Subject: Re: (insults meaningless to me)

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:53:51 GMT

From: ManFromGlad@WhiteIsAllright (Harfs Ynuder)

Reply-To: The Sheetrocker's Apprentice

Organization: Wax Moose Teeth

Newsgroups: alt.slack, talk.bizarre

References:  

bent@sedona.net (kid) wrote:

>ManFromGlad@WhiteIsAllright (Harfs Ynuder) whinnied:

>>I CANNOT BELIEVE how many dildos think this age-related denigration is

>>funny or scathing or whatever the hell would justify their using it

>>over and over and over and over and over again, each time no doubt

>>giggling and thinking.."HOHOHOHOHOH, this will teach him to mess with

>>me!," as they hunt and peck another snippet of presumed jibery so

>>juvenile and unimaginative that it really DOES seem unlikely to have

>>been the work of an adult, and certainly not of one whose I.Q. is

>>within farting range of three digits.

>>harfs

>Ahh, but it's all so easy once you have some experience.

>"Age related denigration"is nothing but a simple pointer which directs

>reader attention to the fact that a particular "author" has not yet

>mastered the necessary skills to write acceptably in a given

>circumstance.

Bullshit. It's tired crap written by unimaginitive jerks when they

can't think of a way to attack a person for the content of his or her

message(s). Bad as it is, it doesn't compare to the sort of idiocy

that motivates the construction of a stupid, reaching argument in its

defense.

>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

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

"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?

>That in and of itself indicates (not proves) that one is near a

>formative level. I'm glad that you have shown that you are, indeed,

>within farting range of a three digit I.Q. I would guess 70.

And what would that make yours, given that the best response you can

come up with here involves taking my words and reversing them? That's

one HELL of a creative tactic there, and it's no surprise to see it

employed by a falsely smug dolt whose proud dribblings are so lame he

has no choice but to defend the use of equally simpleminded,

parrot-like repartee, because without his four or five favorite

well-practiced all-purpose pokes he'd have to think up some shit of

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

THAT.

harfs