On Oct 14, 4:57 pm, aine wrote:

On Oct 14, 2:17 pm, Tom wrote:


On Oct 14, 12:05 pm, aine wrote:

I doubt you are smart or enlightened enough to explain to begin with
and I tend to pass your kind off.


Of course you do. Just as I pass your kind off. Now that we're both
passed off, let's get to something substantive. You have judged that
I am not "smart" enough or "enlightened" enough to explain Sid's
behavior to you.

I hadn't realized how smart and enlightened you
believe a person must be in order to successfully explain anything to
you.

How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you? What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it? Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

On Oct 14, 4:57 pm, aine wrote:

On Oct 14, 2:17 pm, Tom wrote:


On Oct 14, 12:05 pm, aine wrote:

I doubt you are smart or enlightened enough to explain to begin with
and I tend to pass your kind off.


Of course you do. Just as I pass your kind off. Now that we're both
passed off, let's get to something substantive. You have judged that
I am not "smart" enough or "enlightened" enough to explain Sid's
behavior to you.

I hadn't realized how smart and enlightened you
believe a person must be in order to successfully explain anything to
you.

How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you? What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it? Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

On Oct 14, 7:15=A0am, Evergreen <sidneyla... at (no spam) nospam.invalid
wrote:

On alt.religion.wicca, Evergreen <sidneyla... at (no spam) nospam.invalid
wrote:





On alt.religion.wicca, Evergreen
sidneyla... at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:

On alt.religion.wicca, Evergreen
sidneyla... at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:

[delete]

I see that "Sarchasm" is jabbering at me again. Don't know
=A0 . why He knows I don't read his shit posts =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =

=A0 =A0 =A0 .

shrug> Like all trolls, he just doesn't realize that
rational adults do not read posts from people who
consistently display ignorance, malice, dishonesty,
stupidity, hypocrisy, cowardice, and repulsiveness.

He just doesn't realize that he has no credibility with
anyone worth talking to and thus his words are powerless
and a waste of time.

I don't have to read his posts because I know that he knows
nothing worth knowing and is completely harmless.

The pathology of trolls is a very interesting subject.
Fortunately, one does not have to read their garbage to
study it.

Sid

! D 200 30:[Evergreen ] Re: Don't Feel Guilty About Ranting
2! - 200 32:[Alrah ] `-

So I am talking about the psycho-pathology of trolls and
this guy with a throw-away alias shows up and tacks two
lines on my article for a reply.

I smell the stink of troll here.

The article has been dumped.

I'll never know what this mental case said and it won't harm
me in the least.

So the idiot troll changes its name again.

All posts from "Kate" dumped.

Get a life, you pathetic loser.

Sid

Easy to do, without reading them. Stupid to think you have to
read posts to delete them. The names are right there out front.
I think arrogant & self important people tell themselves people
*really do* read their posts. I can easily not read anyones.
Including ren's these days.

I see that "Sarchasm" is helping me look like a moron again. Don't know
why,
I don't really need assistance to come across as a deranged troll.

"Tom" is your typical ideological bully. A fucking punk who is
not allowed to open his mouth in my presence.

"Sarchasm" is a mentally ill creep who gets the same treatment.

On alt.religion.wicca, aine <aine_nicneven at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[delete]

On Oct 14, 9:22 pm, Tom <danto... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

On Oct 14, 4:57 pm, aine <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

However, if you're foolish enough to believe what Sid tells you,
there's probably no point in trying to explain even simple things to
you.

If you have to resort to this belittling  tactic to reason your point,

It's in addition to my point.  Attend to it or not.  Your choice will
depend on what exactly you think the point should be.

Duh, which is why your reply to me was just a knee jerk insult or half
assed blackmail against my intelligence so I would agree with you.
Lame..weak..you are better then that!

I doubt you are smart or enlightened enough to explain to begin with
and I tend to pass your kind off.

Of course you do.  Just as I pass your kind off.

That is NOT what you said last night.. or maybe you did I was fairly
blitzed!

 Now that we're both
passed off, let's get to something substantive.  You have judged that
I am not "smart" enough or "enlightened" enough to explain Sid's
behavior to you.  I hadn't realized how smart and enlightened you
believe a person must be in order to successfully explain anything to
you.

Actually my IQ is 147. I get by.

How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you?  What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it?  Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

You started this dork-ass and I mean that with all my eye lashes
flutterin!

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

I can.

Tom wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:57 pm, aine  wrote:

On Oct 14, 2:17 pm, Tom  wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:05 pm, aine  wrote:

I doubt you are smart or enlightened enough to explain to begin with
and I tend to pass your kind off.

