On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:27:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>Start
>him out selling roses at the airport or whatever it is that the
>Kibology neophytes do to earn their robes.

Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
Thanks for helping out.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:01:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>That begs the question of whether or Kibologists can recognize
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>nonsense when they write it.

You don't really know what that expression means, do you? It sure does
make you sound schmart, though.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:58:43 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:08:12 -0400, (David
>DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>Tony Cooper > wrote:
>>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:43:22 -0400, wrote:
>>>>Tony Cooper > wrote:
>>>>>You missed your chance. "Purl Gurl" would have been a top draft
>>>>>choice for your group. She was here for a while, posted nothing but
>>>>>nonsense
>>>>
>>>>She's no good to us then. Posting nonsense selectively is key.
>>>
>>>That begs the question of whether or Kibologists can recognize
>>>nonsense when they write it.
>>
>>That's why you -check your facts- before posting the nonsense. If there's
>>nothing there to show you recognize it's nonsense, you have to do it over.
>
>Ah, I see. (Despite the awkward construction of your sentence.) The
>practicing Kibologist assiduously determines that his nonsense is
>truly nonsense in order not to inadvertently post something factual.
>Do I have this right?
>
>Of course, I do understand that - if I have this down correctly - you
>cannot answer this question truthfully without breaking a Kibology
>Kommandment. Your answer would have to be nonsense that has been
>pre-checked to avoid factual basis. Unless, of course, you
>demonstrate that you know what you've replied to be nonsense and
>therefore invalidate the answer.
>
>At least, as far as religions go, you have a step up on other
>organized religions. They don't seem to be required to recognize or
>acknowledge nonsense.

Aren't you the bozo who spent three paragraphs detailing how LITTLE
you were interested in Kibology? Are you having trouble finding the
door?

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:31:36 -0400, wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:44:13 -0400, Marc Goodman
> wrote:
>
>>Otto Bahn wrote:
>>> I should, however, explain the different types of trolls.
>>> Kibologists are gentleman trolls -- it is only a practical
>>> joke which we eventually reveal to you.
>>
>>Personally, I view it as community service, much like picking
>>up trash by the side of the road. Once someone has been
>>trolled by a Kibologist, they're far less likely to be
>>a pompous asshole in the future.
>
>Post proof or retract!
>>
It's a flawed premise to begin with. Neither CAL nor D*nk were ever
pompous.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:24:25 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:01:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>>That begs the question of whether or Kibologists can recognize
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>nonsense when they write it.
>
>You don't really know what that expression means, do you? It sure doesn't
>make you sound schmart.

IFYPFY.

BW

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:31:31 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:31:36 -0400, wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:44:13 -0400, Marc Goodman
> wrote:
>>
>>>Otto Bahn wrote:
>>>> I should, however, explain the different types of trolls.
>>>> Kibologists are gentleman trolls -- it is only a practical
>>>> joke which we eventually reveal to you.
>>>
>>>Personally, I view it as community service, much like picking
>>>up trash by the side of the road. Once someone has been
>>>trolled by a Kibologist, they're far less likely to be
>>>a pompous asshole in the future.
>>
>>Post proof or retract!
>>>
>It's a flawed premise to begin with. Neither CAL nor D*nk were ever
>pompous.

Yabbut what about Duhg Kanter? Huh? Huh?

BW

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:24:25 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:01:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>>That begs the question of whether or Kibologists can recognize
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>nonsense when they write it.
>
>You don't really know what that expression means, do you? It sure does
>make you sound schmart, though.

That particular phase is often discussed in the newsgroup I read. It
was inserted as an "in joke" for the alt.usage.english readers. I
briefly thought of writing "Kilbologists write nonsense because they
can only recognize nonsense", but I thought that might be too circular
for y'all.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:23:33 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:27:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>>Start
>>him out selling roses at the airport or whatever it is that the
>>Kibology neophytes do to earn their robes.
>
>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>Thanks for helping out.

I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
making the accusation of pomposity.
--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:16:23 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:23:33 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:27:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>
>>>Start
>>>him out selling roses at the airport or whatever it is that the
>>>Kibology neophytes do to earn their robes.
>>
>>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>>Thanks for helping out.
>
>I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
>wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
>making the accusation of pomposity.

Because it couldn't possibly be that Kevin was away from his computer
for the entire holiday weekend, could it?

Tony, can you get any more pompous and unoriginal? Let's see you rise
to the challenge, kiddo!

