On Jul 4, 9:31=A0am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
=A0=
I showed
> >>>>>> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bull****
"ineffici=
ency"
> >>>>>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> >>>>>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel,
aft=
er
> >>>>>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
> >>>>>> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> >>>>>> position of ignorance, anyway? =A0I guess it must have been your
u=
sual
> >>>>>> 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 *****.-
Not even close but anything you wish to tell yourself to make yourself
feel better about yourself is O.K.
|
