ROFF history

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Are you heterosexual? ....

Why do so many find this topic so titillating ?
What's the attraction ?

I think maybe it's that Twoback Mountain syndrome. You get much west
of Omaha and cruising the bars presents all kinds of logistic
nightmares........voila!......USENET!

Wolfgang
well, o.k., it's just a theory.....but......provocative, no?

Provocating is your specialty, so I'll take your word for it.
In any case, the theory's got more legs than the one that
homosexuals aren't likely to be fathers, biological or
otherwise.

wrote in message
ps.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Are you heterosexual? ....

Why do so many find this topic so titillating ?
What's the attraction ?

I think maybe it's that Twoback Mountain syndrome. You get much west
of Omaha and cruising the bars presents all kinds of logistic
nightmares........voila!......USENET!

Wolfgang
well, o.k., it's just a theory.....but......provocative, no?

Provocating is your specialty, so I'll take your word for it.

Actually, I've always been a counter-puncher.......you have to watch
closely.

In any case, the theory's got more legs than the one that
homosexuals aren't likely to be fathers, biological or
otherwise.

That's the nice thing about theories........you can build monumental
edifices on them.....even on the flimsiest. Voila! USENET!

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Oh my god!!! I can't believe you are going to argue about this.

Who's arguin'? Hell, I ain't been able to get you to respond/answer a
single question that I have asked you in three weeks.

However, since you did bring it up. If you knew that my father was dead,
why on earth would you be so sure that he'd be proud. Unless of course, you
know something about dead folks that escapes the rest of us?

Are you really *THAT* stupid?!?!?

Funny, I was thinkin' the same of you!

Do you even realize how well you
are illustrating your lack of both reasoning and reading comprehension
ability?

Not in the least. Though I do know, now, that you think that dead people
are proud.


Do you honestly think that I misread the "in a box on a shelf in your
living room"?

Do *you* honestly think that dead people are capable of being proud?

Unlike you, I can actually read.

And yet you think dead people have feeling of pride?

Or maybe you did mean you had a tiny father, he sure spawned a mental
midget.

There you go with that name callin' again. What was it you said about
callin' people names?

Are we havin' fun yet, Kenny?!!

Op
- Ken

In article , says...

wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Oh my god!!! I can't believe you are going to argue about this.

Who's arguin'? Hell, I ain't been able to get you to respond/answer a
single question that I have asked you in three weeks.

Oddly enough I believe I answered every question you asked....until it
became evident that you can't read. What's that quote about arguing
with an idiot? That others may not be able to tell the difference?
You're illustrating the difference very well now and I'll happily let
you continue. Please continue on this thread.

But anyway, I digress. You like surveys, show me one person (besides
the other brain-dead inDUHvidual who can't read) who honestly thinks
that I misread "in a box on my shelf" as anything other than deceased.



Or maybe you did mean you had a tiny father, he sure spawned a mental
midget.

There you go with that name callin' again. What was it you said about
callin' people names?

Not sure I said anything about name calling. I generally try really
really hard not to do it, I don't think it reflects well on the author.
However under certain circumstances, like when attempting to communicate
via the written word with someone who can't read, it does provide a
degree of relief.
- Ken

wrote in message
...
In article , says...

Oddly enough I believe I answered every question you asked

So I take it that neither you nor Sandy Poo, have no knowledge of homosexual
couples adopting children (If you think real hard or look back in the thread
a bit, you see that I asked you about adoption in the state in which you
reside). Hell, beyond adoption, there are homosexuals that were formerly
married to folks of the opposite sex and who had children during those
marriages--remember, this thread started with Sandy Poo's contention that if
Wolfgang were a homosexual, he wouldn't have any children--according to you,
anyway--that could read what Wolfgang posted to ROFF ten year previous.

....until it
became evident that you can't read.

If I can't read, why are we continuing to carry on this little war of words?

What's that quote about arguing
with an idiot?