BW

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:55 -0400, wrote:

>>>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>>>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>>>Thanks for helping out.
>>
>>I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
>>wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
>>making the accusation of pomposity.
>
>Because it couldn't possibly be that Kevin was away from his computer
>for the entire holiday weekend, could it?
>
I understand. You feel that Kevin can be that pompous without giving
the phrasing lengthy thought. I agree with you.

--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:52:19 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:55 -0400, wrote:
>
>>>>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>>>>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>>>>Thanks for helping out.
>>>
>>>I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
>>>wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
>>>making the accusation of pomposity.
>>
>>Because it couldn't possibly be that Kevin was away from his computer
>>for the entire holiday weekend, could it?
>>
>>Tony, can you get any more pompous and unoriginal? Let's see you rise
>>to the challenge, kiddo!
>
>I understand. You feel that Kevin can be that pompous without giving
>the phrasing lengthy thought. I agree with you.

Nice try, but you didn't use quite enough "big" words, though the
awkward rhythm of the phrase "lengthy thought" gives you a C rather
than a C-minus.

BW

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:31:36 -0400, wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:44:13 -0400, Marc Goodman
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Otto Bahn wrote:
>>>> I should, however, explain the different types of trolls.
>>>> Kibologists are gentleman trolls -- it is only a practical
>>>> joke which we eventually reveal to you.
>>> Personally, I view it as community service, much like picking
>>> up trash by the side of the road. Once someone has been
>>> trolled by a Kibologist, they're far less likely to be
>>> a pompous asshole in the future.
>> Post proof or retract!
> It's a flawed premise to begin with. Neither CAL nor D*nk were ever
> pompous.
>

There is a multitude of things that neither of them ever were.

Humorous, for one.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> It's a flawed premise to begin with. Neither CAL nor D*nk were ever
>> pompous.
>>
>
> There is a multitude of things that neither of them ever were.
>
> Humorous, for one.

CAL was better than D@nk, though. Other than his burning obsession
with Kevin SWilson, he at least tried to fit in. With some work,
he might have made a reasonable ottoman or end table. And, he
finally gave up and went away which makes him a zillion zillion times
better than D@nk.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> Three whole paragraphs to express your lack of interest in Kibology.
> One only hope that you never become interested.
>

Three glasses of wine or four?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:08:21 -0400, wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:52:19 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:55 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>>>>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>>>>>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>>>>>Thanks for helping out.
>>>>
>>>>I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
>>>>wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
>>>>making the accusation of pomposity.
>>>
>>>Because it couldn't possibly be that Kevin was away from his computer
>>>for the entire holiday weekend, could it?
>>>
>>>Tony, can you get any more pompous and unoriginal? Let's see you rise
>>>to the challenge, kiddo!
>>
>>I understand. You feel that Kevin can be that pompous without giving
>>the phrasing lengthy thought. I agree with you.
>
>Nice try, but you didn't use quite enough "big" words, though the
>awkward rhythm of the phrase "lengthy thought" gives you a C rather
>than a C-minus.

While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.

So many of the posts written by an ARKist decry other people's alleged
pomposity and lack of humor. However, I've yet to see any post from a
member of this group that displays any wit, humor, or even cleverness.
Mostly they are pursed-lipped asnides at the most pedestrian level of
"I guess I told *him*!" repartee as the waspish Barbara is wont to
write.

Kevin, at least, attempts wordplay, but with the dexterity of a Polar
Bear twisting a Rubik's Cube and the stiffness of a high school dance
chaperone trying to boogie down with the kids. Marc (Yesterday I
couldn't spell "sphincter" and today I are one) Goodman can only
manage biteless sarcasm and indicates where he thinks his really
*good* stuff is by typing it in upper case.

C'mon people, if you don't have first team, stay on your own pitch.








--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:09:51 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:08:21 -0400, wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:52:19 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:55 -0400, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>>>>>>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>>>>>>Thanks for helping out.
>>>>>
>>>>>I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
>>>>>wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
>>>>>making the accusation of pomposity.
>>>>
>>>>Because it couldn't possibly be that Kevin was away from his computer
>>>>for the entire holiday weekend, could it?
>>>>
>>>>Tony, can you get any more pompous and unoriginal? Let's see you rise
>>>>to the challenge, kiddo!
>>>
>>>I understand. You feel that Kevin can be that pompous without giving
>>>the phrasing lengthy thought. I agree with you.
>>
>>Nice try, but you didn't use quite enough "big" words, though the
>>awkward rhythm of the phrase "lengthy thought" gives you a C rather
>>than a C-minus.
>
>While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
>scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
>fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.

