Re: How low can you sink? [WAS: Re: HAARP: High Frequency Active

On May 18, 3:00=A0pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 18, 2:43=A0pm, "Tom Checksmix" <cereal_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > ~~~~~~~~Perhaps civility, then. =A0You're a jerk, and pretending to be
a=

> > socialist doesn't remove any of the jerkdom, you're still a jerk.
>
> Well, that's a strange one, civility. Holmes and Walters,
> pusillanimous pseudo-socialists, charge I committed a *political*
> atrocity whose boundaries they refuse to define. It is simply self-
> evident to these cretinous post-reformists. At least I understand
> their general point. But what does civility have to do with it? That
> what I am saying personally offends homo***uals participating in this
> discussion? That's how civility, normally construed, would fit in.
> Apart from the irrelevance of this consideration, I was unaware there
> were such participants currently. The anti-conspirativism could be
> deemed uncivil to vngelis, I suppose. Nobody seemed to object, except
> Holmes, who in fact added a wholly gratuitious personal insult
> directed toward vngelis. So much for the objectivity of the craven
> pseudo-socialists.
>
> Strange also to justify your misrepresentation by the target's lack of
> civility. It shows some lack of sense of pro****tion.
>
> srd

Hey! WhaddaIsay? I actually used to be 'civil', meaning *political*
toward vngelis, even with his view immigrants. Clearly he never
returned the favor so I stopped, what was the point. That I think your
position toward homo***uality is basically as Tom here indicates
should go without saying, but I will since YOU raised it. I haven'
attacked you on your anti-gay bigotry (which you view as a sound
Fraudian analyis, of course) in years. I dropped it. You raised it
again.

D.