blake murphy wrote:

>
> she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are traitors, mcveigh
> should have bombed the *new york times* building instead of the building in
> kansas city, someone should poison supreme court justice stevens. plenty
> of substantive things to argue about.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Oklahoma City, my friend.

-dk

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:13:57 GMT, blake murphy
> fired up random neurons and synapses to
opine:

>she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are traitors, mcveigh
>should have bombed the *new york times* building instead of the building in
>kansas city, someone should poison supreme court justice stevens. plenty
>of substantive things to argue about.

Uh, Blake, Mc Veigh bombed the federal building in *Oklahoma City*

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

"Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch!"

-- W.C. Fields

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

Hail Eris! On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:53:18 -0600, Geoff Miller frothed and
foamed, whilst s/he gently raped me:
> Lola Stonewall Riot writes:
>
> [Ann Coulter]
>
>> Well, when she comes up with something to say that isn't a pack of lies,
>> half-truths, ad hominem, and sheer paranoia, addressing it shouldn't be
>> a problem.
>
> If that's what she's known for, then it shouldn't be any problem for you
> to provide examples of each, should it?

I wouldn't have anything recent, though -- haven't bothered with her
lately (in the past couple years, even). If you can provide an example
of a column not filled with the aforementioned ingredients, I'll address
it.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

"I'm not saying he's dishonest. But in terms of judgment, in terms of
being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts
to this -- that judgment and that truthfulness." -- Palin on Obama,
honestly and forthrightly weaseling her way out of an honest and
forthright answer

I <heart> Ann & Nancy Wilson!
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/****youjohnmccain.jpg

"Health and Safety...Film Department." -- The Doctor, "Partners In
Crime"

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: . com>

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's
links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest
total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld
and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz
(with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)."
-- Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, January 23, 2008

Hail Eris! On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:00:57 -0600, Geoff Miller frothed and
foamed, whilst s/he gently raped me:
> Lola Stonewall Riot writes:
>
>>> Why would anyone want to address what Coulter has to say? I've never
>>> noticed anything she had to say.
>
> : Then on what basis do you wonder why anyone would want to address what
> : she has to say?
>
>> Because you apparently think Coulter does have something to say?
>
> Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your statement preceded my question.
> Therefore, whatever reason you may have had for not noticing anything
> Coulter had to say, it couldn't have had anything to do with what I think.

My statement? That wasn't me up there, asking why anyone would want to
address what Coulter has to say. I'm not cybercat.

> Checkmate!

Check again.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

"I'm not saying he's dishonest. But in terms of judgment, in terms of
being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts
to this -- that judgment and that truthfulness." -- Palin on Obama,
honestly and forthrightly weaseling her way out of an honest and
forthright answer

I <heart> Ann & Nancy Wilson!
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/****youjohnmccain.jpg

"Health and Safety...Film Department." -- The Doctor, "Partners In
Crime"

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: . com>

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's
links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest
total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld
and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz
(with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)."
-- Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, January 23, 2008

blake murphy > writes:

> yeah, conservatives would never, ever joke about the looks
> of people like chelsea clinton, janet reno, al gore or
> madeleine albright, because they're just too classy for
> that.


Sure we would, and did. The difference is that unlike
the case of liberals joking about the looks of Coulter,
Limbaugh, et al., those jokes didn't go unaccompanied
by relevant political commentary.

In other words, we *earned the right* to joke about
their looks because we'd already paid our way by
engaging their ideas. The jokes were mere punctuation,
much in the manner of Maraschino cherries placed as a
garnish atop ice cream sundaes.

Liberals just sneer at people's looks and let it go at
that. There's never any concomitant effort to offer
any actual rebuttal to those people's ideas.



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

Michel Boucher > writes:

> Wow...a consie who actually used the term "ad hominem"
> without realizing the irony of a consie using the term
> "ad hominem" AS an ad hominem. Will wonders never cease...


You're a simpleton. Pointing out that someone else engages
in ad hominem attacks is no more an ad hominem attack than
pointing out someone else's rudeness is in itself rude.

Of course, it's natural that a liberal would think in
those terms, since liberals, being perpetual adolescents,
are constantly on the prowl for opportnities to accuse
their betters of hypocrisy. They're *obsessed* with
hypocrisy. If they could only outgrow that and begin
to address matters of substance, they'd have earned a
place at the table with the grown-ups. But I'm not
holding my breath.

("Consie?" That's a new one on me.)



