Ut Oh, Could Nancy Be Facing....

There are no goods to be caught with. The whole NAMBLA thing is nonexistent. Thousands of people marched. Harry Hay was one. He wasn't an organizer. His views had no bearing on the parade as a whole.

Did you decide to stop supporting Bush because Foley supported him.

Did you decide to stop supporting the Republicans because Enron's corporate crooks funneled huge amounts of money to them?

Did you stop thinking right wing because Jack Abramoff the slimeball funneled huge amounts of money to them? Probably not.

And just because, based on the available evidence, you probably vote straight Republican, doesn't mean that you therefore condone Foley, Abramoff, or Enron.

Neither does Pelosi marching in a parade sponsored by many groups that did not include the one marcher you separate out, say anything about Pelosi's relation to that individual.

This whole thing really is slime. Deb Lowan called it. The Limbaugh-Coulter-Fox axis has spent the last dozen years demonizing everyone to the left of the justly-disgraced Newt Gingrich.

Their politics of negativity was one of the reasons the Republicans lost big in the last elections (and if you will look at it objectively, the overwhelming amount of vitriol has in fact come from the right). Bush's "bipartisanship" has been pretty much "let's everybody get together and do things my way". That one-way way was rejected by the country.

There's a chance for things to get done now. Dems have extended a lot of olive branches. If you guys persist in sliming, and creating polarization, you're just heading for a worst disaster in '08. You've lost the independents, who are a third of the country, and you're just not gonna get them back this way.

And you are, incidentally, wrong about a2k. It is not an American board.
It is international, even tho it happens to be based in America. A number of its long-established (far longer than you) and esteemed members are from other countries. I commend to your attention Blatham, Walter Hinteler, miniTAX, and who could forget Lord Ellpus, and dlowan, citizens of the world all. You obviously seem unaware of the flourishing Aussie contingent, and the number of Aussie-centric threads here, including the series about the absolutely impenetrable Aussie giant cryptic crossword puzzles, not to mention the Aussie election outcomes threads. Broaden your horizons, mate.

And your "apology" is another one in the growing number of non-apology apologies that are the only kind that politicians and actors and celebrities seem to be making now "I'm sorry that someone was offended by my perfectly reasonable and justified actions". Your spelling is not English, it's American-English only, based on spelling reforms Noah Webster instituted in the 19th century and generally used only in America, probably not Canada, or England (THAT'S English, laddie), or Aussie. Don't take others to task for your provincialism.

dlowan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Since when does innuendo not count here? Have you read the thread about Bush & beastiality? Or have you read that I'm a toothless, obese, old hag dyke? False accusations & hate are very much in vogue here.
Nancy Pelosi will be speaker, she has been a voice for the dem party, what she says matters. WHy hasn't she denounced NAMBLA? Why hasn't she spoke out on SF schools shutting the school campus's in her district to JROTC? She was quick enough to condem Foley & she should have, but she clams up when it comes to men having sex with little boys in her own backyard.

Snort! That thread is a satire on this one. Do you know the meaning of satire?

We know the meaning of vicious attacks. I don't care what the thread is satirizing, calling someone a toothless dyke is abhorent and uncalled for.

But, a valuable clue you have allowed, as an insight into your value system is that you have no problem tolerating people completely and directly assasinating someone's entire character viciously when it's a conservative, but you'll fight to the death over an accusation about another liberal like Nancy Pelosi. Your "snort" just proved that!

Quote:

Monte Cargo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Monte Cargo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

It was about you and your fellow slimer LSM.

I do not give a fig for your olive branches as I am not arguing with you about me, but about your baseless sliming.

The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws. Ie, repeating this information is clearly useless....like putting lipstick on a pig.

I was certainly frustrated, because baseless sliming, especially with such a particularly nasty lie, is rather evil, and below the usual level of even the nastiest political debate here...ie I really do not think I have seen a public figure accused of supporting paedophilia with absolutely no basis before.

They may have been, but I have not seen it done.

This is such sheer genius. I will write it all down...(writing) lipstick on a pig is in reference to you two being pigs... Brilliant!

I really do like the "I don't give a fig for your olive branches". Now, that has a clever, metaphor-like appeal. :wink: Note: You did, in rather dramatic vernacular, comment extensively about my comments to you, your occupation, etc., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine.

I'm hopefully through with you. I believe you said you were leaving earlier. Bon voyage, toss another shrimp on the barbi, and whatever...

Nah, try again, your reading comprehension is still lacking.

Selective quoting, by the way, which in your case entailed removing a word, is generally considered a very low tactic, almost as low as baseless serious sliming.

Let's try an honest quote, eh?


Here's how it's done...(hint...you don't leave out words which reverse the meaning):

"The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws"


There, see, even you could have done that easilyand honestly. Oh well, nemmind.


Now.

If you do not want to be fiercely attacked, do not throw or support the throwing of extraordinarily disgusting lying slander. Most especially, do not attempt to use your extraordinary ignorance of simple stuff like spelling to insinuate that someone is lying about themselves.

"., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine"

Actually, yes it can. You see the thing is, in attacking me, you used many of the same obviously specious logic tricks as you did in attacking Pelosi. Therefore, the invalid logic you used to attack me became part of the "argument" I was attempting to show you was false. Actually, I regarded your attacks on me as amusing, because you shot yourself in the foot so thoroughly.


You're not through with me.

If I happen to see you playing the same tricks I shall enjoy demonstrating their error.

But, I'm not in politics much, so hopefully others will assist in your education.


