Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 12:03 In article <1a243db0-7ab8-4b54-8ccc-43ce7133f05f(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:23�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > wrote: > > In article > > <c4b41158-aba5-4d06-9388-708c745cf...(a)d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > �Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 12:23 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > > > wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <b33ef4c0-206d-44a8-a5b2-84e3e97cc...(a)h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:39 am, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <6ea6aa0b-dd0f-4933-bfd0-2b763861e...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:01 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > > > > > > state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <7tljlbFg5...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > >news:clark-13ED1E.09503912022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.ed > > > > > > > > >u... > > > > > > > > > > In article <hl3k94$33...(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > > > > > > > > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >news:7tjvqjFuvU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "William Clark" <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > >news:wclark2-C14662.20553411022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > > > > > > > > > >stat > > > > > > > > > > > >e.ed > > > > > > > > > > > >u... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Oh, bullshit, Jack. We've been over that again and > > > > > > > > > > > >> again - > > > > > > > > > > > >> he's as > > > > > > > > > dumb > > > > > > > > > > > >> as paint. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm....what does that say about the intelligence of > > > > > > > > > > > > Gore, > > > > > > > > > > > > Kerry, or > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > American electorate who elected this dummy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always enjoy watching idiots like Clark talk about > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > people's > > > > > > > > > > > intelligence. What a boob. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yu and Intelligence don;t belong in the same sentence. Go > > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > some. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm waiting for an intelligent answer to my question, Clark. > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > Well, Bush is the one they elected (supposedly), so it is a > > > > > > > > frightening > > > > > > > > indictment of the Americn electorate. > > > > > > > > > Hardly in the same league as electing any Labour Party candidate > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > any context! > > > > > > > > Get back on your meds - quickly. > > > > > > > So you agree with me that electing Labour party candidates is a > > > > > frightening indictment of the British electorate. > > > > > > No, I agree that you need to start taking your medication again. You > > > > are > > > > becoming delusionally schizophrenic. > > > > > What qualifications do you presume to have to make such a diagnosis? > > > > Observation. Simple observation. > > That fits you. All you do is observe. Unfortunately that is quite > obviously insufficient. You should be sitting where I am!
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 12:03 In article <1ff423dd-c56a-45c6-8422-c8e1e52c658f(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:31�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > wrote: > > In article <4b79e03e$0$4847$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > > > > > > �Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:30:40 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > > > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > >news:4b75eb36$0$5121$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > >> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:36:08 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > > > >>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > >>>news:4b749767$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > >>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:21:30 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > > > >>>>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > >>>>>news:4b748e2c$0$5095$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:51:42 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > > > >>>>>>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > > >>>>>>>news:eni8n5d2ni49tgp0j8pd0dc4p0jroki97j(a)4ax.com... > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:58:12 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> In article <sof8n5drfaqjkerbbv1ubt2f5ts6ta5...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >>>>>>>>> bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:21:44 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In article <nta8n5p2g17si7haj18qn7kif0vi0k4...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:04:37 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The TelePrompter "BS" hasn't been wiped off the table. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama has a long way to go before he can claim to be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> weaned off of the TelePrompter. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cripes Bert. �Didn't you see the whipping he gave the repub > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> congressmen, all off the cuff? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In your dreams only. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Enough so that the Senators don't want to be embarrassed too. > > > >>>>>>>>>> They won't subject themselves to such a drubbing. