Re: To Bob Badour, sorry

Well, I left this misbegotten thread alone for a while, but it's time for more mindless entertainment with The Cimode Show...

Cimode wrote:
> It's not first degree...

Pardon ?

> I stated that as response to Gene Wirchen-BULLSHIT to whom I wasted
> time exposing my intensions as he called me boorish just B4, I
> demonstrated he was calling me boorish for an unfounded reason...As a
> question and a mocking part, I used a pun question *When I point out
> that I am boorish ?* meaning *When I point out the hyppocrisy you
> consider me booorish*
>

Well, that made sense. Naaah, just pullin' yer leg. It's gibberish.

> Superficiality is determined by evidences..
>

In which case, at this point I'd suggest you quit while you're merely losing.

> > Where was the hypocrisy in using the sarcastic term "charm school" for
> > your utterly charmless demeanour ?
> Cut the BS...

Where is the BS in that ? Are you seriously suggesting that you're conducting yourself in a way that could be described as anything other than utterly charmless ?

> Then be my guest...
>

As I've said before, I can resist everything except temptation.

> Best be governed by reason and intellectual honesty..Qualities you have
> not demonstrated so far...

Oh, I don't know. I've been pretty honest with you. I think you're a hypocritical boor. This thread stands as pretty good evidence on which to call that a reasoned judgement.

> That's because of the hierarchical structure making hard to follow
> track of event chronologically...As I take the time to respond to ALL
> BB's barking dogs...
>

No, generally it's because a) you've had a problem with quoting in context and b) you aren't as good at English as you think; your sentence construction is regularly awful, and sometimes it's somewhere between very difficult and impossible to discern what you're talking about. Regular pepperings of "barking dogs", "how practical" etc etc make it boring, as well as difficult. But, I have persevered.

> That's to speak a language more familiar to you.
>

That's rather condescending. You're not really in a position to condescend to anyone right at this moment.

> BS...I mainly insulted statements rather than people (Ex: What an
> idiotic statement!!) which is not equivalent to say *you are an idiot*.
> and ask legitimate questions such as *are you mentally impaired* when
> I can't understand when somebody does not get a clue of what I am
> talking about after several explanations...
>

This is just such frankly arrogant nonsense it's untrue. First "you *mainly* insulted statements" - so, you accept that you *have* insulted *people* then ? Well, that's an advance of sorts. Next, because someone else can make neither head nor tail of your garbled meanderings, you suggest that *they* are mentally impaired because *you* can't make your point properly ? Dear oh dear ...

> If some people feel insulted it's not my business...It tends to
> indicate that they are indeed idiots and that is why they would react
> with anger...
>

At this point, I'm not angry. Far from it, I think this thread should be filed under "Unintentional Comedy with Cimode".

> Strong tones prevent people from thinking and building coherent
> sentences...I certainly have not used the strongest tones here...
>

I suggest you stop using strong tones then. And I don't think anyone else has enquired of anyone else whether they are either mentally deficient or mentally impaired. That's all been you.

> You opinion about me has absolutely no interest except to you...You
> should now understand that I do not really care of what other people
> think...
>

Oh, that's come through loud and clear already chum.

> I have responded to each of you single argument but I will now stop as
> you are clearly demonstrating intellectual dishonnesty....(Not
> convinced check the arborescence)

Arborescence ? Have you been chewing a dictionary again ? What have trees got to do with this anyway ? (Oh, and how am I "clearly demonstrating intellectual dishonnesty (sic)" ?)

> Because I do what I state, I respond to people's nonsense to expose
> them.
>

What, are you a stripper in your spare time ?

> Which is no better considering that
> > > However I have pointed out to you your incoherence,
> >
> > Nope.
> Lost cause.

And the crowd says "Ohhh ....."

> > > your superficiality
> >
> Lost cause.

And the crowd gasps "Ahhhh ...."

> >
> > > and ignorance of RM concepts...
> > >
> >
> > So far in this thread, you have said diddley-squat about RM concepts to
> > me. So you can't possibly have pointed out my ignorance of them.
> When refering to ignorance, I was not refering specifically to you but
> to BB's barking dogs which I exposed on the Fraud Exposal Wall...At my
> knowledge, you are not on it...not yet...
>

Oh right. You responded in a post reply *to* me, directed *to* me, but you weren't talking *to* me. That's very coherent. As someone else said on this thread : "Jeez who am I talking to ?" I think you should try working that out for yourself.

> I am fine thanks...For temperamental people engaged in self
> promotion....

No no, myspace.com is where people go for self-promotion. This is purely for laughs (at least, this particular thread is). Now, get back to chewing the carpet and leave that dictionary alone - your stomach can't digest paper anyway ...

We return you to your irregularly programmed schedule ... Received on Tue Jun 20 2006 - 01:11:55 CEST