From: rehashedrubard@gmail.com
On Monday, January 12, 2004 at 8:41:02 PM UTC-8, Jeff Rubard wrote:
> "Stuart Hawkins" wrote in message news:<
fe9...@clear.net.nz>...
> > Then they don't have to, all they have to do is NOT READ MY POSTS.
> >
> It's a deal.
> >
> > > This is wishful thinking, which in certain cases becomes
> > > wish-fulfillment; but if you really are a manual laborer, I suppose
> > > there's little chance of that.
> > >
> > I have a substantial ammount of savings.
> >
> Great.
> >
> >
> > > Rustle up one of those people who were cracking up over my posts again
> > > and have them proffer a comment.
> > >
> > That is not what I am talking about, I mean that I can show your ideas are
> > false.
> Do you consider yourself to have fully accomplished this? Is that
> perhaps not possible?
> >
> > I am not the one who believed joint and several responsibility meat I had
to
> > provide for a starving man or to warn of a peril caused by nobody.
> >
> Well, pouring water on a drowning man is something else.
> >
> >
> > > For one Rand demonstrated very little
> > > understanding of Kant, who is generally taken to be the greatest
> > > philosopher of all time.
> >
> > GET THE FUCK OFF THE GRASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I told you before I don't use drugs, and that it's actually kind of a
> serious thing to say.
> >
> > > Yeah, that's right, the V-X cartoon (originally from a magazine called
> > > *Snipehunt*).
> > >
> > ....90 thousand pages of blah blah......
> > I found it very funy.
> Well, marvelous, but it required a venue of publication for it to be
> circulated -- it wasn't a purely "individualistic" endeavor.
> > > This is untrue and libelous.
> >
> > The suggest another.
> Uh, this gets the "order of explanation" backwards, unless you're an
> on-duty *cop*.
> > > I admitted to the use of two types of beer, and even on Thanksgiving.
> > > Again, if you would like to submit contact information, we'll be in
> > > touch.
> > >
> > Smokes don't count?
> No, they don't: they're legal and their effects on behavior are
> arguably minimal (that is, studies say things that contradict each
> other as to their effects on the mind, which are "anecdotal" in your
> sense in everday life -- there's no overall "trend" in those results.
> We all know the other results, but that's a different deal).
> > > Their specific context is the Catholic Church. It's, uh, not too
> > > specific.
> > >
> > It is very specific.
> >
> Maybe in the Antipodes, but the concept behind Catholicism is that it
> is catholic (i.e., capable of accomodating everyone on Earth without
> bending them completely out of shape).
> > > Then you know little of reasoning. (That's a piece of expert advice.)
> > >
> > No it is not, it is the advice of a moron.
> Enjoy the word, it has no fixed criteria of application and can make
> you feel considerably better.
> > > It's true, I feel tainted by engaging in debate with you. We have a
> > > saying: "Don't wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes
> > > it."
> > >
> > Then why do you not enjoy this?
> I am not a pig.
> > > No. It is not a fact, such statements are intended to exclude the
> > > common-law category of fraud.
> > >
> > No they do not, fraud is a form of force.
> >
> Indeed it is; but if you were attempting to defraud me, you probably
> wouldn't have put this up on Christmas Eve: a little too "obviously
> hostile".
>
> Jeff Rubard
"A little questionable, I guess."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
