--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> --- "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...> wrote:
> >
> > And what exactly is the "scientifically sound" definition
> > of an "upper-class human"?
>
> Someone who does not call another person a 'lune' (sic!).
Not a good definition, since surely an "upper-class"
person should always tell the truth.
> I do not believe that to be so. Middle-class all the way.
But apparently with some sycophantic admiration for
those you consider above you, or else why all this
haughty nonsense about "upper classes" and "lower
classes" that we get from you periodically?
You're struggling with quite an inferiority complex
there, aren't you fellow?
> I guess I should expect anti-Irish vilification from someone
> like you.
You well know that there's only _one_ Irishman here
with whom I have any problem, if indeed you are Irish.
> The Irish did have a noble class before the British butchered
> most of them, including the infants.
Well that's precisely how "nobles" arise: by either
conquering and setting themselves up over those
conquered, or else by being born the descendants
of conquerers. So if you admit to being descended
from the conquered, on what basis do you go around
talking about genetically based "class"?
Why don't you just join the rest of us in the 21st
century where we've learned that a person's value
has nothing to do with his birth, but rather with
what he makes of _himself_, and forget all of this
nonsense about breeding?
> Ryan, by the way, means 'king'.
Yes, of course, and there's a singer named "Prince",
and another one named "Queen". Will we find any of
you in the Almanach de Gotha?
> Among the upper classes, the preference is for intelligence and
> demonstrated ability over generations to accumulate wealth -
> attractive physical features, the only criterion for low-bred
> people like yourself,
Of course you know nothing at all about my breeding.
> is the last consideration for them.
Well you've already admitted to us your attraction
to an excedingly low-class woman who led a debauched
lifestyle, slept with married men, and finally did
herself in at a young age, and so maybe you shouldn't
be so fast to talk about other people's criteria.
> Not a word on the science of the question!
>
> Of which you are obvious incapable of contributing.
You lent nothing of scientific value to comment upon
in the first place, and to _your_ post it was, not
the original, that I was responding.
> It is 'loon' rather than your ignorantly misspelled "lune".
I don't know why 'lunatic' should be shortened to
anything besides 'lune'.
In any case, you yourself are an excedingly "creative"
speller, so why should you begrudge anybody else the
freedom?
Oh, but then, I think I see now: you believe yourself
"high class" because you think your spelling so much
better than anybody else's, and on second thought I do
have to agree that good spelling is indeed an admirable
skill.
Well then, just in case nobody's told you so in awhile:
Good boy, Pat, good boy!
David