From: Simon.N.McRae@dartmouth.edu (Simon N McRae)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Simon N. McRae | Nil
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:49:17 GMT
 <1992Dec17.040258.18557@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <exuptr.476.0@exu.ericsson.se>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b3@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <exuptr.476.0@exu.ericsson.se>
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

> Hegemony ususally implies imperialistic or
> dominating behavior within a federation.  

Or it imples imoperialistic or dominating behaviour, period.  You're so
narrow with your words.

> Of course it's used, where have you been.  As for correctness, I put my money
> on fuck-head, since fuckhead is not a word, and pseudo-words like that are 
> usually constructed with hyphens.  Let's see, you are a fuck-head.  Yup, 
> looks right to me ;-)

If you like the "fuck-head" construction so much, why didn't you use it
in your previous post?  You were pretty adamant about "fuck head" then.
 At least now it seems you've come to recognize the limitations of
*that* construct.

> Fact?  You say crap like "You can't expect ...  from Americans" and you 
> call it fact?

The "fact" I meant was the Viet Nam (two words) thing.  Careful
reading's not one of your strong points, eh?

> >And, besides, where do you think we are? 
> 
> I don't think WE are anything.  You are one thing and I am definitely 
> another.

Baffling response to a question about place.  Shouldn't that be "...WE
are anywhere"?  And the second sentence has absolutely no meaning.
  
> >But, deeds done, you've just given me more reason to
> >consider Americans undiscerning.  
> 
> Oh, here we go again.  You get an A+ in hypocrisy.  Think you have all the 
> answers.  What the hell, I've talked to 50, 100, or even 1,000 Americans, so
> I must know how they all are!  

I'm sure your sarcasm would perplex any public opinion person.  Look,
dumbshit, if I actually do talk to a random sampling of 1,000
Americans, and I find 90% of them idiots, then statistically (we're
talking a p value way below 0.05 here) I'd be more than justified in
generalizing about Americans. Of course I've done no such thing, but I
am keeping a little tally going here on the side.  Let's see:  American
Idiots--4,  American Non-idiots--0.  My population group is a little
biased, though.

> Ah.  So I'm stupid for calling you to the carpet on being bigoted.  Clever
> defense.  All you have done is shown the infinite stupidity of those who 
> bash by nationality, putting you with the likes of Kevin Walsh et alia.

No.  You are stupid because you cannot understand anything.

> I'll be fine.  But you should do something about your ugly hatred.  Someday 
> it will get you cold, alone, and eventually dead.  You are a sad little 
> creature.

Hatred?  I don't hate Americans; I pity them.  Nowhere did I say or
imply I hated Americans.  Be more careful next time you go hurtling
accusations about.  The "eventually dead" bit really sinks deep,
though.  Are you sure I'll eventually die??  Next time, try taking more
care with sentence structure.

> >BTW, get rid of ;-).  It's girlish and unctiously saccharine. 
> ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
> 
> There, that should be enough to give you cancer   :-D

This from the man who accused *me* of hatred.  It's ironic, isn't it,
that your own words about hatred now serve only to underscore a
pathetic hypocrisy.

If your drivel had any merit at all it might not be so tiring.  STOP
being so defensive about Americans, and START giving me reason to give
you people some credit.

Toodles, pipsqueak.
Newsgroups: alt.flame