--- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: <snip> > > > > Pompous Ass List: > > > > Barry > > > > Doug > > > > Vaj > > > > > > > > Chime in folks. > > > > > > Sal, of course (although she's more stupid than > > > pompous *per se*). > > > do.rkflex > > > Bhairitu, at times > > > Ruth, at times > > > Edg, at times > > > geezerfreak > > > sattvadude > > > > Yikes! My spam filter is about to explode. > > > > Stupid list: > > Sal > > > Sal's not stupid, she just doesn't play be the same > rules of engagement that some others play by.
Well, that's one way of putting it. I guess you could characterize not caring about facts or logic or fairness or honesty as "not playing by the same rules of engagement that some others play by." E.g.: Confusing Wagner's Brunnhilde with the historical Brunhilda of Austrasia; characterizing the widespread outrage at Obama's wildly homophobic courtroom defense of DOMA as "insane fantasies" of "fringe [read: gay] bloggers." Just the two most recent examples of the genre.