Of course you do.  Just as I pass your kind off.  Now that we're both
passed off, let's get to something substantive.  You have judged that
I am not "smart" enough or "enlightened" enough to explain Sid's
behavior to you.  

Perhaps "smart" or "enlightened" is not enough? perhaps a soup on of
social polity would better display any smarts or enlightenment.

I hadn't realized how smart and enlightened you
believe a person must be in order to successfully explain anything to
you.  

Often it is not what is said, over and over again, but how it is said,
that becomes the telling factor.

How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you?  What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it?  Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

With out the social polity of a rational dialogue "substantive
communication" is repudiated with a metaphorical junkyard rumble.

A veritable 'free for all' where desecration is the better part of
valor, where mere polemics tries to masquerade as 'smart' and 'enlightened.'

On Oct 14, 10:01 pm, aine <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:


Apparently you don't know what the word "blackmail" means, genius.
Your use of the term is completely inappropriate.

I doubt you are smart or enlightened enough to explain to begin with
and I tend to pass your kind off.

Of course you do.  Just as I pass your kind off.

That is NOT what you said last night.. or maybe you did I was fairly
blitzed!

I'm not accountable for what you imagine I'm doing in your drug-addled
brain.

 Now that we're both
passed off, let's get to something substantive.  You have judged that
I am not "smart" enough or "enlightened" enough to explain Sid's
behavior to you.  I hadn't realized how smart and enlightened you
believe a person must be in order to successfully explain anything to
you.

Actually my IQ is 147. I get by.

I don't care what you claim your IQ is.  You said that a person must
be "smart or enlightened enough" to explain something to you.  So
exactly how smart or enlightened does a person have to be to explain
something to you?  And how do you determine how smart or enlightened a
person is?

How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you?  What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it?  Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

You started this dork-ass and I mean that with all my eye lashes
flutterin!

These questions are apparently too tough for a person with a self-
proclaimed IQ of 147.

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

I can.

We have no evidence of that at all.

"aine" <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:aa11fa79-8d9a-4385-8c68-4ff83ea389cc at (no spam) s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Wanna do magick like the really old days of alt.magick when Stryker
and all the old hard core, let's annihilate this witch chick aine who
came in from alt.wicca on Usenet but be friends and do magick with her
in e-mail and on the phone? I kindof miss the rush...

Trauma after all, is the engine of initiation.

Wanna do magick like the really old days of alt.magick when Stryker
and all the old hard core, let's annihilate this witch chick aine who
came in from alt.wicca on Usenet but be friends and do magick with her
in e-mail and on the phone? I kindof miss the rush...

On Oct 15, 8:39 am, Tom <danto... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

On Oct 14, 10:01 pm, aine <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

That is NOT what you said last night.. or maybe you did I was fairly
blitzed!

I'm not accountable for what you imagine I'm doing in your drug-addled
brain.

You Tommy, are accountable for everything.

Actually my IQ is 147. I get by.

I don't care what you claim your IQ is.  You said that a person must
be "smart or enlightened enough" to explain something to you.  So
exactly how smart or enlightened does a person have to be to explain
something to you?  And how do you determine how smart or enlightened a
person is?

Apparantly,

since nothing I have seen you express is ever outside the
box of, "I am right, cuz I am Tommy" and "you are wrong because you
are arguing with me", you are not even close to being rated or one of
those people.

How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you?  What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it?  Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

You started this dork-ass and I mean that with all my eye lashes
flutterin!

These questions are apparently too tough for a person with a self-
proclaimed IQ of 147.

Whether they are or are not has nothing to do with if I will answer. I
am smart enough to know that my reply is not really what you are
interested in for discussion.It will not matter how I answer it, you
will find something to insult because what you really desire and
*need* is to be seen as right.

At all costs, including insulting
people just because I do not agree with you. For a short test let us
look into the archives if you must for how you react to people who
agree with you or you like verses those who do not agree with you or
you do not get along with.

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

I can.

We have no evidence of that at all.

How many people are you Tommy?

On Oct 15, 9:26 am, aine <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 8:39 am, Tom <danto... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

On Oct 14, 10:01 pm, aine <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

That is NOT what you said last night.. or maybe you did I was fairly
blitzed!

I'm not accountable for what you imagine I'm doing in your drug-addled
brain.

You Tommy, are accountable for everything.

Then bow down and worship me, child, for you have just declared me to
be the One True God.  The First and Only Cause.

Actually my IQ is 147. I get by.

I don't care what you claim your IQ is.  You said that a person must
be "smart or enlightened enough" to explain something to you.  So
exactly how smart or enlightened does a person have to be to explain
something to you?  And how do you determine how smart or enlightened a
person is?

Apparantly,

"Apparently", genius.

since nothing I have seen you express is ever outside the
box of, "I am right, cuz I am Tommy" and "you are wrong because you
are arguing with me", you are not even close to being rated or one of
those people.