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

"Jerry Sauk" > wrote in
m:

>
> "ah" > wrote in message
> anews.com...
>> Jerry Sauk wrote:

[...]
>> > I DIDN'T SAY i WAS LOOKNIG CONSTRUCTIVE POSTS, DIPWAD!!!!!!!!!!
>> > I said HOW is that post constructive
>> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > Since this group is all about fast-food education among other
>> > thing's!
>>
>> Constructivist epistemological teleology is proscribed in
>> alt.****nozzles
>>
>> Please see the FAQ. It's a good idea to read a while before posting.
>> --
>
> I never posted this shit to alt.****nozzles. I dont even know what a
> ****nozzle is.

Jerry, this is your second lucky day of the week, because I can help you
with this. I hope I'm getting scads of good-karma points by helping you.

To learn what a ****nozzle is you need two things:

1) A mirror
2) Your eyes

Do you need instructions on how to use those tools?

> Get teh hell out of alt.fast-food unless you want to
> discuss on-topic discussion's about fast-food.
>
>



--
Black Metal ist Krieg

blake murphy > writes:

[Ann Coulter]

> she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are
> traitors, mcveigh should have bombed the *new york times*
> building instead of the building in kansas city, someone
> should poison supreme court justice stevens.

The first one is merely a statement of fact. Example:
Liberals hate George W. Bush so much that they actually
wanted the war in Iraq to fail because it would've made
Bush look bad. They didn't care a whit about the damage
such a failure would've done to America's image on the
world stage. That would've been just "collateral
damage," unfortunate but unavoidable. And to think
how the little darlings shriek about the use of that
expression in its original context...

(Pre-emptive: If you insist that America's image was
already damaged simply by virtue of invading Iraq in
the first place, then you can't deny that failure
would've made things that much worse.)

Here's another example: Liberals want the War On Terror
to fail also. You'll recall that the Treason Times broke
the story about domestic wiretapping -- nevermind that
it was only used in the case of overseas calls made to
or by suspected terrorists. I still think Pinch Sulz-
berger should do time in Guantanamo for that.

They want this partly because it would make Bush look
bad, as above. But also partly because being perpetual
adolescents, they have a problem with authority, and
they're not intellectually sophisticated enough to wrap
their tiny little brains around the fact that there's a
friggin' *war* on -- and that therefore the expansion of
certain governmental powers is warranted under the
circumstances.

And here's yet another example: Liberals care more
about transitory world opinion than they do about
doing what's best for their own country. Hell, they
care about transitory world opinion more than they
care about that *morality* they're always yammering
about.

For instance, considering that they're the political
faction which fancies itself the defender of com-
passion and human rights, one would've thought that
even if they didn't buy the "weapons of mass des-
trution" rationale, they'd have whooped with joy when
America went into Iraq to depose an authoritarian
dictator who was unimaginably cruel and brutal to
his own people.

But somehow that got rather short shrift in liberals'
haste to fall into lockstep with their precious
Euroweenie friends, even if that meant *condemning
their own country and its president in a time of war.*

And to think that you puling little ****s just can't
understand on what basis anyone could possibly consider
you traitors...

Interestingly, in earlier eras liberals cared far
more about doing the right thing than they did
about the opinions of others. Slavery, suffrage
for women, civil rights, and abortion (excuse me,
"choice") are examples which come quickly to mind.

The second and third quips of Coulter's were jokes,
examples of a writing style known as "hyperbole."
Since you're obviously unfamiliar with it, I
encourage you to look it up sometime.

In the case of the comment about Justice Stevens,
Coulter even added the following parenthetical:
"That's just a joke, for those of you in the media."

Oh, and here's another Coulter quote, one that's
relevant to your post:

"It's always frustrating trying to explain the humor in
something to liberals, who are humorless."


> plenty of substantive things to argue about.

If you'd actually read her columns and books in full, rather
than focusing on well-known snippets that anyone can Google
from those spittle-flecked Ann Coulter "hate sites," you'd
find that she actually goes into far more depth than you're
giving her credit for. Even when she doesn't go into a lot
of depth, she has an admirable ability to summarize truth.

But you won't do that, for the same reason that most liberals
know ****-all about war and the military: you're afraid of
soiling your delicate little psyches by actually learning
about topics you consider unpleasant.

Idiot.



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

cybercat > writes:

> The only reason her looks came into it for me was because


....intellectually speaking, you have the depth of a sidewalk
puddle.



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

Lola Stonewall Riot writes:

>> Well, when she comes up with something to say that
>> isn't a pack of lies, half-truths, ad hominem, and
>> sheer paranoia, addressing it shouldn't be a problem.

: If that's what she's known for, then it shouldn't be
: any problem for you to provide examples of each, should
: it?

