Mattie wrote:It's obvious that "stemelbow" is just a sockpuppet you people use to make it seem like TBMs are all dim-witted and gullible, etc.
You're a twisted bunch.
I.am.speechless..."dim-witted"...I think my irony meter just a-sploded....
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
liz3564 wrote: Agreed. I can assure you that Stem is a real person.
A real person pretending to be someone else?
If stemelbow is a real TBM, then I sincerely apologize for calling him/her dim-witted. But I think it's a sock puppet. If it's not, then he should find a new hobby.
Mattie wrote:A real person pretending to be someone else?
If stemelbow is a real TBM, then I sincerely apologize for calling him/her dim-witted. But I think it's a sock puppet. If it's not, then he should find a new hobby.
Ooo! Now I'm really wondering. Who's sock puppet are you? If I had to bet, I would say Stemelbow. What fun! A new game. "Who is Mattie?"
How about it, Stem. Is that you?
Anyone else have a guess?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Mattie, I know you're trying to do what you think is best. Please go back and read Stemelbow's posts from the beginning of his history here. Under the "ah shucks," he's anything but dim-witted.
Though I become frustrated with him, I consider Stem something of a friend.
----
Edit: I apologize for my screed on this thread. For more than a decade, I was a public school teacher and, among other things, worked with developmentally disabled children. It's a complicated issue and a hot button one for me. That's not an excuse, just an explanation.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Everybody Wang Chung wrote: It's also interesting that Schryver won't tell anyone where it's going to be published. Any bets? Will, why not tell us?
I'm feeling a little bad about the derail. As an apology to Everybody Wang Chung I'll answer part of the OP.
I think Schryver will either have to self publish or find a publication that will accept his paper with what must be some questionable research. National Enquirer?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.