Oh, much better in terms of pomposity and lack of originality. When
your pride gets stung, you do puff up and blow hard, don't you?

BW

On 2006-09-02, Alan Truism > wrote:

> It is well documented in the children's book series _Trog and Foad_

Why do you need to terminate redundant option generators before you
can run fsck on all disks? (I need to know, um, for a report I'm
writing.)

--
The dark smell of dankness grew stronger and stronger.
[G.P. Taylor]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:57:07 -0400, wrote:

>>While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
>>scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
>>fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.
>
>Oh, much better in terms of pomposity and lack of originality. When
>your pride gets stung, you do puff up and blow hard, don't you?
>
Yes, but when your pride is pricked you just blow.

--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

"Tony Cooper" > wrote

>>>While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
>>>scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
>>>fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>>>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>>>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.
>>
>>Oh, much better in terms of pomposity and lack of originality. When
>>your pride gets stung, you do puff up and blow hard, don't you?
>>
> Yes, but when your pride is pricked you just blow.

Crikey!

--oTTo--

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:39:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:57:07 -0400, wrote:
>
>>>While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
>>>scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
>>>fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>>>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>>>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.
>>
>>Oh, much better in terms of pomposity and lack of originality. When
>>your pride gets stung, you do puff up and blow hard, don't you?
>>
>Yes,

It is gracious of you to admit it.

>but when your pride is pricked you just blow.

I have no pride.

Considering the way youve been trying to ride two horses at once in
this thread and making such a poor showing, I hope you don't either.
If you're trying to ride two horses at once, it helps to make sure
they aren't going in opposite directions. Unless you're a clown, of
course, in which case it's part of the fun.

BW

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:36:33 -0400, wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:39:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:57:07 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>>>While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
>>>>scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
>>>>fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>>>>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>>>>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.
>>>
>>>Oh, much better in terms of pomposity and lack of originality. When
>>>your pride gets stung, you do puff up and blow hard, don't you?
>>>
>>Yes,
>
>It is gracious of you to admit it.
>
>>but when your pride is pricked you just blow.
>
>I have no pride.

It would be unkind of me to say you have no reason to.

>Considering the way youve been trying to ride two horses at once in
>this thread and making such a poor showing, I hope you don't either.
>If you're trying to ride two horses at once, it helps to make sure
>they aren't going in opposite directions. Unless you're a clown, of
>course, in which case it's part of the fun.
>
You people are so inconsistent. First you say that horsing around by
posting nonsense is an approved activity, and then you dismount from
that position and try to saddle me with accusations of being a stunt
rider. Just when I had the bit in my teeth, too. I think you're
trying to snaffle my unbridled enthusiasm. I'll have to rein that in
and not try to use fancy words when responding to you. That way the
rein will fall manely on the plain.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:54:09 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:36:33 -0400, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:39:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:57:07 -0400, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
>>>>>scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
>>>>>fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>>>>>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>>>>>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, much better in terms of pomposity and lack of originality. When
>>>>your pride gets stung, you do puff up and blow hard, don't you?
>>>>
>>>Yes,
>>
>>It is gracious of you to admit it.
>>
>>>but when your pride is pricked you just blow.
>>
>>I have no pride.
>
>It would be unkind of me to say you have no reason to.
>
>>Considering the way youve been trying to ride two horses at once in
>>this thread and making such a poor showing, I hope you don't either.
>>If you're trying to ride two horses at once, it helps to make sure
>>they aren't going in opposite directions. Unless you're a clown, of
>>course, in which case it's part of the fun.
>>
>You people are so inconsistent. First you say that horsing around by
>posting nonsense is an approved activity, and then you dismount from
>that position and try to saddle me with accusations of being a stunt
>rider. Just when I had the bit in my teeth, too. I think you're
>trying to snaffle my unbridled enthusiasm. I'll have to rein that in
>and not try to use fancy words when responding to you. That way the
>rein will fall manely on the plain.

OOOOH -- Tony doesn't realize everything's allowed -- SHINY!

--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"My dog ate my gratitude journal." -- Paula

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:39:23 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:24:25 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:01:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>
>>>That begs the question of whether or Kibologists can recognize
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>nonsense when they write it.
>>
>>You don't really know what that expression means, do you? It sure does
>>make you sound schmart, though.
>
>That particular phase is often discussed in the newsgroup I read. It
>was inserted as an "in joke" for the alt.usage.english readers. I
>briefly thought of writing "Kilbologists write nonsense because they
>can only recognize nonsense", but I thought that might be too circular
>for y'all.