> I wouldn't have anything recent, though -- haven't
> bothered with her lately (in the past couple years,
> even).

Translation: you were talking out your ass, and you
got called on it.


> If you can provide an example of a column not filled
> with the aforementioned ingredients, I'll address it.

Oh, no you don't. My challenge came first. Put up or
shut up.



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

Lexa Stonewall Riot writes:

>>> Why would anyone want to address what Coulter has to say? I've never
>>> noticed anything she had to say.

:: Then on what basis do you wonder why anyone would want to address what
:: she has to say?

>> Because you apparently think Coulter does have something to say?

: Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your statement preceded my question.
: Therefore, whatever reason you may have had for not noticing anything
: Coulter had to say, it couldn't have had anything to do with what I think.

> My statement? That wasn't me up there, asking why anyone would want to
> address what Coulter has to say. I'm not cybercat.

: Checkmate!

> Check again.


I did. You weren't the author of the original question, but you
joined the exchange on the same side as the person who asked it.
So my question applies to you just as much as it does to cybercat.

As a famous liberal once said: "If you can't stand the heat, then
stay out of the kitchen."



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
et...
>
>
> cybercat > writes:
>
>> The only reason her looks came into it for me was because
>
>
> ...intellectually speaking, you have the depth of a sidewalk
> puddle.
>
>

Heh. This from the cretin who thinks Ann Coulter is an intellectual giant.
Thank you.

spooge > wrote in
:

> "Jerry Sauk" > wrote in
> m:
>
>>
>> "ah" > wrote in message
>> anews.com...
>>> Jerry Sauk wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> > I DIDN'T SAY i WAS LOOKNIG CONSTRUCTIVE POSTS, DIPWAD!!!!!!!!!!
>>> > I said HOW is that post constructive
>>> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> > Since this group is all about fast-food education among other
>>> > thing's!
>>>
>>> Constructivist epistemological teleology is proscribed in
>>> alt.****nozzles
>>>
>>> Please see the FAQ. It's a good idea to read a while before
>>> posting. --
>>
>> I never posted this shit to alt.****nozzles. I dont even know what a
>> ****nozzle is.
>
> Jerry, this is your second lucky day of the week, because I can help
> you with this. I hope I'm getting scads of good-karma points by
> helping you.
>
> To learn what a ****nozzle is you need two things:
>
> 1) A mirror
> 2) Your eyes
>
> Do you need instructions on how to use those tools?

Sigh. It appears I hace to make a ruling...

Instructions to ****nozzles on how to discover why they're a ****nozzle
is hereby declared on-topic in alt.****nozzles.

PS: It's also defined in the slang dictionary. Look it up, Jerry.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.****nozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Get help sir, you are seriously ill. What a shame, the mentally
disturbed are now the only thing posting on usenet, too bad they can't
recognize real counselors like me and be helped." - Eddieeee, still
shilling illegal services.

Hail Eris! On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:15:14 -0600, Geoff Miller frothed and
foamed, whilst s/he gently raped me:
> Lola Stonewall Riot writes:
>
>>> Well, when she comes up with something to say that isn't a pack of
>>> lies, half-truths, ad hominem, and sheer paranoia, addressing it
>>> shouldn't be a problem.
>
> : If that's what she's known for, then it shouldn't be any problem for you
> : to provide examples of each, should it?
>
>> I wouldn't have anything recent, though -- haven't bothered with her
>> lately (in the past couple years, even).
>
> Translation: you were talking out your ass, and you got called on it.

All of the shit I'm talking about is old.

>> If you can provide an example of a column not filled with the
>> aforementioned ingredients, I'll address it.
>
> Oh, no you don't. My challenge came first. Put up or shut up.

Are you seriously expecting me to dig around through three-year-old
columns by someone I detest, just to prove to a Rethug that she's a
lying, name-calling, paranoid k00k, when said Rethug is pre-disposed to
disbelieve me in any case? Anyway, Rethugs have heretofore been
willfully blind to her faults, no matter how often they've been pointed
out, and I have better things to do than bang my head against a brick
wall. Cleaning my nails comes to mind...

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

"I'm not saying he's dishonest. But in terms of judgment, in terms of
being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts
to this -- that judgment and that truthfulness." -- Palin on Obama,
honestly and forthrightly weaseling her way out of an honest and
forthright answer

I <heart> Ann & Nancy Wilson!
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/****youjohnmccain.jpg

"Health and Safety...Film Department." -- The Doctor, "Partners In
Crime"

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: . com>

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's
links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest
total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld
and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz
(with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)."
-- Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, January 23, 2008

Hail Eris! On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:22:10 -0600, Geoff Miller frothed and
foamed, whilst s/he gently raped me:
> Lexa Stonewall Riot writes:

No, really. "Lola". I'm not Lexa Doig.

