On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:17:26 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghole-jonnie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 14, 5:03 pm, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:05:06 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:47:39 +0900, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> >>On Fri, 9 May 2008, Goo lied:
>>
>> >>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:43:45 +0900, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> >>>>On Thu, 08 May 2008, Goo cried:
>>
>> >>>>>> [snip mangled runny hamilton bull****]
>>
>> >>>> There was no mangling Goober. That is a quote from you,
>> >>>>showing without doubt that you have no clue what you think
>> >>>>should be taken into consideration because you are too
>> >>>>stupid, too ignorant, and too inept, Goo.
>>
>> >>>There was mangling, just as you do
>>
>> >> Goo, YOU mangle. Other people do not. But then since
>> >>you lie about everything you have to lie about this too. You
>> >>just got through, stupidly, mangling at least one of Rupert's
>> >>the other day. Now you're outstupiding yourself over it...or
>> >>at least it's time for you to get on it. So let's give you a couple
>> >>of fun new ways to screw up, fail completely, and display the
>> >>grandeur of your absurd ineptitude:
>>
>> >>1. Try explaining why you mangled Rupert's quotes about
>> >>where he does/doesn't work, and his offer to ask his shrink
>> >>what type(s) of idiot he/she thinks you are.
>>
>> >>2. IF you have any clue how you think you can make it
>> >>appear that you have some idea what you think *is* im****tant
>> >>enough to merit consideration in regards to the ethics of raising
>> >>animals for food, try explaining that.
>>
>> >>(prediction: Goo will fail completely.)
>>
>> >No. You
>>
>> You proved my prediction correct by failing completely, Goo.-
>
>
>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>
>
>And yet Boobs continually insists he doesn't believe a pre-existent
>state exists while arguing that it does.
>
>It's not surprising that he can't explain why he thinks any of this.
It makes you wonder:
1. if he has any idea himself
2. if so, why he can't explain it sanely or even insanely
|
