Fly Tie-ers

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You haven't defined liberal, new liberal or pseudoliberal, despite
several requests, so how in the hell is anyone supposed to know
what the hell you're babbling about ?

... If you or anyone else wishes to form their own opinion(s) as to
what "liberal" means, do your research and then, feel free to point out
why you think I may not be a liberal under the definition as you have
found it to be.

You've already said your own highly idiosyncratic definition of
liberal has its origin in the writings of an 18th century Scotsman
and is wholly different than the modern interpretation of the word.
So you've already confessed that you are not a liberal under any
21st century definition other than your own.

Big whoop.

By my own definition I'm a Philosopher King. If you wish form your
own opinion as to what "Philosopher King" means, do your homework
and then feel free to point out why you think I may not be a
Philosopher King under your own definition.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 26, 12:06 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

By my own definition I'm a Philosopher King. If you wish form your
own opinion as to what "Philosopher King" means, do your homework
and then feel free to point out why you think I may not be a
Philosopher King under your own definition.

--
Ken Fortenberry

You are just an asshole. No definition required, it is a state of
being.

MC

On Mar 26, 12:05 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

...



Incidentally, calling me a "loon" or various other silly names is
quite pointless, as I am quite obviously nothing of the sort. You on
the other hand are quite obviously a ****bag dumbo, and rather stupid
to boot.

well, as long as nobody calls you 'pleasant', I won't object, ok?
Tom

How remarkably gracious of you. One or two people have remarked on
here in the past that you were a pleasant person. I am bound to
conclude they must be confusing you with somebody else.

MC

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:06:33 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You haven't defined liberal, new liberal or pseudoliberal, despite
several requests, so how in the hell is anyone supposed to know
what the hell you're babbling about ?

... If you or anyone else wishes to form their own opinion(s) as to
what "liberal" means, do your research and then, feel free to point out
why you think I may not be a liberal under the definition as you have
found it to be.

You've already said your own highly idiosyncratic definition of
liberal has its origin in the writings of an 18th century Scotsman

I did? Wow...

and is wholly different than the modern interpretation of the word.

Er, no, it isn't. It's different the interpretation "new
socially-liberal socialists" in the US give it. Much of the rest of the
world understands the difference between classical _liberal_ and all
these silly-assed variants floating around aimlessly.

So you've already confessed that you are not a liberal under any
21st century definition other than your own.

Er, no.

Big whoop.

By my own definition I'm a Philosopher King. If you wish form your
own opinion as to what "Philosopher King" means, do your homework
and then feel free to point out why you think I may not be a
Philosopher King under your own definition.

I've done my homework and I'd like to point out that while you may be
the King of something, Philosophering ain't it, Gracie, under my
definition, Merriam-Webster's, or that of even Stinky McPhiness, the
drunk who'll define things any way you want for a short glass of Boone's
Farm, any flavor, and a cigarette butt with at least 2 drags left...

Sorry to burst your highness' bubble, there, er, can't,
R

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:28:57 -0700 (PDT), Mike
wrote:

On Mar 26, 12:06 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

By my own definition I'm a Philosopher King. If you wish form your
own opinion as to what "Philosopher King" means, do your homework
and then feel free to point out why you think I may not be a
Philosopher King under your own definition.

--
Ken Fortenberry

You are just an asshole. No definition required, it is a state of
being.

Well, now, see, there's an example of how a Philosopher Kin...well, a
Philosophizing Queen, anyway...does things...

HTH,
R

MC

On 25-Mar-2008, "JT" wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...

Well now sunshine, if you were really trying to help anybody at all
that might even be laudable, but as everybody knows, the only reason
you are continuing this nonsense is because you are labouring under
the misapprehension that it somehow makes you look good. Or it makes
you feel good to make me look bad. Same difference.

This is admittedly a most unfortunate mistake, as it only makes you
look like a nasty dumbo ****bag.

Reading various posts on here, from you and others, one is strongly
reminded of a pit of particularly nasty vipers. You and others here
are an absolute disgrace, not only to fly-fishing, but in a most
upsetting and personal manner.

Under no circumstances whatsoever would it be advisable for anybody to
trust any one of you on a personal level, much less make the mistake
of thinking you could be friends. You will use any and all information
to make people you decide you dislike look bad, you will also twist
and pervert that information, or even invent lies to further your ends
in this respect. Others will also simply stand by and watch it happen.

It is no surprise that ROFF as a whole is considered to contain the
absolute dregs of the internet fly-fishing community, and despite
attempts by various people, and the very few genuine people who still
sojourn here, this is unlikely to change.

Wolfgang is probably enjoying every word of this thread

Fred

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:48:29 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Your slogan is offensive because it compares undocumented workers
to crack dealers. It makes little difference whether you're smart
enough to understand your own offensive slogan.

Never quite made it out of English-101, did you Ken?

