|
|
"Dave Watson" <aj153@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ee9748$ca9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| George Johnson wrote:
| > "Dave Watson" <aj153@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:ee91p6$9jt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > [chuckles]
| >
| > | You are a wanker. And you would still be a wanker even if your
opinions
| > | were perfectly matched with the general opinions in RAAM. We are
smart
| > | enough to understand what you write. We are also adjusted wnough to
not
| > | sound like a puffed-up wanker whenever we write. "Are you so readily
| > | perched upon your personal monuments of opinion that all contrary
| > | opinions must be dashed at the rocks of terse dismissal?" is a
sentence
| > | that makes even most intelligent people (like myself) grit their teeth
| > | or shake their heads because of the irritating combination of
| > | pretentiousness and condescension (there, some big words, just for
you;
| > | happy now?). In short--pure wankerspeak. Also, constantly referring
to
| > | yourself as "myself" where the word "I" should go is also pretentious.
| > | That's what bugs Phyrie. And the rest of us. So you have managed do
| > | develop an extensive English vocabulary. Well, guess what? It looks
| > | like you did it at the expense of your social skills. Go away and
| > | develop those, and then we'll take you seriously.
| >
| > You seem to lack the ability to compose complex sentences.
| >
| > You do know that writers need to have the most basic skill of being
able
| > to write the same basic sentence in a minimum of 15 different ways?
| > Perhaps, no.
| >
| > Well. Another skill is the ability to change the structure of their
| > wording in such a manner that a phrase can amble about casually with
words
| > frolicking about to force their readers to think in a differing tempo.
They
| > may even use crude tricksy to force a reader to reread a phrase by
slipping
| > in a deliberate typo. As the brain backtracks to figure out what was
| > "supposed to be there" the writer has tricked the reader into rereading
a
| > phrase by blipping on a deliberate typo.
| >
| > Sometimes I'll just tack in a cumbersome phrase just to force a
person
| > to slow down and think a bit. Even the most basic writing can be a
tango of
| > play if the writer has a moderate level of skill, they say. Perchance
to
| > dance with the lance of parlance? Perhaps you merely negatively want to
be
| > as a nein? A mere sayer of "Nay!" A mind without complexity or maybe
an
| > idiom without causation. You fear I would drown in the depths of your
| > character and I find myself dreading at worst moist toes.
| >
| > Be interested getting obvious loud dirty things in the first letters
of
| > wry sentence letters overtly verbally encoded.
| >
| > Possibly a rude answer needs only inserted depth.
| >
| > Boldly enact serious mumblings around retorts typed evidently
rapidly
| > pushing loose egotistical arrogant scolding everyone. Seriously, I take
| > overly not, objections in turmoil tossing wrong inferences together.
|
| A: I wrote my post not long after I woke up, hence the occasional
| finger slip.
| B: You've done nothing except prove my point vividly--you're a wanker,
| plain and simple.
| --
Oh dear, oh dear... time to downshift into "sassy British teen with a
7th grade education" mode.
After all of your prattling on I find that goodness sakes, you were the
naffed off jellyfish that piddled on me first. I merely gave tit for twat
so piss off you sad sack. Personally I am of the opinion you need a good
scutch on the willy to snap you out of the vinegar strokes you currently are
squirting.
Dear oh me, I do so find you a obtuse gimboid for all of your
knackering. So be a good chap and keep your pecker up more often to avoid
the chill of being caught in the daft.
Now move along, ninny.
Have you never seen a place for pissing about toon yakking?
Mind the line as you're toe over it now.
|
|