 | | Re: Apology. —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) And that's what made you think he didn't want it. (...) Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to that conclusion. And perhaps as such (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Apology. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) No. Remove "think". He SAID it. Either it is true, or he's a liar. (I am not going to argue epistemology with you on this) My mistake was twofold (1) First, forgetting that he's a consistent liar and thinking that I'd be doing him a service in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Apology. —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) I found the following: Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott: (...) I don't see anything where he said he didn't want to actually recieve the email. I mean, I can imagine wanting to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Apology. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Perhaps he should have. (...) No. What would the point of that be? I'll even admit I subcribe to "talk.politics.libertarian " for the bile. (...) I did not. (...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Apology. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) "consistent liar" can you justify that? You really are slime. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