So Orlando, do you run one of the rides at Disney World, or do they
put you in costume? I'll bet you're Chip, or maybe Snow White.
Forebear, I digress ...

--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"My dog ate my gratitude journal." -- Paula



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:15:57 -0400, Marc Goodman wrote:

>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>> It's a flawed premise to begin with. Neither CAL nor D*nk were ever
>>> pompous.
>>>
>>
>> There is a multitude of things that neither of them ever were.
>>
>> Humorous, for one.
>
>CAL was better than D@nk, though. Other than his burning obsession
>with Kevin SWilson, he at least tried to fit in. With some work,
>he might have made a reasonable ottoman or end table. And, he
>finally gave up and went away which makes him a zillion zillion times
>better than D@nk.

You're summoning him, just by writing someone was a zillion zillion
times better than he. He'll call you obsessed, or a pro, or ask to
sniff your panties. Mebbe he'll brag on his fleet of Beamers again.
It's like summoning Candyman, you know.

--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"My dog ate my gratitude journal." -- Paula


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:09:03 -0400, Chris McGonnell
> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:54:09 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:36:33 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:39:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:57:07 -0400, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>While this invasion of crossposts posts from ARK fits on the amusement
>>>>>>scale right up there with an anthill and a stick, there are some
>>>>>>fascinating revelations to be gleaned. Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>>>>>>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>>>>>>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, much better in terms of pomposity and lack of originality. When
>>>>>your pride gets stung, you do puff up and blow hard, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>Yes,
>>>
>>>It is gracious of you to admit it.
>>>
>>>>but when your pride is pricked you just blow.
>>>
>>>I have no pride.
>>
>>It would be unkind of me to say you have no reason to.
>>
>>>Considering the way youve been trying to ride two horses at once in
>>>this thread and making such a poor showing, I hope you don't either.
>>>If you're trying to ride two horses at once, it helps to make sure
>>>they aren't going in opposite directions. Unless you're a clown, of
>>>course, in which case it's part of the fun.
>>>
>>You people are so inconsistent. First you say that horsing around by
>>posting nonsense is an approved activity, and then you dismount from
>>that position and try to saddle me with accusations of being a stunt
>>rider. Just when I had the bit in my teeth, too. I think you're
>>trying to snaffle my unbridled enthusiasm. I'll have to rein that in
>>and not try to use fancy words when responding to you. That way the
>>rein will fall manely on the plain.
>
>OOOOH -- Tony doesn't realize everything's allowed -- SHINY!

He also has no idea what I meant about trying to ride two horses at
once. There goes the idea that people who post to alt.usage.english
are familiar with common figures of speech AND can use their giant
branes to understand them in context.

I guess I shouldn't generalize to all the folks there. I'm sure there
are some who could figure it out. Maybe even Tony could if he would
let go of one or two of his fiercely held preconceptions.

Should I give him a hint?

BW

> wrote

> Should I give him a hint?

Let's take a vote. I, for one, am going to abstain.

--oTTo--

"YHBT. YHL. HTH. HAND."

-- Kevin Swilson

[summoning the left side of the bell curve]

No cluons were harmed when Chris McGonnell
> wrote:
> It's like summoning Candyman, you know.

"Candyland! Candyland! Candyland!"

<whump!>
killed by an avalanche from the big rock candy mountain.
</whump!>


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:12:52 -0400, Chris McGonnell
> wrote:

>So Orlando, do you run one of the rides at Disney World, or do they
>put you in costume? I'll bet you're Chip, or maybe Snow White.
>Forebear, I digress ...

Still waiting for the first team. Exhibition season is over, you
know.
--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:16:23 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:23:33 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:27:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>
>>>Start
>>>him out selling roses at the airport or whatever it is that the
>>>Kibology neophytes do to earn their robes.
>>
>>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>>Thanks for helping out.
>
>I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
>wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
>making the accusation of pomposity.

Leaving us to wonder why you would find a 4-day absence from Usenet
the least bit remarkable, and why you would think you've come up with
a compelling explanation for such an absence.

You must be a friend of Bill Palmer.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:29:18 -0400, wrote:

>
>He also has no idea what I meant about trying to ride two horses at
>once.

So you have a Specter of doubt? Are you Borking me?

