On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:03:47 GMT, "RJM"
virgin.net>
wrote:
>"Josh Hill"
gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4vtsf3997t6k6059cafcp6i9n940v4l798@4ax.com...>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:17:59 -0700, Ed
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sep 29, 1:36 am, Sylvia
cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:>>>> Mr. boots wrote:
>>>>> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Ed
hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>><...>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was just a snarky comment inspired by an impression upon going
>>>>>>> through these threads.
>>>> .
>>>>>>I find you to be a wishy-washy, ignorant dickhead, Ed. (hey! that
>>>>>>sorta
>>>>>>rhymes! dickhead, Ed -- geddit?). And, I just know you'll find that
>>>>>>just a
>>>>>>little bit of ok, as it's just a snarky comment inspired by an
>>>>>>impression
>>>>>>from reading your ignorant, wishy-washy posts.
>>>> .
>>>>> That's a pretty wishy-washy response, Stan.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that was Mr. Stan's point. Ed Rhodes kept repeating that my
>>>> posts were "psycho", "scary", and "stalking", and a "psycho hose beast"
>>>> "over-reaction. When asked by different people to show how my posts
>>>> reflected that, to show even *one* example, after much weaseling and
>>>> waffling, his above comment was all Ed Rhodes could offer as an
>>>> explanation.
>>>
>>>No weaseling, no waffling. It was _my_ "personal" opinion. What to
>>>others (certainly your followers) would seem perfectly reasonable and
>>>direct comes off to me as "creepy," "obsessive" and "scary."
>>
>>>I can't pull a quote out of a post and say; "See! That was scary!"
>>>It's the general tone and nature of the posts that make them off the
>>>wall.
>>
>> I may be wrong, but I don't think even most of Sylvia's followers (not
>> that there are more than a handful) consider her posts sane. Those who
>> feel affection towards her merely refrain from commenting directly on
>> their nuttiness.
>>
>> I'm guessing that she's manic and genuinely unable to sense the
>> qualities that you're reacting to, but I could of course be wrong.
>
>You're a "follower" of Sylvia, Josh. You're a "follower" of Ray, and
>you're a "follower" of Stan. You're a "follower" of me. I'm not sure that
>I understand your diagnosis of "nuttiness", much less of insanity and
>of mania. What is it about your curious affinity with stupids like Ray and
>Ed that blinds you to the obvious? Are you completely unaware of
>what that says about you? It negates the lofty intellectual position you
>hint at for yourself. I may have misunderstood the signals, of course,
>and you really are just as stupid as Ray and Ed. I rather think I'm wrong.
>I think you're hoping that stupid doesn't rub off. Oh dear.
Me? Ahm jes' an ol' country boy with a fondness for dense contrapuntal
textures. But pretending for the nonce that I were one of them
high-falutin' brachycephalic polymath types rather than the 'umble
water baby that I am, well, I'd likely have found that there wasn't as
much interest in talking to other highly evolved sorts on Usenet
because you understand one another and so don't have much to argue
about. So for the most part I just enjoy their wit, or the clarity and
elegance with which they express themselves. And -- IRL, smart people
tend to associate with other smart people and become isolated as a
result, no? If nothing else, some of the posters here remind me of why
that must be the case.
--
Josh
"You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ By
1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ -- that hurts you. Backfires. So
you say stuff like forced busing, statesÂ’ rights, and all that stuff.
YouÂ’re getting so abstract now youÂ’re talking about cutting taxes,
and all these things youÂ’re talking about are totally economic things,
and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites."
- GOP Strategist Lee Atwater on the Republican Southern Strategy
