Speak for yourself Cent!

We are all very interested in that.

Ahh, I see. You are one of those “depends on what the word IS means”.

gottcha.

You obviously got lost somewhere along the way but that’s OK.

I accomplished what I set out to do.

gottcha.

We’re talking about the total number of times you used the word that you “would typically not” use.

We’re not talking about the number of links. How is this still cloudy for you?

Do try and keep up.

Please tell me are you capable of counting the words?

Let me help. What you’re looking for is the atypical word “retard” or the atypical word “retarded”.

Hint: You’ll need all of your fingers and some of your toes, assuming of course that you have the normal number of each.

Now, off you go.

Sorry, I almost forgot this:

But the net sleuth will certainly find it if it exists, but I am pretty sure that he will tell you that I have never done that.

You can find out all sorts of interesting things with a simple Google search.

All sorts of things.

Count your own links, then follow your own links. How is this still cloudy for you?

And no Mike, I do not recall ever using a terrorists words to make me feel better about something I already felt. But the net sleuth will certainly find it if it exists, but I am pretty sure that he will tell you that I have never done that.

I really am beginning to wonder what sort of cloud of cluelessness you live under.

Five times you say? Did you even click the links to see? Did you count them or is five just a nice round easy to type number for you?

Your total is far higher than that.

Thus your contention that the pattern is atypical is even more ridiculous.

If your use of that word was not typical of your posts then it never would have caught my attention and I invested less than 15 minutes of research to prove it.

Finally, I am well aware of your support of McCain.

What a bunch of sanctimonious crap.

Thus spake Mike’s America. So mought it be.

What a bunch of sanctimonious crap.

We recite the words of Osama bin Laden all the time to prove how our enemies are parroting left wing talking points. I suppose you think that’s a bad idea too?

but the fact remains that what is typical is not absolute. Therefore, your calling me a liar is the only untruth of either of our posts.

were you to prove that the times I used that word ( 5 times, three times as a reply to someone else using it ) were typical then you would be right. But since I have been coming here and commenting for years those times would clearly be atypical. And the fact remains despite your hours of research to uncover the times I used it uncovered a hand full of times.

That is not typical.

Incedentlly, if the nutroot comment was for me too it would not take you very long to find many, many more comments where I am in support of John McCain. I just never, ever use a known terrorist’s words to support my positions.

I predict the use of the word “retarded” or “retard” in 3, 2, 1 ……..

You replied in #19:

for furture reference I would typically not call someone a name that makes fun of birth defects.

~~~

make sure and claim that I have a birth defect now. That is never inappropriate.

Then, once confronted in #23, you said:

I said that I typically would not call someone a birth defect. Where did I calim that I never did it? Are you claiming that I am a liar because I said that I would typically not use it? Have you deconstructed this discussion to a level of a syntax argument?

why you are calling me a liar?

Let me pause for a moment and take this in….

Ah, yes. Mmmmm…

Cinnamon-sweet with a mild after-dinner flavor. Gentle on the palate: Nutty with a just a touch of buttery smoothness.

If you “would typically not” do something, then why was I able to, with just a few clicks of the mouse, locate multiple posts containing multiple instances of what you “would typically not” do?

Yet, you ask “why”?

You had the choice not to ignore that line in post #18.

You chose poorly.

I wouldn’t “typically” allow someone to lure me out onto a ledge where I would be swept away by my own words but, of course, your mileage may vary.

***

As to the original topic, I made my views rather clear in the remainder of post #18.

Here it is again (with emphasis added) so you don’t even have to scroll up:

The whole point of the original post was to show that even Qadaffi can see Obie, and his parlor games, for what they are.

From thousands of miles away Mu’ammar can see what the empty-headed addle-brained nutroots cannot.

Imagine that.

Aye Chi, tell me instead why you are in support of using a terrorist to support your position on an issue? Or just goad to illicit a specific response because you can not in good faith, claim that is a very good idea.

That would be great if you could do that instead.

Aye Chi, I owe you a beer.. domestic.

for furture reference I would typically not call someone a name that makes fun of birth defects.

~~~

make sure and claim that I have a birth defect now. That is never inappropriate .

Hmmm….

Really?

Are you sure?

Do I have you confused with someone else?

Or are you lying?

***

Oh, wait; I’m sure that there will now be some kind of back and fill that shows why it was okay for bigpapa to use it. My bad.

DW,

I worded my post the way that I did to intentionally elicit the “Oh! Not me” reaction.

Needless to say, I wasn’t disappointed.

Having been here for awhile I know that he has a difficult time constructing coherent thoughts without using that particular word or its variants.