>>>> Why would anyone want to address what Coulter has to say? I've never
>>>> noticed anything she had to say.
>
> :: Then on what basis do you wonder why anyone would want to address what
> :: she has to say?
>
>>> Because you apparently think Coulter does have something to say?
>
> : Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your statement preceded my question.
> : Therefore, whatever reason you may have had for not noticing anything
> : Coulter had to say, it couldn't have had anything to do with what I
> : think.
>
>> My statement? That wasn't me up there, asking why anyone would want to
>> address what Coulter has to say. I'm not cybercat.
>
> : Checkmate!
>
>> Check again.
>
> I did. You weren't the author of the original question, but you joined
> the exchange on the same side as the person who asked it. So my question
> applies to you just as much as it does to cybercat.

Bullshit. Your question applies solely to the person of whom you asked
it. I don't wonder why anyone would want to address anything that
Coulter has to say, since I've ignored her for years. Only a right-wing
looney maroon would willingly choose to address anything she has to say
(as opposed to merely laughing at it in the spirit of alt.usenet.kooks).
Ann Coulter is a k00k, and has nothing to say worthy of being addressed.

> As a famous liberal once said: "If you can't stand the heat, then stay out
> of the kitchen."

"A witty saying proves nothing." -- A famous libertarian.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

"I'm not saying he's dishonest. But in terms of judgment, in terms of
being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts
to this -- that judgment and that truthfulness." -- Palin on Obama,
honestly and forthrightly weaseling her way out of an honest and
forthright answer

I <heart> Ann & Nancy Wilson!
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/****youjohnmccain.jpg

"Health and Safety...Film Department." -- The Doctor, "Partners In
Crime"

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: . com>

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's
links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest
total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld
and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz
(with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)."
-- Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, January 23, 2008

Hail Eris! On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:11:06 -0600, Jerry Sauk frothed and
foamed, whilst s/he gently raped me:
> "Gregory Morrow" wrote...
>> blake murphy wrote:
>> > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 22:43:12 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>> > > "Geoff Miller" wrote...
>> > >> cybercat writes:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Are you talking about ****ing Ann Coulter?
>> > >>
>> > >> Go to the head of the class.
>> > >>
>> > >>> She looks like a horse.
>> > >>
>> > >> Yeah, and Rush limbaugh is fat.
>> > >>
>> > >> The way you liberals avoid ad hominem attacks and maintain the
>> > >> debate at a high level by addressing what thesse people have to
>> > >> say, rather than how they look, is an inspiration to us all.
>> > >>
>> > > Why would anyone want to address what Coulter has to say? I've never
>> noticed
>> > > anything she had to say.
>> >
>> > she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are traitors,
> mcveigh
>> > should have bombed the *new york times* building instead of the
>> > building
>> in
>> > kansas city, someone should poison supreme court justice stevens.
> plenty
>> > of substantive things to argue about.
>>
>> Her shtick is *just* an *act* to make money and get her "15 minutes 'o
>> fame", blake...I had not even heard of her for a long whiles now until
> y'all
>> brought it up, *and* I'm a regular watcher of Fox Nooze.
>
> WTF does this have to do with fast-food please. Please post to
> appropriatte news-groups.

If I told you to shut up and go back to your coffin, would you killfile
me?

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

"I'm not saying he's dishonest. But in terms of judgment, in terms of
being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts
to this -- that judgment and that truthfulness." -- Palin on Obama,
honestly and forthrightly weaseling her way out of an honest and
forthright answer

I <heart> Ann & Nancy Wilson!
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/****youjohnmccain.jpg

"Health and Safety...Film Department." -- The Doctor, "Partners In
Crime"

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: . com>

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's
links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest
total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld
and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz
(with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)."
-- Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, January 23, 2008

Hail Eris! On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:06:32 -0600, Geoff Miller frothed and
foamed, whilst s/he gently raped me:
> blake murphy writes:
>
> [Ann Coulter]
>
>> she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are traitors,
>> mcveigh should have bombed the *new york times* building instead of the
>> building in kansas city, someone should poison supreme court justice
>> stevens.
>
> The first one is merely a statement of fact. Example: Liberals hate
> George W. Bush so much that they actually wanted the war in Iraq to fail
> because it would've made Bush look bad. They didn't care a whit about the
> damage such a failure would've done to America's image on the world stage.

