On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:24 +0000, Froot Bat  wrote:

>On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:31:10 +0100, SAm Nelson 
>wrote:
>
>>In article , abelard3
>>@abelard.org says...
>>> you drips never do learn....
>>
>>I can call you a drip that never learns as well.  What purpose would that 
>>serve?  Is it actually true that you have no other argument than "I'm 
>>right, and anyone that fails to recognise that is an idiotic drip"?
>
>Abe Lard is probably one of those loons who thinks Hitler was a
>socialist, so yes, that's probably true.

ah, the goebbels technique...
that stopped working on any but fools 70 years ago.....

you probably don't even know that goebbels was a socialist

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:02:45 +0200, abelard 
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:24 +0000, Froot Bat  wrote:
>
>>Abe Lard is probably one of those loons who thinks Hitler was a
>>socialist
>
>[...]
>
>you probably don't even know that goebbels was a socialist

Okay, this still counts right? What do I win?

In article <4a15a7e5$0$31176$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, me@privacy.net 
says...
> 
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:02:45 +0200, abelard 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:24 +0000, Froot Bat  wrote:
> >
> >>Abe Lard is probably one of those loons who thinks Hitler was a
> >>socialist
> >[...]
> >
> >you probably don't even know that goebbels was a socialist
> 
> Okay, this still counts right? What do I win?

You mean, other than yet more insults from an incoherent, babbling fool 
that apparently enjoys embarrassing itself in public?  I dont know.
-- 
SAm.

'SAm Nelson' wrote thus:

>In article <4a15a7e5$0$31176$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, me@privacy.net 
>says...
>> 
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:02:45 +0200, abelard 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:24 +0000, Froot Bat  wrote:
>> >
>> >>Abe Lard is probably one of those loons who thinks Hitler was a
>> >>socialist
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >you probably don't even know that goebbels was a socialist
>> 
>> Okay, this still counts right? What do I win?
>
>You mean, other than yet more insults from an incoherent, babbling fool 
>that apparently enjoys embarrassing itself in public?  I dont know.

There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.

You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
ignorant. Your choice.

aracari wrote:

> 'SAm Nelson' wrote thus:
> 
> > In article <4a15a7e5$0$31176$8a667849@news.ak47.org>,
> > me@privacy.net says...
> >> 
> >> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:02:45 +0200, abelard 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:24 +0000, Froot Bat 
> wrote:  >> >
> >> >>Abe Lard is probably one of those loons who thinks Hitler was a
> >> >>socialist
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >you probably don't even know that goebbels was a socialist
> >> 
> >> Okay, this still counts right? What do I win?
> > 
> > You mean, other than yet more insults from an incoherent, babbling
> > fool that apparently enjoys embarrassing itself in public?  I dont
> > know.
> 
> There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
> better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.
> 
> You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
> ignorant. Your choice.

Before you can debate socialism, you have to agree what the term means.
As few on here are mind readers, the Adelard definition of "everything
in the world that i do not like" is not a good starting point for any
discussion.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:17:14 GMT, "aaa"  wrote:

>aracari wrote:
>
>> 'SAm Nelson' wrote thus:
>> 
>> > In article <4a15a7e5$0$31176$8a667849@news.ak47.org>,
>> > me@privacy.net says...
>> >> 
>> >> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:02:45 +0200, abelard 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:24 +0000, Froot Bat 
>> wrote:  >> >
>> >> >>Abe Lard is probably one of those loons who thinks Hitler was a
>> >> >>socialist
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >you probably don't even know that goebbels was a socialist
>> >> 
>> >> Okay, this still counts right? What do I win?
>> > 
>> > You mean, other than yet more insults from an incoherent, babbling
>> > fool that apparently enjoys embarrassing itself in public?  I dont
>> > know.
>> 
>> There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
>> better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.
>> 
>> You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
>> ignorant. Your choice.
>
>Before you can debate socialism, you have to agree what the term means.

so, at least you have reached that far.....or have you...

>As few on here are mind readers, the Adelard definition of "everything
>in the world that i do not like" is not a good starting point for any
>discussion.

you are totally incorrect.....

not adelard of bath...abelard of le pallet....
i have no ability to read minds...let alone empty minds like your own.

you have reached as far as realising that without a definition of
    terms useful discussion cannot get far....yet can not grasp that
    'everything in the world that you do not like' is also not a
    useful definition...


you may count your ignorances as they inevitably accumulate....
let alone your direct lies...


