them city girls seem to enjoy butcherin a hog.
--
James A. "Big Jim" Whitten

www.lazyq.com

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:33:48 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:41:55 -0400, Big Jim wrote:
>
>> And our new friend Delilah has volunteered
>> to lead a some of the more adventurous gals in an
>> all-female hog butchering. (which should prove to be THE
>> event of the year for the BBQ paparazzi folks! <G>)
>
>Female hogs or for female participants only? If the latter, I'm
>gonna cry sexual discrimination!
>
>It seems an odd event to be "female only". Sounds like I don't
>want to meat Delilah, and it probably would be mutual.
>
Why should she be any different than most women?

--
"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 Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:22:25 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:07:40 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:33:48 GMT, Steve Wertz
>> > wrote:
>
>>>It seems an odd event to be "female only". Sounds like I don't
>>>want to meat Delilah, and it probably would be mutual.
>>>
>> Why should she be any different than most women?
>
>You have no trouble associating with me <shrug>.
>
For some values of "associate," I suppose, including the truly
illogical and twisted one you've come up with here.

Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.

--
"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 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>
>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>
Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
too?

You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
inferrence.

Of course, the explanation for your silence could be far more simple:
You were probably in jail or detox again.

--
"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

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>>
>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>
> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
> too?
>
> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
> inferrence.

Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're the
"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
their mental ability and stability. Your petty obsessions speak for
themselves on both counts..

>
> Of course, the explanation for your silence could be far more simple:
> You were probably in jail or detox again.

Ah yes! Snipers snipe.

>
> --
> "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 16:24:36 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> wrote:

>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>>>
>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>
>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>> too?
>>
>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>> inferrence.
>
>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're the
>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>their mental ability and stability.
>
I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
"electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.

--
"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

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote

>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>>>>
>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>
>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>> too?
>>>
>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>> inferrence.
>>
>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're the
>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>their mental ability and stability.
>>
> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.

Some of us still just have access to the usenet.

--oTTo--

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:24:36 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>>>>
>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>
>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>> too?
>>>
>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>> inferrence.
>>
>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're the
>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>their mental ability and stability.
>>
> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.

Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping reachings.
BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant". Why do you suppose
you meet so many who are by your estimation?

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

>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:24:36 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>>
>>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>>> too?
>>>>
>>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>>> inferrence.
>>>
>>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're the
>>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>>their mental ability and stability.
>>>
>> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
>> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
>> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
>> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
>> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
>> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
>> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.
>
>Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping reachings.
>BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".

As far as you could tell.

BW

> wrote

>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>>>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>>>> too?
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>>>> inferrence.
>>>>
>>>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're the
>>>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>>>their mental ability and stability.
>>>>
>>> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
>>> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
>>> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
>>> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
>>> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
>>> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
>>> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.
>>
>>Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping reachings.
>>BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".
>
> As far as you could tell.

It was a common expression where I grew up in West Virginia.

--oTTo--

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:24:36 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of
>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>>>> too?
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>>>> inferrence.
>>>>
>>>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're
>>>>the
>>>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>>>their mental ability and stability.
>>>>
>>> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
>>> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
>>> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
>>> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
>>> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
>>> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
>>> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.
>>
>>Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping
>>reachings.
>>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. I can certainly tell what I wrote is a correct
interpretation of Kev's assertions. Kev is something of a dancer if you'd
call knee-jerking dance.
>
> BW

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

> wrote in message
.. .
>> 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.

BW

On 2006-08-03, 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?

No. I'm sure I'd remember something like that.

--
Vielen Dank

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.

--
"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 2006-08-03, Kevin S Wilson > wrote:

> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.

I remember a building full of big, papery things that had information
in them. Do you know what they did with it?

--
He could feel the creature inside his mind and taste
its dank, ghastly breath as it breathed through his
mouth. [G.P. Taylor]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 13:21:11 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> wrote:

> wrote
>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance, but
>>>>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>>>>> too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>>>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>>>>> inferrence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're the
>>>>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>>>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>>>>their mental ability and stability.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
>>>> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
>>>> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
>>>> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
>>>> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
>>>> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
>>>> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.
>>>
>>>Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping reachings.
>>>BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".
>>
>> As far as you could tell.
>
>It was a common expression where I grew up in West Virginia.
>
Prolly equally common wherever D. Winsor was whelped. Well, at least
in the immediate vicinity of his hovel, that is.

--
"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 17:22:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:24:36 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of
>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>>>>> too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>>>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>>>>> inferrence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're
>>>>>the
>>>>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>>>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>>>>their mental ability and stability.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
>>>> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
>>>> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
>>>> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
>>>> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
>>>> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
>>>> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.
>>>
>>>Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping
>>>reachings.
>>>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.