....It _has_ failed. It's a failure. George Walker Bush's entire life is
a failure, and he is a traitor to your country.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

"I'm not saying he's dishonest. But in terms of judgment, in terms of
being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts
to this -- that judgment and that truthfulness." -- Palin on Obama,
honestly and forthrightly weaseling her way out of an honest and
forthright answer

I <heart> Ann & Nancy Wilson!
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/****youjohnmccain.jpg

"Health and Safety...Film Department." -- The Doctor, "Partners In
Crime"

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: . com>

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's
links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest
total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld
and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz
(with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)."
-- Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, January 23, 2008

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:13:20 -0600, Geoff Miller did most oddly state:
> blake murphy writes:
>
>> yeah, conservatives would never, ever joke about the looks of people
>> like chelsea clinton, janet reno, al gore or madeleine albright, because
>> they're just too classy for that.
>
>
> Sure we would, and did. The difference is that unlike the case of
> liberals joking about the looks of Coulter, Limbaugh, et al., those jokes
> didn't go unaccompanied by relevant political commentary.
>
> In other words, we *earned the right* to joke about their looks because
> we'd already paid our way by engaging their ideas. The jokes were mere
> punctuation, much in the manner of Maraschino cherries placed as a garnish
> atop ice cream sundaes.
>
> Liberals just sneer at people's looks and let it go at that. There's
> never any concomitant effort to offer any actual rebuttal to those
> people's ideas.

"Ideas"? Coulter and Limbaugh don't have any truck with "ideas". They
sneer at liberals and lefties, and spout the latest talking points of
the GOP Fog Machine.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pre...abal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel
A message to Tory scum: The environment is still more important than the
economy. The stock market goes up and down, and only fools think they
can control it.

"Canada is going to hades quickly with the Fag laws and the drug
problem." -- A self-professed "former kookologist" (around at the very
beginning, in fact) has an interesting definition of "quickly".
Message-ID: >

"A dog in the video I watched ****ed a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one *** man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to *** sex. Message-ID:
>
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Agamemnon

"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
. com>

"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS

"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>

"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous

"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt

"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark

"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: >

"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: >

Jerry Sauk > wrote:

> <ahem> no, i'm pretty sure it was Steve. Check Google.

You are causing me personal abuse and severe ****ed-offedness by
repeatedly saying it was I who started this rumor. It wasn't.

> again, Check Google.

**** you and your "Check Google" excuse. You go check Google and
you'll find that you're wrong. I would post the exact link for you,
but I'm tired of spoon-feeding you.

> I AM SORRY for all the bullshit this has cuased, BUT IT'S NOT MY FAULT.

You're an outright asshole. You know what happens to soap-stars
when they lose their charm? The get killed. Which is what we did
to you. Except that you never had any charm, you just kept getting
worse.

God Damn - why the **** am I still trying to explain stuff to you?

-sw

(Geoff Miller) wrote in
et:

> You're a simpleton. Pointing out that someone else engages
> in ad hominem attacks is no more an ad hominem attack than
> pointing out someone else's rudeness is in itself rude.

So, now we have proof...when a consie uses an ad hominem, they call it an
observation. Let's face it, you just learned to use the term "ad hominem"
last week, and you're trying to show off :-)

> ("Consie?" That's a new one on me.)

It's clear you're new at this.

--

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone.” - John Maynard Keynes

cybercat > writes:

>> The only reason her looks came into it for me was because

: ...intellectually speaking, you have the depth of a sidewalk
: puddle.

> Heh. This from the cretin who thinks Ann Coulter is an
> intellectual giant.


This, from a cretin who can't even read at third-grade level.
When did I say she was an intellectual giant? Kindly quote
any passage(s) where that was even implied. I said she's
intelligent and educated. Are you denying that? If so, then
kindly explain how she managed to earn a bachelor's degree
from Cornell and a J.D. from the University Of Michigan.

Of course, you liberals think Bush is stupid, too -- even
though he had higher SAT scores than Al Gore and a higher
GPA at Yale than John Kerry.



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

Lola Stonewall Riot writes:

: Oh, no you don't. My challenge came first. Put up or shut up.

> Are you seriously expecting me to dig around through three-year-
> old columns by someone I detest, just to prove to a Rethug that
> she's a lying, name-calling, paranoid k00k, when said Rethug is
> pre-disposed to disbelieve me in any case?

DINGDINGDINGDING!

"We have a WINNAH!"

Absolutely. Got it in one. Go to the head of the class.

And I'm not predisposed toward anything. You're assuming that
I'm as blinded by ideology as you are. Offer up some relevant
passages and make a case for each, and I'll evaluate what you
have to say on its merits. I'm not too proud to admit it when
I'm wrong.


