Chit Chat

By Ted Belman

From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.

Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.

Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.

The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.

Everyone will be happier.

April 16, 2020 | 7,712 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 7712 Comments

  1. @ bernard ross:

    “[dweller] takes himself so seriously…”

    “NOBODY on this site takes himself quite so ‘seriously’ as PresentCompany. And what easier way to divert attention from the ponderous fact than to try attaching it to YoursTruly? How resourceful, how inventive. You must think ALL readers are as witless as you.

    “they have an abundant ability to laugh at you…”

    For one thing, to be witless is not to lack the “funny” kind of wit, but to lack the “bright” kind of wit. If one is witless, he doesn’t have his wits about him.

    You assume all readers are as dull-witted as you, as slow-witted as you. (There. Does that help clarify it for you?)

    For another thing, even where humor is concerned, you are utterly oblivious to the reality that any reader can perceive your own, BOUNDLESS buffoonery in these cheap sneering attempts at ridicule. Even the possibility seems to escape you altogether.

    “Only you do not find it funny…”

    ANOTHER witless assumption on your part, and one which constitutes telling evidence of just how far out of touch you are with objective reality. I have long found amusement in your strenuous & recurrently gloating stabs at malicious humor in this regard. The only place they don’t consistently fall flat, however, is in the world of your over-amped and hateful imagination.

  2. @ bernard ross:

    “…its hard not to laugh.”

    “Especially when one is trying so hard to.

    Not ALL laughter, however, carries or communicates mirth.

    Some laughter is sneering laughter

    — and if you pull enough bark off of that tree, you find that its rotting trunk is actually composed of nervous laughter. . . .”

    “Is that so?”

    Yes; quite so.

    “Are you writing a new fairy tale?”

    No, retelling an old one. You get star billing.

    “were you able to see ‘nervous Laughter’ in my smiley faces”

    Not ‘IN’ them, but behind them, as it were.

    — You’re really not that hard to read.

    “When you support smearing, you join yourself to it.”

    “Father Psychobabble at work”

    COMMON SENSE at work. No psychos or babblers around here.

    That obnoxious dingaling in the MIRROR, however, looks a lot more like the actual culprit you’re trying to draw a bead on.

  3. dweller Said:

    @ bernard ross:
    bernard ross said:
    “I reposted your post so you could have the pleasure of reading it again”
    Dweller said:
    I did. Thanks for the plug.

    No plug, I know you are vain and like to look at your “creations”.

  4. dweller Said:

    You must think ALL readers are as witless as you.

    they are full of wit as they have an abundant ability to laugh at you. Only you do not find it funny, but then you take yourself so seriously. 🙂

  5. dweller Said:

    Not ALL laughter, however, carries or communicates mirth.

    Some laughter is sneering laughter

    — and if you pull enough bark off of that tree, you find that its rotting trunk is actually composed of nervous laughter. . . .

    Is that so Doc PsychoBabble? Are you writing a new fairy tale? were you able to see “nervous Laughter” in my smiley faces or are you just frantically grasping at straws in vain hope?
    bring that one back fido, fetch. 🙂
    dweller Said:

    “When you support smearing, you join yourself to it.”

    Father Psychobabble at work

  6. @ bernard ross:

    “I reposted your post so you could have the pleasure of reading it again”

    I did. Thanks for the plug. Much appreciated. Think I’ll do the same.

    “[dweller] takes himself so seriously…”

    NOBODY on this site takes himself quite so ‘seriously’ as PresentCompany. And what easier way to divert attention from the ponderous fact than to try attaching it to YoursTruly? How resourceful, how inventive. You must think ALL readers are as witless as you.

    “…its hard not to laugh.”

    Especially when one is trying so hard to.

    “Poor fido, sounds like a case of sour grapes”

    Why, Rover, that doesn’t even compute. There are no sour grapes around here.

    — only a pot calling a kettle ‘black.’

    Now, roll over, and show us all how clever you are, and we’ll toss you a biscuit.

  7. @ honeybee:

    “Again, pass. Smearing isn’t my style.”