Not being an idiot, I wouldn't have the slightest idea. I'm sure you'll
remeber it before too long though!

That others may not be able to tell the difference?

Are you and other?

You're illustrating the difference very well now and I'll happily let
you continue. Please continue on this thread.

By all means, I wouldn't want anyone to think I was conversing by myself
here.

But anyway, I digress. You like surveys, show me one person (besides
the other brain-dead inDUHvidual who can't read) who honestly thinks
that I misread "in a box on my shelf" as anything other than deceased.

Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the pride
expressed by my father's ashes.

And, if you are going to quote someone, it's best to get it right. I said,
"...on a shelf, in a box..." You see, the purpose of the quotation marks is
to show that *you* are quoting *exactly* what someone else has said--to the
letter. It's an English language elements of style thingy that you probably
don't really understand. You might wish to purchase yourself a copy of:
The Elements of Style, William Strunk, Jr. & E. B. White
http://tinyurl.com/2rqkg .

There you go with that name callin' again. What was it you said about
callin' people names?

Not sure I said anything about name calling.

Well, I believe that we established that your memory was fading, in an
earlier thread. Go back to the thread involving 'ol Joey and check out your
response to Cyli.

I generally try really
really hard not to do it, I don't think it reflects well on the author.

Now your just lyin'!

However under certain circumstances, like when attempting to communicate
via the written word with someone who can't read, it does provide a
degree of relief.

I'm sure it does you a great deal of good.

I, generally, call folks name that fit them best. Moron, seems to fit you
like a glove!

Love,
Op


- Ken

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
In article , says...
....until it
became evident that you can't read.

If I can't read, why are we continuing to carry on this little war of words?

I'm just letting you expose your ignorance. I'm not sure why you are
cooperating.

Are you and other?

Oh no, do we have to start in on writing ability now. I didn't snip
anything from this sentence. It's 100% yours and there was no context.
Beautiful example of your coherence.


But anyway, I digress. You like surveys, show me one person (besides
the other brain-dead inDUHvidual who can't read) who honestly thinks
that I misread "in a box on my shelf" as anything other than deceased.

Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the pride
expressed by my father's ashes.

Once again, I'm not sure what your jumble of words is supposed to mean.
"we seem to be shy anyone else..." Classic.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you think that no one
wants to agree with you because we are scaring them away?

I'd wager it's because it's stupid, pointless, and you are wrong.
Nevertheless, no one has agreed with you.



Not sure I said anything about name calling.

Well, I believe that we established that your memory was fading, in an
earlier thread. Go back to the thread involving 'ol Joey and check out your
response to Cyli.

You want me to go do your homework for you? No thanks. Besides, my bet
is that you are reading something wrong. My guess is that you are
misreading the word "That" and are attributing it to the wrong concept.


I generally try really
really hard not to do it, I don't think it reflects well on the author.

Now your just lyin'!

Straight out of the Wolfgang playbook. If your (or you're) argument is
failing, call your opponent a liar.

I've been posting to ROFF for probably ~12 years now. I've had some
heated arguments and I'm sure if you dig through Deja/Google you'll be
able to find some quotes where I call someone a name. I'm sure you'll
use this evidence along with your misreading (yes again) with what I
wrote above to say that I'm a liar. But hey, if it keeps you occupied
searching through archives, have at it. Hint: Look for "Halfordian"
and "janikk" in the same post, that's your best bet.

Tootles,
- Ken

wrote in message
...
In article ,
Are you and other?

Oh no, do we have to start in on writing ability now. I didn't snip
anything from this sentence. It's 100% yours and there was no context.
Beautiful example of your coherence.

Yep, ya got me. I made a typo. "and" should have been written "an". Had
difficulty with that one, did ya?

But anyway, I digress. You like surveys, show me one person (besides
the other brain-dead inDUHvidual who can't read) who honestly thinks
that I misread "in a box on my shelf" as anything other than deceased.

Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the
pride
expressed by my father's ashes.

Once again, I'm not sure what your jumble of words is supposed to mean.
"we seem to be shy anyone else..." Classic.

Not familiar with the colloquial use of words? Not to fear, I don't mind
educatin' you a bit.

First you need to be able assertain the meaning of colloquial:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/colloquial or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial .

Next you need to understand that words often have many different meanings,
depending on context, in many cases. So, in the context of the sentence,
"Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the
pride expressed by my father's ashes." *Shy* means: "having less than the
full or specified amount or number : SHORT just shy of six feet tall"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shy

You were right about one thing though--Classic!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you think that no one
wants to agree with you because we are scaring them away?

There you go with that reading comprehension problem again!

"... we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the pride
expressed by my father's ashes[,]" actually means that no one, not a single
solitary sole cares, one way or the other about that for which we have been
posting about for the last two days or so. Get it? No one cares. It's
just you and me, buddy!

I'd wager it's because it's stupid, pointless, and you are wrong.

Yes, this whole thread has been pointless and stupid; however, I am
certainly not wrong. I know that you and Sandy Poo didn't know that
homosexuals could have children, I know that my father is dead and couldn't
possibly be proud of me, in the condition that he is in, and I know that you
have a great deal of difficulty reading and comprehending the written
word(s).

Nevertheless, no one has agreed with you.

Well, technically, that's not true, as Wolfgang *seems* to agree with me.
However, I will give you that no one else has agreed nor disagreed with me.
Now, how many folks have e-mailed you to tell you how right you are, as I
have yet to see a single post, from the hordes of fans you comand,
congradulating you on your grasp of the English language and it's elements
of style?


Not sure I said anything about name calling.

Well, I believe that we established that your memory was fading, in an
earlier thread. Go back to the thread involving 'ol Joey and check out
your
response to Cyli.

You want me to go do your homework for you? No thanks. Besides, my bet
is that you are reading something wrong. My guess is that you are
misreading the word "That" and are attributing it to the wrong concept.

Remember, you said that you were, "Not sure I said **anything** about name
calling."

**In response to Cyli**

"Once again, rather than actually asking for a clarification of
something that didn't seem to make sense, various people
(not you) resorted to name calling. That's ignorant....
- Ken

**In response to Wolfgang**

"It's a small man that can't admit when he's wrong......
......it's a tiny man who calls someone else names when they
themselves are wrong.....how tall are you again?
- Ken"

Now your just lyin'!

Straight out of the Wolfgang playbook. If your (or you're) argument is
failing, call your opponent a liar.

I'll help ya here. It's, "your," in this case. "Your" imparts possession,
as in *it's my argument.* "You're" is a contraction of the two words, you
and are. In the context of the sentence, " If ___ ___ argument is ailing,
call your opponent a liar[,]" "you are" makes no sense, whatsoever. Stick
with "your," for sentences of the same structure and context, in the future!

And no, I'm calling you a liar, because it's the best term to use when
someone falsely states that they don't recall something that they said, less
than a week ago; especially, when said statements are so easily verified.

I've been posting to ROFF for probably ~12 years now. I've had some
heated arguments and I'm sure if you dig through Deja/Google you'll be
able to find some quotes where I call someone a name. I'm sure you'll
use this evidence along with your misreading (yes again) with what I
wrote above to say that I'm a liar. But hey, if it keeps you occupied
searching through archives, have at it. Hint: Look for "Halfordian"
and "janikk" in the same post, that's your best bet.

I suppose that I could do as you suggest, but what would going so far back
accomplish? I have your words of the last week to verify that you are a
liar who either can't read, or just likes making a fool of himself!

Tootles,

"Tootles" my ass! You'll be back. You just can't save yourself, from
yourself!

Love,
Op

- Ken

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
I'd wager it's because it's stupid, pointless, and you are wrong.

