Re: Land of the Free

gekko wrote:
Tra-la-la-la Fiddle-dee-dee-dee it gives me a thrill, to read "Bob
(this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> when they're posting on
misc.writing-ingbird hill:



gekko wrote:

"Bob(this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote


gekko wrote:


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> scribebat:


gekko wrote:


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> scribebat:


gekko wrote:


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> scribebat:


gekko wrote:

You're still wrong. You said, "She absolutely *didn't*
identify herself as a representative of anyone but herself."

But she absolutely *did*. She said "As a VA nurse" thus
identifying herself as an employee of the VA.

I know that "representative' is a big word and I sympathize
with your difficulties...

How *you* view it is not the issue, Slurpeee.

<LOL> Right. It's how *you* view it that's important.

Well, no, Bubbles. All that is important here, which is what
I've been saying consistently in spite of your lies to the
contrary, is how her *employers* viewed it.

<LOL> You're guessing about that. They haven't really said.

[CHUCKLE] Well, yes, Bib. It's true that I'm guessing about
that. It's rife in every statement made so far, and matches
exactly the corporate and government employer mindset.


Lies?

Yes, Bub. Deliberate misstatements. Lies.


How easily the lubrication for your self-justification comes
to your pen.

This bit of nonsense is, to you, "content", yes? I'll bet you
think of it as "content" because it has a poetic feel to you. In
fact, I believe you felt a near sexual surge of satisfaction when
you wrote that, and probably reread it several times just to
extend the thrill.

Am I right?


I say she didn't identify herself as a "representative" of any organization; not my opinion, but from quoting her exact words
as printed in the paper.

But, Snuffles, she did. She identified herself as a
representative of the VA.

She identified herself as a "VA nurse." See what I mean about
your incomprehension?

You cling to this dense persona, Bif.

What you see is meaningless. What I see is meaningless. The
bare facts are meaningless. She's a witch if she floats.

What has meaning is that it takes one person with the right
contacts to see "representative of the VA" and, bam, regardless
of the truth of the matter, she becomes a de facto
representative. It is doubtless that which frightened her
employers -- that kind of thing happens rather more often than
poor ignorant little you can imagine.

It's a much more likely scenario than one in which the VA leaned
on her because they're sekret Bushie Kops and they want to quash
all freezed peach.


Neither she nor anyone else involved claimed she spoke for the
VA,

The claim was not necessary. That her employers *saw* her
identify herself as a VA nurse prompted them to investigate her,
in case anyone should consider her a representative speaking for
the organization.

That's nowhere in evidence. Not in the comments of the HR person
or any other participant. They knew she wasn't speaking for the
VA by the words she used in the context she presented.

What they "knew" is also irrelevant. Are you always this slow,
Babs?


They had other issues to contend with.

Well, yes. That is what I have been saying.


They looked into what she said, found it alarming
because it _could_ be taken as seditious, and checked it all out
before letting it subside.

Because it was clearly not seditious when actually examined.

Well, yes. That, too, is what I've been saying. So it slowly
dawns on you, eh?


Was
clearly not the position of the VA. Was clearly her opinion about
what damage people were suffering that she was seeing daily.


After examination, yes. Which is what I've said.


was giving the VA point of view, or was speaking about the VA.
No one but you has tried to pin that silly "representative"
business on her, and on rather spurious grounds, speculating
what might have gone through some bureaucrat's mind.

You say "she absolutely *did*" - which very closely looks
like<WHAP>

Ah. So because you're seeing things, that's what they must be,
eh, Bubbles?

Not really. Just quoting you in your absolute surety.

Nnno, you quoted me and then said "it looks like" and gave
something else. And that something elsel is what you've been
hanging your repetitive and stupid arguments on.


Which, I note you deleted to <WHAP>

Again, because you say so, it must be so?


Try to keep the answers a bit shor

Bwah. Sez the pontiff of streamingverbiage.

The difference, of course, is writing to topic with more in it
than merely supercilious diatribe

You mean all your self-serving "But I'm innocent, I tells ya!
Waaah" spewage? IOW, IAAB?

"Ah. So because you're seeing things, that's what they must be,
eh, Bubbles?"

But trying to paint yourself as a hapless victim of
"lies" is too weak, even for you. Even for you. Never stopped you
before, though...

So it's too weak for me, too weak for me, even for me, for me but
I apparently, according to you and you and you, do this too weak
even for me thing of a thing, which would tend to suggest that it
isn't too weak for me, even for me, since it's something I do? Do you bother to try to bite the *** you write, or do you just
sit back and admire the word, um, flow?