    “hhhaaa”

    Covered that subject already:

    “When you support smearing, you join yourself to it.”

  8. dweller Said:

    @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s:

    “[dweller] feeds me the best openings, I just point them out, dont even have to say anything most of the time. Raw comedy in real time…”

    Only a colossal ignoramus in LOVE with his ignorance could display, as you do, the level of smugness that animates these remarks. A case study in complacent stupidity.

    “He takes himself so seriously…”

    Ah, yes, pot-and-kettle syndrome

    — never very far from the action, it seems.

    NOBODY on this site takes himself quite so ‘seriously’ as PresentCompany. And what easier way to divert attention from the ponderous fact than to try attaching it to YoursTruly? How resourceful, how inventive.

    You must think ALL readers are as witless as you.

    “…its hard not to laugh.”

    Especially when one is trying so hard to.

    Not ALL laughter, however, carries or communicates mirth.

    Some laughter is sneering laughter

    — and if you pull enough bark off of that tree, you find that its rotting trunk is actually composed of nervous laughter. . . .

    I reposted your post so you could have the pleasure of reading it again 🙂
    bernard ross Said:

    He takes himself so seriously,its hard not to laugh.

    Poor fido, sounds like a case of sour grapes 😛 😛 😛

  9. @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s:

    “[dweller] feeds me the best openings, I just point them out, dont even have to say anything most of the time. Raw comedy in real time…”

    Only a colossal ignoramus in LOVE with his ignorance could display, as you do, the level of smugness that animates these remarks. A case study in complacent stupidity.

    “He takes himself so seriously…”

    Ah, yes, pot-and-kettle syndrome

    — never very far from the action, it seems.

    NOBODY on this site takes himself quite so ‘seriously’ as PresentCompany. And what easier way to divert attention from the ponderous fact than to try attaching it to YoursTruly? How resourceful, how inventive.

    You must think ALL readers are as witless as you.

    “…its hard not to laugh.”

    Especially when one is trying so hard to.

    Not ALL laughter, however, carries or communicates mirth.

    Some laughter is sneering laughter

    — and if you pull enough bark off of that tree, you find that its rotting trunk is actually composed of nervous laughter. . . .

  10. @ honeybee:

    “Then you bring the smear, I’ll bring the pickles !!!!”

    Again, pass. Smearing isn’t my style.

    But judging from your original invitations, the smear will be well-represented

    — so you’ll be sufficiently entertained anyway.

  11. @ honeybee:

    “You’re invited to my virtual Thanksgiving too. You can bring sour pickles.”

    No, thank you; I’ll pass.

    When you support smearing, you join yourself to it.

    So if I attended your virtual party, I’d have to call you on it there as much as anywhere else.

  12. Thank you, Ted. I, for one, appreciate this move. I prefer on-topic posts. If I had more time to join in the fun, perhaps I’d get into the non-topic end. Don’t always understand the Spanglish, tho.

  13. @ yamit82:

    “Maybe you are just a hologram , a projection that contains no reality?”

    “Right; it’s just a hologram that grips you with rage.”

    “You confuse visceral hatred for rage.”

    No confusion. The one consists of the building blocks of the other. In the end, a distinction w/o a difference.

    ” I have no rage against you just pity and hatred…”

    LMSS. That’s like saying, “I don’t have a bruise; I have a contusion.”

    If you ask any competent family physician the DIFFERENCE between the two, he (or she) will tell you, ‘Oh, about 60 bucks.’

    “… because even though you are a very sick dude you are quite vile and vindictive. “

    Evidence for ANY of those three assertions?

    “In short you are a very sick evil turd.”

    It’s not YoursTruly you’re speaking of.

    You’ve just inadvertently told us what you really think of your own conscience.

    — Obviously you don’t regard it as a friend. . . .

    “Take your Prozac…”

    Don’t need antidepressants. I have a very effective means of dissolving stress on contact, so it never accumulates. I never get depressed — and when I sense the approach of the impulse to depression, I know what that MEANS, and how to dismiss it — so it never gets a foothold.

