Honey said to queen, in yet another desperate and illogical sputtering: "Regarding my word "Savant," and your little snipes about it, perhaps you need to read the title of this thread, then you may want to get a little lower horse to straddle."
Yes, honey, I know the title of the thread. I also know you used the word in your own way in the last paragraph of your slam at Brinker and anyone who says a favorable word about him, or anyone who questions your logic or Kirk's. I was just pointing out the little derogatory phrases you like to use, such as "besotted fans who believe Bob Brinker truly is a 'savant'."
"As far as Kirk's word or mine concerning Bob Brinker, everything that we say is absolutely the truth."
Maybe so, but they're STILL just your unsubstantiated charges, and repeating them a thousand times sans any documentation of same, doesn't make them any more substantiated. And they're still irrelevant.
"But even if we posted absolute proof to back up every comment, you wouldn't be able to see through those rose-colored glasses."
You won't because you can't. If you could, you would.
"So neither of us want to waste much time doing that."
Riiiight.
"Anyone who has read Kirk's Bob Brinker threads over the years, knows the history, and anyone who hasn't is free to read and learn for themselves."
Thanks. Been there, done that.
"One wonders what possible motivation you might have for continually attacking the truthfulness of the messenger's word rather than the message."
If the reliability of the messenger is in doubt, so is the message.
And finally: I won't bore you with a list of all the "bots" favorite adjectives--too bad you didn't return the favor.
Thanks. What have "bots" got to do with anything? |