Yes, this whole thread has been pointless and stupid; however, I am
certainly not wrong.

Right on one, wrong on one. Not too bad, keep working on it.

Nevertheless, no one has agreed with you.

Well, technically, that's not true, as Wolfgang *seems* to agree with me.
However, I will give you that no one else has agreed nor disagreed with me.
Now, how many folks have e-mailed you to tell you how right you are, as I
have yet to see a single post, from the hordes of fans you comand,
congradulating you on your grasp of the English language and it's elements
of style?

I haven't even seen one person agree with you. I didn't ask anyone to
say that they agreed with me. Funny thing is, this post of yours did
apparently spur someone to email me privately. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure I'm
a liar.....keep the insults coming.


You want me to go do your homework for you? No thanks. Besides, my bet
is that you are reading something wrong. My guess is that you are
misreading the word "That" and are attributing it to the wrong concept.

Remember, you said that you were, "Not sure I said **anything** about name
calling."

That's just pitiful...."Anything"

Yes, I said it's wrong/ignorant to call someone names when you
[Opie/Wolfie] were wrong.



Now your just lyin'!

Straight out of the Wolfgang playbook. If your (or you're) argument is
failing, call your opponent a liar.

I'll help ya here. It's, "your," in this case. "Your" imparts possession,
as in *it's my argument.* "You're" is a contraction of the two words, you
and are. In the context of the sentence, " If ___ ___ argument is ailing,
call your opponent a liar[,]" "you are" makes no sense, whatsoever. Stick
with "your," for sentences of the same structure and context, in the future!

:-) So what part of "lyin'" do I possess? Bet ya still don't figure it
out. Keep working on that reading and writing ability.



"Tootles" my ass! You'll be back. You just can't save yourself, from
yourself!

Oh don't worry, tootles was just for that message. Keep going, you're
(or your in you're case) doing a great job embarrassing yourself.
- Ken

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
But anyway, I digress. You like surveys, show me one person (besides
the other brain-dead inDUHvidual who can't read) who honestly thinks
that I misread "in a box on my shelf" as anything other than deceased.

Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the pride
expressed by my father's ashes.

And, if you are going to quote someone, it's best to get it right. I said,
"...on a shelf, in a box..." You see, the purpose of the quotation marks is
to show that *you* are quoting *exactly* what someone else has said--to the
letter.

I hate to wade [pun intended] into this stupidity contest, but Opie you are
being an idiot. It's obvious he knew what you meant and you know it.
You are either being purposely obtuse or you are incredibly stupid.

Sincerely,
Frank

Frank Cundari wrote:
In article ,
says...

wrote in message
But anyway, I digress. You like surveys, show me one person (besides
the other brain-dead inDUHvidual who can't read) who honestly thinks
that I misread "in a box on my shelf" as anything other than deceased.

Ah...Ken, we seem to be shy anyone else who gives a rats ass about the pride
expressed by my father's ashes.

And, if you are going to quote someone, it's best to get it right. I said,
"...on a shelf, in a box..." You see, the purpose of the quotation marks is
to show that *you* are quoting *exactly* what someone else has said--to the
letter.

I hate to wade [pun intended] into this stupidity contest, but Opie you are
being an idiot. It's obvious he knew what you meant and you know it.
You are either being purposely obtuse or you are incredibly stupid.

Sincerely,
Frank

Sub-text.....history.....intent.....motivation.....pat terns.....all of
this is (and a great deal more) is fascinating stuff, Frank.....all of
it is important. You don't really believe that the surface
characteristics of any one round in this eternal and monumental
struggle are the salient features of the whole, do you? You don't
really think that Mark's (or anyone else's) investigation of kennie's
inability to defend, or even articulate, his abortive Weltanschauung
and his concomitant (and seemingly paradoxical) desparate need and
inability to hide it is nothing more than idle amusement.....right?

Wolfgang
well, ya got yer obtuse.....and then ya got yer just plain thick.