    “it is not a pretty sight watching your decent into madness.”

    Oh? — I would think you’d rather ENJOY watching that

    — if you believed that’s what you were seeing.

    But I don’t think that’s what you believe you’re seeing.

    I think you know WHOSE descent into madness you are, in fact, beholding

    — and I’m certain you DON’T find that a pretty sight.

  14. @ yamit82:

    “Unless you tell all of us exactly what you mean, we are all free to inject what each of us think you mean.”

    “As if you wouldn’t do that anyway. . . .”

    “You are projecting false assumptions.”

    “Nothing false about it. I know you like the back of my hand, boychik.”

    “Projecting once again.”

    You’ve yet to show how.

    “What it MEANS is that every poster on this blogsite except dweller is subject to projection. “

    “Your very statement is projection, assuming something you can’t know or prove. That we are all subject to projection and that you are not. Bullshit!!! Total projection on your part..”

    Of course I can know it. How would you know whether I (or anybody else) can or can’t know it ??? What presumptuous tommyrot.

    Furthermore, even if I couldn’t know (tho I can and DO know, yet even if I couldn’t) — that not knowing STILL wouldn’t constitute ‘projection.’

    But it’s apparent that you have NO understanding of this term you’ve latched onto, and that for you it’s just more shallow, superficial psychobabble — as it is for your cretinous tag-teammate — in your use of the word as a weapon.

    “(“The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wiseman knowes himselfe to be a Foole” (V.i))As You Like It”

    And your point would be. . . .??

    — (you did have a point, right?)

    “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”

    Quite, quite, QUITE so. And if you had an ounce of sense, you’d think about that before assuming I “can’t” know who is & isn’t subject to projection.

    But you WON’T think about it. . . .

    You’re a hard case, yahnkele.

  15. dweller Said:

    Nothing false about it. I know you like the back of my hand, boychik.

    Projecting once again.

    It’s neither bullshit NOR projection. I’ve already told you (more than once) WHY I’m not subject to projection. If you can’t see the sense to that explanation, I can’t help that; it remains a fact, however, all-the-same.

    (“The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wiseman knowes himselfe to be a Foole” (V.i))As You Like It

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others: “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others”

    “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”

    Right; it’s just a hologram that grips you with rage.

    You confuse visceral hatred for rage. I have no rage against you just pity and hatred because even though you are a very sick dude you are quite vile and vindictive. In short you are a very sick evil turd.

    Take your Prozac, it is not a pretty sight watching your decent into madness. https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63602648/comment-page-1#comment-63356000145380

  16. @ yamit82:

    “What it MEANS is that every poster on this blogsite except dweller is subject to projection. “

    “Now you say we are all subject to: but not what you originally said. Can’t make up your mind dweller?”

    If I say on one occasion that an elephant has big ears, and on another occasion that an elephant has tusks — have I necessarily contradicted myself?

    Show me the two comments to which you refer, and we’ll see if there is in fact a ‘contradiction’ there.

    “Your very statement is projection, assuming something you can’t know or prove. That we are all subject to projection and that you are not. Bullshit!!! Total projection on your part..”

    It’s neither bullshit NOR projection. I’ve already told you (more than once) WHY I’m not subject to projection. If you can’t see the sense to that explanation, I can’t help that; it remains a fact, however, all-the-same.

    “You’re so fullovit. It’s no diversion, but a matter of
    honor. I’m forbidden to embarrass someone unnecessarily.”

    “Well it seems you are the one who is fullovit . Calling HB ‘Twinkie,’ is not meant by you to embarrass her?”

    No, it isn’t. It would be embarrassing only if it were not true.

    It IS true — and she knows it’s true.

    “I think it’s damn insulting”

    What you think is not my problem.

    What you think is YOUR problem.

    “What it MEANS is that every poster on this blogsite except dweller is subject to projection.”

    “[dweller] must view himself as a one of a kind a Unique creation?”

    “Not unless you view those who post here as constituting the ‘entirety’ of creation.”