"If you don't give a thistle or a fig,
You might grow up to be a pig"

Oh, dlowan, if I don't get fiercely attacked, I don't really feel alive on a board. It's sort of like being a younger man and going to a party. If at least one woman didn't slap my face, I knew that I wasn't having a good time.

If you feel like it, let it all hang out, no holds barred, and bring it on. I've gone to bat with much worse than anyone here could do. This is nothing and I think there might be a tendency for a couple of you folks to overestimate yourselves. I already have communicated with one of the posters a little earlier today. Personally, I find your admonition hilarious!

And I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about my unintentionally leaving out one word in your quote. All that I was trying for was to capture your whole quote, but not the sum of all of the quotes over the past thirty pages. I deleted an entire section and it looks like I chopped off one line too many.

What a joke! I leave out one word and you throw a little hissy fit and yet Nancy Pelosi leaves out that she doesn't support NAMBLA, and you defend her to the hilt!

Oh, you zany liberals!

Quote:

I am sure you will meet many nastier posters than I...

No, I am not sure that I will (see your comments to LSM at the beginning of this post for reference). When it comes to the subject of nastiness, quite on the contrary, I think you rise to the top.

Quote:

I would seriously hope so. I do not generally aim to be nasty at all, but the kind of egregious and gutter stuff that you and the madam did here (albeit you in a much less direct manner than the madam) does unleash a very fierce side, particularly as you contort and twist reason in an attempt to defend it.

And thus you can only prove your protests empty as you laugh and make fun of a poster here that is directly interacting with you. I'm not flaming you here, I'm making an honest evaluation.

Quote:

I frankly find it hard to believe you about the word you left out, as it was in the midst of the misquote you posted.

If your error was unintentional, well and good. You will, perhaps, understand my scepticism.

It was unintentional, I devoted a separate posting to that point by itself, and the only think I understand is your blind loyalty to a total stranger who shares your same political beliefs and values.

Quote:

Did you think pointing out your dishonesty was a hissy fit? Hmmmm, I suspect you haven't seen too many hissy fits if you did. Believe me, I have wasted no emotion on it

If calling people names is "wasting no emotion", then you're being honest. It has been my experience, that most people would be upset when they resort to calling names.

Quote:

if I were to waste emotion on your posts, it would be on your repetition of your baseless sliming, once again, of Pelosi. I assume an affectation of believing your slime is a part of the persona you wish to present here, as I really cannot believe you truly still adhere to its truth. I also put down to a wish to bait your "zany liberal" comment. Juvenile baiting I do not consider worth responding to, as it is silly, not a serious and baseless accusation agsinst someone, so bait away. You may find someone who will rise to it and give you whatever pleasure people obtain through such stuff.

Not impressed. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who excuses a reprehensible and indefensible personal attack on someone they interact with has no room to accuse anyone else of a baseless attack, particularly when it is not baseless.

Actually, I think the toothless obese thing is very rude...though I do not know that it has actually been posted here except by the madam herself.


My snort proved nothing except that I think the madam is lying by pretending not to understand that the thread is satire...it is another example of the sort of mendacious insinuating stuff she does.....the bestiality thread is a direct satirical response to the slime you and the madam have spread, and is laughing at your idiotic obstinacy and failure of integrity in refusing to admit your error. I doubt you seriously conflate the two, I think this is just more trollish posturing.

So, enjoy your posturing.




Unlike you, the people on that thread are capable of separating reality from silly sliming and posturing.

Where does it call the madam a toothless whatsit, btw?


If you think I am nasty, I shan't shed tears. Cease sliming, and you will cease to see a nasty response. Your sort of gross slander deserves a fierce response. It is unforgivable.

I shall make fun of illogical slimers.

I have not partaken of attacks on the madam as a toothless whatsit, so again you are doing your sliming sneaky lying.....it is a tactic I note you very fond of. Has it not been challenged before on other boards? You keep seeming to think you will get away with it. You won't,


Your final comment? See above for how you have again, as with your baseless sliming of Pelosi, attempted to attribute to an opponent something which they have not said.

You will need to cease this sleazy and transparent tactic if you wish actually to engage in useful debate here.




Re your following post:


Please see the exposure of your attempts to lie about me and what I have said above. Repeating your lie will not make it true.


Really, what is your pleasure in this? Seriously? You are exposed, your lies fool nobody. Are you really just a troll? I have been wondering.

Robert Lawrence "Larry" Trask (November 10, 1944 - March 27, 2004) was Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sussex and an authority on Basque language and historical linguistics.

He was an authority on the Basque language: his book The history of Basque (1997) is an essential reference on diachronic Basque linguistics and probably the best introduction to Basque linguistics as a whole. He was at work compiling an etymological dictionary of that language when he died. He was also an authority on historical linguistics, and had written about the problem of the origin of language.

He also published two introductory books to linguistics: Language: The basics (1995) and Introducing Linguistics (coauthored with Bill Mayblin) (2000), and several dictionaries on different topics of this science: A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics (1993), A dictionary of phonetics and phonology (1996), A student's dictionary of language and linguistics (1997), Key concepts in language and linguistics (1999), The dictionary of historical and comparative linguistics (2000) and The Penguin dictionary of English grammar (2000).

October 2006 | 127 » Special report » Myths of British ancestry Buy Issue
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands

Good thing you spoke up, McG - your silence on the matter had been noted, and you were very suspect.

Dang it, O'Bill - how do you expect to maintain an empty yammering exchange with the likes of LSM if you are going to insist on measured and cogent explanations of your views? C'mon, play fair!