a rear-mounted H-6 engine--like what Subaru uses--that weighed only 300 lbs
That was in the days when the average bare engine block alone weighed that much or more. Curb weight for a Tucker was 4200 lbs. It was a big car that would comfortably seat six adults.
Actually, Tucker was accused of fraud. He was operating on a shoe-string, compared to the Big 3, and some minor problems with his display model were blown way out of proportion. Then he was accused of insider stock trading by the SEC, which was never proven even though they tried him more than once. It was dirty politics all the way as his major political opponent, who pushed for all the investigations, was a Senator from Michigan with close ties to the Big 3.
Do some research at what the Big Three did to Tucker in the late 40's. He had a car that would do 120 mph, a rear-mounted H-6 engine--like what Subaru uses--that weighed only 300 lbs and had 116 bhp and 372 ft-lbs of torque, 0-60 times around 10 secs, got 20 mpg, had disk brakes, 4-wheel independent suspension, and great aerodynamics--drag coefficient of.27, along with many major safety innovations.
Tucker was decades ahead of his of time in car design and features. He envisioned 15 minute engine swaps if you had engine problems.
My old man lived in Michigan during that time and had brothers living and working in the Detroit car business. They all swore the Big 3 ran Tucker out of business, and were still talking about what happened to Tucker in the 60's. That's how I learned about Tucker automobiles as 10 year old kid.
Yeah, I had a '78 Chevy Monza that got 35mpg out on the highway and around 25mpg in town. It was a dog, performance-wise, but other than that I liked that car. It was a 70mph cruiser out on the highway. Much over that and the mpg started dropping off pretty quickly.
You can do this with Debian. You do a minimal install, and then add the packages you need after that. It's more difficult than a default desktop installation because you need to know what is required rather than have Debian make the choices for you, but it is very possible.
Read TFA please. The study was done with students at Cornell, who were asked to give their verdict after reading the closing arguments from the trial.
Yes, please read the article. The students were given the closing arguments, and the case study of the defendant. That's an important piece of information that you missed. Another important piece of information you missed was that the article also says in serious cases with strong evidence there was no statistical difference in conviction rates between ugly and beautiful people too.
All this study says to me is that, lacking strong evidence one way or the other, with respect to guilt or innocence, and in trivial cases, the jurors were unconsciously influenced by beauty. What a shocker. Who'd a thunk it? Humans are more attracted to beauty than ugliness?
How did I know that before this study came out? Do yah think this study only tells us what we've known about human nature for a few thousand years? What a waste of time and money.
Because I perceived you the way I did... as a douche bag who can't take a joke... Which you are...
So, what makes you any better? You attack people on nothing more than your admitted personal perceptions with no objective basis for your attacks. And you pronounce me a douche? I'll wear that like a badge of honor coming from you. I'll display my sense of humor by laughing about it with my wife.
Methinks you're the pot calling the kettle black. At least I can give solid reasons for my point of view. Your reasoning is, because I wanted to. How very mature of you.
Seems like the more you say, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
Any time you want to stop trading insults and talk about this rationally I'm more than willing. I just like to give as good as I get, and when I see someone making ad hominen attacks I tend to get involved. If you want to disagree with someone, do it. But, do it as a reasonable person, not some prick who can do nothing but insult the other person.
Who says that, exactly? Sure, you could find someone out there who thinks that 'all symbols of Christianity should be wiped out', but they're as dumb as you are. Certainly the ACLU has never said any such thing. Now, the ACLU HAS said that the government may not promote a religion, which I suspect you, in your adle-brained way, are trying (and failing) to say. And that's perfectly true. I don't see how in any way that is even the slightest bit hypocritical, though. It's not as if anyone in the Government has proposed putting up a giant monument that says FUCK on federal lands. If they had and if the ACLU had encouraged it, you'd kind of have a point. However, that has never happened. So, kid, you don't have a point. At all. And it's sad that you think you do.
You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. Where did I say that the ACLU did/does anything you allege I said?
I mentioned the ACLU taking up one case, and then in a separate paragraph go on to talk about lawsuits that have been filed, court decisions made, that restrict the right of the free expression of religion. How is that attacking the ACLU?
Have you lived without access to news for the last few decades? Have you missed every instance of atheists and agnostics filing lawsuits saying they were "offended" by Christian displays and the resulting court verdicts restricting the right to the free expression of religion? Did you miss the entire controversy about the cross honoring WWI veterans? Do you live in a black hole where news is concerned?
Where do you get the idea that I don't believe in a secular state? I've never said anything even close to that. All I did was state what the founders did, and what they did show how they saw the meanings of their own words.
The only conclusion anyone can come to is that the ideas expressed in the Constitution by those who wrote it, have been distorted over time. We need to get back to the original ideas to retain our freedoms.
I value freedom more than security, wealth, etc.... So did those men.
Where did I fault the ACLU with respect to freedom of religion? I don't think you can find it. Where did I say the ACLU fights against freedom of religion? They sometimes take stances that I find strange, to say the least, but, at the end of the day, they are fairly balanced in that respect.
Hypocrisy, btw, is saying you believe in something, but act entirely in opposition to that statement. Anyone who claims that they want their "right" to be not "offended" by a symbol by the courts, such as the cross honoring fallen WWI GI's, by trampling on the rights of those who are exercising their rights by erecting the cross, is a hypocrite.
They want to suppress the rights of those who hold a point of view they don't like. If they want to honor those fallen GI's in another way, what's to stop them? Why should they object to someone else's way of honoring them and try as hard as they can to suppress that expression? That's hypocrisy, pure and simple. It's also an example of what I meant in the post you replied to.
I have no problem with that at all. My right to punch you, figuratively speaking, stops where your nose begins.
You have every right to disagree with me, just as I have every right to disagree with you. I think you fail to understand though that your rights were first spelled out in the source from whence came my Bible, the Talmud, the Old Testament. That's where they were first expressed.
Hate my religion if you will, but recognize that it was the Protestant idea of the individual's ownership of his life and his property that made the American revolution happen, and are embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. You are indebted to those who think like me for your freedoms. You don't have to like that fact, but you should respect it.
I see you haven't read the news over the last few years. Students can't pray in school. A nativity scene can't be displayed in a park during Christmas. The lawsuit over, and the theft of, the cross honoring WWI GI's who died in combat.
Those come off the top of my head, but I can find many, many more. These types of instances happen on a regular basis.
You conveniently forget that the government shall also make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. The Constitution has balance, it's extremely well-thought-out. Your post is all one-sided, and so is the way the Constitution has been interpreted in the last few decades. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
During the early years of Federal government, under our current Constitution and while the creators of it were still alive, States actually sponsored different denominations. That's right. There was State sponsored religion, but not Federal sponsored religion. Thomas Jefferson even started a church that met in the Capitol building that had 2,000 people attending it on a weekly basis. The founding fathers saw nothing wrong with expressing their religious beliefs wherever, and whenever, they so desired. They just recognized that it was wrong to oppress someone who disagreed with them on religious issues. At the same time they weren't going to allow anyone else to oppress them because of their beliefs.
The "wall of separation" letter was written to a church who feared they would be oppressed by the government because they were small. His letter was in response to that. The context makes all the difference. He wasn't saying there couldn't be any religious display on public premises. He was reaffirming the idea that the government could not restrict that group's right to worship as they pleased.
Ummmm.... Mindless zombies always damage society. It doesn't matter whether or not they are religious or not. Your argument seems based on the idea that mindless zombies exist only because of religion. This is patently false.
I see the same argument you make all the time, but I see very little logic in it. Mostly it is just an ad hominen fallacy. The problem isn't religion, it's how unscrupulous people pervert/twist it for their own purposes.
I was raised in an extremely disfunctional home. My old man would read a religious author and go off on a tangent. He threw me out of house and whipped pretty severely at age 7 for me for saying that if using dice to play a game is gambling so is using a spinner. He fixated on one idea to the exclusion of same author saying that parents should never attempt to break their children's wills or stifle thought and choice in their children. The author said it was a sin to do that. Now why did he choose the one idea that he perverted into abusing me and completely ignored the ideas that would have kept him from abusing me? Because of religion? That's an insanely stupid suggestion. He did so because of his own warped character. He found what he wanted and stopped there. That's not the fault of any religion. In my opinion it was mental illness. If he hadn't found some type of justification for his actions in one place, he would have found it in another. He chose to be cruel despite everything in his religion that forbade cruelty.
Now, back to society at large.... Take, for instance, the 10 Commandments. All societies would be much more stable if those 10 principles were followed. Crime would cease to exist. Most of societies ills would disappear. Yet, those 10 principles are attacked as being outdated foolishness. Why? Human nature is no different today than it was when those principles were given, and during the times those principles were followed by the Hebrews/Isrealites their society was prosperous, free, and had very little crime.
