jof without shame...

mind blowing.
jof summarized in one sentence.

"The problem for me in answering
is that I'm theorizing
with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF


we noticed.

On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> mind blowing.
> jof summarized in one sentence.
>
> "The problem for me in answering
> is that I'm theorizing
> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
>
> we noticed.

Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.

JF

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> mind blowing.
>> jof summarized in one sentence.
>>
>> "The problem for me in answering
>> is that I'm theorizing
>> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
>>
>> we noticed.
>
> Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.


You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you?

Hell, Yesman Mike is still trying to figure out what I want to bet him on.

Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too
high?

--

"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked
a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that
I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF

Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com

On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> mind blowing.
> >> jof summarized in one sentence.
>
> >> "The problem for me in answering
> >> is that I'm theorizing
> >> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
>
> >> we noticed.
>
> > Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.
>
> You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you?

He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess.

> Hell, Yesman Mike is still trying to figure out what I want to bet him on.

As are some of the rest of us. You let yer testosterone carry you away
at times.

> Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too
> high?

I took it that he valued his credibility too much to make it a
gambling chip on your tilted table.

JF

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185674207.206584.198970@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> mind blowing.
>> >> jof summarized in one sentence.
>>
>> >> "The problem for me in answering
>> >> is that I'm theorizing
>> >> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
>>
>> >> we noticed.
>>
>> > Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.
>>
>> You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you?
>
> He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess.

Of course, since -he- understands it, -I- understand it, and pretty much
everybody -but- you understands it, I can see why you think that makes it
"my" hashup.

You've exhibited similar conclusions many times.

>> Hell, Yesman Mike is still trying to figure out what I want to bet him
>> on.
>
> As are some of the rest of us. You let yer testosterone carry you away
> at times.

I don't think you and Mike equates to "some of the rest of us", but, who
knows.

Sheryl might pivot in and hoist.

>> Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too
>> high?
>
> I took it that he valued his credibility too much to make it a
> gambling chip on your tilted table.

Or couldn't back his innuendo.

After calling my credibility into question several times, and questioning
my presence several times, he wouldn't back his mouth with a bet..

Most people would hardly see that as "valuing his credibility".

But seeing what -your- credibility is around here, I can see how you
reached your futile conclusion.

As far as a tilted table, I said I was in Ottawa and Orleans, he said,
several times, that he doubted it, and I challenged him with a bet.

He declined, dodged, and scurried.

It's awfully simple to prove, and I don't see where your "tilted table"
comes from, but then your comprehension issues deepen and widen daily.

Would -you- like to take his bet?

Say, $15?

Is his credibility worth that?

Because he had a chance to back yours, and he shanked you for all to see.

What will you do?

>
> JF
>
>
>



--

"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked
a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that
I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF

Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com

On Jul 28, 10:30 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

> I don't think you and Mike equates to "some of the rest of us", but, who
> knows.

Think about what you just wrote there, dude, and if you're not
embarrassed by it then you'll never be embarrassed, but then that's a
probability, isn't it?

> >> Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too
> >> high?

Unlike you, I seriously doubt he'll try to bargain away his
credibility on a bet.

> > I took it that he valued his credibility too much to make it a
> > gambling chip on your tilted table.
>
> Or couldn't back his innuendo.

I think that was your innuendo and his response. His sounded pretty
straightforward to me, unlike your smoke and mirrors.

> After calling my credibility into question several times, and questioning
> my presence several times, he wouldn't back his mouth with a bet..

Your credibility has long been in question here. Mike didn't bring
anything new to the group and you're the only one who seems compelled
to bet on their own credibility. Some of the rest of us are pretty
comfortable with ours without the gambling nonsense.

> Most people would hardly see that as "valuing his credibility".

You're the only one trying to put a price tag on it. Think about it.

> But seeing what -your- credibility is around here, I can see how you
> reached your futile conclusion.

In yer dreams, dude. That being said, I'm sure one of the metoos will
come to your defense. You're lucky to have such loyal, if blindered,
friends. Most of us have to prove ourselves at least once, something
beyond springing for drinks and kissing serious ass for a night.