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> In your dreams only. > > > > > >>>>>>>> Bert! �This has been widely publicized. �He offered to meet > > > >>>>>>>> with them and they said no, not as a large group, just with a > > > >>>>>>>> few of the leaders. �They obviously don't want a repeat of the > > > >>>>>>>> representatives' poor showing. > > > > > >>>>>>> And the only people saying it was a "drubbing" are left wing > > > >>>>>>> blogs. �The meeting they want to have on the 25th is just as > > > >>>>>>> bogus. Obama has stated he has no plans on starting over on > > > >>>>>>> healthcare. So whatever proposals are presented by the Repubs, > > > >>>>>>> they will be rejected. The people want a "do-over" on this and > > > >>>>>>> so do most Repubs. �Obama will not allow that so basically it > > > >>>>>>> comes down to nothing more than more Obama Kabuki theater. > > > > > >>>>>> Jesus. You guys say you've watched it. Are you all blind, or > > > >>>>>> what? > > > > > >>>>> We dont have blinders on like you. > > > > > >>>> No, Mike. According to the ceaseless Fox News narrative, Obama is > > > >>>> helpless without a teleprompter. He debated the GOP for over an > > > >>>> hour, all of them lined up with prepared questions. Not only did he > > > >>>> not fall apart, he gave no ground whatsoever. In fact he did very > > > >>>> well. �It's that simple. The entire narrative is ridiculous and > > > >>>> stupid. > > > > > >>> I said he did very well. He by no means "drubbed" anyone. > > > > > >> I'm glad you conceded that much. Most of your fellow travelers are in > > > >> denial. As for how well he did, I'm 100% certain that the GOP will > > > >> never, ever invite Obama to another unscripted live television > > > >> debate. �Read into that what you will. > > > > > > There is nothing Obama does that is unscripted. > > > > > Really. So at the recent GOP debate he, what, somehow got hold of their > > > in advance? Mike, how likely do you think that would have been? > > > > In PalmPalin's case, guaranteed. And she still couldn't handle it > > without scribbling her "core values" on her palm. > > Really? Let's put her political achievements up against your academic > achievements...so you get your D. Phill (doctor phil!) and then you > have done what exactly, that compares to say being elected as a mayor, > a governor and selected as a VP candidate for one of the major US > parties? Well, it's true that I have not quit after two years, with the ethics commission hot on my heels. I have never had to scribble lecture notes on the palm of my hand, and I have my core values down pat. All the supposed "accomplishments" you mention are simply appointments or elections to office. They indicate absolutely no achievements to benefit anyone other than herself. That is like giving a faculty member tenure, and then never having them publish or do research. But perhaps you can empathize with that a little better than I can.
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 12:06 In article <7c676c32-8835-4312-89cc-cb2ff58e6eb2(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:29�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > wrote: > > In article > > <e753220d-786f-46b0-a9e3-f0afab2c3...(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > �Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 12:26�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > > > wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <b8033c9b-c8e1-42a5-9512-80e740b82...(a)15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > �Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:43�am, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > In article <4b75eca0$0$5077$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > > > > > > �Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:06:19 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <clark-EDF568.17402212022...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > > > > > > state.edu>, cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > >> In article <MPG.25df7e125badc04a989...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > > > > >> �BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> Literate and poor or ignorant and rich? > > > > > > > > > >> Well, you are ignorant, but I doubt you are rich. > > > > > > > > > > You'd be surprised how much this dumb ignorant idiot has. > > > > > > > > > You think money makes you a better person? Guess what, Paris > > > > > > > Hilton > > > > > > > agrees with you. > > > > > > > > And bragging about (supposedly) having money is a sign of no class. > > > > > > Like > > > > > > pretending to have proof that your soul mate published in journals > > > > > > in a > > > > > > field he doesn't know anything about. > > > > > > > Kinda like some fool claiming that he is an accomplished person > > > > > because of the name of the school that gave him a degree. I, OTOH, > > > > > have actually published in the area of materials science, and that > > > > > fact for some reason bothers you...which can only mean you are > > > > > envious! > > > > > > No, you have not. Fourth author in a chemistry proceedings of a > > > > conference you didn't even go to is absolutely NOT a materials science > > > > publication. Any more than mine in the IADR Proceedings makes me a > > > > dentist. Poor effort on your part. > > > > > > You suffer from a serious inferiority complex, that means your life is > > > > devoted to trying (unsuccessfully) to tear down anyone with even modest > > > > achievements in life. How very sad. > > > > > I see, so you found the ACS Symposium series presentation and > > > publication! Nope, doesn't make me a chemist, nor a seamstress (- > > > ster!) but silk is a material and the work done was in materials > > > science. There is one other publication in a much more significant > > > journal and another presentation at an international conference...I > > > even have a picture of me with everyone at the conference! > > > > And it sure doesn't make you even remotely anything to do with materials > > science. Chemists are always claiming to be "materials scientists", > > because there is more funding there than in their field. Silk is a > > textile, and this was a chemistry proceedings and not peer reviewed in > > the accepted way. Sorry - you lose. The other "publications" are equally > > bogus. > > > > > > > > > In any event, it remains interesting that you are so consumed by the > > > fact that I have done a bit of work in the area of materials science! > > > > Sorry, but you have not. I am more interested in the fact that you have > > to lie about it, in order to try to run down another academic. Doesn;t > > say a lot for your professional ethics, now does it? > > You are the once forcing the issue here. I have offered nothing but > what I know. Your opinion is, as usual, meaningless. Materials science > is what it is, and lots of people get involved at various levels > (which holds true for any such areas). That the fact I have done some > materials science research, which to me is no big deal in any sense at > all, bothers you is both interesting and telling. Yes, but you are the one that claimed to know a great deal more than you do about "materials science", and then tried to justify that claim with phony "credentials". And, seeing as you have so conveniently forgotten, your claim was that you had a) attended materials science conferences, and b) published in the materials science journals. Too bad you have not been able to back those claims up so far.
