Re: OT: Don't let Peanut Die For Nothing

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:36:58 -0800, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:48:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
 

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:26:30 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:49:46 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:34:47 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:18:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:51:27 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 10/11/2024 3:16 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:59:54 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 

On 10/11/2024 12:32 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:38:04 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 9/11/2024 11:38 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:00:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net>
wrote:
>

On 11/8/2024 12:58 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

>
<snip>
>
>

Trump was an unintended consequence of the Tea Party movement
funded by the Koch brothers from 2010, none of whose preferred
candidates was able to out-perform Donald Trump in the
primaries for the 2016 presidential election. If you were
spineless enough to appeal to the Koch brothers, you were too
spineless to appeal to the electorate.

>
So Trump  masterminded a reverse takeover of a fake opposition
movement? What a guy!

>
There was no master mind involved. Trump ran for the Republican
nomination as an ego trip, and was vastly surprised when he won
it.

 
I don't know how you come by the idea that Trump is an egoist.
He's always presented as extremely modest and unassuming IMO.

>
John Larkin is of roughly the same opinion - and he's another
narcissist.

>
Well thank heavens that's one character trait you don't suffer from,
Bill. ;->

>
PLEASE stop feeding Sloman. He is a major contributor to driving
people away.

>
Sigh... Yes, I will. However, you *really* should lead by example here
and stop feeding him yourself. I've noticed you provide him with a
pretty rich diet. So I'll do a deal with you (not that the last one
concerning a burger and fries got me very far, but still) if you cease
to respond to Bill's barbs, I'll do likewise. Agreed? In the interests
of group harmony, please consider making the sacrifice along with me.

>
Feeding him?
>
I had been trying, roughly once a year, to engage him on not-personal
issues, like electronics even, but it doesn't help. He keeps getting
nastier.
>
Haven't you noticed that he insults everyone? Badly.

>
His limited vocabulary kind of lets him down on that front. Perhaps in
the old days it was more expansive, I can't recall.
Anyway, let's agree to just not respond to him. Both of us. Let's just
not feed him any more. Deal?

 
Yes.

There you go, that wasn't so hard. The group will be very thankful for our
efforts! :-)