The Origin of FAIR/MAD

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:49 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:Scratch Senior and Junior may soon discover that my mother wore army boots. Then watch this take off!

You wouldn't admit it, of course.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:35 pm

Dang....did this thread die?

Doc Peterson's mom wears very large, very dirty, secondhand combat boots.

Post by **_harmony** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:38 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:Dang....did this thread die?

Doc Peterson's mom wears very large, very dirty, secondhand combat boots.

No, she doesn't. She wears lovely ruby slippers, and she just wants to go home.

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:49 pm

harmony wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:Doc Peterson's mom wears very large, very dirty, secondhand combat boots.

No, she doesn't. She wears lovely ruby slippers, and she just wants to go home.

And dear Dan denies it all! ;)

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:23 pm

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
harmony wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:Doc Peterson's mom wears very large, very dirty, secondhand combat boots.

No, she doesn't. She wears lovely ruby slippers, and she just wants to go home.

And dear Dan denies it all! ;)

Well, he has to. It's part of his job hanging out behind a curtain pulling a bunch of levers, shooting up smoke, projecting a large scary image and talking in an amplified, obnoxious voice, all in the name of creating an illusion. Ahhh, the life of an apologist.

It kind of reminds me of some movie, but I can't remember which one...

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:25 pm

Some Schmo wrote:
Well, he has to. It's part of his job hanging out behind a curtain pulling a bunch of levers, shooting up smoke, projecting a large scary image and talking in an amplified, obnoxious voice, all in the name of creating an illusion. Ahhh, the life of an apologist.

It kind of reminds me of some movie, but I can't remember which one...

Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:31 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:
Well, he has to. It's part of his job hanging out behind a curtain pulling a bunch of levers, shooting up smoke, projecting a large scary image and talking in an amplified, obnoxious voice, all in the name of creating an illusion. Ahhh, the life of an apologist.

It kind of reminds me of some movie, but I can't remember which one...

Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Yes! Thank you! Man, that was bugging me.

Post by **_Pokatator** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Pokatator wrote:
enigm0 wrote:
I go by my own name. That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers.

Speaking of silly...from your initial post in this thread attacking scratch for using a nickname to your latest quote above...this all coming from a man who has hidden under a variety of nicknames. It's interesting that I skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread and encounter the same "silly" obfuscation. How about addressing the actual topic of this thread if you are going to post here? What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts? And just to be clear, I'm not asking if you wrote or edited anything using their name...I'm asking if you know what the word "transcript" means or if you buy their contention that a transcript "like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings" make are usually in the form of a few notes jotted down after the fact?

E-0

Dr Peterson's reply:
Having skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread, you've skipped my explanation for my lack of interest in commenting on Scratch's carefully selected and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread, which, coupled with my merely vague memory of the thread in question and my complete lack of interest in re-reading the entire twenty-eight-page original itself, leaves me right where I am: Contented with life as it is.

I am with E-O on this one. I don't see Scratch's comments as a "carefully and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread" but since you do.....ignore his comments and just address your comments in the original 28 pages. Read the 28 pages and maybe your memory won't be so vague. "Contented with life as it is" means arguing Quinn when the OP is Murphy. Go figure? The choice, argue about Quinn and nicknames for 15 pages or read and comment on your comments in 28 pages...... What's the comparison of effort here?

Let's start simple, one question at a time. "What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts?"

This derailed thread has repeated and repeated and repeated so...............I thought I would repeat myself and talk about something from the original post.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:34 pm

Pokatator wrote:
Pokatator wrote:
enigm0 wrote:
I go by my own name. That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers.

Speaking of silly...from your initial post in this thread attacking scratch for using a nickname to your latest quote above...this all coming from a man who has hidden under a variety of nicknames. It's interesting that I skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread and encounter the same "silly" obfuscation. How about addressing the actual topic of this thread if you are going to post here? What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts? And just to be clear, I'm not asking if you wrote or edited anything using their name...I'm asking if you know what the word "transcript" means or if you buy their contention that a transcript "like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings" make are usually in the form of a few notes jotted down after the fact?

E-0

Dr Peterson's reply:
Having skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread, you've skipped my explanation for my lack of interest in commenting on Scratch's carefully selected and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread, which, coupled with my merely vague memory of the thread in question and my complete lack of interest in re-reading the entire twenty-eight-page original itself, leaves me right where I am: Contented with life as it is.

I am with E-O on this one. I don't see Scratch's comments as a "carefully and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread" but since you do.....ignore his comments and just address your comments in the original 28 pages. Read the 28 pages and maybe your memory won't be so vague. "Contented with life as it is" means arguing Quinn when the OP is Murphy. Go figure? The choice, argue about Quinn and nicknames for 15 pages or read and comment on your comments in 28 pages...... What's the comparison of effort here?

Let's start simple, one question at a time. "What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts?"

This derailed thread has repeated and repeated and repeated so...............I thought I would repeat myself and talk about something from the original post.

Excellent question, Tator. I, too, will patiently wait for the Good Professor to enlighten us.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:07 pm

"The good professor"! What an ironic character assassin you are!

You're going to wait a long, long time. And I doubt that you'll do it patiently.

As I've said before, I have absolutely no interest in reading through twenty-eight pages of old internet stuff. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You're the dirt-digger, Scratch One. Not I.

As I've also already said before, if somebody was being deliberately deceptive, I disapprove. I disapprove of deliberate deception.

I've said that before. In a week or two, after you've patiently waited by raising the issue a few dozen times more, I'll say it again.