-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , spamtrap@váilable.here.com 
says...
> There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
> better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.

Why, then, does abelard always come across as someone who arrogantly 
expects everyone to agree, without putting forward any point of view at 
all.

Abelard also can't punctuate, capitalise, use grammar or syntax, or design 
a website.  It isn't looking good for abelard---looks like an eccentric 
troll from here.

> And trust me it is evil.

That's as good as there is, is it?  I've to take it on trust?

> You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
> ignorant. Your choice.

I haven't been given anything to learn.  All I've seen so far is `socialism 
is bad'.  No reasoning, no justification.  Nothing.  How can anyone learn 
from that?
-- 
SAm.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:47:29 +0100, Sam Nelson 
wrote:

>In article , spamtrap@váilable.here.com 
>says...
>> There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
>> better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.
>
>Why, then, does abelard always come across as someone who arrogantly 
>expects everyone to agree, without putting forward any point of view at 
>all.
>
>Abelard also can't punctuate, capitalise, use grammar or syntax, or design 
>a website.  It isn't looking good for abelard---looks like an eccentric 
>troll from here.
>
>> And trust me it is evil.
>
>That's as good as there is, is it?  I've to take it on trust?
>
>> You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
>> ignorant. Your choice.
>
>I haven't been given anything to learn.  All I've seen so far is `socialism 
>is bad'.  No reasoning, no justification.  Nothing.  How can anyone learn 
>from that?

terrorism is also bad....
if you do not even appreciate the socialism is 'bad'....

the problem remains...where on earth does one start with you

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , abelard3
@abelard.org says...
> the problem remains...where on earth does one start with you

Clueless fuckwit.
-- 
SAm.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:01:29 +0100, Sam Nelson 
wrote:

>In article , abelard3
>@abelard.org says...
>> the problem remains...where on earth does one start with you
>
>Clueless fuckwit.

and that is of course the problem....
where on earth does one start with you

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , abelard3
@abelard.org says...
> 
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:01:29 +0100, Sam Nelson 
> wrote:
> 
> >In article , abelard3
> >@abelard.org says...
> >> the problem remains...where on earth does one start with you
> >
> >Clueless fuckwit.
> 
> and that is of course the problem....
> where on earth does one start with you

You haven't ever tried.  Never.  You've advanced no argument whatsoever.  
How can you _possibly_ conclude that you don't know where to start?  To 
conclude that you don't know where to start labels you, inevitably, as a 
clueless fuckwit.  If you want to avoid that label, advance an argument.  
Go on, I dare you.

If you don't have an argument, of course, you'll simply carry on and on 
with `where on earth does one start with you', I guess.
-- 
SAm.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:44:33 +0100, Sam Nelson 
wrote:

>In article , abelard3
>@abelard.org says...
>> 
>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:01:29 +0100, Sam Nelson 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article , abelard3
>> >@abelard.org says...
>> >> the problem remains...where on earth does one start with you
>> >
>> >Clueless fuckwit.
>> 
>> and that is of course the problem....
>> where on earth does one start with you
>
>You haven't ever tried.  Never.  You've advanced no argument whatsoever.  
>How can you _possibly_ conclude that you don't know where to start? 

wow...you catch on eventually.....no, i don't know where to
    start with you...
how to teach a child to count before they learn to speak....

> To 
>conclude that you don't know where to start labels you, inevitably, as a 
>clueless fuckwit.  If you want to avoid that label, advance an argument.  
>Go on, I dare you.

socialism is a socially destructive shallow puritanical christianist
     schism...

>If you don't have an argument, of course, you'll simply carry on and on 
>with `where on earth does one start with you', I guess.

there is no point 'arguing' with a block of wood....
'arguing' is an immature form of communication....

the question remains...where does one start with you?

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , abelard3
@abelard.org says...
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:44:33 +0100, Sam Nelson 
> wrote:
> >If you don't have an argument, of course, you'll simply carry on and on 
> >with `where on earth does one start with you', I guess.
> 
> the question remains...where does one start with you?

Heck, that was easy.  Thanks for playing.
-- 
SAm.

