Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:23 pm
He's been sitting on his mind too long. 
He concentrates all mind control power on making Brink's head explode al la Scanners>GameBanshee Forums
The Internet's authoritative role-playing game forum.
https://gamebanshee.com/forums/
Waverly is...?
Page 9 of 12
Posted: 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>
He concentrates all mind control power on making Brink's head explode al la Scanners>Posted: 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?
Don't you have a headache by now waverly?Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:27 pm
Thank goodness, he stopped acting like a child... I don't like dealing with a child...Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG><Waverly sees that his sympathy gambit is not working
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:29 pm
Waverly-That doesn't seem to be working...
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:30 pm
We shall see we can tell by how he responds to this:Originally posted by Brink:
<STRONG>This is definitely not the real Waverly
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)?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:31 pm
Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG><Waverly sees that his sympathy gambit is not working
More power Capt. (Weasel eats a twinkie and concentrates so hard his bowels let go
helps on the way Waverly )Posted: 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?
@Craig: how did Foul get your password?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:33 pm
@craig: ROFLMAO Great stuff.
Great stuff.Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:35 pm
(Mark this down as the first time Weasel has been so stun ,that he does not know what the hell to thinkOriginally posted by craig:
<STRONG>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)?</STRONG>
)Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:35 pm
Good job Craig.
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:36 pm
Don't think. Just laugh.Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>(Mark this down as the first time Weasel has been so stun ,that he does not know what the hell to think
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:37 pm
craig looks set to be the next master flamer in hereOriginally posted by craig:
<STRONG>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)?</STRONG>
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 ]
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:40 pm
I would...but.Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>Don't think. Just laugh.
(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.
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:41 pm
Where's Foul????
Posted: 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.
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:42 pm
Craig, I'm most impressed and almost speechless
Do you also have a multiple personality?
Do you also have a multiple personality?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:43 pm
Rather lame reply(definitely not Waverly at his bestOriginally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>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.
) Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:44 pm
Sounds like you are struggling to recover...Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>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.
Is it only me?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2001 1:45 pm
I got that not my Mom(its mum you over aged abyss of undying old foggie smells)