John A. Quayle
blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Thu Feb 5 16:54:40 MST 2009
At 12:30 PM 2/5/2009, Ernie Lane wrote:
>John A. Quayle wrote:
>>>This is so far out in left field that only the people who not only wear
>>>tinfoil hats, they're too tight, could believe this. And, since you
>>>posted this without comment, you obviously do.
>> */You obviously cannot read English, either. What language can
>> you comprehend? Give me a choice so that the next time I can write _YOU_
>> _DECIDE_ in whatever form of communication has meaning for you. There
>> was no comment from me because it's _YOU_ who must decide whether this
>> item is legit or not. That's what _YOU_ _DECIDE_ really means. Think you
>> got it? I hope so. Run along and play now.......remember to stay out of
>Don't give me that crap.
Okay, what sort of crap would you prefer, then?
>People on political mailing lists who tend to nothing more than post
>articles without any comment of their own do so because they are incapable
>of doing so.
Woah, big boy.................we DON'T need to go there! Let's not
cast aspersions over who has more intellect or who can communicate and who
cannot. That is about as pointless as comparing shoe sizes.
>They don't make comment because they have nothing to say.
Or MAYBE no commentary is necessary....................
>Your reply to me makes the clear implication that these kinds of things
>have to be forwarded because the other members of the list just don't see
>stuff like that unless someone posts it. That's just not the case. Almost
>by definition, the people here and on similar lists are interested in
>politics, almost political junkies. Depending on our political leanings
>may influence whether or not we believe something, but we do see other
>stuff, you know.
You also have a delete key on your keyboard........................
>This particular case isn't all that much different from posting an article
>that talks about how 9-11 was a government conspiracy; it's posted for the
>reader "decide whether this item is legit or not."
Well, what's wrong with honing counter arguments?!? Although
nobody posted any such thing on this list, I see nothing wrong with kicking
the subject around to formulate a solid, concise, compelling response, if
anyone is so moved.
>I suppose that some things call out for exposure, might provide a
>legitimate "opposing view" or stimulate thought. This thing about the
>White House contemplating that the military take a personal oath to Obama
>is not. It's crazy.
A) The man has an enormous ego.
B) He long ago sold his soul to Saul Alinsky, a radical punk agitator.
C) Obama drips contempt for traditional American values.
But, okay..........this was a satire
piece. Alright...............move on. None of us is here to be scolded or
talked down to, so get off your high horse before you get a nosebleed from
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk