i do not need to be right, i usually happen to be right. There is a big difference.

Indeed there is a big difference, Cham. . .

John, there was nothing "right" about that time you came in on Sunday and tried to tattle on something Cham said in Chat. It was such a horrific example of your spoiled bratness and you were caught so flaatfooted that you -- after a mere two or three lame defenses -- never tried it again. Good for you. For once you knew when to quit without trying to browbeat the whole Board into thinking you weren't really the butt-hole we know you to be.

The same with Michelle Malkin's picture. You imported a disgusting image to express your feelings about Malkin's politics which you accused her of "puking forth." Then, in explaining how the image was NOT photoshopped which would have explained how you found one so unrealistic, you described how up to 120 frames per second are advanced one by one till the most distorted one could be found. And that one you used.

Then you come in here trying to claim that the picture located by that process was an "actual picture." These kinds of low-class, egg-throwing exercises are the sorts of things that make your occasional turn at being "right" even less than the accidental occurrence that it might be.

So Cham is 100 percent correct when he says you "need" to be right. YOU will go further than all of the other Headbutters together to be right and you will do so along the lines exampled above and drawn from your filthy past efforts. So let me once again congratulate Cham on his insights and marvel at how dipsticks like you never seem to learn.

Your reflections about me mean less than nothing to me. [Further quote from JohnHP]

Of course they are more than "nothing" to him, Cham. Tell you what, go back to the beginning of Headbutters Continued Archives. There you will see John delighted that he can tell the world that I used to post under a different name than the one I now use. It would be in the first few days of the Malone Board and probably the word "overly" will bring up the post I am thinking of. In any case, I have quoted it several times here and it will be available somewhere.

Thinking that he [John] made the rules on this Board, John told Malone that he [John] would never refer to me by any other name than my old one from WLS, and that he [John] used to be overly nice and generous to people on the old WLS Board and now he [John] would no longer be that.

John's idea of "overly nice and generous" was to call poor Ronald Reagan a Thug -- when Reagan was in the lost-cause stage of Alzheimers disease. I don't want to spoil your fun with a premature disclosure, Cham, so go read our archives on this board. You'll see how John flat out described the pains he felt from defeats I had inflicted on him four years before. (Matilda's Board was already four years old and Malone's a few weeks old, so do the math and see how far he had to go to be sure everybody knew what he was getting even for.) The funniest one was when he claimed not  to be "bitter." The bile was leaking -- if not squirting -- from John's every cyber pore.

And here John is again, admitting the same kinds of defeats YOU nailed him with before you joined the service. Keep up the good work now that you're back. You might feel rusty or out of step with so many posts flying around between then and now, but you're totally on top of your game.