Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me

From: Keith H Duggar <>
Date: 27 Jun 2006 01:36:15 -0700
Message-ID: <>

George wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > wrote:

Well, sadly, since your reply was terribly stupid, did not respond to any of the main points, and offered no apology for insulting without cause, it's time to move on to the next phase of dealing with you, moron. The insult laden phase; since clearly you can only focus on and comprehend insults.

> > > Keith, I can't believe you're talking about "mature
> > > and considerate"
> >
> > What you believe about me is entirely irrelevant and
> > surely uninteresting to everyone reading
> > this. Furthermore, that phrase is trivial and contains
> > almost no substance.
> But it was your phrase not mine.

No, idiot, the phrase "Keith, I can't believe you're talking about 'mature and considerate'" which was yours.

> Bob's posts contain substance, yep, and pigs fly too.

LMAO. Ignorant moron.

> > > then you and that other great suck-up Marshall
> > > constantly praise him for it. You go out of your way
> > > to say so,
> >
> > I do not recall ever /praising/ Bob for insulting people.
> >
> Why don't you re-read the following post of yours, I thought the most
> apt description of it and others like it was "praise" (for Bob) but hey
> if you prefer another word please let it be known.

Bahahahaa. This moron can't even tell the difference between "praise for Bob" and "praising Bob for insulting people". Try again, idiot.

> > > yet if anyone has a mild rib at him you come running
> > > to the brute's defense!
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't defending
> > Bob. I was pointing out to Andrew that his posts were
> > worthless and vacuous. And I don't give a shit who
> > insults who as long as they do so while providing
> > /substantive content/.
> Yeah, ok and consider my sample link as provision of
> substance.

Providing a link is your idea of substance? LMAO. Damn man, grow a brain and try some original thought for a change. And in this case your link was 1) irrelevant (see the inability to distinguish the meaning of different phrases above) and 2) even irrelevant to both the statements I actually made above. The idiot can't even tell the difference between defending person B and chiding person A.

> > > Wow, what kind of a brainless moron are you? Are you
> > > sane? Is Bob your cult leader or something? Or are
> > > you guys the only ones with a license to insult?
> >
> > Obviously you feel you have license to insult me. That
> > makes your final question rather stupid don't you think?
> > But, yes; We are the only ones with license to insult
> > and we are the only licensing authority. You insulted me
> > without license, so consider your license to insult
> > revoked for life!
> Hey that's almost amusing. But if it's good enough for
> you, Bob, Marshall, Alfredo ... it's good enough for me.

Pity that you don't also find reason and brainpower good for you. Well, perhaps you have no choice. How sad.

> Keith next time you give whole hearted support to a brute
> don't be so surprised if people paint you with the same
> brush.

The only thing that (does not) surprises me is your moronic inability to understand simple language.

Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 10:36:15 CEST

Original text of this message