On May 1, 10:47 am, Bernard live.com> wrote:

Thank you for quoting me accurately so everyone can read again exactly
how logical my previous statement was.
The more your language deteriorates, and the ad hominem attacks begin,
the easier it is for everyone to see how totally without argument you
are. I'm also going to point out how dishonest you are, as well, by
quoting here the various claims you have made about what it is you are
really trying to say. They seem to change daily.

1. "Anything else you'd like us to know about you? Poetry awards you
won, SAT scores, how many languages you speak, the number of times you
made the dean's
list in college? " ---either I was claiming to be well-educated, or I
was not...which is it? In this quote you appear to think that I am
making this claim and you made a response in your inimitible "ironical
style". If I was not claiming to be well-educated, then why did you
write this post in the first place? You cannot call this a
questioning of my intelligence since nothing in your list is a measure
of intelligence but only an indicator of education. My theory as to
why you wrote this post has, of course, been made abundantly clear in
previous posts and it has nothing to do with your questioning
anything, but your inability to refrain from the urgings of your
sorely provoked ego.

2. "As a matter of fact, you have only scratched the surface." My
quote, in response to your above quote. --was I or was I not claiming
to be well-educated, upon your incomparably rude sarcasm?

3. "Oh, I've no doubt that's true. I'm sure there's a myriad of
equally impressive achievements that your modesty prevents you from
mentioning. " Either this quote, from you, indicated honest
admiration (obviously not) or your "ironical" version of skepticism
about my educational achievements, whatever they may be. Again, there
is nothing in this post to denote doubt about my intelligence. I note
that you expressed this skepticism without actually hearing any
specific claims of mine, by the way. The mark of a true ignoramus.

4. " Whatever or whoever you think I am, this tension-on-the-wire
character has got to be the most pretentious, self-congratulatory
windbag to show up at RMB in the last decade." Now you have changed
your tune. You are no longer showing sarcasm, but a direct statement
of pure dislike of my personality that mentions absolutely nothing
about my intelligence. You were not questioning my intelligence but
my apparent arrogance. Arrogance that you assigned based upon your
inital response to me which was, once again, based on my education,
which you seem to resent most highly.

5. "I wasn't suggesting it's uncool to be educated; I was suggesting
that it's ridiculous of you to think that anyone here is going to be
impressed with your vain pretensions to intellectual superiority."
Now, for the first time in the thread, you openly accuse me of both
lack of intelligence and pretending to intellectual superiority, and
if that is not an accusation against my veracity, then what is?
Pretentious means pretending to be what one is not. That is an
accusation against truthfulness. The fact that you have, most
recently, denied questioning my veracity makes you the one who is
lacking in integrity, not I. I need not add that I have already
responded to the dishonesty of the entire claim in this quote, and
that you did, indeed, suggest it was uncool to be educated, regardless
of what you might have intended, by your choice of language with which
to accost me in the first place.

6. "As a virtuoso violinist you ought to know that no such instrument
existed in Nero's time." I have already responded to the
inappropriateness and dishonesty of manipulating my words into non-
existent claims, so again, you are the one who is stretching the truth
at every opportunity in your desperate attempt at one-upmanship. You
also seem to have failed to notice that every time you have tried to
correct my point of view to your flawed one, you fail miserably, yet
insist that I am the one writing unintelligently. Denial, and not
surprising, at this point.

7. "OK, I’ll state this simply, without irony, in terms that I hope
you can understand. I do not think you are well-educated; hence, I am
not criticizing you for being well-educated or envying your
educational accomplishments." Ah, finally, he comes out with a direct
accusation. What? Oh, my, it's a questioning of my veracity!! What
a surprise! You do not think I am well-educated? I'm not sure what
could have given you that idea!! But once again, you are lying about
your previous claims.

8. "My expression of admiration for your writing style was ironical.
I don’t think you write well. I think you write in the awkward, turgid
style of someone who wants very badly to be regarded as intelligent"
Now, finally, late in the game, he decides he isn't going to get
anywhere questioning my education since he realizes he has absolutely
no grounds to question what I have not made any detailed claims about,
and thinks he'll go for the jugular and say what's really bothering
him. Just so you know, telling me that you think I "want very badly
to be regarded as intelligent" is as good as admitting that this is
what bothers you most....that I might be regarded as intelligent in an
arena where you, obviously, are not. Remarks like that usually come
from people who themselves want very badly to be regarded as
intelligent and are highly resentful of others who are. I'm very
sorry, from the depths of my heart, if I have wandered onto your turf
and made you look foolish in front of your acquaintances. As I
mentioned before, I have no interest in shoving myself into rmb, I'm
only incidentally cross-posting from amp-f, but that doesn't mean I
won't rise to the bait when someone as tempting as you comes along.

9. Now we come to this current post in which you compound your
dishonesty by lying about what you questioned in the first place,
pretending that I am insisting that I didn't lie about Horton, for
God's sake. As I have amply demonstrated, you are accusing me of
lying about my well-educated status, not about Horton, but it is not
the first time you have deliberately misunderstood me in order to
present a false "logical" statement to try and make me look like the
"drooling retard" you are so desperate to paint me out to be. Please
do understand that every time you post, you allow me another
opportunity to prove how wrong you obviously are. I can go on like
this till the cows come home, my friend, and as long as it amuses me,
I might just do that. Anyone who is bored with my long "War and
Peace" novellettes is more than welcome to killfile me, so there's no
fear that I am chewing up valuable space in your newsgroup in my very
enjoyable pastime of annoying you to no end.

--tension