Subject:
|
Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the I
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:02:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2164 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
Thanks for your rather disruptive input, but I've no intention of joining in
your mudslinging.
[BTW: I'm not anti-American, I'm pro-justice - understand the difference].
>
> >
> > > 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?
How ironic; I note you have chosen to sling mud rather than address your NI
views.
Scott A
>
> -->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
