Alaska Darin Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 AGAIN. You claim that you are so damn smart. I don't have to "claim" anything. To the rational, it's pretty damn obvious. As far as I know you are awesome with google, wikipedia and blogging. That's it. You mean because the points I've made aren't valid? Nope, that's not it. Were you beat up a lot as a kid? No. Kicking ass on a message board? That is so pathetic. Pathetic is something you're actually versed in, so it's kinda surprising you'd be so far off on its usage.
VABills Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Pathetic http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-content/pho...t_Billboard.png
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Typing to fast, my bad. And it's not like I was going to let a setup like that go by unremarked, either.
pBills Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 And it's not like I was going to let a setup like that go by unremarked, either.
John Adams Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 I can make any demand I want. Talk about whining like a B word? You throw stones then hide? Come on, you are so damn smart you should be proud to state your qualifications. What qualifications does anyone need when arguing facts? Answer: none. If he's a garbage man, he's a smart one. Qualifications-checks in an argument like this are a refuge for the ignorant.
pBills Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 What qualifications does anyone need when arguing facts? Answer: none. If he's a garbage man, he's a smart one. Qualifications-checks in an argument like this are a refuge for the ignorant. When one states that they are smarter, acts as though they are better than you. They should be able to answer a simple question about their background. Being good at blogging is not a good example of intelligence.
Alaska Darin Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 When one states that they are smarter, acts as though they are better than you. They should be able to answer a simple question about their background. Being good at blogging is not a good example of intelligence. The funny part is you think you're strengthening your argument.
erynthered Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 When one states that they are smarter, acts as though they are better than you. They should be able to answer a simple question about their background. Being good at blogging is not a good example of intelligence. Can you tell us about your background? Because I'm seriously curious about how you can continuously show us how much of a moron you are day in and day out. You're the best I've ever seen!
IDBillzFan Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 When one states that they are smarter, acts as though they are better than you. They should be able to answer a simple question about their background. Being good at blogging is not a good example of intelligence. Not fer nuthin', but he gave a pretty simplified explanation of why your comments about the "Clinton surplus" were ridiculous. It was well-thought-out, articulate, and easy for dopes like you an me to understand. It's really hard to dispute anything he said. But for some reason, you ignore that and move to the discussion of defining online intelligence? You may want to quit while you're ahead.
pBills Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Can you tell us about your background? Because I'm seriously curious about how you can continuously show us how much of a moron you are day in and day out. You're the best I've ever seen! I deal with Web Development/Design as well as Cryptographic Design and Implementation.
pBills Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Not fer nuthin', but he gave a pretty simplified explanation of why your comments about the "Clinton surplus" were ridiculous. It was well-thought-out, articulate, and easy for dopes like you an me to understand. It's really hard to dispute anything he said. But for some reason, you ignore that and move to the discussion of defining online intelligence? You may want to quit while you're ahead. I read your post and one from Magox as well. I appreciate both. When one is constantly on the attack like he is it means that either he's a complete dick or that... no. Just means he is a dick. I have no problem seeing both sides of any discussion as well as learning items that I did not know. No problem with that at all. I do like it when people are labeled or placed under a blanket statement.
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Cryptographic Design and Implementation. You search for Bigfoot?
Alaska Darin Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 I read your post and one from Magox as well. I appreciate both. When one is constantly on the attack like he is it means that either he's a complete dick or that... no. Just means he is a dick. Stop regurgitating things that aren't true as if they are gospel. And I don't care if you think I'm a dick. I have no problem seeing both sides of any discussion as well as learning items that I did not know. Which is why you spend so much time validating your opinions instead of just repeating what's been whispered in your ear, right? Sure. I do like it when people are labeled or placed under a blanket statement. You do? Or do you need to learn the simple concept of proof reading? It actually makes sense if you do, because it lends credence to ridiculous garbage like "we went from a surplus to a deficit". Talk about your blanket statements.
Alaska Darin Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 You search for Bigfoot? I think he's actually Ron Rivest.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Encryption. How does one go from union hackery to encryption?
pBills Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 How does one go from union hackery to encryption? One has skills with computers and training.
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Encryption. You said cryptography. That's the search for animals that don't exist. I've seen cryptologists on MonsterQuest.
Recommended Posts