WHOOSH!

Try again, Barbara. Aim lower.

(Careful with this one. He's been giving us lessons in grammar and
semantics lately, stuff that a girl like you is unlikely to know much
about.)

--
"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 13:32:17 -0400, wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:22:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> 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.
>
That's not a bad impression of Kent, AFB's Village Idiot, but you need
to work in the neoligism "rectal orifice" in every other post. He has
this . . . um . . . thing about scatology.

--
"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 11:51:51 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:22:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:24:36 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:m854d2pge14itroe0ik3eo3i8lkeheo37d@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your friends
>>>>>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of
>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>>>>>> too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>>>>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>>>>>> inferrence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're misusing
>>>>>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken beyond
>>>>>>their mental ability and stability.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
>>>>> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
>>>>> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
>>>>> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
>>>>> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
>>>>> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
>>>>> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping
>>>>reachings.
>>>>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.
>
>WHOOSH!

Duh! That *was* the idea.

>Try again, Barbara. Aim lower.

No thanks. He's not my type.

>(Careful with this one. He's been giving us lessons in grammar and
>semantics lately, stuff that a girl like you is unlikely to know much
>about.)

Maybe he's the moron who was giving utterly incorrect grammatical
advice to a friend of mine last weekend. It was so goofy I had a hard
time taking it seriously. Then I remembered Usenet.

BW

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

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:22:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:24:36 GMT, "D. Winsor"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:m854d2pge14itroe0ik3eo3i8lkeheo37d@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Steve Wertz
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:04:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trust me, Swertz, I hold you in the same regard as I do the many
>>>>>>>>> pig-ignorant racists who hang out here, and have exactly the same
>>>>>>>>> desire to "associate" with you as I do with them -- none. You were
>>>>>>>>> just barely smart enough to keep your mouth shut while your
>>>>>>>>> friends
>>>>>>>>> were falling all over themselves to reveal their racist ignorance,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> I've long suspected you sympathize with them and their point of
>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Have those Black Cabal helicopters been buzzing around your home
>>>>>>>>in the wee hours of the night? If you ask us nicely, we'll ask
>>>>>>>>them to leave you alone so you can get some needed rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shall I put it to you as a direct question, or will you dodge that,
>>>>>>> too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You certainly weren't among those who publicly chastized the Fat Boi
>>>>>>> and the other pig-ignorant racists. One can only draw the obvious
>>>>>>> inferrence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Inferrence? Let's see, he implies and you infer. Seems to me you're
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>"one" honing your bone for the "leg hump" here. Perhaps you're
>>>>>>misusing
>>>>>>"infer" like many of the pretentiously educated who've been taken
>>>>>>beyond
>>>>>>their mental ability and stability.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to do you a favor here, son. There are places on the
>>>>> Interweb called "sites" where you can click on "links" with your
>>>>> "electronic mouse" in order to look up the meaning of words before you
>>>>> manage to make yourself look pig-ignorant in public. You can even do
>>>>> so before looking like a pretentious putz with delusions of adequacy,
>>>>> presuming to lecture your betters on matters you know little or
>>>>> nothing about. One such "site" is www.dictionary.com.
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me that I'm well within the meanings of your leg humping
>>>>reachings.
>>>>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.
>
> WHOOSH!
>
> Try again, Barbara. Aim lower.
>
> (Careful with this one. He's been giving us lessons in grammar and
> semantics lately, stuff that a girl like you is unlikely to know much
> about.)

I'll save formal grammar and semantics for formal papers. Making fools of
ponces is just pig-ignorant sport for me.
>
> --
> "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

"D. Winsor" > wrote

>>>>>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.

Man, this is like casting URL's before swine.

--oTTo--

"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". Ever heard of the
word "which"? Boy-oh-boy,writing the likes of "that found that", and you
teach formal writing? I would have more precisely wrote those people
"significantly overestimate their" own "competence if I was trying to fill
the overstuffed persona you are.
>
> --
> "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 18:00:57 GMT, "D. Winsor"
> wrote:

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

--
"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 18:10:50 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.

>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?

What's your occupation, 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.

--
"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 12:20:49 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>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.
>
>>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?
>
>What's your occupation, 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

--
"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

[www.dictionary.com and stuff]

No cluons were harmed when "Otto Bahn" >
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?


Mark-You-have-been-slapped-by-a-trout-Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

[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?


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

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

> I would have more precisely wrote

Oops.

BW

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