What does pep mean?

You just "reuse" to accept it, eh?

Oh, believe me, I would fully cite the source. That's the point.

No sensible person would try to pass of utter crap as their own. Well, you might, but in your case, "utter crap" is quite original.

The train's already left that station.

Pep (Late again eh?)

......

Getting a bit excited now, are you?

Pep (Not just spelling errors but typos as well?)

What, you're admitting there was a station there to begin with? Oh dear. >.>

Well, you know about that "hindsight" thing; better late than never, right?

Isn't there an Aesop's fable or an American Indian fable about two animals on a trail (I am thinking turtles) that come face to face with each other? In thier stubborness niether will move to the side off the trail. Sad fable. I believe they both die right there in thier tracks.

You post more utter crap than anyone, with more frequency. If that isn't the epitome of exciting, what is?

No, I just think it's funny, though in a sad sort of way.



It's like a game of table tennis. With an aardvark.

You know very well I am right. And therefor you respond on that part only.

Guilty untill proven innocent, assuming things that you cannot know and judge by your own pitty assumptions. And don't even got the damn balls to answer the main post in a decent way???

Coward!

If I understood it I would answer it . . .

Pep ( . . . but then, that's the point, isn't it. )

No it isn't. It's about you accusing me of not putting effort into my posts and accusing me of showing no respect to the rest of the people here.

Time to show hard evidence to support your accusations towards me.

That's your choice right now. Hard evidence or an apology. That is the very least you owe me, so bring it on!

Starting with showing the others here exactly how much effort I have put in every single post. Then some hard undisputable evidence that supports your claim that I have no respect for the people here.

I post my replies here with great effort with all the skills and knowledge I have. And with the greatest amount of respect for anyone here. That it does not meet YOUR personal standards is NOT enough. That is nothing more than just your opinion, so don't you even think that you can use that to support your case.

You claim I do exactly the opposite. And I merely say: PROOF IT!!

Well done Benski! You see, you *CAN* post something without many misspellings or typos (shame about your last exhortation, although ironically, as it stands it is something that I have been encouraging you to do continually ) that is correctly punctuated - IF YOU TRY!

If you want evidence, just look at your posts over the last month yourself, and see how rambling, incoherent, grammatically challenged and bizarrely misspelt posts have morphed into this one, which largely makes sense because you have put some effort into it . . .

Pep ( . . . except of course that it is paradoxical in that it demonstrates conclusively that I have been correct in my assessment that you, in the classical phrase "could do better"! )

PS You can claim, like that senile old dragon, that you have learned nothing from your exchanges with me, but it is blatantly obvious to everyone that you have both benefited from my observations.

I have learned something now as well. Dragons play table tennis with aardvarks,

Pep (I knew that they roll up into a ball when threatened, but surely they don't bounce very well? )

Ironicly, it also proves my point.

You really have no way of knowing how much effort I put in a post.

It took me less time and effort to write the previous one, than in most other cases.

Per Christine Keeler: "You would say that, wouldn't you."

You have no way of proving that you tried less. I, on the other hand, have the satisfaction of seeing significant improvement from you following my coaching, and the whole forum population is benefiting as a consequence.

Pep (Now all we have to do is get Talarus to put down his ping-pong bat before he types.)

PS Another hint: perhaps you should think of copying and pasting difficult words like ironically from my posts.

Based on Pep's response to my previous post, I believe it's safe to say that the original purpose of sectarianism was to operate in the gray area between legitimate activity and prolix, disaffected expansionism. As this post will make clear, I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that Pep coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his criticisms sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. To state it in a more sophisticated manner, he has planted his factotums everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Pep's ability to grant a free ride to the undeserving but it also provides irrefutable evidence that craven pigheaded-types are burdened with the preconceived ideas or feeble understanding of the circles to which they previously belonged both politically and philosophically. And that's why I'm writing this post; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to denounce his expostulations. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that his insinuations represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

Pep keeps telling us that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to lead to the destruction of the human race. Are we also supposed to believe that the laws of nature don't apply to him? I didn't think so. I could accuse him of using the most hostile goof-offs you'll ever see to get his way but I wouldn't stoop to that level. It would be nice to say that nasty philistinism doesn't exist anymore but we all know that it does. Pep's supporters like to say, "Courtesy and manners don't count for anything." Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something atrabilious like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I intend to show you that I've never bothered Pep. Yet Pep wants to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

Pep has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that my "bitterness" at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by sneaky buggers who have already decided that the rigors that Pep's victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. Perhaps you haven't noticed that for all of his professed concern for human rights, Pep has yet to take a firm and unambiguous stand against those stuck-up tricksters who keep us perennially behind the eight ball. Perhaps you haven't noticed that unstable rummy-types are responsible for the blinkered, effete tenor of Pep's musings. And perhaps you haven't noticed that his stupidity concerning statism is laughable. In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Pep's diatribes. It applies to everything he says and does. Pep surely needs a healthy dose of conflict-resolution and peer-mediation training. May we never forget this if we are to deny Pep and his cohorts a chance to pit the haves against the have-nots.

Would I be labouring the point of this thread to suggest that the subject under discussion is less about 'what does pep mean?' but moreso 'what does pep mean?'

A prize for anybody who can identify the source of the original text snippets?

Pep (Even though the grammar is better, it makes no more sense than Benski usually does. )

Actually, I think the question has been incorrectly read as "Isn't Pep mean!"

Pep (What does mean mean? )

What do you mean by that?

Damn... and I thought bigger paragraphs would shut you up for a while.

It made my head explode. Thanks,like I don't have enough to clean up around here..

A bottle of whisky laced with copious amounts of horse tranquiliser might do the trick but there is no guarantee even that would work.

That was Mandy Rice-Davies (Welsh, of course!) - "Well he would, wouldn't he?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies

Maybe not, but it has led Pep to invent the abberant "i" to go with the abberant apostrophe - they will have to add an appendix to all the grammar books now!