--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], satvadude108 <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 13, 2008, at 2:16 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > His notion that he'd be able to waltz into the White > > > > House and have everybody sit down around a big table > > > > and make them feel so good about themselves that they'd > > > > stop being greedy and warlike and would be happily > > > > willing to restore the Constitution is a narcissistic > > > > fantasy. > > > > > > > > Moreover, he's not the progressive he pretends to be. > > > > If you look closely at his record and some of the > > > > things he says, his open disdain for the kind of > > > > battles progressives have been fighting for human rights > > > > and equal justice for decades, he isn't even pretending. > > > > > > Judy, in your intense dislike for Obama and your win-at- > > > all-costs strategy fantasy that you'd like Hillary to > > > pursue, you've become positively unhinged. > > > > > > Time for a vacation. See you in 5 days. :) > > I think you miscounted, Sal. According to the Yahoo > Message List (not the Advanced Search, which is > currently completely kaput), this is my 50th post > for the week. > > > Amazing isn't it? I'm not so sure that it > > is positively unhinged, but rather coldly > > and ruthlessly calculated. The more > > it is engaged in the wider the gap emerges > > between reality and manufactured spin. > > But "satvadude" will not enlighten us on exactly > what that gap he sees emerging is, or attempt > to make any distinctions between "reality and > manufactured spin."
The gap, as you already know, is your fabrication and distortion regarding the Obama campaign tactics. > > > You see thru the web of disinformation, > > But "satvadude" will decline to tell us where he > sees any disinformation. > > Nor, of course, will Sal deign to explain to us > where she sees anything "unhinged" about what I've > said. > > You know, speaking of intellectual dishonesty... > > Hey, Sal, how many millions of votes did you say > have been cast in the primaries so far? > > The two of you are a match made in...well, fill > in the blank. > > > thus the insults and vitriol. It never ends. > > Perhaps it is best to ignore. I find some small > > comedic value. Someone the other day sent to > > pretty funny site. It seems that some respected > > research scientist got into it with her for an > > extended period and wished to memorialize it. > > I laughed till I cried. > > As Lawson points out, Skolnick was not "some" (or > any) "respected research scientist." Apparently > your tears of laughter got in the way of reading > anything about who he is. He was the news editor > of JAMA. And at least among TMers, he is not > respected in the slightest--to the contrary, > primarily because he's deeply and maliciously > dishonest. > > Yes, he wished to "memorialize" his extraordinarily > twisted version of his debates with me on > alt.meditation.transcendental in such a way that > there could be no public comments on what he posted. > > Anyone who was actually there at the time will tell > you that what ended up on his Web site was not > exactly what you would call an honest representation. > The record of what *did* go on on alt.m.t is easily > available on Google, however, for anyone who would > like to check. > > > > > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ Yes, his memorial is quite humorous. Your posts here continue to show others why the Skolnick bell rings so true. You just can't help it. Pathological. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/171149 Re: was: WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvik authfriend : --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > You're relatively new here. We had a problem before you > arrived, and after much debate and discussion, decided to > try a posting quota as a solution. Most would agree that > it has improved FFL considerably. The problem it solved > was that there were petty arguments between a couple of > people which sometimes ran into hundreds of posts per week. No, they didn't. Don't be ridiculous. Other people felt compelled > to reply to nearly every post, even if only with one or two > words. That's not true either, The > volume of posts these things created was such that it was hard > to find the good stuff and those reading FFL with their web > browser couldn't easily scroll through the posts. Nonsense. Having to conform to a quota has also tended to > improve the quality of the thought and writing. That's a matter of opinion.
