Klewless newbie alert! (Was Troll alert! Why is "CovvTseTung" using multiple aliases here?)

In article , Aratzio
says...

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:12:18 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, Juan
Tootreego bloviated:

In article , Aratzio
says...

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:15:25 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, Maxwell's
Syphilitic Mother bloviated:

In article , Aratzio
says...

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:41:11 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, Jim Logajan
bloviated:

Aratzio wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:57:13 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Jim Logajan got double secret probation for
writing:

"Kadaitcha Man" wrote:
Jim Logajan, ye hunch-backed that work for bread, away with thee
thou giglet, ye chinned:

I know Usenet is in decline but I'm a little unclear of the
motivations for
the cross postings. Is it a deliberate attempt to kill Usenet or is
that just an incidental byproduct?

Neither.

The intent is to find out the whiny or clueless ****heads are.

So it is an incidental byproduct. Only a clueless ****head would post
a followup to an obviously rhetorical question. Looks like I've helped
you identify one of those clueless ****heads.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAA
pats head

Sure, it was cupcake.


digging a hole where the rain gets in
Missing the false-choice nature of the rhetorical question the first time
through is a mistake I hoped some would fall for. But I was afraid it was
too obvious and was expecting some clever repartee on that account.

But for you to wad in and _still_ not see the obvious false-choice _after_
I clued readers in that it contained a rhetorical device really says a lot
about the kind of lousy education you got. You'd have done yourself more
favors by remaining silent. Didn't you at least take an introductory course
in logic or philosophy in college where rhetorical fallacies are explained?

You post hoc claim that you were asking rhetorical questions after you
look like an idiot.

You obviously read "Backpedal For Dummies"

He wrote it.

Starred in the Bollywood adaptation.

I wonder how Chinese cinema is doing.

Might be an interesting speculative investment...

in 16 years, which is 13 in the west.

That's because they use those funny lunar calendars

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"