"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 6...
"kallijaa" wrote in
:


"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 8...
"kallijaa" wrote in news:NaadncFC5NI3iQOiU-
:


"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
...


Brute force, you say? As opposed to... what? Your buddy
Kallijaa
who
scampered for cover when confronted with someone who refused to
buy his unsupportable horse****?

Scampered for cover? Rather say, stood by so as to permit you to
display
your true character.


Hmmmm, let's see. First you posted repeatedly on how damaging sim
behavior was, and very specifically I might add, not just speculating
but insisting on how it could wash someone out of flight instruction.

Then you 'got offended' when someone called your asinine bluff,
and
refused to answer on the basis that it was beneath you to actually
respond to such callous behavior.

Offended? Not in the least. Yours was precisely the kind of reaction
expected.

Despite the fact that providing support for your
standpoint is always the best way to silence those hecklers,

Nothing is proven here and it's a foolisn waste of time to try.
Besides, why should I want to silence hecklers? They illustrate my
point admirably (I predicted majority disagreement).

and that you had *already* responded to the first post, which was far
more
insulting.


Insulting? The point made must have struck a nerve.

And now you're engaging in "Your momma so fat" contests?


No, you are reading someone else's mail. I'll leave that approach to
the group intelligentsia.

Okay, just checking. Please, go on with your character
evaluations,
I'm sure there's a lot we all could learn from them.


- Al.


Thanks Al, you provide ample grist for my mill.

Evaluation: Typical discussion group belligerent who talks tough
while enjoying the relative safety of home and internet. A coward or a
teenager.

Prognosis: Continued degradation if adult; possible improvement
following abatement of acne if a teenager.


Awwww, you're missing out on another prime area of study!

First of all, look up 'evaluation' and 'prognosis'; you're using them
incorrectly. Clumsy.

But try this:

Experiment: Poster discoursing at length with faux-intelligence,
countered at factual level by someone who is not impressed with a poorly-
portrayed air of authority.

Response: Repeated attempts by poster to maintain control of
situation by deflecting purpose of original posts into myriad directions
while still maintaining portrayed air of authority. Various reasons given
for never producing supportive information, including claiming that this
wasn't 'original purpose'. Changing of directive easily noted when
comparing subsequent posts.

Conclusion: Original poster trying desperately to save face and not
reveal that posts were poor attempt to participate at an inappropriate
level.

Note that this is nothing new, but yes, just a fraction newer than
your own apparent 'studies'. Neither one too impressive - the
defined concepts have only been around for the past couple hundred years,
despite the damage Freud tried to do with the motivations behind them. So
while another nice try at running away yet again, we're not buying the
'study' aspect either. Pretty scattered behavior for someone who claims to
be pursuing some kind of 'research', and research, moreover, that nobody
would really give a damn about.

Not to mention ignoring some prime areas of background study, right
in front of your nose ;-)

You amused yet? C'mon, try yet another tack, "Professor".


- Al.

I am amused at how you spew when punctured.

Kalijaa