🚀 go-pugleaf

In <325C1063.9C6@xi.netcom.com> Raoul Xemblinosky
<raoulx@xi.netcom.com> writes: 
>
>("The Nose" added to the headers because Palmer was afraid to do it)
>
>Bill Palmer typed:
>> 
>> In <53gpp1$sie@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> norapeal@staff.uiuc.edu (peal
nora
>> c) writes:
>> 
>> In which our pusillanimous "Princess Nora" repeats the
>> stunt of her flunky, Xemblinosky, which represented the
>> gleaning of a few typos from several thousand correctly
>> spelled, grammatically precise, and--by any standard means
>> of measurement--highly coherent words of mine.  Like her
>> greasy, typo-pouncing ferret "subject", Raoul, she
>> dishonestly clusters those typos in a barren attempt to
>> malign several well-written posts--and in effect--me,
>> their writer.  (see my "Woof Busted Stacking Deck" of
>> yesterday.)
>> >
>> >Raoul Xemblinosky <raoulx@xi.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> >>Bill Palmer typed:
>> >>>
>> >>> In <32598CB9.39A9@xi.netcom.com> Raoul Xemblinosky
>> >>> <raoulx@xi.netcom.com> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>> Raoul, I'm "amazed"!  After your sleazy, failed attempt
>> >>> to demonstrate "incoherence" on my part in your other
>> >>> post, you skitter off like a poltroon.
>> >
>> >>Why would I attempt to demonstrate "incoherence" on your
>> >>part when you do such a wonderful job of demonstrating
>> >>it on your own?

Well, let's hear about it.  Sorry to disillusion you,
but that rare, "tellling"-style typo you pounce on will 
merely put another brick in my very solid case that you 
are a typo-ferreting, no-talent asshole, Xemblinosky.
>> >
>> >>> you seem to totally do an about face here.
>> >
>> >>Split infinitive.
>> 
>> The fact is, since most language authorities have
>> for the greater part of this century sanctioned
>> "split-infinitive" constructions (such as mine above)
>> as correct in colloquial English, you prove yourself
>> very much the pitiful-wanna-be-pedant-with-the-dusty-
>> bag-of-obsolete-pronouncements, "Princess Nora"--when
>> you give credence to Raoul's sophomoric, pseudo-
>> intellectual stylistic pontification.
>
>You blew it, Flame Gnat.

No, YOU did; and instead of merely imitating you
and grunting out a nasty epithet a la Xemblinosky, 
I'll tell you precisely why:

  I was the one who picked out
>your split infinitive, thereby sparing our Poetess Laureate
>the trouble. 

First, there is one thing you miss in your cockroach-like
insistence that everyone lower themselves to think
exactly like you, Xemblinosky.  When someome repeats 
an insult or a stupidity that I find offensive in a 
follow-up, and does not decry the rubbish of the original 
poster, the person repeating the slur is as likely to 
be flamed for it as the original writer.  Only a a fool 
who is totally ignorant of how the human mind works would 
pretend that safe refuge can be found in "Gee, I was 
only saying what 'X' said."  In the cases of deliberate 
affronts, I don't buy that all.

Fact is,  you are being honored my explanation, 
Xemblinosky.  Woof, Wotan, and Pinhead--who continually 
repost the vile defamations and slurs of one another-- 
have never figured out what I've told you above; and 
since they are collectively so incredibly thick and 
stubborn, I've never bothered to explain.  Consequently, 
they continually wail that I'm "responding to the wrong 
one"--so I keep my violin next to my computer.

I might add that YOUR typo-pouncing deviousness
has been mentioned several times.  Now that your
"princess" was jumping into the game, I wanted to
be sure and give her "full credit", Raoul.

Again, if someone repeats offensive remarks about
me written by another, and does not decry the
insult, the second person is as likely to get
singed as the first one.  I make no apologies
for that, Xemblinosky.  

 I find it amusing that in one post you 
>pride yourself on the complexity of your syntax, while
>in another you attempt to defend an infinitely avoidable
>boo-boo as "colloquial."  

Well, Raoul, I have observed before that you have
"a chickenshit mind".  You demonstrate that once
again by showing the pitiful limitations of your
thoughts.  The fact is, you try to drag in irrelevent
criteria and apply it my flame.  Let's remember,
a flame is not something you can stuff into any 
one sylistic category.  We are not talking
about an academic article.  We are not speaking
of a piece in a campus humor magazine, either.