> Anyway, Rethugs have heretofore been willfully blind to her
> faults, no matter how often they've been pointed out,

Which is just a disingenuous way of saying that if we don't
consider faults what *you* consider faults, we must be will-
fully blind to objective reality. That's a corollary to the
belief that anyone who doesn't agree with liberals is _ipso
facto_ stupid and uneducated.

There's no arrogance like *liberal* arrogance.


> and I have better things to do than bang my head against a
> brick wall. Cleaning my nails comes to mind...

Fine. Then you forfeit the argument. Let the record show
that you're unable to back up what you say.

(I can hear you licking your wounds all the way from here.
It's reminiscent of the sound track from some serious stroke-
cinema.)



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

Lola Stonewall Riot writes:

> No, really. "Lola". I'm not Lexa Doig.

Whatever. I deleted too many characters while formatting
my follow-up, and recreated your name from memory. Honest
m'steak.


> Bullshit. Your question applies solely to the person of
> whom you asked it.

Bullshit back atcha. If you come into the exchange on that
person's side, it can reasonably be assumed that you share
his opinions. If you don't have an answer to the question,
then admit it. Or if you're not big enough person to do
that, silence is an acceptable substitute.

Run along now. You've been well and truly vanquished, and
your continued presence in threads I'm involved in is
unseemly.



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

Lola Stonewall Riot writes:

[liberals are traitors]

: The first one is merely a statement of fact. Example:
: Liberals hate George W. Bush so much that they actually
: wanted the war in Iraq to fail because it would've made
: Bush look bad. They didn't care a whit about the damage
: such a failure would've done to America's image on the
: world stage.

> ...It _has_ failed. It's a failure.

As I said before, if liberals don't like reality, they'll
just create their own and take refuge in it. Examples:
the JFK assassination was the result of a right-wing
conspiracy; Reagan didn't win the Cold War, or his
policies result in an unprecedented period of economic
growth; Bush "stole" the 2000 election; the recent
financial meltdown was the fault of Republicans.

If the Iraq war is a failure, then please explain the
success of the troop surge, and how Iraq has disappeared
from the front pages because there's nothing bad for the
so-called "mainstream" media to report.

If the Iraq war has failed, please explain the first
democratic elections in the country's history, the
ratification of the most democratic constitution in the
Arab world, and the fact that the Iraqi parliament has
passed almost all of the "benchmark" legislation demanded
by our Democratic Congress.

Please explain how it can be, if the Iraq war is a failure,
that Anbar Province has been pacified to the extent that
as of last spring, the provincial capital, Ramadi had gone
from experiencing more than 18 attacks per day to fewer
than one per week. Basra and Sadr City have been similarly
pacified.

You need to pull your head out of your ass, stand blinking
in the bright sunlight for a moment, and get to work catching
up on recent (and not-so-recent) events.

Suggestion: start getting your news from sources other than
the Huffington Post and the Daily goddam Kos.


> George Walker Bush's entire life is a failure, and he is
> a traitor to your country.

Even if we agree for the sake of discussion that what you said
is true, a traitor is someone with malign intent, not someone
who merely fails at an endeavor undertaken in good faith and
with the best of intentions on his nation's behalf.


Even if we agree for the sake of discussion that what you said
is true, what's that got to do with liberals? It's liberals
we're talking about, not Bush.

You haven't quite got the hang of this "exercising the intellect"
thing, have you?



Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

The God of Odd Statements, Henry "Lola" Schmidt writes:

> "Ideas"? Coulter and Limbaugh don't have any truck with
> "ideas". They sneer at liberals and lefties, and spout
> the latest talking points of the GOP Fog Machine.


Thanks for demonstrating that you don't read or listen to
either of them.




Geoff

--
"Convictions cause conflict." -- George F. Will

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 21:40:48 -0500, cybercat wrote:

> "Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>>
>> cybercat > writes:
>>
>>> The only reason her looks came into it for me was because
>>
>>
>> ...intellectually speaking, you have the depth of a sidewalk
>> puddle.
>>
>>
>
> Heh. This from the cretin who thinks Ann Coulter is an intellectual giant.
> Thank you.

wonder what he thinks of jonah goldberg?

