[George M. Middius[_4_]]

You're having another reading uncomprehension episode. Even Stephen doesn't
have a name for this phase of your "game". The symptom today is selective
vision: You either don't see, or pretend you don't see, the most telling
portion of a post from a Normal. Because I'm such a generous person, I'm going
to give you a second chance to bite me.


[This joke was not pre-approved by Stereophile.]

Your lacking integrity.

Scooter, we've been after you for years to tell us what YOU mean by
'integrity'. All we know for sure is that meaning you imagine has nothing in
common with the actual human meaning of the word. Your inane comment above
reinforces that viewpoint because nothing about JA's three little words has
any bearing on human-defined integrity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity
: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

That is indeed the primary human definition of the word. The problem to which
I referred, however, is not whether you are capable of copy-pasting a
dictionary definition; the problem is your own, personal lack of
comprehension. You have leveled the accusation that various RAOers "lack
integrity" dozens of times, but in not one single case have you been able to
explain why you made the accusation. That is also the case with JA's tiny
little jab above: All he did was echo a very common bit of mockery that is
frequently directed at you. Atkinson has never claimed that mocking fools is
immoral or otherwise unseemly for him (or other Normals) to do. In fact,
mocking of fools is one of the most common social releases in all but the most
formal settings. (One exception is a court of law.)


--

"I prefer substantive discussion over continuous expressions of unjustified outrage."
Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, March 24, 2009