You ever crossed a city street in the middle of the block ?
That's called jaywalking, it's illegal. Have you ever
driven faster than the speed limit on the highway ? That's
speeding and it's illegal too. So you wouldn't mind being
compared to a child molester or a crack dealer, right ?

And if not, what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand ?

Ken, you ignorant Troll.
--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Your slogan is offensive because it compares undocumented workers
to crack dealers. It makes little difference whether you're smart
enough to understand your own offensive slogan.
Never quite made it out of English-101, did you Ken?
You ever crossed a city street in the middle of the block ?
That's called jaywalking, it's illegal. Have you ever
driven faster than the speed limit on the highway ? That's
speeding and it's illegal too. So you wouldn't mind being
compared to a child molester or a crack dealer, right ?

And if not, what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand ?

Ken, ...

LOL !! I admit that argument is pretty damn ridiculous, but
then it's *your* argument. Your sig is offensive and ridiculous
but judging by what you post here it fits you perfectly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

rw wrote:
wrote:

On 25 Mar 2008 21:53:56 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


wrote in news:3mbiu3d98vf3bdg3k7t2t0ko0c2pjduh3f@
4ax.com:


2. I'm an actual _liberal_, not a new "liberal," or worse, a
pseudoliberal.


There seems to be a new trend for libertarians to claim the original
liberal stamp. Just because someone might believe that poor people
should have all the freedom they need to starve in the street doesn't
make someone liberal.



I am not, nor do I claim to be, a libertarian, either in practice or by
claiming the title of a liberal (or otherwise), because libertarians
aren't liberals, regardless of the error _some_ libertarians make in
claiming so.

My suggestion is that anyone interested in actual liberalism do some
reading about it. If you form the opinion that I am not a liberal, or
that I am a libertarian, you are certainly entitled to be as wrong as
you wish.

Further, I am not suggesting that being a liberal is the best thing to
be, only that it is the thing that I am and that I've seen little
evidence that many (or even any) around ROFF share that title. I do,
however, seen daily evidence that many around ROFF are "new liberals"
and pseudoliberals - neither are actual liberals.
HTH,
R


Just drop it. Nobody gives a **** what you are, anyway.


finally, someone defined a liberal. g?

We read this as well.

On Mar 25, 10:37 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

...



***********

He he he,

Why can't you answer my question???

You don't have a good answer do you? It will just verify the fact that
you
are a "certified" loon.

Try again:
If you don't like this NG and find it a waste
of you time why do you continue to subscribe to
it???

You're a miserable bitter old man....
JT

There you go assuming all sorts of things again. I could of course
simply answer your question, but I don´t feel like doing so, and it
would be a waste of time in any case, because you are too stupid to
understand it.

I suppose I could give you a clue, and hope that trying to solve the
mystery on your own would at least give myself and others some respite
form your incessant stupidity?

Originally, I was only here for the fishing.

As to your other assumptions, in regard to my mental health,
gemuetszustand, and various other things, well of course you are free
to make whatever assumptions make you feel good. That is apparently
what nasty dumbo ****bags do. I have no idea why, perhaps it makes
their own totally inconsequentiual and pointless existences more
bearable?

One is bound to assume that you have some reason or other for pursuing
the course of action you are presently engaged in, but one can hardly
expect a sensible person to understand it. The only sensible
conclusion is that you are a nasty dumbo ****bag.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

******

It's really just out of curiosity? I'm going from several posts that you
yourself have posted.

One of your most recent:
Quote:
"I have already wasted too much time on this group again."
TL
MC

Seriously, why would you continue to read this group if it's such a waste of
time? That's a question...

If it's to vent and spew your filthy mouth so you can somehow get your
frustrations out, great, just say so... I'm just trying to understand why
someone would continue to subject themselves to something they don't enjoy..

Although you really can't damage your character any further, you should just
run along. I'm guess the reason you haven't left "again" is because you
don't have anyplace to go. You have been kicked out of several other forums.
Get a clue, learn from your mistakes, maybe you should change your ways...?

Remember around the holidays when you came out with the tail between your
legs, I'm sorry message... Try it again, but mean it this time. Honest, it
will make you feel better....

I don't suppose this will help either,
JT

why you don´t post anymore?

No, that is not the reason. This guy is simply lying. I don´t know
why they do it, presumably because they are stupid nasty people? They
invent all sorts of things.

Whatever, it´s a lie, I have not been kicked off any forums, I merely
ceased to post to one, and I post less regularly to some others. One
or two people, presumably users of this group, have also tried to stir
up trouble on various forums. Invariably their posts are deleted, and
a couple have been banned. However, despite exhortations form other
posters on various forums, and indeed owners and moderators, to
continue posting, I don´t see much point in such nonsense, so I simply
don´t post any more.

My website is currently off line for other reasons.

I will post a copy of this to ROFF as well. It wont do any good of
course, but it keeps the record straight.

Regards and tight lines!

Mike