> As far as a tilted table, I said I was in Ottawa and Orleans, he said,
> several times, that he doubted it, and I challenged him with a bet.

Bullshit. You danced around what he said like some Nureyev wannabe.

> He declined, dodged, and scurried.

He declined and laughed at your silly pretentions.

> It's awfully simple to prove, and I don't see where your "tilted table"
> comes from, but then your comprehension issues deepen and widen daily.
>
> Would -you- like to take his bet?
>
> Say, $15?
>
> Is his credibility worth that?

His credibility is already on the table. You can't deflect the truth
with your silly betting game. You rolled the dice and lost. He
outgunned you in your own terms. Quit while you're only a little
behind.

> Because he had a chance to back yours, and he shanked you for all to see.

We're still waiting for the cites to back up that particular nonsense.

> What will you do?

Continue to laugh at your squirming?

JF

On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185674207.206584.198970@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> > > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googleg roups.com...
>
> > > > On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> mind blowing.
> > > >> jof summarized in one sentence.
>
> > > >> "The problem for me in answering
> > > >> is that I'm theorizing
> > > >> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
>
> > > >> we noticed.
>
> > > > Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.
>
> > > You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you?
>
> > He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess.
>
> I'm not embarrassed, nor do I think he (Popeye) makes a "hashup" of things.

"That being said, I'm sure one of the metoos will
come to your defense. You're lucky to have such loyal, if blindered,
friends. Most of us have to prove ourselves at least once, something
beyond springing for drinks and kissing serious ass for a night. "

Who says I never provide cites? 8)

JF

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185720035.730999.268970@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
>> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185674207.206584.198970@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
>> > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>> > > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googleg roups.com...
>>
>> > > > On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > >> mind blowing.
>> > > >> jof summarized in one sentence.
>>
>> > > >> "The problem for me in answering
>> > > >> is that I'm theorizing
>> > > >> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
>>
>> > > >> we noticed.
>>
>> > > > Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.
>>
>> > > You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you?
>>
>> > He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess.
>>
>> I'm not embarrassed, nor do I think he (Popeye) makes a "hashup" of
>> things.
>
> "That being said, I'm sure one of the metoos will
> come to your defense. You're lucky to have such loyal, if blindered,
> friends. Most of us have to prove ourselves at least once, something
> beyond springing for drinks and kissing serious ass for a night. "
>
> Who says I never provide cites? 8)

It would be nice, on the annual outing, if you'd provide an accurate one.

Dennis came to his own defense, correcting your incorrect "guess".

Your putting of words in his mouth, actually, as you accuse others of, per
your usual M.O..

He was just leading you by the hand, as we all do.



--

"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked
a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that
I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF

Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185674207.206584.198970@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > > On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> mind blowing.
> > >> jof summarized in one sentence.
> >
> > >> "The problem for me in answering
> > >> is that I'm theorizing
> > >> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
> >
> > >> we noticed.
> >
> > > Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.
> >
> > You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you?
>
> He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess.

I'm not embarrassed, nor do I think he (Popeye) makes a "hashup" of things.

Dennis

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185720035.730999.268970@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
> > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1185674207.206584.198970@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> > > > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googleg roups.com...
> >
> > > > > On Jul 28, 4:07 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > >> mind blowing.
> > > > >> jof summarized in one sentence.
> >
> > > > >> "The problem for me in answering
> > > > >> is that I'm theorizing
> > > > >> with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
> >
> > > > >> we noticed.
> >
> > > > > Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy.
> >
> > > > You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you?
> >
> > > He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess.
> >
> > I'm not embarrassed, nor do I think he (Popeye) makes a "hashup" of
things.
>
> "That being said, I'm sure one of the metoos will
> come to your defense. You're lucky to have such loyal, if blindered,
> friends. Most of us have to prove ourselves at least once, something
> beyond springing for drinks and kissing serious ass for a night. "

Was it a "defense" or more a correction of the inaccuracies in your
statement?

Dennis