From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:52:32 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Btpp5u.GC5@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
wrote:
> 
> In <lefty-280892110716@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> 
> >> Well, I have gotten very good lately at ignoring your posts Lefty.
> 
> >Out of sheer self-defense, I'm quite certain.  Begging me to stop clearly
> >hasn't worked in your favor.
> 
>    No. Self-defense isn't quite how I'd word it. how about, sheer boredom?

I see.  You're so bored, you can't help but respond to everything I post. 
Interesting condition.  I notice as well that you're no longer edified,
oracular, asterisked or Elvis.

Dance, clown, dance!

> Perhaps at times I have begged you to stop, but only because I'm in
> pain laughing AT you, or dying from boredom. Either way, too much of you
> is a bad thing.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much..."  Since you seem to be having
such problems with my presence on talk.abortion and alt.flame, maybe you'd
better run along to some venue more to your liking.  I personally think
you're a natural for alt.romance.chat.  Stay there, and I promise not to
bother you any more.

> >>    Where oh where have demonstrated any loss of confidence or self-image
> >> Leftie?
> 
> >Well, gee, Stevie, there's your signature for starts, right, "Superboy"?
> 
>    Ahh yes - if I'm a little cocky and my username happens to coincide
> with a superhero, then clearly - I'm experiencing grand delusions.

Coupled with your content-free posting style and your nauseating
sycophancies to anyone you believe might respond positively, yes.  And your
username just "happens to coincide with a superhero", eh?  No _particular_
effort on your part to obtain that _particular_ login?  Is that the story?

You _are_ a sick little boy, Stevie.

> >  o  You've somehow accomplished great, and unspecified, things in the 
> >     nineteen years of your existence and that I should, for some reason, 
> >     respect you for this.
> 
>    Lefty - I was just trying to establish credibility

I see.  You're attempting to establish your credibility with me by making a
variety of vague, unsupported, and unlikely claims.  Hey, keen strategy.

Why don't you cut to the chase and tell me that you're worth more than Bill
Gates, get daily blow jobs from Paulina Porzikova and Elle McPherson, have
an IQ of 1500 and are Emperor of North America?  I'd be equally impressed.

> However you see none, because I am not:
>    a) a kiss up 

Bullshit.  You've been sucking up to Darcy in a completely transparent
fashion for weeks now.

>    b) liberal democrat

What gives you the slightest impression that I care one iota what your
politics are?  What gives you the further impression that I value socialist
reactionaries any more than I do fascist reactionaries?

>    c) a computer geek

This seems to constitute some sort of extremely potent insult in your
febrile little mind.  Care to explain it, Mr. Subliminal Psychology Major?

>    d) an amoral yet oh-so-tiresome wanker like yourself

I'm touched by your concerns for my imagined lack of morality, Stevie, but
I'm certainly not interested in taking lessons from the likes of you.

>    So, clearly, I can see why this distance should exist between you and I.
> 
> >  o  You, contrary to _all_ available evidence, are somehow _much_ more 
> >     intelligent than I give you credit for, and that I should concede this
> 
>    Lefty, you wouldn't know what available evidence is. This is in a world
> where you judge a man by how many lines of code he produces in a day is
> not worth a hell of a lot.

Sorry, we got away from that sort of thing decades ago.  We judge people by
performance these days.  Of course, being a consummate nonperformer, I
suppose you prefer to be judged on different grounds.

I expect that you'd like to be judged by the grandeur of your delusions,
but it doesn't work that way either.  The only way anyone on USENET can
judge you is by what you _produce_, Stevie.  As far as you're concerned,
the verdict is in.

Based on what you produce, you are the USENET equivalent of a manure farm:
lots of bullshit and hot gas.

> I judge a man by his reasoning, and on this you fail miserably.

Do tell?  The man who can't construct two coherent posts in a row finds my
ratiocination deficient.  Boo hoo.  Imagine my distress.

> Don't you get it? You're outclassed by almost every individual on USENET yet 
> you still insist on receiving a teensy iota of respect.

Oh, don't worry about _me_, Stevie.  After all, it isn't _my_ self-image we
were discussing here, was it?  Believe me, if I _did_ start to get what
passes for "respect" from you or Darcy or Chaney, I would certainly start
to be concerned.

Strike that.  I'd seriously consider seppuku.

> >  o  I'm clearly "not enjoying myself" demolishing you, and that I should
> >stop immediately.
> 
>    Lefty. Leftovers... Rarely has anyone made such a ridiculous statement.

I quite agree.  On the other hand, you _were_ the one who made it.  Care to
deny it?

> You insist on demolishing me, but I have never seen anything witty,
> interesting, flammable, or potentially rude from you.

Well, that speaks volumes for your comprehension.  Sorry, but I have a
great deal of trouble writing down to your reading level.  Would it help if
I told you that "you suck"?  Is that more along the lines of what you've
been waiting for?

> I would be the first to laugh if you had an interesting and challenging 
> statement against me, yet repeatedly I am unfulfilled as your ASCII drones 
> on in a sort of mindless mental stream of endless garbage.

Sorry, Stevie, I'm not responsible for your lack of "fulfillment".  I think
you'd do better with a copy of Hustler and a tube of Vaseline.

> >In fact, I'm pretty sure you are.  Unless, of course, you're like Dennis
> >and there's more than one of you in there.
> 
>    Don't flatter yourself. It only takes one of me to make you look stupid
> Leftovers.

Let me know when you're ready to get started, would you, Stevie?  I
wouldn't want to become all aflutter with anticipation prematurely.

> No one else need help.

No one else _would_ help.  Oh, well, Chaney would, but I'd scarcely count
him.  After all, his idea of flaming is to delete the entire article he's
responding to and to replace it with "Cut it out, <<insert random name
here>>!".  BFD.

> In fact, it doesn't even take me.

You certainly have _that_ right.  Since we all seem to be in agreement now
that you have nothing to contribute here, why don't you take yourself down
to the nearest major highway and work on your impression of a median strip?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.