Other Hebrew religious laws made sure the poor were fed, that servants were given their freedom and debtors were released from their debt every year of Jubilee, that non-Hebrews/Isrealites were treated fairly and humanely, that the Gentiles had the same rights as the Isrealites had. Forgiveness of debt happened once every 49 years. So, say your family hit hard times and had to sell its land. Your family got its land back at the year of Jubilee. So, was that just? Yup. Was it merciful? Yup. Did it keep the wealthy from robbing the poor, and their descendants, of their inheritance? Yup. It was a just system. It was a religious system.
Seriously, self-censorship is a good thing, often under-practiced.
I agree.
And as to the ACLU fighting to say profanity is everyone's right, well, it's everyone's right to be a fool too, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing to be.... Is the ACLU going to go to court and support the Constitutional right be a fool too? It makes about as much sense.
I find it amazing that people will say a Christian doesn't have the right to spread/proselytize their religion, or the symbols of Christianity offend them, and want all symbols of Christianity wiped out, while they will fight for the right to offend someone else with their profanity. It's nothing but pure hypocrisy.
So, why attack me if I'm just seeing you as I think you are, not what you are expressing yourself to be? Isn't that just what you did to someone else? Didn't you just see someone as you thought they were, and then personally attacked them for your own perceptions?
What does the profanity add to the idea of the GGP being pretentious? Not that I agree that he is, just asking how it improves the allegation that the GGP is pretentious? How does it support the argument? By adding another ad hominen attack? By adding another logical fallacy? Just what is the logical support for the profanity?
You also showed a lack of reading comprehension skills. I said "Profuse profanity" is the refuge of the angry, unimaginativee, etc.... I didn't say "All Profanity". I have used profanity, and sometimes gratuitously so in the past, but my profanity never added any intelligence to what I said, or won a discussion or argument. It just alienated whoever I was arguing with, or was mad at. It served no good purpose.
I often see the allegation of "pretensiousness" leveled at people who desire civil communication. I call it an ad hominen fallacy as it attacks the person, not their ideas. We all know that the ad hominen attack is the refuge of those who know they are losing the logical argument.
LOL. Yeah, you express yourself with vulgarity only and then complain when someone sees you as vulgar. You don't want to be considered vulgar? Stop being vulgar.
It's as if you think the world is going to view you in a way other than how you express yourself.
Rappers and sports figures are nothing more than an anomaly. They are a strange occurrence that baffles even the biggest experts.
Rappers? They deliberately appeal to the lowest common denominator to make money. What's so anomalous about that? The vast majority of today's comedians do exactly the same thing. Go back 40 or 50 years and you'll find comedians that didn't mistake shock value for humor.
Most sports stars? Aren't known for their brain power. They live, and excel, in a world in which physical expression rules. It's an anomaly that most fail to develop their mental skills to the same level as their physical skills? Hardly. Not that they're all stupid, because they aren't, but you'll find, the majority of the time, that the more their job in sports requires, or required in the case of retired athletes, mental development the more they have developed their vocabularies. It's just that the time needed to focus on physical training takes away from the time they have devoted to developing their intellects, and because they've always been praised excessively for their physical skills. I see nothing anomalous about this either. It's a direct result of human nature. Of course we are going to spend more time and energy working to develop those areas of ourselves for which we receive the most praise.
Instead of coming up with a witty and thought out reply I instead say...
Fuck you. Pretentious fuck head...
Yup. So lacking in vocabulary, imagination, and self-respect you reduce yourself to the lowest common denominator. Nice way to prove that the poster you're replying to is correct. I guess you have one thing going for you, at least you're honest enough to admit it.
Profuse profanity. The refuge of the angry, unimaginative, ambition-less person who isn't capable of expressing anything other than their own poorly suppressed rage and frustration, which is born of their inability to understand the world around them.
Petty people - like network executives, local police officers, the clerks at your local DMV, wikipedia administrators,/.posters, and the petty people found in all occupations - corrupt themselves out of all proportion to their actual power.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody needs to learn to read.
a rear-mounted H-6 engine--like what Subaru uses--that weighed only 300 lbs
That was in the days when the average bare engine block alone weighed that much or more. Curb weight for a Tucker was 4200 lbs. It was a big car that would comfortably seat six adults.
