[Swiny Todd the Butcher]: My initial criticism was not a criticism of your spelling per se, but your pathetic attempts at prose style which mitigate any interest I might have in the content of your posts (which isn't much). You then made spelling the issue,...

Nonsense. As everyone that read these posts of yours can plainly see:

[STtB]: Once again you seem to be spelling words in a manner commensurate with the level of intellectual development your opinions and general outlook would suggest you possess - which is to say, an exceptionally level.

If you don't like my prose style, then don't read it. Stay as dumb and unedjoomakated as you choose. Just don't pretend that you've added anything of substance that anyone would or should give a damn about.

Cheers,

[Arne]: I'd point out that I can "fix" my mispellings any time I want

[Swiny Todd the Butcher]: Apparently, you can't. Did you learn nothing from the URLs I directed you to?

You mistake a refusal to do so for an inability. Look here, azo, I am under no compulsion to act any way just because you say I should (don't look now, but your RW authoritarian nature -- the one I pointed out previously -- is showing). If my wife asks me to stop mispelling things, and I decline to do so, WTF do you think I'd listen to a RW azo?

It would have taken three words in Google for you to determine that I am doing so intentionally. Instead, you stoopidly and cluelessly assume that I don't know what I'm doing. That is your misteak, and shows an appalling lack of perspicacity. Hardly something that you should advertise if you want anyone here to think you have any sense whatsoever.

You may say that "stoopid" and "misteak" just sound dumb, and to you, that may be true, but even that sentiment on your part shows that you are a n3wbie, slow on the uptake, or simply clueless; I'm hardly the first to do so. Which leads me to conclude that you ought to heed your mother, get out of the basement, wash the Cheetoh dust from your hands, and get out in the sunshine. You may eventually grow up.

You could show a start in that direction by considering my suggestions in the prior post ... and you might also acknowledge your mistakes in attribution that I pointed out in prior posts. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Cheers,

I'd point out that I can "fix" my mispellings any time I want

Apparently, you can't. Did you learn nothing from the URLs I directed you to?

It's not the words you use, but how you use them, that is the mark of a true intelligence.

Couldn't agree more, and since your bilous drivel fails on both counts you shouldn't be pointing fingers. My initial criticism was not a criticism of your spelling per se, but your pathetic attempts at prose style which mitigate any interest I might have in the content of your posts (which isn't much). You then made spelling the issue, and proved yourself a catastrophic idiot in the process - after getting a little Bush quip in as well.

...so did we discover things in this thread, such as: 1. There could be a reason why people are "off base" on certain issues? And that 2. using wrong words might not always make the point any less valid?

Let's draw up a thought- experiment: imagine a bunch of angry white people railing on about how blacks and mexicans are the scourge of the world (read: "the US") in less than erudite language. Could there be actual issues hiding underneath here? Is it imaginable that it could be worthwhile to discover what those issues are?

Or is it merely an automatic reality of the real world that this sentiment should be exploited politically? Or, to borrow different nomenclature from this thread: it is simply what the people want, so therefore Congress should respond?

Let's take another one: imagine angry leftist morons screaming their heads off about government conspiracies and corrupt politicians... etc.

So says Swiny Todd:

Arne, if you rely on dictionaries written by people as comprehensively stupid and ill-educated as you, you are going to spell words wrong.

Swiny Todd is probably clueless as to who Ambrose Bierce is. Which would hardly speak well for Swiny Todd's edjoomakation.

Cheers,

What a dribbling, hopelessly retarded cretin you've proved yourself to be.

What a clueless, lazy, humourless (and tedious) moron you are showing yourself to be. I'd point out that I can "fix" my mispellings any time I want, but you're apparently irredeemably stoopid, and that can't be fixed.

There are those whose mothers told them they were smart, and believed this parental affirming "white lie" just a bit too much for their own good. They think they can demonstrate this alleged intelligence by using BIG WORDS (albeit Swiny Todd here has descended to playground epithets here in my direction, and did so early). But vocabulary and proper English hardly make a false or improper argument any more compelling; it's just lipstick on a pig. And a proper argument can be discerned by the astute reader, and real intelligence and erudition shows through even though the language is coarse or simple ... in fact perhaps more so for the more simply stated arguments. And insight can be found ... for those who look ... even in the most untraditional language. I think of Art James here (and my thoughts are with him for a speedy and complete recovery), who confuses many a casual or initial reader. His comments are abstruse, and seemingly off-point, but an inner erudition shows through -- subtle references to authors and intellectual works -- a knowledge and experience that can't be achieved by reading WSJ Op-Eds and listening to Insanity or O'Lielly. Art knows far more than our Swiny Tod knows here, even though Swiny Todd is likely a legacy admission at some Ivy League school or sumptin' and thinks he's hot sh*t even though still wet behind the ears.

It's not the words you use, but how you use them, that is the mark of a true intelligence. Not all of Swiny Todd's dictionaries will ever make him smarter. But he still doesn't know that ... and perhaps never will. After all, his mother told him he's special.

Swiny Todd: I'm glad you visited my web pages, but am disappointed that you seem to have misused the opportunity (as you do here as well). If you really think that I have nothing to say, perhaps you could enter your own comments on my "Nürnberg Defence" post, and explain how I was wrong. Or you might weigh in on my "Torture Can Be Just The Ticket" post, and give your thoughts ... I'm told that students at the Loyola law school were given this post as a starting point for comment as part of the competition to join the school's law review (click sig for link). That might give people some actual meat so as to evaluate your actual capabilities. Your posts here do nothing of the sort (even after your playground epithets have been removed to improve the 'flow').

Cheers,