    “You said it i didn’t.”

    It was YOU — not I — who raised the issue of “creation.”

    “You said only you are not capable of projection.”

    Right; I’m not.

    “By inference and definition it presupposes all others are.”

    Quite so; all other regular posters here ARE. Some other reader may BECOME a regular poster who isn’t subject to projection — or for that matter, some present poster may learn to do what that takes (I could teach it to you)

    — but for the moment, what I said is quite accurate. Everybody else who posts here regularly is subject to projection. (Drives you balmy, doesn’t it?)

    “You know how to be specific when you want to.”

    What of it? Have I ever said I ‘didn’t’ know how to?

    “In any event, I wasn’t ‘created’ free of projection. It took some work for that to happen.”

    “Prove you were created?”

    Why?

    “Your efforts…”

    No ‘efforts.’

    It IS ‘work,’ in a manner of speaking. But there’s no striving involved; no struggle, no sturm-und-drang. Quite gentle, actually.

    “… to rise above your innate nature”

    Nah, it’s got nothing to do with any ‘innate nature.’ Just a simple matter of learning to not react emotionally. Everything else follows quite naturally from that.

    “… seems to have failed miserably.”

    The facts disagree with you.

    “Seems every thing you believe about yourself is a false and a Humungous exercise in projection.”

    As I said, you’re going to believe what it suits you to believe.

    “Maybe you are just a hologram , a projection that contains no reality?”

    Right; it’s just a hologram that grips you with rage.

  17. dweller Said:

    Never said I ‘don’t like it.’ Only that it’s between her and me.

    I think I have said quite firmly that I wish to regarded as a Bourbon Chocolate Pecan Pie and a Twinkie.

  18. @ yamit82:

    “…’Twinkie’] always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s”

    “Unless you tell all of us exactly what you mean, we are all free to inject what each of us think you mean.”

    “As if you wouldn’t do that anyway. . . .”

    “You are projecting false assumptions.”

    Nothing false about it. I know you like the back of my hand, boychik.

    ” Try me! I might.”

    Been there. Done that. No.

    You SHOWED me what I needed to know.

    “You’re so fullovit. It’s no diversion, but a matter of honor. I’m forbidden to embarrass someone unnecessarily. I told you it was between HB and myself. I’m certain she knows why I use the term in relation to her. If she truly doesn’t, she can ask. Meanwhile, however, it’s NOYFB.”

    “To quote you ‘everything or every comment made on a public forum is everyone’s business and if you don’t like it don’t post it’…”

    Never said I ‘don’t like it.’ Only that it’s between her and me. If you must know what it’s about, I suggest you ask her. You have other channels of communication. . . .

    “Up to you but if you don’t inform us what you really meant then we will just have to conclude our understanding is correct that you are a queer and a misogynist for starters.”

    Actually, as I’ve told you several times, it’s YOU who are the misogynist around here. You may not have been saddled with the actual name, as you made Aliyah in ’67, before the term acquired purchase within stateside culture, but a woman-hater you surely are.

    What’s more, as I’ve also told you, you are in danger of developing homosexual attraction precisely BECAUSE of your use of women. Word has it that i was that very anxiety (and the same pattern of its development) which led to Ernest Hemingway’s suicide.

    As to what you ‘understand’ about me, pancho, I’ve told you MANY TIMES before, you’re going to believe what it suits you to believe. If you had a shred of integrity, it might be otherwise, but I have no illusions about you.

    Francis Bacon made the observation that most men prefer to believe what they prefer to be true. I rather doubt that he had your kind of individual in mind when he contemplated the exceptions to his adage.

    “So, YOU get to make the rules around here, do you?”

    “Actually they are your rules stated on a myriad of your comments to me and others.”

    So, then, you accept ‘my’ rules?

  19. @ yamit82:

    “In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to gay males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality.”

    So says the faggot community and their obsequious hangers-on.

    While chickenshit cowards like you are, it seems, content to abandon the field of struggle to THEM.

