1. Who am I flattering?

2. The misspell I was referring to wasn't "weaselling". I wouldn't pick someone up on a mistake like that. It could have just been a typo, and anyway I'm not a spelling Nazi.

However, I do think that if you are going to use an epithet as a stock insult - as your main bit of name calling that you put in your posts over and over - you should check that you're spelling it right. Otherwise, you look like a dork.

3. It's fun to watch you squeak & whine.

"tries to blame others"

I don't see any blame in my statement. I just said I didn't want real discourse to get you off the track of your chatterings, especially since you yourself expressed impatience with the point/counterpoint process.

Is this "blame" in the same invisible place where I might find the "threats?"

And would Zimmerman know?

Chee, chee.

Lambchops-

As always, you're posting with a certain amount of dishonesty. No surprise there.

By implication you tried to blame your inability to counter any of Charles' arguments on the misrepresentation that I was unwilling to allow any sort of point/ counterpoint. It's dishonest and it's a stretch, but it's all you, O rabid one.

In truth (something that you often seem averse towards), I just stated that there was no point in playing point/counterpoint with someone who is dishonest when playing that game. With your constant ignoring of points made, distortions of the points that anyone arguing against you uses, and your rude and rabid attacks on anyone who points out your blatant dishonesty, hypocracy and lack of knowledge as to what you're writing about, you aren't an honorable opponent.

Let me accentuate that for you so you don't miss the point (although surely you'll ignore the gist of it); you have proven yourself to be a person who comports himself without honor on these boards.

So, yes, the blame that you laid can be found in the same place where you're gelded threats to escalate if I pointed out your idiocy on other threads; in your insipid posts.

As to what Zimmerman knows, you culturally illiterate gelding, he described your condition quite well in the well known line which precedes the quote I used in the last post.

1) You've flattered the Rabid Lamb at times and yourself at others. When you flatter yourself you're a fool and a self-seeking flatterer. When you flatter Angryangrygene (the rabid lamb) you're a servile self-seeking flatterer. I know you have difficulties reading and comprehending so the quoted definition should (but probably won't) help you.

2) I guess you aren't firing on all cylinders, so you haven't realized that giving you the appropriate name of Squeeky has to do with using onomatopoeia for a cartoon mouse and the noises that it makes. That makes it both a name and description. A fairly accurate one. I guess I should have spelled it out for you and used graemlins, but I forgot how weak of mind you tend to be. I'm sorry for over-estimating your comprehension skills, and I'll try not to confuse you any more than necessary in the future.

3) I'm delighted that you can have fun by saying "nuh-uh, what you said is what I mean." It shows a great paucity of wit and understanding but I'm glad that you're able to wend your way through the dizzying illogical maze of your own mind and lack of comprehension. Not only am I happy for you, I'm happy for me each time you prove yourself both dim and a fool (and fortunately that seems to happen with each and every one of your posts).

Thank you for the amusement.

The achievement is in wending my way through the dizzying maze of your syntax and phrasing.

Actually, Squeeky, you have to grasp for pretend achievements because you clearly aren't the type of person who's capable of any real achievements.

I don't want to make you feel bad or suffer needlessly, but let's face facts; there's just never been any substance to anything you've posted. Not just on this thread, but in any thread here at Comicon. You try for snappy one-liners or sarcastic come-backs, but there's never any strength or originality to anything you post.

I do feel a little sorry for you, but I figure you're lying in a bed of your own making so there's no obligation to coddle you. There's just plain nothing to you except a little snark, a little attitude, and a desire to try to look witty.

I think that it's best if you focus on the snark and attitude, and I don't mind at all if it takes the form of witless sniping at me, 'cause no matter how much you want it or how hard you try you just don't have the wit that you try to affect. But, hey, keep trying. While it's said that I life unexamined is a life unlived, it might also be true that a life examined and found to be empty can't be much good for that examiner that finds he's a living abyss. So don't you look to close. Just keep on bravely squeek squeek squeeking against the darkness.

Yeah, that doesn't sound wound up, Ivan.

Also, yet further inconsistency:

Squeeky-

I see that you've reproduced the two quotes out of context and out of order, which could be construed as trying to misrepresent the situation.

The second cited quote happened early on in this thread and didn't speak to whether I thought you were a poster of substance. The modicum (defined in the dictionary as "moderate or small amount") was based on your stated appreciation of wit. I also thought that you generally were able to behave yourself. With additional input I revised my opinion.

The other far more recent citation is what I've come to believe after having a chance to look more closely at your posts.

Since the earlier evaluation you've made it clear that your appreciation of wit was all that you had going, and even that seemed mostly to be lip service when you whined about any wit that took more than a single sentence or lacked an emoticon. It became clear that you wanted quips but were disturbed by substance.

Obviously (to anyone with even the slightest ability to understand that with new data comes new conclusions), I've lost the modicum of respect for you. I'd generally given you the benefit of the doubt as to your comportment, but you clearly proved me wrong in thinking that you were capable of appropriate or healthy behaviour. I've assessed your behaviour since then, and any respect for you in that area has appropriately disappeared.

Thank you for giving me enough evidence to clarify my opinion. That modicum of respect has been entirely dissipated.

So, no Squeeky, there's no contradiction. Earlier, when I gave you only the slightest bit of thought, I had a minimal base line amount of respect for you. I've since lost it. No big deal there, it's just a matter of losing respect for someone when it becomes clear that they haven't earned it. Unlike you, some folks learn from their experiences.

Thank you for providing enough input to clearly define your worth.

...and that didn't sound wound up, Ivan.

IJ: “You've flattered the Rabid Lamb at times...”
A compliment in passing doesn’t constitute flattering “at times”. By your standards, Charles is a sycophant because he’s complimented Gene, and you’re a sycophant for saying positive things about Charles. But I don’t expect you to admit that you really didn’t know what the word meant, which brings me to…

IJ: ”…you haven't realized that giving you the appropriate name of Squeeky has to do with using onomatopoeia for a cartoon mouse and the noises that it makes.”

WTF? It must be embarrassing for you to go so low, Ivan. The onomatopoeic word for the sound a mouse makes is still “ squeaky ”, ya dipstick. This might have been an honest mistake on your part (one that I could believe, given your clumsiness with language) if it was restricted to the epithet. Except, your supposed onomatopoeic version of “Squeaky” wasn’t how you began this tack; it started with you writing, “…watching you squeek is amusing”. You’ve misspelled ‘squeak’, ‘squeaky’, and ‘squeakiness’ ever since.

Misspelling your epithet of choice just makes you inept. Lying in an attempt to weasel out of admitting this makes you pitiable.

To use an IvanJim special: you have been extremely humiliated.