🚀 go-pugleaf

In <53hpu5$2k4@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> norapeal@staff.uiuc.edu (peal nora
c) writes:

[In which Nora gets carried away and "conveniently" forgets
why I wrote the post that so upsets her.  Quite simply,
she reposted a foul little exercise by Raoul Xemblinosky
wherein he gleaned the very few typos found in thousands
of words of my writing.  He then deviously presented those
typos in aggregate to suggest that they could perhaps be 
found in every other sentence of mine.   Nora knew what 
a phony little scheme that was, because "Palmer 'Peals' 
Peevish Leak  A" (my original article about Nora under 
that newgroup line) contained about thousand words of 
mine, and one or two typos, if any at all.  Going through 
thousands of words by a writer, gleaning a few typos, 
and reposting the typos in a cluster is just plain 
dishonest.  I pointed that out to Nora; hence her 
angry tone here.]
>
>wilhelp@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) "conveniently" omits afkmn when he

>writes:
>
>>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, 
>
>Raoul is nobody's flunky, Palmjob.  And he's not even a resident
>of austin.flame where I act as Regent for Azzy.  If you cannot
>find a good reading comprehension course in your area perhaps
>you could check one of those Hooked on Phonics videos from your
>local library.  I'm sure an adult would help you fill out your
>library card if you remember to say the magic word.
>
>>By reposting, you in effect sanctioned Raoul's actions in 
>>gleaning a few typos from several thousand correctly 
>>spelled, grammatically precise, and--by any standard means 
>>of measurement--highly coherent words of mine.  
>
>Pity none of them were applicable to what Raoul was saying.

That's a not-so-clever attempt to turn things
topsy-turvy, Nora.  The fact was, those sentences
with the typos that Raoul posted (and you reposted)
were only "applicable to what Raoul was saying" 
because he decided to go hunting for my relatively
rare (when I am fairly compared with other USENET
writers who post roughly the same amount of text 
during the same general time frame) typos.  Raoul
posted a few isolated phrases from various lengthy
articles of mine for the sole reason that those
word groups had typos.  Those phrases had absolutley
no bearing on anything else Raoul and I had 
discussed, so your remark is rejected as being
dishonest, Nora.

>
>>Like her 
>>greasy, typo-pouncing ferret "subject", Raoul, Nora 
>>dishonestly clusters a few 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.)
>
>Do you flout your net.ineptness in each of your posts?

I have yet to hear you point out anything in the 
twenty thousand words I posted last week as an
example of something that would be recognized 
as "ineptness" by any reasonable person using 
traditional standards of judging writing, Nora.
>
>I "clustered" nothing, PseudoPedantWannabe.

You obviously are clueless here, Nora; probably 
intentionally so.  My principle is this:  When
someone repeats an insult or a stupidity about
me from an article by another poster--I hold 
the "repeater" as responsible as the one who
wrote the slur in the first place--providing
the "repeater" did not repost the insult in
order to decry it.  Technically, yes, Raoul--
and not you--gleaned and clustered the typos,
but since you reposted his tissue of 
dissimulation in a manner that made it
clear you agreed with him--I flamed you.
In other posts, I had already indicated 
Raoul's devious typo-pouncing stupidities.
>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>I regret ever acquainting you with the term "pseudo".
>
>Now, kindly show where I made ANY comment on a "split-
>infinitive" or admit you're talking out of your arse
>AGAIN.

Again I repeat, when you echo someone else's
imbecilic affronts to me, and you do so without 
decrying the foul behavior of the original writer--
I hold you just as responsible as the heel who
wrote the original article and YOU WILL
BE FLAMED.  Don't bother to give me the old,
"I was just repeating what 'X' said,".  If
what 'X' said contained a slur, and you
simply repeated it, you share responsibility.
If you can't handle that, I would suggest that
you don't repost other peoples' tripe about
me, Ms. Peal.  You will note (above) that
I said you "gave credence" to Xemblinosky's
post.  You did so by reposting it in a manner
that suggested you approved of what he said.

Earlier I had asked Raoul an incisive 
question:
>
>>>>> 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".
>
>Kindly point out where I made any comment whatsoever on
>your rather humorous "rubuttal" typo before now.

Again, you try to wriggle, Nora.  You reposted
the baboon's vile buffoonery; you put yourself
in his very  lowly category and you were flamed 
for it.  Stop trying to wriggle out with this,
"Gee, I was only repeating Raoul, " phoniness.
I know that some posters will let people get
away with that kind of thing--I won't, though.
>
>>>>> 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", Raoul.
>>I'm so delighted that your "princess" has noted
>>your "accomplishment".  
>
>While I do believe that your present mental acumen doesn't 
>come close to that of Raoul's upon birth I didn't see the
>need to state so in my followup.

Oh, sure Nora.  I know YOU are awed with the "great
intellect" that is able to pounce on rare typos and
cluster them in one post to suggest that they were 
perhaps typical of every word or two of the article 
our "Venerable Bede" was "following-up".  On top of 
that, those typos actually came from SEVERAL posts so 
his deviousness was even more pronounced.  You clearly 
resent being put in the same malodorous bag with 
Xemblinosky, but the truth is your put yourself there 
when you reposted his sleazy little jest without 
roundly condemning it.
>
>Perhaps you've been looking at your dick so long that seeing
>things that aren't really there has become the norm for you?

A few hundred words later, Raoul came up with
this one:
>
>>>>> 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".
>>>
>>>Uh oh...NOW you've done it!  Just ask Wotan ;-)
>
>Actually, I probably should have said to just ask Davis ;-)

Well, you've got two charred hides there--by 
all means take your pick. 
>
>>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?
>
>What a funny little fuckwit you are, Palmjob.  It's so 
>easy to make you dance.
>
>Now, are we going to finally duel, you pompous cure for
>insomnia, or are you going to run away again?

Ah, yes, your phony little "challenge", Nora.
How could I ever forget that?  In fact, I commented 
on it in "Palmer 'Peals' Peevish Leak".   What's
important is that any such contest be fair.  That 
means, first we agree on the poetic form. Then 
I give you a subject; and you give me a subject.  
None of this dusting off old shit that's been
polished 300 times by now.  Further, we need a
more neutral audience, such as rec.arts.poems--
and no one who posts to the above groups will
be allowed to vote.  Don't think for an instant
you can use your palsy-walsys to rig the contest.  
Yes, I'll be glad to take your challenge, but if 
you have noticed what has happened to the hide of 
the Woofster (see "Woof Busted Stacking Deck" and 
"Has 'Card-Sharp' Mutt Pulled Stakes") you have 
seen that I'm not a person who sits down to play 
in someone's rigged game.
>
>Tick...tick...tick.

"A false clock tries to tick out my time,
 to disgrace, distract, and bother me..."
                         Bob Dylan

copyright FLAME GIANT