Actually, Tucker was accused of fraud. He was operating on a shoe-string, compared to the Big 3, and some minor problems with his display model were blown way out of proportion. Then he was accused of insider stock trading by the SEC, which was never proven even though they tried him more than once. It was dirty politics all the way as his major political opponent, who pushed for all the investigations, was a Senator from Michigan with close ties to the Big 3.
Nah. I didn't forget them. I only gave enough info to pique interest. I did, however, refer to "many major safety innovations".
Do some research at what the Big Three did to Tucker in the late 40's. He had a car that would do 120 mph, a rear-mounted H-6 engine--like what Subaru uses--that weighed only 300 lbs and had 116 bhp and 372 ft-lbs of torque, 0-60 times around 10 secs, got 20 mpg, had disk brakes, 4-wheel independent suspension, and great aerodynamics--drag coefficient of .27, along with many major safety innovations.
Tucker was decades ahead of his of time in car design and features. He envisioned 15 minute engine swaps if you had engine problems.
My old man lived in Michigan during that time and had brothers living and working in the Detroit car business. They all swore the Big 3 ran Tucker out of business, and were still talking about what happened to Tucker in the 60's. That's how I learned about Tucker automobiles as 10 year old kid.
Yeah, I had a '78 Chevy Monza that got 35mpg out on the highway and around 25mpg in town. It was a dog, performance-wise, but other than that I liked that car. It was a 70mph cruiser out on the highway. Much over that and the mpg started dropping off pretty quickly.
You can do this with Debian. You do a minimal install, and then add the packages you need after that. It's more difficult than a default desktop installation because you need to know what is required rather than have Debian make the choices for you, but it is very possible.
Read TFA please. The study was done with students at Cornell, who were asked to give their verdict after reading the closing arguments from the trial.
Yes, please read the article. The students were given the closing arguments, and the case study of the defendant. That's an important piece of information that you missed. Another important piece of information you missed was that the article also says in serious cases with strong evidence there was no statistical difference in conviction rates between ugly and beautiful people too.
All this study says to me is that, lacking strong evidence one way or the other, with respect to guilt or innocence, and in trivial cases, the jurors were unconsciously influenced by beauty. What a shocker. Who'd a thunk it? Humans are more attracted to beauty than ugliness?
How did I know that before this study came out? Do yah think this study only tells us what we've known about human nature for a few thousand years? What a waste of time and money.
Because I perceived you the way I did... as a douche bag who can't take a joke... Which you are...
So, what makes you any better? You attack people on nothing more than your admitted personal perceptions with no objective basis for your attacks. And you pronounce me a douche? I'll wear that like a badge of honor coming from you. I'll display my sense of humor by laughing about it with my wife.
Methinks you're the pot calling the kettle black. At least I can give solid reasons for my point of view. Your reasoning is, because I wanted to. How very mature of you.
Seems like the more you say, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
Any time you want to stop trading insults and talk about this rationally I'm more than willing. I just like to give as good as I get, and when I see someone making ad hominen attacks I tend to get involved. If you want to disagree with someone, do it. But, do it as a reasonable person, not some prick who can do nothing but insult the other person.
Who says that, exactly? Sure, you could find someone out there who thinks that 'all symbols of Christianity should be wiped out', but they're as dumb as you are. Certainly the ACLU has never said any such thing. Now, the ACLU HAS said that the government may not promote a religion, which I suspect you, in your adle-brained way, are trying (and failing) to say. And that's perfectly true. I don't see how in any way that is even the slightest bit hypocritical, though. It's not as if anyone in the Government has proposed putting up a giant monument that says FUCK on federal lands. If they had and if the ACLU had encouraged it, you'd kind of have a point. However, that has never happened. So, kid, you don't have a point. At all. And it's sad that you think you do.
You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. Where did I say that the ACLU did/does anything you allege I said?
I mentioned the ACLU taking up one case, and then in a separate paragraph go on to talk about lawsuits that have been filed, court decisions made, that restrict the right of the free expression of religion. How is that attacking the ACLU?
Have you lived without access to news for the last few decades? Have you missed every instance of atheists and agnostics filing lawsuits saying they were "offended" by Christian displays and the resulting court verdicts restricting the right to the free expression of religion? Did you miss the entire controversy about the cross honoring WWI veterans? Do you live in a black hole where news is concerned?
Where do you get the idea that I don't believe in a secular state? I've never said anything even close to that. All I did was state what the founders did, and what they did show how they saw the meanings of their own words.