    You quite amaze me. You claim to oppose homosexuality; you purport to be revolted by it. Yet you fail utterly to see that there’s a war on — a very REAL culture war which makes use of language for the purpose of controlling the direction of political AND cultural change — and homosexuals are playing an active role in it.

    For you to accept their language (and thereby render that language off-limits to its legitimate usages) is to yield to their pressure

    — every bit as surely as referring (or standing idly by while others refer) to Israel’s presence in the heartland provinces as the ‘occupation’ of ‘Palestine’ (or of the ‘West Bank’) constitutes a yielding to the Arabs & the Left.

    Letting THEM define the terms allows THEM to create the narrative, and that, in turn, places the cultural (and, ultimately, political) agenda squarely in their hands.

    I repeat: There’s a war on, damnit

    — and you are abso-freakin-lutely AWOL.

  20. @ yamit82:

    “Homosexuals are not ‘gay.’ Gay means cheerful, carefree.”

    “Maybe in the 19th century times and language do change apparently you haven”t”

    I use language as much as its classical sense can be maintained, and make NO apology for it. Why should we change our usage of it to accommodate the agendas of evil, pathological elements? Ich hob imm in drerd. . . .

    Gay means cheerful, carefree. Homosexuals are nothing of the sort; they are inwardly miserable creatures.

    Their polarities are reversed, and they are horribly bent.

    Big mistake to succumb to using their language to characterize them.

    They aren’t entitled to that kind of legitimacy.”

    “Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.”

    That’s precisely what the homosexuals would have you believe. They probably wrote that entry for Wikipedia. Can you honestly not see what’s going on???

    “The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being ‘carefree’, ‘happy’, or ‘bright and showy’.”

    That is its only true meaning.

    “The term’s use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.”

    That usage did not even begin to increase (even gradually) till the early 70’s. Until then, its usage was sparse — and even then, confined solely to the beats, hipsters & bohemian types, etc, who clung to each other in the dark world of the underground — where their influence was strictly limited, incestuous & ingrown.

  21. honeybee Said:

    you don’t even know when you’re funny.

    I just point out the laugh.
    He feeds me the best openings, I just point them out, dont even have to say anything most of the time. Raw comedy in real time. if you keep throwing fido the bone he usually brings back a gem at some point. He takes himself so seriously,its hard not to laugh.

  22. yamit82 Said:

    You are free to correct our interpretations by specifying exactly what you meant by calling HB “Twinkie”.

    did you notice that you got a long obfuscating reply but he never told you what he meant, his definition, when he called HB “twinkie”.

  23. honeybee Said:

    You’re invited to my virtual Thanksgiving too. You can bring sour pickles.

    Pickles heavy on the Garlic if his endearing (sic) personality won’t keep normal people away from him the smell will. I hear it does work against vampires ghouls and goblins.

    He really believes in them or their facsimiles. 😛

  24. dweller Said:

    As if you wouldn’t do that anyway. . . .

    You are projecting false assumptions. Try me! I might.

    You’re so fullovit. It’s no diversion, but a matter of honor. I’m forbidden to embarrass someone unnecessarily. I told you it was between HB and myself. I’m certain she knows why I use the term in relation to her. If she truly doesn’t, she can ask. Meanwhile, however, iit’s NOYFB.

    To quote you ” everything or every comment made on a public forum is everyone’s business and if you don’t like it don’t post it”

    Up to you but if you don’t inform us what you really meant then we will just have to conclude our understanding is correct that you are a queer and a misogynist for starters. There is much more we can assume based on a composite of your comments.

    You’re so fullovit. It’s no diversion, but a matter of honor. I’m forbidden to embarrass someone unnecessarily.

    Well it seems you are the one who is fullovit . Calling HB “Twinkie”, is not meant by you to embarrass her? I think it’s damn insulting and if you think differently tell us what you mean by the term?

    So, YOU get to make the rules around here, do you?

    Actually they are your rules stated on a myriad of your comments to me and others. Double standard here dweller?

    What it MEANS is that every poster on this blogsite except dweller is subject to projection.