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 12:08 In article <1c656f12-e664-443d-87b3-b00bb651b55b(a)h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:37�pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:31:40 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b79dfb3$0$4851$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:23:24 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <4b7893f6$0$5103$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > >>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > >>>> You haven't commented on Obama's performance in the recent live > > >>>> televised debate. Why is that? Could it be that you're so desperate > > >>>> to believe Obama is helpless without a teleprompter that you block > > >>>> out all evidence to the contrary? Perhaps your obvious bias is > > >>>> influencing your predictions about Obama's favorability ratings. > > > > >>> Ok, I'll play. It was not a debate. It was a ask a quesiton and > > >>> receive an answer session. > > > > >> Correct. It was actually tougher than a debate. They were lined up > > >> with carefully prepared question after carefully prepared question, > > >> and they still got nowhere. I am quite certain that the GOP will > > >> never invite Obama to a live, unscripted television debate of this > > >> type again. > > > > > Here we go again. What is your definition of a debate? > > > > Another definition request. You're like one of those kids at the > > national spelling bee who can't spell the word. > > > > > What Obama did was not debating. Obama was asked a question, Obama's > > > response was whatever he wanted to talk about. The questioner did not > > > get the oppourtunity to ask a follow-up question. Hell, even a press > > > conference has more in commone with a debate than Obama not directly > > > responding to the questions asked by the Republicans. > > > > On the other hand he didn't get to ask them questions, so the ball was > > always in his court. The went after him with carefully prepared > > questions for over an hour and got nowhere. Not a teleprompter in sight, > > which ought to put an end to that particular fantasy. > > The person who answers the questions has the control. So then Sarah Palin's claim that Katie Couric and Charles Gibson "ambushed" her, is just so much BS. Palin really had "the control", so she therefore screwed up. Glad you have finally conceded that.
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 12:09
In article <6565a483-ab23-4eaf-8492-2abf296b7ba6(a)j31g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 15, 6:58�pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:23:24 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b7893f6$0$5103$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > >> You haven't commented on Obama's performance in the recent live > > >> televised debate. Why is that? Could it be that you're so desperate > > >> to believe Obama is helpless without a teleprompter that you block > > >> out all evidence to the contrary? Perhaps your obvious bias is > > >> influencing your predictions about Obama's favorability ratings. > > > > > Ok, I'll play. It was not a debate. It was a ask a quesiton and > > > receive an answer session. > > > > Correct. It was actually tougher than a debate. They were lined up with > > carefully prepared question after carefully prepared question, and they > > still got nowhere. I am quite certain that the GOP will never invite > > Obama to a live, unscripted television debate of this type again. > > I thought Obama sucked in that forum. All he did was deny everything, > no real rationale given, just deny. Looks good the the choir though, I > suppose. Sunshine, you are pre-conditioned to believe that Obama "sucks" at anything and everything he does. Wrestling with a pig again. |