The only conclusion anyone can come to is that the ideas expressed in the Constitution by those who wrote it, have been distorted over time. We need to get back to the original ideas to retain our freedoms.
I value freedom more than security, wealth, etc.... So did those men.
Where did I fault the ACLU with respect to freedom of religion? I don't think you can find it. Where did I say the ACLU fights against freedom of religion? They sometimes take stances that I find strange, to say the least, but, at the end of the day, they are fairly balanced in that respect.
Hypocrisy, btw, is saying you believe in something, but act entirely in opposition to that statement. Anyone who claims that they want their "right" to be not "offended" by a symbol by the courts, such as the cross honoring fallen WWI GI's, by trampling on the rights of those who are exercising their rights by erecting the cross, is a hypocrite.
They want to suppress the rights of those who hold a point of view they don't like. If they want to honor those fallen GI's in another way, what's to stop them? Why should they object to someone else's way of honoring them and try as hard as they can to suppress that expression? That's hypocrisy, pure and simple. It's also an example of what I meant in the post you replied to.
I have no problem with that at all. My right to punch you, figuratively speaking, stops where your nose begins.
You have every right to disagree with me, just as I have every right to disagree with you. I think you fail to understand though that your rights were first spelled out in the source from whence came my Bible, the Talmud, the Old Testament. That's where they were first expressed.
Hate my religion if you will, but recognize that it was the Protestant idea of the individual's ownership of his life and his property that made the American revolution happen, and are embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. You are indebted to those who think like me for your freedoms. You don't have to like that fact, but you should respect it.
I see you haven't read the news over the last few years. Students can't pray in school. A nativity scene can't be displayed in a park during Christmas. The lawsuit over, and the theft of, the cross honoring WWI GI's who died in combat.
Those come off the top of my head, but I can find many, many more. These types of instances happen on a regular basis.
You conveniently forget that the government shall also make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. The Constitution has balance, it's extremely well-thought-out. Your post is all one-sided, and so is the way the Constitution has been interpreted in the last few decades. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
During the early years of Federal government, under our current Constitution and while the creators of it were still alive, States actually sponsored different denominations. That's right. There was State sponsored religion, but not Federal sponsored religion. Thomas Jefferson even started a church that met in the Capitol building that had 2,000 people attending it on a weekly basis. The founding fathers saw nothing wrong with expressing their religious beliefs wherever, and whenever, they so desired. They just recognized that it was wrong to oppress someone who disagreed with them on religious issues. At the same time they weren't going to allow anyone else to oppress them because of their beliefs.
The "wall of separation" letter was written to a church who feared they would be oppressed by the government because they were small. His letter was in response to that. The context makes all the difference. He wasn't saying there couldn't be any religious display on public premises. He was reaffirming the idea that the government could not restrict that group's right to worship as they pleased.
Ummmm.... Mindless zombies always damage society. It doesn't matter whether or not they are religious or not. Your argument seems based on the idea that mindless zombies exist only because of religion. This is patently false.
I see the same argument you make all the time, but I see very little logic in it. Mostly it is just an ad hominen fallacy. The problem isn't religion, it's how unscrupulous people pervert/twist it for their own purposes.
I was raised in an extremely disfunctional home. My old man would read a religious author and go off on a tangent. He threw me out of house and whipped pretty severely at age 7 for me for saying that if using dice to play a game is gambling so is using a spinner. He fixated on one idea to the exclusion of same author saying that parents should never attempt to break their children's wills or stifle thought and choice in their children. The author said it was a sin to do that. Now why did he choose the one idea that he perverted into abusing me and completely ignored the ideas that would have kept him from abusing me? Because of religion? That's an insanely stupid suggestion. He did so because of his own warped character. He found what he wanted and stopped there. That's not the fault of any religion. In my opinion it was mental illness. If he hadn't found some type of justification for his actions in one place, he would have found it in another. He chose to be cruel despite everything in his religion that forbade cruelty.
Now, back to society at large.... Take, for instance, the 10 Commandments. All societies would be much more stable if those 10 principles were followed. Crime would cease to exist. Most of societies ills would disappear. Yet, those 10 principles are attacked as being outdated foolishness. Why? Human nature is no different today than it was when those principles were given, and during the times those principles were followed by the Hebrews/Isrealites their society was prosperous, free, and had very little crime.
