From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42035
Date: 2005-11-10
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:45 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Also an Austro-Asiatic Disconnect
> --- 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.
***
Patrick:
You must be intelligent enough to know the truth before you can tell it.
You are not.
***
> > 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?
***
Patrick:
It is a persistent characteristic of low-bred people like yourself to not be
able to recognize and appreciate superior qualities in other people.
Your knowledge of your own worthlessness makes anyone superior a threat to
your self-image, which is already low.
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
You questioned whether the Irish _could_ even have a noble class, implying
that no Irish could be noble. That is an insult to all Irishmen - me, those
on this list, and those who have never heard and never will hear of you.
***
> 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"?
***
Patrick:
A typical attitude from a man who, unfortunately, knows his own lack of
intrinsic worth.
Nobles, and leaders generally, arise from their superior abilities to lead
and plan for their people - abilities that are so manifest that others
willingly follow them. No noble or leader has large enough force to defend
against a general uprising.
***
> 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?
***
Patrick:
I would not join you if you were the only inhabitant of an oasis in a
waterless desert.
No person has intrinsic value. His value, high or low, is determined by his
performance in the world. His performance, in turn, is determined by his
genetic background and his experiences, of which genetics plays the deciding
role. This is a simple fact known to every animal breeder. And it has not
escaped your notice either! You refuse to acknowledge what you know is true
simply because it would certify your own low self-image.
***
> > 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?
***
Patrick:
My name was inherited not picked out of a garbage can. What did Wat do
besides have a son? Or perhaps, that is all he did!
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
Oh yes, I do. Your low birth oozes from every line you write.
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
Typo. Two e's in exceedingly!
I have never admitted any such attraction. Are you thinking of a female
relation? As usual, you are quoting self-concocted nonsense to smear anyone
who will not wallow with you in mire of your stupidity.
***
> > 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'.
***
Patrick:
It is obvious that you do _not_ know - so much.
***
>
> In any case, you yourself are an excedingly "creative"
> speller, so why should you begrudge anybody else the
> freedom?
***
Patrick:
Aha! Not a typo! You ignorantly spell exceedingly excedingly (sic!) on a
regular basis.
***
> 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!
***
Patrick:
Your second thought is far too late to counteract the impression your
previous expression of contempt for spelling and standards in general has
made. You have revealed yourself as a true Lumpenmensch.
Please, do not express your approval or admiration of me or anything I
write. It makes me ill.
***
David
***
Patrick:
I am leaving your name on this for others to easily identify who wrote such
hateful *gWouso.
***
***