Hapless victim. [chuckle]

Bof, when you state an untruth, that's called a lie. It's
neither here nor there for *me* that you apparently feel
compelled to falsely restate my position, and I find it amusing
that you do so whilst bleating angrily against my sullying of
your character.

--------- end one post -------------

-----begin another post from today ---------
gekko wrote:

Skip this part. It's only an attribution telling you that "Bob
(this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:45nc7fF7c200U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:


So your game is to post *** you don't really believe but
insist on anyway - your version of "fact."

"Your game is to post"

The only factual segment.

"***"

Subjective. My words are golden. Yours are ***. Etc.

"you don't really believe"

False. Fiction. Not borne out by anything in what I have
stated.

"but insist on anyway"

Subjectively false. Made up.

A paraphrase is a restatement. Making stuff up out of whole
cloth is not restatement. It's merely lies. Fiction.

So. Fact:

You jumped into a gang*** and compared Sylvia to Palmjob.

Demonstrably fact. Towse and Zen were gangfucking Sylvia. The
post to which you responded concerned something of Sylvia's. You compared that something of Sylvia's to something of
Palmer's.

That you didn't *intend* to jump into a gang*** and didn't
*intend* to draw that comparison is irrelevant. That's like
saying, after rear-ending a car, that you didn't *intend* to
slam into the back of the car.

Deal with it, Dribbles. Your mewling denial is stupid.

--------- end second post ----------

------- from a post of a few days ago-----
Gekko wrote:


Restoring the context that Bob "accidentally" left out:

Bob used his imagination again:

I love your magic wand... It completely changes reality.



and gekko wrote:
See. There's the thing. It seems to be a "magic" wand because you're too dim to grasp what it really is showing.

It [the magic wand Blob is imagining] doesn't change reality at all.

It's [the magic wand] my game, see? I turn on this computer, launch this newsreader, and the world dances according to my rules, my whims.

What's beautiful about it is that *you* play right along according to the rules I set up.

[Where the "rules" involve posting something true and guaranteed to wind Blob up so tight his lips get stuck in his ***, because he hates it when the truth shows him to be an ugly shithole. Like when he tries very hard to hurt someone by doing something he thinks makes them very very angry. Or when he lashes out, calling some gentle passive person ugly names because he completely misunderstands what they're saying, then gets all defensive when called on it.]

Time and again. Sometimes in direct, albeit whiny, longwinded, defensive, weepy rivlets of nothingness to my jabs, and sometimes you just pop in and gratify me on your own. Like I am a chocolate and you're in need of some isoflavones.

I state a fact, and you deliver your spew. Tick. Tock.

's'why I love you, Squicky. You're very predictable, very workable.


--------------- end post ---------------------


Recall that in response to this post, Bob made up the following "paraphrase":

"your game is to post *** you don't really believe"




'The Mask Of Sanity - the acclaimed study of the
psychopathic personality'
By Hervey Cleckley, Medical College of Georgia,
USA. (St. Louis, MO - USA: Mosby Press Medical Library,
1982) (New York: New American Library, ISBN
0-452-25341-1)

From the back cover of the book:

'Arrogant, shameless, immoral, impulsive, antisocial,
superficial, alert, self-assured, boastful, callous,
remorseless, charming, irresponsible:'

'This is the poisonous mix of traits, that make
up the psychopathic personality. [...]'

'Psychopaths also sit in corporate boardrooms [as
directors of companies or institutions,] or
function as scientists or physicians [medical
doctors,] or in any number of respectable
capacities [holding respected jobs or
positions].' --------------------
Quoted from:
'Detecting Criminal Minds By Their Intentional Omission Of Vital
Truth'
{HRI 20020819-V2.2.3}
(19 August 2002 - Version 2.2.3 on 12 May 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/53a97b173ef36
240?fwc=1

From the site:
<http://www.angelfire.com/space/platoworld/>

Pastorio


I'm sure you thought you had something from the snip of one of my posts. I'm also sure you weren't *really* intending to cover up any vital truth, there, by removing the words from the context.

It's a bad, bad thing to remove words so the original thought to which replies go is deleted. I'll make a note of that for future reference should we ever chance to meet again.

I restored the context for you and added a few notes to help you because you're failing in that comprehension thingie again.
>
I'll bet whatever you were hoping to show was a doozy, too. Shame that it fell so flat.

A pronouncement...

Here. Let me tighten those strings a bit. They're nearly as flaccid as your logic and your integrity.

"Arrogant, shameless, immoral, impulsive, antisocial, superficial, alert, self-assured, boastful, callous, remorseless, charming, irresponsible"

And could you try to shorten your posts a bit...? I mean, 13K of your prose...

Pastorio
.