    Now you say we are all subject to: but not what you originally said. Can’t make up your mind dweller?

    Your very statement is projection, assuming something you can’t know or prove. That we are all subject to projection and that you are not. Bullshit!!! Total projection on your part..

    Not unless you view those who post here as constituting the ‘entirety’ of creation.

    You said it i didn’t. You said only you are not capable of projection. By inference and definition it presupposes all others are. You know how to be specific when you want to. Here you were, at least to yourself and all other commenters.

    In any event, I wasn’t ‘created’ free of projection. It took some work for that to happen.

    Prove you were created? Your efforts to rise above your innate nature seems to have failed miserably.

    Seems every thing you believe about yourself is a false and a Humungous exercise in projection.

    Maybe you are just a hologram , a projection that contains no reality?

  25. @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s:

    “Remember when he said he never tries to get in the last word on a forum just before it expires?”

    Your ‘memory’ is faulty.

    What I said was it’s unlikely that I would get in the last word very often because of my online time constraints, which characters like YOU (who do INDEED scramble to get the last word) don’t have to deal with.

    “here is the latest example”

    Latest example of what?

    I have no control over a comment that gets caught in the spammer — as indeed that one was — and gets posted only after it’s cleared.

    @ bernard ross:

    “Methinks she doth protest too much”

    What ever gave you the idea that you ‘think’?

    You don’t ‘think.’ You SCHEME.

    You also SMEAR.

    And you SLIME.

    But no, you @ bernard ross:

    “Remember when he said he never tries to get in the last word on a forum just before it expires?”

    Your ‘memory’ is faulty.

    What I said was it’s unlikely that I would get in the last word very often because of my online time constraints, which characters like YOU (who do INDEED scramble to get the last word) don’t have to deal with.

    “here is the latest example”

    Latest example of what?

    I have no control over a comment that gets caught in the spammer — as indeed that one was — and gets posted only after it’s cleared.

    @ bernard ross:

    “Methinks she doth protest too much”

    What ever gave you the idea that you ‘think’?

    You don’t ‘think.’

    You scheme. You smear. And you slime.

    But you @ bernard ross:

    “Remember when he said he never tries to get in the last word on a forum just before it expires?”

    Your ‘memory’ is faulty.

    What I said was it’s unlikely that I would get in the last word very often because of my online time constraints, which characters like YOU (who do INDEED scramble to get the last word) don’t have to deal with.

    “here is the latest example”

    Latest example of what?

    I have no control over a comment that gets caught in the spammer — as indeed that one was — and gets posted only after it’s cleared.

    @ bernard ross:

    “Methinks she doth protest too much”

    What ever gave you the idea that you ‘think’?

    You don’t ‘think.’

    You scheme. You smear. And you slime.

    But you don’t think.

    @
    b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s
    :

    “[HOneybee] DOES fit the classic definition of ‘Twinkie’ to which I alluded.

    “I think you more accuratley fit the definition of Twinkie than she does, which is why you are obviously projecting when calling her that name.”

    Only a certifiable imbecile would draw such a ludicrous conclusion and expect it to get any traction — so I can’t say I’m surprised.

    @
    b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s
    :

    “[HOneybee] DOES fit the classic definition of ‘Twinkie’ to which I alluded.

    “I think you more accuratley fit the definition of Twinkie than she does, which is why you are obviously projecting when calling her that name.”

    Only a certifiable imbecile would draw such a ludicrous conclusion and expect it to get any traction — so I can’t say I’m surprised.

    @
    b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s
    :

    “[Honeybee] DOES fit the classic definition of ‘Twinkie’ to which I alluded.

    “I think you more accuratley fit the definition of Twinkie than she does, which is why you are obviously projecting when calling her that name.”

    Only a certifiable imbecile would draw such a ludicrous conclusion and expect it to get any traction — so I can’t say I’m surprised.

  26. @ yamit82:

    “…’Twinkie’] always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s”

    “Unless you tell all of us exactly what you mean, we are all free to inject what each of us think you mean.”

