Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:03:03 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Ah, so because some hypothetical Joe Sixpack doesn't know who DeLay
is, he magically is no longer a major player in American politics?

See my reply to Joe - he was never a real player, at least not on his
own.

I said he was a "big name" on the right, and you said he wasn't. I
said he was the majority leader of the house and you went into your
song-and-dance about how Average Joe wouldn't know him.

I pointed out to you that equating whether Joe Average knows him to
him being a political big name was irrelevant.

And now you've changed the discussion once again to say that he's
not a "major player .. on his own". Well of course not. He's a
frontman for the Ridiculous Right. That's exactly the point; he is a
big name who is trotted out for things like re-districting (remember
that?) and other "issues" where they need a sleazeball with no ethics
or self-respect.

HTH, but I doubt it.


Chuck Vance (but please ... do keep on shufflin' ... it's one
thing you do well ... relatively ...)

On 13 Dec 2006 14:22:51 -0800, "Conan The Librarian"
wrote:


wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:03:03 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Ah, so because some hypothetical Joe Sixpack doesn't know who DeLay
is, he magically is no longer a major player in American politics?

See my reply to Joe - he was never a real player, at least not on his
own.

I said he was a "big name" on the right, and you said he wasn't. I
said he was the majority leader of the house and you went into your
song-and-dance about how Average Joe wouldn't know him.

And if by "the right," you mean him and possibly some or all of the 100
or so suckers who subscribed to his blog, then yeah, he's probably still
a real big name powerbroker stud. OTOH, if by "the right" you mean
anyone else, then no, he's old news.

I pointed out to you that equating whether Joe Average knows him to
him being a political big name was irrelevant.

So I'll point out that it's pretty hard to be a big name, political or
otherwise, if most of those to whom you wish to be a big name don't know
who you are and rest don't give a ****...

And now you've changed the discussion once again to say that he's
not a "major player .. on his own". Well of course not. He's a
frontman for the Ridiculous Right. That's exactly the point;

No, it isn't. The point is that he _was_ this, that, or the other, and
now, he _isn't_ anything but a washed-up nobody...which is exactly what
he deserves.

he is a
big name who is trotted out for things like re-districting (remember
that?) and other "issues" where they need a sleazeball with no ethics
or self-respect.

Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_, and in politics, the difference is
everything.

HTH, but I doubt it.

I know just how you feel,
R

wrote:

is that he _was_ ... _isn't_

Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_,

Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what
the meaning of "is" is?


Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation
with all things Klintonian)

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:
is that he _was_ ... _isn't_
Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_,

Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what
the meaning of "is" is?


Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation
with all things Klintonian)

Richard must be bored this week. No one in their right mind
would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design in public
school science classrooms unless they were running for office
as a Republican, ie John McCain. Richard is not stupid, almost
as pertinacious as Jeffie, contrarian to the point of absurdity,
sure, but not stupid. I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:
is that he _was_ ... _isn't_
Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_,

Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what
the meaning of "is" is?


Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation
with all things Klintonian)

Richard must be bored this week. No one in their right mind
would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design in public
school science classrooms unless they were running for office
as a Republican, ie John McCain. Richard is not stupid, almost
as pertinacious as Jeffie, contrarian to the point of absurdity,
sure, but not stupid. I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

Good God, you are stupid.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports
that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that
he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a
resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he
would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in
our public schools, that's gotta be just a troll.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...
rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports
that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that
he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a
resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he
would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in
our public schools, that's gotta be just a troll.

Not surprisingly, you miss the point entirely. dicklet has seen to it that
whether he is serious or trolling or whatever is as irrelevant as it is
uninteresting. Like you, he has made himself into a plaything. That's
o.k......the world needs more cheap, amusing, and unbreakable toys.

Wolfgang

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:28 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports
that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that
he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a
resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he
would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in
our public schools,

And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does? It's not
like he said he thinks it should.be even suggested that it is science.
IMO, what he said was that he thought that kids should be informed about
it as an alternative theory that some believe in, so as to have as full
an understanding as possible about the subject, and that he had no
problem with that information being disseminated in a "science" class.
I'd bet he'd not have a problem with a little history creeping into a
science class, or a little science creeping into a history class,
either. Why, hell, I'd go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure that he
wouldn't find reason to object if, on occasion, kids discussed the
spring dance decorations in GASP! math class...

that's gotta be just a troll.

Um, perhaps it would be, if it had occurred. And yet again, the fact
that some people have readily and willingly jumped to all sorts of
erroneous conclusions based upon their misinterpretation of what they
didn't understand when they misread what they are absolutely sure was
written, while arguing with the writer that they know more about what
the writer meant than the writer, pretty well relegates the use of or
need for trolling per se to the occasional side diversion aimed at
particularly cocksure types.

Oh, the use of "he" rather than "me?" He just didn't want to interrupt
the flow of the discussion by switching pronouns, in case you guys were
close to a breakthrough on determining what he meant or
something...here's a wild thought - if you come to a conclusion, maybe
you could run it by him, you know, just to get some feedback,
sorta-like...

HTH,
him