At least Gene can spell 'Chimp', Ivan.

You were clarifying that a post that says nothing has no content?? It could have been worse; you could have said the post said less than nothing. And going back to the post you claim said nothing, the point that went over your head was that “you’re” was the word you were looking for, not “your”.

Have you thought of taking night classes?

For the record, both Squeeky and Lambchops can spell a great many words. At times, they can even cite partial dictionary definitions. Their problem is that a full understanding of many of the words they type, however correctly spelled, often seem to elude them. Especially when they're combined with other words.


Sometimes, when someone has been totally exposed as a pointless dullard, they try to play semantic games to hide the fact that they've been exposed as a dullard. It usually doesn't work.

Squeeky is trying this desperate strategem. It isn't working, and despite his efforts he's still clearly exposed as a dullard with nothing of value to say.

12-12: "Their problem is that a full understanding of many of the words they type, however correctly spelled, often seem to elude them. Especially when they're combined with other words."

12-6 (or maybe earlier): "you've been reduced with clarity"

It's interesting how the Peter David thread shows that this is not the first time IC has displayed this odd mixture of aggression and self-flagellation. That would tend to indicate that it wasn't really the Bryan Talbot topic that interested him here, but that it provided an excuse to froth and foam. It's kind of loosely appropriate, since that's the quality to which I was objecting in Talbot's work.

How interesting to watch Angryangrygene both grow less and less coherent, and accidently revealing of his lack of insight about himself.

He cites things said without understanding what was written, or the context in which they were written, and somehow thinks that it reveals anything other than that he knows how to write down a quote, but not quite comprehend it's meaning.

Then the rabid and angry old twit talks about someone frothing and foaming without the insight to recognise that about all he's been doing on this site for a very long time now is just that; frothing and foaming.

I've always believed that he was socially backward and somewhat maladjusted, and it's always been clear that he hides a weak mind behind a show of pseudo-intellectualism (which presumably is actually a failed attempt at intellectualism). I wasn't fully aware, however, of just how lost he is when he tries to talk his way out of a situation where he's been thoroughly exposed. I guess I always found his writing to be too pedantic and foolish to pay much attention to anything beyond his tenor and tone, but on even a cursory examination it becomes apparant that the guy is actually the kind of person that Squeeky can easily be categorized with; a man of limited intelligence desperate to prove otherwise but not equipped to do so.

”Sometimes, when someone has been totally exposed as a pointless dullard, they try to play semantic games...”
Yeah, like claiming that a misspelled word is justified by it being the onomatopoeic version of that word – even though the word is already onomatopoeic.

(Emphasis added)
IvanJim: "Their problem is that a full understanding of many of the words they type, however correctly spelled, often seem to elude them.”
IvanJim: “The opposite of having respect for someone isn’t having no respect, it's having disrespect.”
Dictionary: “Disrespect: to regard or treat without respect; …have little or no respect for;”

By the way, Ivan, back one page you wrote: “Here, by virtue of the dictionary, are a few choices. Definitions 1 through 4 all seem to be a particularly fine fit for you.” You then claimed definitions 1 – 4 of 'dullard' were:
1) bore
2) disagreeable person, unpleasant person - a person who is not pleasant or agreeable
3) gasbag, windbag - a boring person who talks a great deal about uninteresting topics
4) nudnick, nudnik - (Yiddish) someone who is a boring pest

Could you please provide the link to that dictionary? That is, the dictionary with those four definitions listed under the dictionary entry? That would be, listed as dictionary definitions. Can you do that? I just believe we should cite our sources.

Squeeky-

I could provide a link or you could do what I did (and this is a BIG secret that I know you'd have a hard time figuring out); google the word.

The fact is that you're figuratively dead in the water when it comes to making any arguments so you're trying to make it all about word play. Unfortunately for you, word play is yet another of the many things that you're just not very good at.

No matter what you try to argue, nor how you try to obscure it, the fact remains that you're a slacker, a dullard and a thief.

Google you say? Okey doke. But I don't want just any definition of ‘dullard’; I want the one you found to support your argument. So I'll just Google the whole text you quoted, and see what I get. Be right back.

First result: it brought up the Free Online Dictionary definition of 'bore'. But what you wrote is clearly derived from here. So I put 'dullard' in the site's search function and get the definition of dullard from the site you quoted from. Here it is:

Dullard A person regarded as mentally dull; a dolt.

That's it. Nothing that would help your argument over 'dullard' and whether it looked stupid to say someone's a dullard and not very smart in the same sentence. In fact, it supports my argument that saying a dullard wasn't very smart would be redundant. So… you scrolled down to the THESAURUS and nicked the entry from there - claiming that it was a dictionary reference. (And you took the second thesaurus entry at that.) Now Ivan, I'm not surprised that you didn't know the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus, but in this case the thesaurus even tells you what it's providing: synonyms, related words, and antonyms. Not definitions, as you claimed. You wrote:
“Here, by virtue of the dictionary, are a few choices, some of which describe you quite well. Definitions 1 through 4 all seem to be a particularly fine fit for you.

dullard - a person who evokes boredom

1) bore
2) disagreeable person, unpleasant person - a person who is not pleasant or agreeable
3) gasbag, windbag - a boring person who talks a great deal about uninteresting topics
4) nudnick, nudnik - (Yiddish) someone who is a boring pest
5) platitudinarian - a bore who makes excessive use of platitudes
6) stuffed shirt - a bore who is extremely formal, pompous, and old-fashioned”

Actually, 1 through 4 aren’t definitions at all. 1 is a synonym, the others are nothing more than related words. I was suspicious of your reluctance to cite your source. I expect you’ll claim this is a semantic game, because that’s the only avenue you have left. But the fact is this emphasises again that your phrasing was daft. More importantly, it shows beyond doubt (if there was any left) that you are willing to blatantly lie.

IJ said of Gene: “You have proven yourself to be a person who comports himself without honor on these boards.”
Actually, that would be you, liar.

Hokey Smokes, Squeeky, it's almost astounding how you keep proving yourself an illiterate fool.

It's unclear whether you're playing at being this inept in order to try and obscure reality, or whether you're actually this much of a non-comprehending dullard.

You don't understand what a synonym is and what relation it has to a definition? Okay, I'm willing to stipulate that you're actually this lost and uninformed. That you'd try to assign it your own meaning and try to re-make reality from that is where you once again prove yourself a fool (but admittedly that's something easy to prove and frequently proven).

It seems obvious at this point that you've lost any argument you've tried to make, but that you'll try to ignore that fact and try to re-argue every point in order to obscure your dunderheadedness and defeats.

For clarification, I'll sum up what's been shown and can't be obscured no matter how hard you try to muddy the waters; Not only can't you argue with any competence or integrity, you're also a slacker, a dullard and a thief. You'll never amount to anything more.

Heh. Liar writes: "For clarification I'll sum up what's been shown and can't be obscured..."
If it’s already been shown, and it can't be obscured, why would you need to clarify it? Are you ever going to stop writing that sort of nonsense?

“You don't understand what a synonym is and what relation it has to a definition?”
So you claim now that a single synonym and some related words are the same as a dictionary definition? We know you don't think that, liar. (I bet you didn't even realise it was possible to Google search a whole block of text.) Aren't you sick of being publicly humiliated? Aren't you getting a sore back from being bent over all this time?