On Aug 27, 10:44*pm, Todd wrote:
On 08/27/2010 08:13 PM, Giles wrote:

I would characterize him
as a "cantankerous misanthrope" -- much cleaner and
more accurate. *(I am sure he will correct me if
he finds me inaccurate.)

To be sure. *Now, why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think
the words "cantankerous" and "misanthrope" mean. *Then I'll correct
you if you are wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...tankerous?r=75
–adjective
disagreeable to deal with; contentious; peevish: a cantankerous,
argumentative man.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misanthrope
–noun
a hater of humankind.

How did I do?

Absurdly generous to the core, I'll take it as a given that you
transcribed what you found in the dictionary more or less faithfully.
But that isn't necessarily the same thing as knowing what the words
mean, is it?

Moreover, even a complete understanding of definition does not in
itself imply a correct application.

So, how'd you do?

About like always.

I would say it was appreciation for the time he went after
a guy who had decided to stock me,

There was good and sufficient reason for that. *You just don't strike
me as an off the shelf kind of guy.

You got me there.

Hm.....

Or maybe you don't know what you said and what I said.

I am really, really unique.

Yes, we all are. It's one of the many things we all have in
common.....however shameful the realization may be for some of us.

You might even say a bit weird.

You might say that. I probably wouldn't. And that strikes to the
heart of this conversation (as well as others we've had and,
doubtless, more to come). By now you should really have some sort of
idea of the sort of thing I might say.....and you evidently don't.

The good kind of weird.

And what kind would that be?

g.