Other Hebrew religious laws made sure the poor were fed, that servants were given their freedom and debtors were released from their debt every year of Jubilee, that non-Hebrews/Isrealites were treated fairly and humanely, that the Gentiles had the same rights as the Isrealites had. Forgiveness of debt happened once every 49 years. So, say your family hit hard times and had to sell its land. Your family got its land back at the year of Jubilee. So, was that just? Yup. Was it merciful? Yup. Did it keep the wealthy from robbing the poor, and their descendants, of their inheritance? Yup. It was a just system. It was a religious system.
Seriously, self-censorship is a good thing, often under-practiced.
I agree.
And as to the ACLU fighting to say profanity is everyone's right, well, it's everyone's right to be a fool too, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing to be.... Is the ACLU going to go to court and support the Constitutional right be a fool too? It makes about as much sense.
I find it amazing that people will say a Christian doesn't have the right to spread/proselytize their religion, or the symbols of Christianity offend them, and want all symbols of Christianity wiped out, while they will fight for the right to offend someone else with their profanity. It's nothing but pure hypocrisy.
So, why attack me if I'm just seeing you as I think you are, not what you are expressing yourself to be? Isn't that just what you did to someone else? Didn't you just see someone as you thought they were, and then personally attacked them for your own perceptions?
Your logic is a mass of contradictions.
Just a thought here.
What does the profanity add to the idea of the GGP being pretentious? Not that I agree that he is, just asking how it improves the allegation that the GGP is pretentious? How does it support the argument? By adding another ad hominen attack? By adding another logical fallacy? Just what is the logical support for the profanity?
You also showed a lack of reading comprehension skills. I said "Profuse profanity" is the refuge of the angry, unimaginativee, etc.... I didn't say "All Profanity". I have used profanity, and sometimes gratuitously so in the past, but my profanity never added any intelligence to what I said, or won a discussion or argument. It just alienated whoever I was arguing with, or was mad at. It served no good purpose.
I often see the allegation of "pretensiousness" leveled at people who desire civil communication. I call it an ad hominen fallacy as it attacks the person, not their ideas. We all know that the ad hominen attack is the refuge of those who know they are losing the logical argument.
LOL. Yeah, you express yourself with vulgarity only and then complain when someone sees you as vulgar. You don't want to be considered vulgar? Stop being vulgar.
It's as if you think the world is going to view you in a way other than how you express yourself.
Rappers and sports figures are nothing more than an anomaly. They are a strange occurrence that baffles even the biggest experts.
Rappers? They deliberately appeal to the lowest common denominator to make money. What's so anomalous about that? The vast majority of today's comedians do exactly the same thing. Go back 40 or 50 years and you'll find comedians that didn't mistake shock value for humor.
Most sports stars? Aren't known for their brain power. They live, and excel, in a world in which physical expression rules. It's an anomaly that most fail to develop their mental skills to the same level as their physical skills? Hardly. Not that they're all stupid, because they aren't, but you'll find, the majority of the time, that the more their job in sports requires, or required in the case of retired athletes, mental development the more they have developed their vocabularies. It's just that the time needed to focus on physical training takes away from the time they have devoted to developing their intellects, and because they've always been praised excessively for their physical skills. I see nothing anomalous about this either. It's a direct result of human nature. Of course we are going to spend more time and energy working to develop those areas of ourselves for which we receive the most praise.
Your rejoinder was quite brief.
Therefore, your rejoinder is quite witty. QED.
Wow!
Oh, such wit in only one word. Brevity like that must make me a master of sarcastic wit in your eyes.
Instead of coming up with a witty and thought out reply I instead say...
Fuck you. Pretentious fuck head...
Yup. So lacking in vocabulary, imagination, and self-respect you reduce yourself to the lowest common denominator. Nice way to prove that the poster you're replying to is correct. I guess you have one thing going for you, at least you're honest enough to admit it.
Profuse profanity. The refuge of the angry, unimaginative, ambition-less person who isn't capable of expressing anything other than their own poorly suppressed rage and frustration, which is born of their inability to understand the world around them.
Petty people - like network executives, local police officers, the clerks at your local DMV, wikipedia administrators, /.posters, and the petty people found in all occupations - corrupt themselves out of all proportion to their actual power.
Fixed that for you.
That should read, anonymous COWARD, as the COWARD part is the relevant part.
Actually, I think stuffing entire Utah town down that hole would stop the leak, and it wouldn't require any oxygen. We could remove all humans first.