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:13:20 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:

> blake murphy > writes:
>
>> yeah, conservatives would never, ever joke about the looks
>> of people like chelsea clinton, janet reno, al gore or
>> madeleine albright, because they're just too classy for
>> that.
>
>
> Sure we would, and did. The difference is that unlike
> the case of liberals joking about the looks of Coulter,
> Limbaugh, et al., those jokes didn't go unaccompanied
> by relevant political commentary.
>
> In other words, we *earned the right* to joke about
> their looks because we'd already paid our way by
> engaging their ideas. The jokes were mere punctuation,
> much in the manner of Maraschino cherries placed as a
> garnish atop ice cream sundaes.
>
> Liberals just sneer at people's looks and let it go at
> that. There's never any concomitant effort to offer
> any actual rebuttal to those people's ideas.
>

how did mccain 'engage' chelsea clinton's ideas before he insulted her?
rush limbaugh?

more utter horseshit.

blake

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:19:40 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:

> Michel Boucher > writes:
>
>> Wow...a consie who actually used the term "ad hominem"
>> without realizing the irony of a consie using the term
>> "ad hominem" AS an ad hominem. Will wonders never cease...
>
>
> You're a simpleton. Pointing out that someone else engages
> in ad hominem attacks is no more an ad hominem attack than
> pointing out someone else's rudeness is in itself rude.
>

wrong. calling attention to someone else's rudeness *is* rude.

> Of course, it's natural that a liberal would think in
> those terms, since liberals, being perpetual adolescents,
> are constantly on the prowl for opportnities to accuse
> their betters of hypocrisy. They're *obsessed* with
> hypocrisy. If they could only outgrow that and begin
> to address matters of substance, they'd have earned a
> place at the table with the grown-ups. But I'm not
> holding my breath.
>
> ("Consie?" That's a new one on me.)

matters of substance? like obama 'pals around with terrorists'? eats
arugula? can't bowl?

blake

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:17:31 -0500, DK wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are traitors, mcveigh
>> should have bombed the *new york times* building instead of the building in
>> kansas city, someone should poison supreme court justice stevens. plenty
>> of substantive things to argue about.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Oklahoma City, my friend.
>
> -dk

oops. i was going to say 'murrah federal building,' but thought people
would be unsure of the reference. oh well.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:13:51 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:13:57 GMT, blake murphy
> > fired up random neurons and synapses to
> opine:
>
>>she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are traitors, mcveigh
>>should have bombed the *new york times* building instead of the building in
>>kansas city, someone should poison supreme court justice stevens. plenty
>>of substantive things to argue about.
>
> Uh, Blake, Mc Veigh bombed the federal building in *Oklahoma City*
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

my mistake. but the point stands.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:06:32 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:

> blake murphy > writes:
>
> [Ann Coulter]
>
>> she has lots of intelligent things to say: liberal are
>> traitors, mcveigh should have bombed the *new york times*
>> building instead of the building in kansas city, someone
>> should poison supreme court justice stevens.
>
> The first one is merely a statement of fact. Example:
> Liberals hate George W. Bush

**** you. disliking the president does not make one a traitor. or did
conservatives all admire bill clinton and i just didn't notice.

>so much that they actually
> wanted the war in Iraq to fail because it would've made
> Bush look bad.

conservatives keep saying this and offer no proof whatsoever. typical
rigorous, fact-based reasoning.

>They didn't care a whit about the damage
> such a failure would've done to America's image on the
> world stage.

invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 sure did wonders for
america's image.

<additional bullshit snipped. not worth replying to.>

blake

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:32:37 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:

> Jerry Sauk > writes:
>
> [asking vs. demanding]
>
>: No, it *isn't* the same thing, Jerry. I explained above
>: why not. Re-read what I wrote earlier.
>
>> Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay, I did. still said that exact same thing
>> it said before, Geoff. Ready to just drop it now?
>
>
> Nope. Why would I drop it, given that I'm right? You want
> me to drop it because you're wrong, and as always, refuse to
> admit it. I intend to keep the pressure on you until one of
> us dies at his keyboard.
>
>
>
> Geoff

maybe we'll all get lucky and it will be a tie. a 'dead heat,' so to
speak.

blake

On Nov 2, 9:09*pm, (Geoff Miller) wrote:

> cybercat > writes:
> > The only reason her looks came into it for me was because
>
> ...intellectually speaking, you have the depth of a sidewalk
> puddle.

Can you say ad hominem? I knew you could :-)

On Nov 3, 9:09*am, (Geoff Miller) wrote:

> This, from a cretin who can't even read at third-grade level.

Another ad hominem...count them, two, and I haven't even started
culling the depths of your duplicity.

On Nov 3, 10:36*am, blake murphy > wrote:

> matters of substance? *like obama 'pals around with terrorists'? *eats
> arugula? *can't bowl?

Blake blake blake...dontcha know that consies call ad hominems
"observations"?

