Waverly is...?

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:23 pm

He's been sitting on his mind too long.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:25 pm

<Waverly sees that his sympathy gambit is not working

He concentrates all mind control power on making Brink's head explode al la Scanners>

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:27 pm

Somehow..I don't think that's going to work either.

Don't you have a headache by now waverly?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:27 pm

Originally posted by Waverly:
<Waverly sees that his sympathy gambit is not working He concentrates all mind control power on making Brink's head explode al la Scanners>

Thank goodness, he stopped acting like a child... I don't like dealing with a child...

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:29 pm

Waverly-That doesn't seem to be working...

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:30 pm

Originally posted by Brink:
This is definitely not the real Waverly

We shall see we can tell by how he responds to this:
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Dr. Waverly , Ph.D. as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Waverly probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his intrusive stratagems, which, after all, are the things that provide cover for a nerdy agenda. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, he does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Waverly discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.

Waverly's proposed social programs are devoid of any intellectual substance. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that it's easy to tell if he is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Waverly's stories about cameralism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Even Waverly's trucklers couldn't deal with the full impact of Waverly's vituperations. That's why they created "Waverly-ism," which is just an intemperate excuse to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) Dr. Waverly , Ph.D. should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in, 2) no one -- except Waverly, so high on his own hallucinations that he believes them to be real -- can seriously believe that everything is happy and fine and good, and 3) his statements have served as a powerful weapon with which jaundiced worrywarts can take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown.

so how does a flamer respond to a flame(r)?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:31 pm

Originally posted by Waverly:
<Waverly sees that his sympathy gambit is not working He concentrates all mind control power on making Brink's head explode al la Scanners>

More power Capt. (Weasel eats a twinkie and concentrates so hard his bowels let go

helps on the way Waverly

)

Omar · Post by **Omar** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:33 pm

@Weasel: Waverly confused Brink's head with his arse. Brink! Do you feel something filling your diapers???

@Craig: how did Foul get your password?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:33 pm

@craig: ROFLMAO

Great stuff.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:35 pm

Originally posted by craig:
We shall see we can tell by how he responds to this:
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Dr. Waverly , Ph.D. as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Waverly probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his intrusive stratagems, which, after all, are the things that provide cover for a nerdy agenda. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, he does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Waverly discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.

Waverly's proposed social programs are devoid of any intellectual substance. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that it's easy to tell if he is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Waverly's stories about cameralism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Even Waverly's trucklers couldn't deal with the full impact of Waverly's vituperations. That's why they created "Waverly-ism," which is just an intemperate excuse to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) Dr. Waverly , Ph.D. should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in, 2) no one -- except Waverly, so high on his own hallucinations that he believes them to be real -- can seriously believe that everything is happy and fine and good, and 3) his statements have served as a powerful weapon with which jaundiced worrywarts can take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown.

so how does a flamer respond to a flame(r)?

(Mark this down as the first time Weasel has been so stun ,that he does not know what the hell to think )

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:35 pm

Good job Craig.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:36 pm

Originally posted by Weasel:
(Mark this down as the first time Weasel has been so stun ,that he does not know what the hell to think )

Don't think. Just laugh.

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:37 pm

Originally posted by craig:
We shall see we can tell by how he responds to this:
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Dr. Waverly , Ph.D. as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Waverly probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his intrusive stratagems, which, after all, are the things that provide cover for a nerdy agenda. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, he does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Waverly discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.

Waverly's proposed social programs are devoid of any intellectual substance. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that it's easy to tell if he is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Waverly's stories about cameralism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Even Waverly's trucklers couldn't deal with the full impact of Waverly's vituperations. That's why they created "Waverly-ism," which is just an intemperate excuse to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) Dr. Waverly , Ph.D. should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in, 2) no one -- except Waverly, so high on his own hallucinations that he believes them to be real -- can seriously believe that everything is happy and fine and good, and 3) his statements have served as a powerful weapon with which jaundiced worrywarts can take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown.

so how does a flamer respond to a flame(r)?

craig looks set to be the next master flamer in here

Omar-I think Waverly made Waverly Junior's head burst into flames

Weasel-I think it's time to make craig your new hero

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Brink ]

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:40 pm

Originally posted by Minerva:
Don't think. Just laugh.

I would...but.

(1) I can read it.
(2) I can read it.
(3) I can read it.
(4) I can read it.
(5) I can read it.

This is a day that will go down in history.

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:41 pm

Where's Foul????

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:41 pm

Craig: tell your Mom she did a good job with that flame as it had nearly *no* grammatical errors and almost made sense. You can also tell her: *no* Waverly is not interested in dating her.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:42 pm

Craig, I'm most impressed and almost speechless

Do you also have a multiple personality?

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:43 pm

Originally posted by Waverly:
Craig: tell your Mom she did a good job with that flame as it had nearly *no* grammatical errors and almost made sense. You can also tell her: *no* Waverly is not interested in dating her.

Rather lame reply(definitely not Waverly at his best

)

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:44 pm

Originally posted by Waverly:
Craig: tell your Mom she did a good job with that flame as it had nearly *no* grammatical errors and almost made sense. You can also tell her: *no* Waverly is not interested in dating her.

Sounds like you are struggling to recover...

Is it only me?

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Thu May 03, 2001 1:45 pm

I got that not my Mom(its mum you over aged abyss of undying old foggie smells)