Subject: Re: (insults meaningless to me)

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:39:27 GMT

From: knuckle@FingerSandwitch (Harfs Ynuder)

Reply-To: The Sheetrocker's Apprentice

Organization: Wax Moose Teeth

Newsgroups: alt.slack, talk.bizarre

References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9

 

Mao Tse-Tung <cdick@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

 

 

>"Age-related denigration." Would you like to repeat that to my fucking

>face, asshole?

 

Why yes, and It would indeed make sense for the fucking face to have

an asshole in it. And certainly. Don't mind if I do. My dog doesn't.

Mind I mean. No matter what I do. That's what I both like and dislike

about dogs.

 

>The younger you are, the less experience you have and the

>less prepared you are or "worthy" you are to speak. I'm 56 and it is

>crystal fucking clear to me that what I'm dealing with on the whole is a

>bunch of insolent and disrespectful, not to mention hifalutin and devoid

>of common sense, children. That is how I treat them until they prove

>otherwise.

 

Damn good plan. And no sweets till they eat every bit of the Hamster

Thermidor you went slaving over. Kids these days. All MTV'd and

uppity and fulla soft-boiled eggs for no good reason at all. If I had

my druthers I'd pack them all in crates, mail them to myself, send

you the bill for the postage, and spend the rest of my days poking at

them through the slats with a coathanger.

 

 

>Yes, but YOUR argument is lacking here, because ANY method of attack,

>especially that which cannot be readily supported but goes on general

>assumptions (clandestine guerilla insubordination-clause conjecture), is

>valid if it is carried out with a freedom of personal expression and

>without suppression common to the oversensitive society and weak

>generation that you are dealing with and may well be a part of. All I

>speak is the truth. Nothing else is interesting or valid.

 

AH, but you overlook some of the groundless assuptions that validate

all forms of non-line on-line faux-contentiousness and the attendant

and flagrant flouting of the Bill of Rotes. Did not the floundering

fathers forsee a day when obfuscation and verbal supersilliation would

be called on the carpet and conjectured, the entire process being

fraught with peril for any freely-functioning system of intercoursing

drivel? Well, you can roll over for the intrusive but well-meant

huffing of a greasy and dangerous minority, but I'll have no part of

it. That is why I am nasty for no reason, and you and the rest of your

ilks owe me a debt of gratitude which I know you will never pay, but I

will accept that. And money and eggs, if you have any.

>> >If you re-read your post, you'll see that the elements

>> >for any discussion - even circumstantial - are sadly absent.

>>

>> Well, the person I responded to seemed to have found the basis for

>> one, right? Even he can't be thick enough to think that you can sneer

>> at someone on the net and not at least be risking someone sneering

>> back. If someone does, you have a "discussion." Might not be the sort

 

>Yes, I've explained all this before. What it comes down to is that THEY

>are somehow so thin-skinned as to take electronically (spit) transmitted

>words HURT THEM or AFFECT them, therefore they retaliate with all

>they've got, and when you express the fact that it is pointless for them

>to do so because this is not the REAL world and they are nothing but

>false bravadoes hiding behind the alimunum foil shields of "higher

>education" and the associated geek fields that come with them:

>mathematics, computers, and other LOGICally-based (spit spit piss) and

>therefore absolutely meaningless (according to the Mao Theorem expressed

>in the "I am made of shamrocks (WITTGENSTEIN) please hear me out..."

>post, in which I detail three well-founded propositions and arguments

>and finally combine them into one well-rounded and universally

>applicable statement) professions, or still educations, it's miserable

>and they live in la-la land and think up stupid shit like talk.bizarre.

>Help?

 

agreed. Well said. Bravo.

 

>> of "discussion" you approve of, but if it isn't, your response begs

>> the question: Why did you stick your beak into it and start

 

>WHOA! Define "beak" !?!

 

This is a loaded question if I ever saw one. I see what you are up to,

and I'm not falling for it.

 

>> "discussing" or "arguing" or just "running off at the mouth and making

>> a fool of yourself" now? What the hell is wrong with you, dumbass?

>> Can't you see there is nothing to talk about here?

 

>Talk.bizarre NEVER has anything to talk about, well, except for this.

 

THAT's just the way it is, I guess. Missed the boat.

 

>> his own, and he doesn't have enough glop in his brain-pan to manage

>> THAT.

 

>Twisting words is what t.b considers to be their "secret weapon

>all-powerful tactic" and therefore is only used in times of great

>dispair, therefore is worn out because they have to use it all fucking

>day and the rest of the night to make it look as if it truly would

>insult someone, over little copper wires, yeah, so powerful an insult to

>travel so far and lose all of its steam that it never had. Yes, I am

>rambling here, but that's an affectation. Blame them.

 

I already have. And indeed, the steam seems to have run out. But it

will run back someday. Do you have a bag to put it in?

 

live it up!

 

harfs