🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <49t2th$b2p@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
           kkelly1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu "Kevin Kelly" writes:

> Mike Fleming (Mike@tauzero.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <49qhnm$mso@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
> :            kkelly1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu "Kevin Kelly" writes:
> 
> Since I removed talk.abortion from the follow-ups of the post you are
> replying to and you added it back in, I am gratified to know that you
> would never have complained about posting inappropriately to newsgroups by
> any individual. Or have you? Nah that would make you a hypocrite. 

I don't see why your side of the debate should be represented in 
a newsgroup and mine not. Had you done this by changing the 
newsgroups in your own post, rather than setting follow-ups, I 
would not have restored talk.abortion. Does that make sense to 
you?

> : Ah, the standard line brought out by the keegan worshipper, that 
> : anyone who doesn't agree with keegan must be stupid. 
> 
> Oooh I do love the irony of your statement given the drivel you have 
> posted about people not agreeing with you.

I have said that people not agreeing with me does not 
necessarily mean they have misunderstood. Therefore, 
disagreement with me does not necessarily mean that the person 
disagreeing with me is stupid. After all, Iolo has disagreed 
with me, and as you may have noticed, I do not consider Iolo 
stupid or guilty of misunderstanding.

> Oh well. And I note further 
> delusions from you concerning text that you appear to see yet to normal 
> people does not appear anywhere. Have you sought help yet or perhaps you 
> are too embarassed?

I suggest that you post the text to which this refers.

  : Unfortunately for you, those of us with intelligence
> 
> Speaking for others who don't share your characteristics may be 
> considered rude. Including yourself with the those who posess 
> intelligence is even ruder.

Hardly.

> : > However  your defense of that stupidity can only be laid 
> : > squarely on your own sholders.
> :                        ^^^^^^^^ shoulders. If you're accusing 
> :                                 people of stupidity, getting the 
> :                                 spelling right seems a pretty 
> :                                 essential thing to do.
> 
> 
> Ooooo a spelling flame. Such wit, such bravado, resorting to spelling 
> flames.

As I said, if you're accusing people of stupidity, getting the 
spelling right seems a pretty essential thing to do. It was you 
who mentioned the 'failure of the schooling system' - I think 
those were the words. Spelling is one of those things taught at 
school. Does this not mean that the education system has failed 
you?

> What next? Are you going to tell me to go fuck myself or are 
> you saving that for an even more special time when even your 
> spelling flames don't quite demonstrate how pathetic you 
> have become in your apparent need to strike back?

No. Do you really want me to?

> : No, you're defending stupid, sorry, stupidity. 
> 
> : And if you think I am defending Iolo, you are very much 
> : mistaken. Iolo has no need of my acting in his defence, he can 
> : defend himself quite adequately.
> 
> Oh he's doing something adequately alright but not quite what he had in 
> mind I would imagine. I haven't laughed so hard at the stubborness 
> displayed in the defense of stupidity as I have with Iolo. He's 
> entertaining to say the least.

I think you shouldn't forget that the most blindly stubborn 
participant is keegan. Iolo defends rational thought.

> : > But don't despair, I am sure that one day you will outgrow
> : > the stage you are going through.
> 
> : Hmmm. Do they let you have sharp objects in there?
> 
> Did you think that one up all by yourself or did someone give you a list 
> and suggest you enter the comments from the list at random, despite 
> whether they are responsive to the preceeding text or not?

That's funny, that's _exactly_ what I thought about that "you 
will outgrow the stage you are going through" comment of yours.

Didn't you mention the word 'hypocrite' earlier?

> : > Ahhh the arrogance of youth. If your opponents disagree they obviously 
> : > don't understand. But feel free to continue in a defense of Iolo's 
> : > stupidity that imo means anything other than in my opinion. It may kill 
> : > the last few of your brain cells but think of the glory you will gain in 
> : > parading that trimuph in front of your playmates.

I've just realised - yes, I do ride my Triumph round with 
friends of mine. Damn, missed that!

> : Ah, no, if my opponents don't understand then they don't 
> : understand. And you plainly don't understand.
> 
> You can do better than this, can't you? If you can't there is no shame in 
> asking for help from your freinds. Freinds would never let freinds 
> embarrass themselves as you are doing now if they could possibly help. 
> Prehaps your pride is preventing you from accepting their help?

