Ken Pitts What do you think
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 18 Apr 2010 17:50 On Apr 18, 4:11 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: snippitall.... I stand by my statements on jazz. They certainly have not been refuted by you, as you are incapable of comprehending what another person, any other person, says, thus you could hardly refute anything anyone else says. You rise to the level of self awareness, but lack the consciousness needed to be aware of what other people are saying when they speak to you. For example, I never said I could hit a 186 yard low spinning shot from a grassy lie in the rough any time I want. I cannot succeed at any golf shot any time I want, and would never claim to do so in any seriousness, yet you continually make this claim that I said so. This assertion of yours quite clearly demonstrates your lack of ability to comprehend the statements of others. This sort of thing is not a problem for someone like Greg. He believes that the health insurance reform will result in more money coming from uninsured people. I don't. We are capable of comprehending what the other is saying. We can articulate why we think what we do and move on. An intelligent exchange that is beyond your intellectual ability, and that is a statement that anyone can witness for themselves by observing the fact that you are incapable of responding to what people say. I will produce actual references to RSG posts where I corrected myself only as part of a $50.00 bet, and will only do so when I know the money is being held by someone we both trust. I only charge $50 here because I can think of a few right off the top of my head and they would be very easy to find. I am a person who makes many assertions, and as such will make errors, like any fully aware person knows. And while you think I am a troll, I have no problem with that.Tthe fact is to me you are the one of the most persistent trolls on usenet, and your sort has destroyed usenet. You shtick is solely the running down of other people. You contribute next to nothing to usenet, and run off other real contributors with your persistent hostility While it bothers these other people; evidenced by the fact they go away, it doesn't bother me. All the time and effort you have put towards your running down of me and I'm still here! You are the Eleanor Rigby of usenet!
From: bknight on 18 Apr 2010 18:35 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:50:53 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: >On Apr 18, 4:11�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > snippitall.... > > >I stand by my statements on jazz. They certainly have not been refuted >by you, as you are incapable of comprehending what another person, any >other person, says, thus you could hardly refute anything anyone else >says. You rise to the level of self awareness, but lack the >consciousness needed to be aware of what other people are saying when >they speak to you. More BS Rob. You know nothing about the world of jazz, and I lived it for 30 years. You made a statement that you couldn't back up. The rest of your paragraph is more babbling that means nothing. > For example, I never said I could hit a 186 yard >low spinning shot from a grassy lie in the rough any time I want. Of course you did. You even went so far as to say it wasn't a difficult shot even though it now has gone down as one of TWs greatest. > I cannot succeed at any golf shot any time I want, and would never claim >to do so in any seriousness, yet you continually make this claim that >I said so. This assertion of yours quite clearly demonstrates your >lack of ability to comprehend the statements of others. > I know you can't. But I also know that you implied that you could. You also know that I wasn't even the first to call you on this. >This sort of thing is not a problem for someone like Greg. He believes >that the health insurance reform will result in more money coming from >uninsured people. I don't. We are capable of comprehending what the >other is saying. We can articulate why we think what we do and move >on. Greg is easy on you because of your friendship. > An intelligent exchange that is beyond your intellectual ability, >and that is a statement that anyone can witness for themselves by >observing the fact that you are incapable of responding to what people >say. > LOL. Lots of empty words again. I've certainly responded to you for years. You just don't like responses that call you on BS. >I will produce actual references to RSG posts where I corrected myself >only as part of a $50.00 bet, and will only do so when I know the >money is being held by someone we both trust. I only charge $50 here >because I can think of a few right off the top of my head and they >would be very easy to find. I am a person who makes many assertions, >and as such will make errors, like any fully aware person knows Oh you make many assertions. No doubt about that. You may even have corrected yourself, but that percentage is going to be very minimal. I also know those that would back you up no matter what. > >And while you think I am a troll, I have no problem with that.Tthe >fact is to me you are the one of the most persistent trolls on usenet, >and your sort has destroyed usenet. You shtick is solely the running >down of other people. Very few. I take those to task that IMO are liars, hypocrites, windbags, cheats, bullshitters or duplicitous. You fit a couple of those types. >You contribute next to nothing to usenet, and run off other real contributors with your persistent hostility While >it bothers these other people; evidenced by the fact they go away, it >doesn't bother me. As far a contributing, I don't have the background to argue some areas discussed here. Rather than make a fool of myself I don't take a stand at times. For instance, you've never seen me arguing the insurance issue because I know what I don't know. The same with a lot of political posts. You don't, and just barge ahead on any subject, because you're a rash, insensitive, boor. That's what you call contributing. I can name about a dozen that have left RSG specifically because of you. Really good guys who are well respected. You've said that you're glad they left. So its a push with us that I'm happy for those who may say that they left because of me because IMO they were probably dolts anyway. > All the time and effort you have put towards your running down of me and I'm still here! You are the Eleanor Rigby of >usenet! > Eleanor Rigby? I have a ton of people that will be glad to come to my funeral. :-) I've had a good time in pulling your leg about your Major Hoople persona here and really hope that you never leave. You're too much fun to tease...and you never fail to please because you're so tight-assed. Love, BK
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 18 Apr 2010 19:31 On Apr 18, 6:35 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: snippitall.. You prove my point with every post you make. You have zero ability to comprehend what other people say. FWIW, who cares who comes to your funeral? It's the difference you actually make in people's lives while you are on the topside that counts. In any event, I suspect a number of people might show up at my funeral if such an event were to happen, although I specifically don't want one. They are a total waste of time and money. Living people have better things to do than worry about dead people. Nothing dumber than being so consumed with your social popularity that you obsess over how many people will show up at your funeral. All you have ever offered on RSG is hostility, and you continue to offer it. I make numerous assertions, and am more than willing to discuss them, and that is what these newsgroups are supposed to be about, and I have learned a lot from people who do in fact see things differently than I. You, OTOH, enter legitimate discussions with the idea of taking the sides of your virtual "friends", and destroy the threads. You offer nothing substantive, and do nothing but drive up the negativity meter on any and all discussions, and I know many, many people who have left here because of that negativity. I have been part of that, BTW, and admitted and apologized for it (which is the principal reason you direct hostility my way), but you are it's personification. If you didn't make hostile comments, in general, about other people, you wouldn't have much to say about anything. Your record on this board speaks for itself. All anyone has to do is search for "Bobby Knight" and start reading. I am no angel, and I should not respond to your hostility at all, because the responses themselves are hostile, but that would be like telling a bully you aren't going to fight back...just invites the bully to be more of a bully.
From: Alan Baker on 18 Apr 2010 19:39 In article <69febfd4-3cf8-429a-b0df-876d630c6460(a)j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 6:35�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > snippitall.. > > You prove my point with every post you make. You have zero ability to > comprehend what other people say. > > FWIW, who cares who comes to your funeral? You apparently did... ...a moment ago. > It's the difference you > actually make in people's lives while you are on the topside that > counts. In any event, I suspect a number of people might show up at my > funeral if such an event were to happen, although I specifically don't > want one. They are a total waste of time and money. Living people have > better things to do than worry about dead people. Nothing dumber than > being so consumed with your social popularity that you obsess over how > many people will show up at your funeral. Nice deflection there... ....you were the one that brought it up as if it said something. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Howard Brazee on 18 Apr 2010 19:40
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:16:23 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: >JMHO, but if someone claimed that person was all that is good in golf, >Ken would make an issue of the club throwing. Has anybody claimed that *anything* or *anyone* was all that is good in golf? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |