Subject:
|
Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the IRA?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:25:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2189 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > Breaking my usual practice of ignoring you and your nonsense,
> >
> > I find that comment a little disingenuous. To be honest, I wish you would just
> > ignore me.
>
> To be honest I wish you wouldn't post on LUGNET(tm) at all, you're somewhere
> between extremely low value add, and significant negative value add. Once in
> a while you come up with an outside cite of some limited value but by and
> large your own comments range from uninsightful to inciteful. Usually
> tending toward the latter.
>
> By and large I do manage to ignore you but when you're at your most
> egregious... it's hard.
Heck, I ignore Scott, but judging by the flurry of responses, he won't do me
the same favor. He wants and craves attention. Ignoring him is still the
best option. He'll even pick up on long-distance, unstated twitting of his
hypocritical anti-American,
pro-justice-as-long-as-it-applies-to-America-and-nowhere-else stances.
Witness the latest reaction - knowing I won't read his messages he still
blathers away in Donald Duckian incoherence(waugh-waugh-waugh with the fist
swinging while hopping up and down). No doubt he'll respond to this and I
won't bother to read that, too.
>
> > Call me on that if I’m wrong, otherwise I’d appreciate some clarification.
>
> I'm comfortable that I found a cite that demonstrated that you were at least
> trying to insinuate the matter in question. That you managed to weasel word
> things so that you're technically not exactly matching what I said is, if
> anything, a testimony to your own despicable debating techniques rather than
> any fault of my own.
>
> My expectation is that you will twist this around further, as is your wont,
> but I am done.
He never ever admits he is wrong - has anyone not figured that out?
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Dealing with the problem
|
| (...) Good analysis, Bruce, but it's not enough that just you ignore him, or that just I ignore him. For off-topic.debate to truly be enjoyable, it's necessary that EVERYONE ignore him, and manage to do so consistently. This is necessary because if (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
