XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote it, Goo. Check the headers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>>>>
>>>>>What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>>>>>Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>>>>>- that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>>>>>animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>>>>
>>>> Goober so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
>>>>support one of your many stupid ideas, and praised you, it has ALWAYS
turned out
>>>>to be you doing it yourself dishonestly pretending to be more than one
person.
>>>>Did you forget about all that Goob? IF that's not what's going on this
time it
>>>>will be the first time, Goo. But by this time I'm convinced it's you being
>>>>dishonest AGAIN, like you did MANY times in the past pretending to be all
of the
>>>>following "different" people, and more:
>>>
>>>Why do I disbelieve you?
>>
>> You don't Goo.
>
>Actually, yes, I do.
Does the fact that Goo did that bother you, and if so why? If not, why
don't
you want to believe it?
>And I'm not George.
LOL! I certainly can't take your word for it that you're not Goo, since
every other time "someone" has done what you're doing out of nowhere for no
apparent reason it has always been the Goober himself. He has done it dozens of
times that I'm aware of, and probably dozens of other times that I'm not.
>> You're pretending to be someone you're not. Someone very
>>stupid MIGHT believe I'm lying about some of the things you DID DO, but we
both
>>know you know I'm just pointing out one of the contemptible facts about you.
>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.
>
>Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>headers.
For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?
>> You've been caught yet AGAIN
>>dishonestly pretending to be "another" person, Goober. No one else would just
>>dive in and start trying to help you insist life is not a benefit without
being
>>able to say what he thinks is preventing it from being one, JUST LIKE YOU.
>
>Again, no.
Then say what you think is preventing it from being one or remain JUST LIKE
GOO.
>Anyone capable of rational thought and logic
>would be tempted to do the same, since your assertion is not
>only wrong, but ridiculously so. Life is not a "benefit".
>It's a prerequisite
Now you need to try explaining what you want people to think prevents any
prerequisite from being a benefit. When you can't do that you need to say which
ones are and which ones are not and you STILL need to say what you want people
to think prevents life from being one.
>for either benefits or the opposite, but
>it's neither in itself.
>
>"Everyone's out of step but me!" doesn't play here any more
>than it does on the parade field. You're wrong, and your
>boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
>being able to show any evidence to support your claim means
>that you're also an idiot.
Your boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
being able to show any evidence to support your claim means
that you're also an idiot. Unless you can explain what you want people to think
prevents life from being a benefit you can't even attempt to support your
claim.
If you could explain how you think you'll be able to continue benefitting from
anything after you lose the benefit of life that might do it, but you can't
attempt to explain that either. So far we're left with nothing other than that
life IS the benefit it so clearly appears to be.
>>Here's
>>the upgraded list Goo, pretty much in order of appearance though I've no
doubt
>>there are more "other people" you've dishonestly pretended to be than I have
on
>>the list:
>>
>>Jonathan Ball
>>Citizen
>>Benfez
>>Wilson Woods
>>Radical Moderate
>>Bingo
>>Edward
>>George
>>Bill
>>Fred
>>Mystery Poster
>>Merlin the dog
>>Bob the dog
>>silvia@onairos.com
>>elvira
>>Dieter
>>"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
>>
>>Abner Hale
>>Roger Whitaker
>>Fucktard
>>Apoo
>>Ted Bell
>>notgenx32@yahoo.com
>>Jay Santos
>>mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
>>Rudy Canoza
>>Trappist
>>sb292sb@yahoo.com
>>Leif Erikson
>>S. Maizlich
>>SlipperySlope
>>Eden
>>Sylvia Stevens
>>chico chupacabra
>>S. Maizlich
>>T. Howard Pines, Jr.
>>George Plimpton
>>Chrissy Degeer
>>Mauricio Rodriguez, Nihada Tutic and Tim Goss
>>Pete Crayne, Dare Adelekan, Cathy Demkiw, and about 16 others
>>Räy Fîscher
>>Barack Obama
>>Delma T. Ivey
>>Bob Casanova
>
>And based on your demonstrated lack of comprehension they're
>almost certainly nearly all as incorrect as the last one.
No. They're all different people that Goo has dishonestly pretended to be,
just the way you're doing. All of a sudden they're trying to defend some stupid
idea the Goober has without being able to try supporting it the least little
bit, EXACTLY LIKE YOU'RE DOING. IF you're a different person who is stupid
enough to do the same thing Goo is doing and just all of a sudden decided to go
on about this one stupid idea, it would be the first time. ALL other times it
has been the Goober himself, as it probably is now. If not, as I said before
you're the first. Goo did what you're doing now for every one of the examples
above, and I'm certain quite a few more I never learned about. Why do you want
to believe he didn't, are you able to say? Why not?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