Of course you haven't seen any such thing.  You'll never see what you
refuse to look for.





How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you?  What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it?  Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

You started this dork-ass and I mean that with all my eye lashes
flutterin!

These questions are apparently too tough for a person with a self-
proclaimed IQ of 147.

Whether they are or are not has nothing to do with if I will answer. I
am smart enough to know that my reply is not really what you are
interested in for discussion.It will not matter how I answer it, you
will find something to insult because what you really desire and
*need* is to be seen as right.

So you won't answer because you're afraid I'll argue with you.

At all costs, including insulting
people just because I do not agree with you. For a short test let us
look into the archives if you must for how you react to people who
agree with you or you like verses those who do not agree with you or
you do not get along with.

Have you considered performing this search of *your own* posts,
genius?

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

I can.

We have no evidence of that at all.

How many people are you Tommy?

OK, genius, if you're going to keep up, you need a little lesson in
diction here.  "We" is a term which indicates a group of which the
speaker is a member, such as those who read this newsgroup.  Since you
have posted not a single substantive contribution to any thread in
this newsgroup, we, the readers of this newsgroup, have no evidence of
your ability to engage in substantive communication.

I'm beginning to have strong doubts as to the reliability of any IQ
test that ranked you in the top two percentile, if indeed any actually
did.  The standard IQ test has two basic components, verbal
performance and nonverbal performance.  While spelling is not tested,
diction and the organization of thoughts into meaningful words and
sentences certainly is.  You have not performed very well in those
categories.  In the nonverbal section, there are several tests of
logical organization and the understanding of cause-effect
relationships.  Again, your performance to date does not display much
skill in those areas either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 15, 9:26 am, aine <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm not accountable for what you imagine I'm doing in your drug-addled
brain.

You Tommy, are accountable for everything.

Then bow down and worship me, child, for you have just declared me to
be the One True God.  The First and Only Cause.

Actually my IQ is 147. I get by.

I don't care what you claim your IQ is.  You said that a person must
be "smart or enlightened enough" to explain something to you.  So
exactly how smart or enlightened does a person have to be to explain
something to you?  And how do you determine how smart or enlightened a
person is?

Apparantly,

"Apparently", genius.

since nothing I have seen you express is ever outside the
box of, "I am right, cuz I am Tommy" and "you are wrong because you
are arguing with me", you are not even close to being rated or one of
those people.

Of course you haven't seen any such thing.  You'll never see what you
refuse to look for.

How would you decide who was smart or enlightened enough to
explain some particular thing to you?  What are your criteria for the
"smart" label and how do you test it?  Similarly, what are your
criteria for the "enlightened" label and how do you test it?

You started this dork-ass and I mean that with all my eye lashes
flutterin!

These questions are apparently too tough for a person with a self-
proclaimed IQ of 147.

Whether they are or are not has nothing to do with if I will answer. I
am smart enough to know that my reply is not really what you are
interested in for discussion.It will not matter how I answer it, you
will find something to insult because what you really desire and
*need* is to be seen as right.

So you won't answer because you're afraid I'll argue with you.

At all costs, including insulting
people just because I do not agree with you. For a short test let us
look into the archives if you must for how you react to people who
agree with you or you like verses those who do not agree with you or
you do not get along with.

Have you considered performing this search of *your own* posts,
genius?

Or are you still too busy passing me off to engage in a substantive
communication?

I can.

We have no evidence of that at all.

How many people are you Tommy?

OK, genius, if you're going to keep up, you need a little lesson in
diction here.  "We" is a term which indicates a group of which the
speaker is a member, such as those who read this newsgroup.  Since you
have posted not a single substantive contribution to any thread in
this newsgroup, we, the readers of this newsgroup, have no evidence of
your ability to engage in substantive communication.

I'm beginning to have strong doubts as to the reliability of any IQ
test that ranked you in the top two percentile, if indeed any actually
did.  The standard IQ test has two basic components, verbal
performance and nonverbal performance.  While spelling is not tested,
diction and the organization of thoughts into meaningful words and
sentences certainly is.  You have not performed very well in those
categories.  In the nonverbal section, there are several tests of
logical organization and the understanding of cause-effect
relationships.  Again, your performance to date does not display much
skill in those areas either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 15, 7:49=A0pm, Tom <danto... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:26=A0am, aine <aine_nicne... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm not accountable for what you imagine I'm doing in your drug-addle=
d
brain.

You Tommy, are accountable for everything.

Then bow down and worship me, child, for you have just declared me to
be the One True God. =A0The First and Only Cause.

Whatever. You have more interest in keeping this going then I do.