I really think you should take that educaton back and get the 
spelling sorted. You may regard this as a spelling flame - I am 
pointing out that it reduces your credibility in debate. I also 
find it annoying to read articles with spelling mistakes 
(including my own, on occasion) as they seen to leap out of the 
screen at me and distract me from the content of what I am 
reading.

> : For those who do understand, no explanation is necessary.
> : For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
> 
> Had Chinese take-out last night I see.

Funnily enough, no. I borrowed it from a guy on rec.motorcycles, 
who tends to use it about the mystique of riding Harleys.

> : > : This appears to be a rampant problem for keegan-lovers. I 
> : > : apologise for confusing you with something that betrayed signs 
> : > : of intelligence. Don't worry, it won't happen again.
> : > 
> : > If you had stated I had intelligence  in light of your defense of 
> : > stupidity I would have taken that as an insult.
> 
> : I'm sorry, I refuse to lie simply to insult you.
> 
> Very good. We will see how long that lasts however.

Why, how much longer are you going to be posting this drivel?

> : > : No, it was that you didn't understand. This is a standard 
> : > : manifestation of keegan, and he appears to believe that 
> : > : repeating crap endlessly makes it true. You appear to believe 
> : > : this too, hence my assumption.
> : > 
> : > SInce I don't remember repeating myself endlessly nor stating that I 
> : > beleive endless repetion makes something the truth I can only assume that 
> : > the above is the result of your delusions. Is there prehaps some 
> : > medication you are not taking that is causing this?
> 
> : So you admit that keegan does these things?
> 
> Ahhhh reading comprehension was never your strong suit was it? I was 
> speaking on those things you claimed on my behalf to beleive. Nothing 
> more nor less should be construed from those comments. 

Point conceded. I suggest, however, that you examine your own 
reading comprehension and see where you have misread me.

> 
> : Good, that's a 
> : start. And you believe (not beleive, by the way, another 
> : spelling mistake there)
> 
> Ooooh another spelling flame. Has anyone explained to you that spelling 
> flames are the avenue of those who can't argue? Or do they prefer to 
> watch you make a buffoon out of yourself?

I am pointing out your spelling mistakes because you are arguing 
that others are stupid. Do you not think that these reduce your 
credibility?

> : that what it says is right? In the light 
> : of these two points, would you care to re-read the paragraph of 
> : mine that you quoted and see where I say that you actually do 
> : such things, rather than believing in keegan when it does?
> 
> I'm sorry I guess you truly don't understand what was written. If you 
> like I can use small words from now on if you think that would help.

I wrote it. I understand it. You do not. Time you sorted out 
your reading comprehension.

> 
> : > : > Did you think that your perception of Keegan somehow mitigates the 
> : > : > stupidity of Iolo?
> : > 
> : > : Ah, I think you've got that the wrong way round...
> : > 
> : > Nope, but prehaps the point was too subtle for you to undersatnd.
> 
> : No, it was simply incorrect. As is your spelling - specifically, 
> : of "perhaps" and "understand" above.
> 
> Oooooh more spelling flames. Stop, your merciless. Such wit, such 
> intelligence, using spelling flames to rebut your opponents comments when 
> many would consider that a sign of how lame you are. You are a 
> genius for risking that and venturing ahead where most people with more 
> than a brain cell would fear to tread. Bravo.

As I pointed out in the original posting, and am amplifying in 
this one, attacking the intelligence of an opponent while 
indulging in mistakes oneself, especially when you mention the 
education system as having failed your opponent, merely reduces 
your credibility. In case you hadn't noticed, after the first 
spelling mistake on your part that I pointed out, others were 
pointed out within text that was a rebuttal of your point that 
contained the spelling mistake.

> : I leave it to you to find the one deliberate spelling mistake in 
> : my posting...
> 
> Nah, spelling flames are the things you see from children.

Bugger, I had visions of you poring through the posting to try 
and find the spelling mistake which I hadn't included...

-- 
Mike (DF) Fleming      MAG #79794     DoD #4446      Greenpeace #567708F
                       JKLO #004      KotWP7         UKMC #9
Preservation of habitats is a fundamental need
Forests and lakes and rivers should be put in front of greed