'Sam Nelson' wrote thus:

>In article , spamtrap@váilable.here.com 
>says...
>> There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
>> better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.
>
>Why, then, does abelard always come across as someone who arrogantly 
>expects everyone to agree, without putting forward any point of view at 
>all.

After explaining it a 1,000 times I guess it becomes monotonous.
He therefore assumes others will do their own research.

>Abelard also can't punctuate, capitalise, use grammar or syntax, or design 
>a website.  It isn't looking good for abelard---looks like an eccentric 
>troll from here.

Not relevant to the issue.

>> And trust me it is evil.
>
>That's as good as there is, is it?  I've to take it on trust?

Old Labour were indisputably socialist. New Labour is just Old
Labour with a new packaging and a more authoritarian nature.

>> You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
>> ignorant. Your choice.
>
>I haven't been given anything to learn.  All I've seen so far is `socialism 
>is bad'.  No reasoning, no justification.  Nothing.  How can anyone learn 
>from that?

Google is your friend. You will find a lot of stuff how wonderful
it is in theory. The practice is very different.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 13:24:10 +0100, aracari
 wrote:

>'Sam Nelson' wrote thus:
>
>>In article , spamtrap@váilable.here.com 
>>says...
>>> There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
>>> better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.
>>
>>Why, then, does abelard always come across as someone who arrogantly 
>>expects everyone to agree, without putting forward any point of view at 
>>all.
>
>After explaining it a 1,000 times I guess it becomes monotonous.
>He therefore assumes others will do their own research.
>
>>Abelard also can't punctuate, capitalise, use grammar or syntax, or design 
>>a website.  It isn't looking good for abelard---looks like an eccentric 
>>troll from here.
>
>Not relevant to the issue.

oh yes...but it does save thinking...

regards

>>> And trust me it is evil.
>>
>>That's as good as there is, is it?  I've to take it on trust?
>
>Old Labour were indisputably socialist. New Labour is just Old
>Labour with a new packaging and a more authoritarian nature.
>
>>> You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
>>> ignorant. Your choice.
>>
>>I haven't been given anything to learn.  All I've seen so far is `socialism 
>>is bad'.  No reasoning, no justification.  Nothing.  How can anyone learn 
>>from that?
>
>Google is your friend. You will find a lot of stuff how wonderful
>it is in theory. The practice is very different.

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:17:14 GMT, "aaa"  wrote:
> 
> > aracari wrote:
> > 
> >> 'SAm Nelson' wrote thus:
> >> 
> >> > In article <4a15a7e5$0$31176$8a667849@news.ak47.org>,
> >> > me@privacy.net says...
> >> >> 
> >> >> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:02:45 +0200, abelard
>  >> >> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:24 +0000, Froot Bat 
> >> wrote:  >> >
> >> >> >>Abe Lard is probably one of those loons who thinks Hitler was
> a >> >> >>socialist
> >> >> >[...]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >you probably don't even know that goebbels was a socialist
> >> >> 
> >> >> Okay, this still counts right? What do I win?
> >> > 
> >> > You mean, other than yet more insults from an incoherent,
> babbling >> > fool that apparently enjoys embarrassing itself in
> public?  I dont >> > know.
> >> 
> >> There are few people I know who understand the evils of socialism
> >> better than abelard. And trust me it is evil.
> >> 
> >> You can either listen and learn or close input channels and remain
> >> ignorant. Your choice.
> > 
> > Before you can debate socialism, you have to agree what the term
> > means.
> 
> so, at least you have reached that far.....or have you...
> 
> > As few on here are mind readers, the Adelard definition of
> > "everything in the world that i do not like" is not a good starting
> > point for any discussion.
> 
> you are totally incorrect.....
> 
> not adelard of bath...abelard of le pallet....
> i have no ability to read minds...let alone empty minds like your own.
> 
> you have reached as far as realising that without a definition of
>     terms useful discussion cannot get far....yet can not grasp that
>     'everything in the world that you do not like' is also not a
>     useful definition...
> 
> 
> you may count your ignorances as they inevitably accumulate....
> let alone your direct lies...


Yes that just about sums you up, total incoherence and vacuous words.
You have about as much substance as the paper this is written on.

Just keep paying out to your betters for the duck islands and moat
cleaning, like a good prole.