I would be the first one to abmit that a FLAME
GIANT posting might begin with a rather pompously
toned "lecture", and end with the calling of someone
such as yourself a "purple-assed baboon".  Once
you can begin to understand that, your obsolete 
stricture about "split infinitives" is seen for 
what it is--a sophomoric, uncomprehending remark 
by lame "wanna-be pedant" Xemblinosky.   (I will 
qualify by adding one other thing, though.  Since
I do like to keep my posts grammatical, I welcome 
people to point out any careless deviations 
from correct grammar.  But again, the split 
infinitive of the type I used has long been 
considered perfectly correct in colloquial English;
so you are in effect merely saying that you don't
care for my style.   I remind you that *I* greatly
prefer it to your own.)   

I've already pointed out that you are a thought
poltroon inhibited by "error fear", Raoul.
Clearly your--and your princess'--inappropriate
spouting of pedantic, "English-teacherly" put-downs 
merely reveals the tight-assed approach to flaming 
you share.   I have no qualms at all about being 
formal at the start of a flame, colloquial at the 
middle, and "slangy" at the end--or, showing all 
three levels of usage in one paragraph, if doing so 
strikes my fancy. 

>> >>> Raoul, are you saying that despite your shabby try at
>> >>> avoiding the consequences of your intellectual cowardice
>> >>> by cobbling together a spurious and ludicrous scheme to
>> >>> misuse an occasional typo to divert attention from your
>> >>> prior invertebrate behavior--you have suddenly given
>> >>> up?  I'm shocked.  On the other hand, all you do
>> >>> (below) by way of responding to my pinpointing
>> >>> your typo-pouncing nature is retort with a crude,
>> >>> troglodyte insult in lieu of any reasoned rebuttal.
>> 
>> Typo in "rebuttal" (in the above line) corrected.
>> >
>> >>"Rubuttal?"  You've been staring at those RuPaul pictures
>> >>too long, Billie.  What you need is a *real* woman like
>> >>UZOcandybabe!  If she'd take you, of course.
>> 
>> Yes, Mr. "Einstein" Xemblinosky, you did find the
>> one typo in several hundred otherwise fully coherent
>> words.  I'm glad the "princess" sees fit to emphasize
>> your "cleverness" and "creativity".
>
>Have you contacted UZOcandybabe yet, or are you still
>fixated on RuPaul's butt?
>
>> >
>> >>> Franky, Raoul, I don't know which is worse: a cowardly,
>> >
>> >>"Franky?"  Who the fuck is "Franky?"
>> 
>> Yes, Mr. "Victor Hugo" Xemblinosky, you showed us
>> your "immense writing talent" by finding another
>> typo in several hundred more words.  Congratulations
>> on your "brilliant intellectual achievement".
>> I'm so delighted that your "princess" has noted
>> your "achievement".
>
>Nora is not my Princess; she is the Poetess Laureate of
>alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.  "Princess" is an alias of
>UZOcandybabe, who, for the right price, might still be
>willing to make a real man out of you.  Just think:
>RuPaul with real breasts and real female genitalia!
>
>> >>> greasy, typo-pouncing ferret; or a moran who fancies
>> >
>> >>A "moran?"
>> 
>> Yes, Mr. "Cervantes" Xemblinosky.  You have proven
>> you "wit" and "imagination" once again by diligently
>> searching out another typo.  How superb that your
>> "princess" has noted your "amazing feat".
>
>Diligently?  Finding misspellings and solecisms in your
>demented typing is like finding shit in a crowded stable.
>In fact, it's *exactly* like finding shit in a crowded
>stable.  Right down to the smell.

That's an unusually dishonest statement, Xemblinosky,
when all those fabrications of yours rest solely on 
rare typos like "rubuttal"--a word I've spelled 
correctly hundreds of times in these very groups 
in the last couple of weeks.
>
>> >Uh oh...NOW you've done it!  Just ask Wotan ;-)
>> 
>> Should we end by saying, "Like 'princess', like
>> peon," or would that be too honest and politically
>> incorrect for name-mangling, typo-pouncing, ferret
>> Xemblinosky?
>
>Ethnic slur #3 is duly noted, Flame Gnat.  Good job.

Not at all.  Your mind IS in peonage to your cowardice
and stupidity just as firmly as that of the Head Librarian.  
Why should I mince words in pointing that out, Mr. Whining-
Language-Cop-by-day/Jack-the-Ripper-of-peoples'-names
by-night?   Notice that I didn't say "Torqemada of
names"--your hypocritical howls would have worn out
my violin...  You'd scream like twelve purple-assed
baboons being buggared by Pervert John "Woof" Davis.  
I can hear it now...  (Now I expect to hear from a 
British person telling me that I am "demeaming his 
culture" by mentioning "ol' Jack", when our thin-skinned 
Brit hasn't heard me say anything about all those 
wonderful folks like the Venerable Bede, and he doubts 
if I could name six distinguished Brits anyway.)

copyright FLAME GIANT