--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:55 -0400, wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:16:23 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:23:33 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:27:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Start
>>>>him out selling roses at the airport or whatever it is that the
>>>>Kibology neophytes do to earn their robes.
>>>
>>>Selling roses isn't necessary. It's sufficient to goad pompous
>>>know-it-alls into demonstrating their pomposity and know-it-allitude.
>>>Thanks for helping out.
>>
>>I assume that the reason it took you four days to reply is that you
>>wanted to work on your phrasing to sound as pompous as possible when
>>making the accusation of pomposity.
>
>Because it couldn't possibly be that Kevin was away from his computer
>for the entire holiday weekend, could it?

Tony ought to get some new blades for that Occam-brand Razor.

>Tony, can you get any more pompous and unoriginal? Let's see you rise
>to the challenge, kiddo!
>
Oh, he will, I'm sure -- get more pompous and unoriginal, that is. And
he'll do so quickly, now that you've ordered him to.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:09:51 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>Well, maybe not "fascinating",
>but at least more interesting than reading the ingredients listed on a
>"Baby Ruth" bar's wrapper.

Um, Tiny? That thing you found in the wading pool is NOT a Baby Ruth
bar. Please put it down.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

"Tony Cooper" > wrote

>>So Orlando, do you run one of the rides at Disney World, or do they
>>put you in costume? I'll bet you're Chip, or maybe Snow White.
>>Forebear, I digress ...
>
> Still waiting for the first team. Exhibition season is over, you
> know.

?!

Exhibitionists don't have a season. Granted there are fewer
in winter, so if anything it is exhibition season right now.

--oTTo--

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:09:51 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>Mostly they are pursed-lipped asnides at the most pedestrian level of
>"I guess I told *him*!" repartee as the waspish Barbara is wont to
^^^^^^^
>write.

How do you do it, Barbara? Only a half-dozen posts, yet Tiny here has
you living in Greenwich, Connecticut, wearing comfortable pumps,
cashmere cardigans, wide-wale cords, and an understated herringbone
gold necklace while you flip through the pages of the latest New
Yorker and think idly about having an early-afternoon martini.

Either you're a subtly evil genius, or Tiny has been google-stalking
you.

PS: HEH! HEH! He said "wont."

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

Otto Bahn wrote:

> Exhibitionists don't have a season. Granted there are fewer
> in winter,

Or, at least, smaller.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:54:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>You people are so inconsistent. First you say that horsing around by
>posting nonsense is an approved activity, and then you dismount from
>that position and try to saddle me with accusations of being a stunt
>rider. Just when I had the bit in my teeth, too. I think you're
>trying to snaffle my unbridled enthusiasm. I'll have to rein that in
>and not try to use fancy words when responding to you. That way the
>rein will fall manely on the plain.

Puns?

PUNS?

Have pity, Barbara. Stop before he regresses to "IKYABWAI?"

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

"shelly" > wrote

>> Exhibitionists don't have a season. Granted there are fewer
>> in winter,
>
> Or, at least, smaller.

And sometimes perkier!

--oTTo--

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:29:18 -0400, wrote:

>Should I give him a hint?

You could start by informing him that calling you a slut -- no matter
how flowery the language with which he does it -- demonstrates his
lack of originality like nothing else possibly can. He follows in the
footsteps of the Masters of Unoriginality: CAL and D*nk.

I'm tempted to morph into "Karen" just to see how long it would take
before he starts calling me a slut.

--
If we could live without passion maybe we'd know some kind of peace, but we
would be hollow. Empty rooms, shuttered and dank. Without passion we'd be truly dead.
--David Boreanaz as Angel in "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"

On 6 Sep 2006 12:43:26 GMT, Terri > wrote:

>Just for you though:
>
>Repost:
>Message-ID: >
>From: David Pacheco >

Terri, Terri, Terri.

Two words: Pearls. Swine.

--
If we could live without passion maybe we'd know some kind of peace, but we
would be hollow. Empty rooms, shuttered and dank. Without passion we'd be truly dead.
--David Boreanaz as Angel in "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:39:23 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:24:25 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:01:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>>
>>>That begs the question of whether or Kibologists can recognize
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>nonsense when they write it.
>>
>>You don't really know what that expression means, do you? It sure does
>>make you sound schmart, though.
>
>That particular phase is often discussed in the newsgroup I read. It
>was inserted as an "in joke" for the alt.usage.english readers. I
>briefly thought of writing "Kilbologists write nonsense because they
>can only recognize nonsense", but I thought that might be too circular
>for y'all.
>
>
Another words, "I meant to do that."

Uh-huh. Right. Got ya.

--
If we could live without passion maybe we'd know some kind of peace, but we
would be hollow. Empty rooms, shuttered and dank. Without passion we'd be truly dead.
--David Boreanaz as Angel in "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"