    As if you wouldn’t do that anyway. . . .

    “Therefore your apparent pique at BR…”

    No pique. (When I’m piqued, you’ll know it; trust me.)

    “… and I suppose my understabding is quite disingenuous on your part…”

    YOUR understanding is disingenuous on MY part? — hunh??? — can’t tell what you said there. (I wonder if you can.)

    “probably used as a well worn means you use to divert attention away from the point raised…”

    You’re so fullovit. It’s no diversion, but a matter of honor. I’m forbidden to embarrass someone unnecessarily. I told you it was between HB and myself. I’m certain she knows why I use the term in relation to her. If she truly doesn’t, she can ask. Meanwhile, however, it’s NOYFB.

    You are free to correct our interpretations by specifying exactly what you meant by calling HB ‘Twinkie.’ But know that your Refusal to do so certifies our understanding as correct despite any of your denials.”

    So, YOU get to make the rules around here, do you?

    @ yamit82:

    “I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects…”

    “Does that mean that every poster on this blog projects except dweller?”

    What it MEANS is that every poster on this blogsite except dweller is subject to projection.

    “He must view himself as a one of a kind a Unique creation?”

    Not unless you view those who post here as constituting the ‘entirety’ of creation.

    In any event, I wasn’t ‘created’ free of projection. It took some work for that to happen.

  27. @ dweller:

    Am not homosexual.

    Homosexuals are not ‘gay.’ “Gay” means cheerful, carefree.

    *** Maybe in the 19th century times and language do change apparently you haven”t

    Homosexuals are nothing of the sort; they are inwardly miserable creatures. Their polarities are reversed, and they are horribly bent. Big mistake to succumb to using their language to characterize them. They aren’t entitled to that kind of legitimacy.

    Are you living in the 19th century??

    Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy”. The term’s use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to gay males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality.

  28. dweller Said:

    She DOES fit the classic definition of “Twinkie” to which I alluded.

    Pray tell and daresay, What is that definition? I think you more accuratley fit the definition of Twinkie than she does, which is why you are obviously projecting when calling her that name.
    bernard ross Said:

    Twin•kie noun
    1. trademark
    a small finger-shaped sponge cake with a white synthetic cream filling.
    2. informal derogatory
    a gay or effeminate man, or a young man regarded as an object of homosexual desire.

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=twinkie%20definition

    dweller Said:

    When HB’s attitude changes, the name I give her will change. Until it does, her manner is itself an insult.

    again, twinkie, you are projecting

  29. dweller Said:

    Am not homosexual.

    Homosexuals are not ‘gay.’ “Gay” means cheerful, carefree.
    Homosexuals are nothing of the sort; they are inwardly miserable creatures. Their polarities are reversed, and they are horribly bent. Big mistake to succumb to using their language to characterize them. They aren’t entitled to that kind of legitimacy.

    dweller Said:

    It was neither projection NOR ‘psychobabble.’

    dweller Said:

    Nor am I a fag.

    “Methinks she doth protest too much”
    😛

  30. yamit82 Said:

    despite any of your denials.

    he never projects,,, he never lies, he never psychobabbles…
    after all, he told you so himself
    😛 😛 😛

  31. dweller Said:

    dweller Said:
    It always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s

    Unless you tell all of us exactly what you mean, we are all free to inject what each of us think you mean. Therefore your apparent pique at BR and I suppose my understabding is quite disingenuous on your part and probably used as a well worn means you use to divert attention away from the point raised.

    You are free to correct our interpretations by specifying exactly what you meant by calling HB “Twinkie”. But know that your Refusal to do so certifies our understanding as correct despite any of your denials.

  32. bernard ross Said:

    dweller Said:

    “I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects.”…. show me an example, Twinkie.

    Twin•kie noun
    1. trademark
    a small finger-shaped sponge cake with a white synthetic cream filling.
    2. informal derogatory
    a gay or effeminate man, or a young man regarded as an object of homosexual desire.

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=twinkie%20definition

    dweller Said:
    It always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s