Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:03 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 4:33 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. I
showed
>>>>>> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bull****
"inefficiency"
>>>>>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
>>>>>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel,
after
>>>>>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>>>>>> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
>>>>>> position of ignorance, anyway? I guess it must have been your
usual
>>>>>> partisan****p.
>>>>> Just to comment on this one more time,
>>>> [snip worthless **** hemorrhage]
>>>> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession,
was
>>>> sufficient.
>>> Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?
>>> When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
>>> lame?
>>> You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
>>> saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.-
>> Poor Boobs. He finally gets something half-assed right and you concede
>> that point to him and he simply can't handle it. He can't just accept
>> it, he has to keep on arguing because he thinks he can replay his
>> solitary once-in-a-lifetime victory over and over and over and over.
>>
>> He's never been right about anything before you know.
>
> He definitely seems very concerned to prove something
I've proved you're a feckless, squat-to-piss *****.
|