Live and loin.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:15:14 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:

> Lola Stonewall Riot writes:
>
>>> Well, when she comes up with something to say that
>>> isn't a pack of lies, half-truths, ad hominem, and
>>> sheer paranoia, addressing it shouldn't be a problem.
>
>: If that's what she's known for, then it shouldn't be
>: any problem for you to provide examples of each, should
>: it?
>
>> I wouldn't have anything recent, though -- haven't
>> bothered with her lately (in the past couple years,
>> even).
>
> Translation: you were talking out your ass, and you
> got called on it.
>
>
>> If you can provide an example of a column not filled
>> with the aforementioned ingredients, I'll address it.
>
> Oh, no you don't. My challenge came first. Put up or
> shut up.
>
>
>
> Geoff

<http://thinkprogress.org/2005/04/18/distortions/>

<http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2002/6/slander-scherer.asp>

....there are many others. she's not overly interested in facts.

granted, these are mostly about her books, not columns, but you'd think a
book would be even more carefully checked.

blake

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:15:14 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:
>
>> Lola Stonewall Riot writes:
>>
>>>> Well, when she comes up with something to say that
>>>> isn't a pack of lies, half-truths, ad hominem, and
>>>> sheer paranoia, addressing it shouldn't be a problem.
>>
>>: If that's what she's known for, then it shouldn't be
>>: any problem for you to provide examples of each, should
>>: it?
>>
>>> I wouldn't have anything recent, though -- haven't
>>> bothered with her lately (in the past couple years,
>>> even).
>>
>> Translation: you were talking out your ass, and you
>> got called on it.
>>
>>
>>> If you can provide an example of a column not filled
>>> with the aforementioned ingredients, I'll address it.
>>
>> Oh, no you don't. My challenge came first. Put up or
>> shut up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Geoff
>
> <http://thinkprogress.org/2005/04/18/distortions/>
>
> <http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2002/6/slander-scherer.asp>
>
> ...there are many others. she's not overly interested in facts.
>
> granted, these are mostly about her books, not columns, but you'd think a
> book would be even more carefully checked.
>

I am stunned and in awe of your willingness to engage even the most
aggressive muttonheads in the discourse they beg for. You should win some
sort of humanitarian prize, honestly.

"blake murphy" > wrote :
>
> <additional bullshit snipped. not worth replying to.>
>

Aha! The man is human after all!

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:09:30 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:

> cybercat > writes:
>
>>> The only reason her looks came into it for me was because
>
>: ...intellectually speaking, you have the depth of a sidewalk
>: puddle.
>
>> Heh. This from the cretin who thinks Ann Coulter is an
>> intellectual giant.
>
>
> This, from a cretin who can't even read at third-grade level.
> When did I say she was an intellectual giant? Kindly quote
> any passage(s) where that was even implied. I said she's
> intelligent and educated. Are you denying that? If so, then
> kindly explain how she managed to earn a bachelor's degree
> from Cornell and a J.D. from the University Of Michigan.
>
> Of course, you liberals think Bush is stupid, too -- even
> though he had higher SAT scores than Al Gore and a higher
> GPA at Yale than John Kerry.
>

stupid is as stupid does. we deal in results.

or do you think bush's presidency was successful?

blake

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:35:23 -0500, cybercat wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:15:14 -0600, Geoff Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Lola Stonewall Riot writes:
>>>
>>>>> Well, when she comes up with something to say that
>>>>> isn't a pack of lies, half-truths, ad hominem, and
>>>>> sheer paranoia, addressing it shouldn't be a problem.
>>>
>>>: If that's what she's known for, then it shouldn't be
>>>: any problem for you to provide examples of each, should
>>>: it?
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have anything recent, though -- haven't
>>>> bothered with her lately (in the past couple years,
>>>> even).
>>>
>>> Translation: you were talking out your ass, and you
>>> got called on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you can provide an example of a column not filled
>>>> with the aforementioned ingredients, I'll address it.
>>>
>>> Oh, no you don't. My challenge came first. Put up or
>>> shut up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Geoff
>>
>> <http://thinkprogress.org/2005/04/18/distortions/>
>>
>> <http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2002/6/slander-scherer.asp>
>>
>> ...there are many others. she's not overly interested in facts.
>>
>> granted, these are mostly about her books, not columns, but you'd think a
>> book would be even more carefully checked.
>>
>
> I am stunned and in awe of your willingness to engage even the most
> aggressive muttonheads in the discourse they beg for. You should win some
> sort of humanitarian prize, honestly.

i seem to recall i had this particular muttonnead killfiled on my old
newsreader. but i find it hard to resist a juicy target.

your pal,
blake