

|
 |
| << Topic |
< Post |
Post 17 of 21 Topic 3782 of 4043
|
Post > |
Topic >> |
Re: Good old rupie the passive, fruity boy
by Rupert <rupertmccallum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Jul 3, 2008 at 10:32 PM
| On Jul 3, 10:28=A0pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 8:32 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 3, 4:28 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 4, 6:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
> >>>>>>>>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the
=
menu?",
> >>>>>>>>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on
econo=
mic
> >>>>>>>>> inefficiency. This is not actually sup****ted by the text.
> >>>>>>>> Yes, it is. =A0It is comparable to the other citations I made
th=
at you
> >>>>>>>> reference below.
> >>>>>>> No it's not,
> >>>>>> Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying ****.
> >>>>> The principle of charity
> >>>> Is alien to you.
> >>> I'd be interested to know how you would go about demonstrating that.
> >> It is self-evident.
>
> > Many things appear self-evident to you, such as this strange idea you
> > have that I'm not laughing.
>
> >>>>> requires you to interpret it as an
> >>>>> environmental argument.
> >>>> No, it doesn't. =A0What absurd bull**** for you to say that. =A0I
wo=
uld owe
> >>>> the person making the statement charity, but you want me to be
> >>>> charitable regarding *your* dishonest and politically motivated
> >>>> interpretation of it. =A0You're full of ****, rupie.
> >>> You're a loon.
> >> No. =A0You're a passive fruit.
>
> >>>>>>>>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations
t=
hat
> >>>>>>>>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I
w=
as
> >>>>>>>>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
> >>>>>>>> So you can shut the **** up on the thread now, asswipe.
> >>>>>>> I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded
> >>>>>> You never did that, including never shutting up. =A0You couldn't.
=
=A0You
> >>>>>> don't have it in you to do that.
> >>>>> You're lying on both points
> >>>> No, of course not.
> >>> Well,
> >> No lying.
>
> > The first thing I
>
> No lying.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe the public record will bear out the account I gave which you
snipped. If you disagree, it would be nice if you could identify where
it goes wrong.
You want me to waste my time actually giving you the link to the place
where I said "You have proved your point, congratulations on winning
for a change"?


|
21 Posts in Topic:
|
Rupert <rupertmccallum |
2008-07-03 15:35:13 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-03 15:43:26 |
|
David <dh@[EMAIL PROTE |
2008-07-09 11:30:25 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-09 08:48:06 |
|
dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
2008-07-10 17:21:28 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-10 23:24:59 |
|
Rupert <rupertmccallum |
2008-07-03 15:50:59 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-03 15:56:08 |
|
Rupert <rupertmccallum |
2008-07-03 16:01:13 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-03 16:28:52 |
|
"Mr. Smartypants&quo |
2008-07-03 17:15:38 |
|
David <dh@[EMAIL PROTE |
2008-07-09 10:41:39 |
|
Rupert <rupertmccallum |
2008-07-03 20:08:59 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-03 20:32:16 |
|
Rupert <rupertmccallum |
2008-07-03 22:02:41 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-03 22:28:03 |
|
Rupert <rupertmccallum |
2008-07-03 22:32:38 |
|
Rudy Canoza <pipes@[EM |
2008-07-03 23:16:41 |
|
Rupert <rupertmccallum |
2008-07-04 00:13:23 |
|
"Mr.Smartypants" |
2008-07-04 04:03:23 |
|
"Mr.Smartypants" |
2008-07-11 04:51:10 |
|
Post A Reply:

|
|
|
|