d9a9f271
XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:
>On Oct 24, 9:36 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
>> >> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post
which Goo
>> >> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow.
It seems
>> >> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything
considering
>> >> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding
the
>> >> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not
itself a
>> >> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>>
>> >It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>>
>> If so then why does Goo lie about little things if the big thing is not
>> itself a lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
>What has he lied about?
For one thing Goo lied that I told you I knew Slater forged it, when of
course I still don't know that and in fact it's looking more and more like he
didn't as time goes along. If you're going to try to help the Goober lie about
this (imo of course because of your admiration for him) then you need to
present
the evidence for it that Goo has been completely unable to attempt presenting.
What Goo's trying to do is wuss away from it for however long he waits, and
then
he'll begin lying that it's already been presented and hilariously suggest that
we go back and try to find it for him. Why do you want to support Goo's lie
about this particular thing anyway, do you know?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
