XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:56:54 -0700, probably Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:13:13 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:48:32 -0700, probably Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0500, the following appeared   
   >>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, probably Goo 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:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>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?   
   >>>   
   >>>Anyone is. But there's no reason to think *he* is   
   >>   
   >>    LOL!!! I have dozens of reasons and shared them with you, so if you still   
   >>want to pretend Goo wasn't horribly dishonest dozens of times then you're   
   >>persuading yourself to believe a lie which is exactly what the Goober wants   
   you   
   >>to do. Goo wins AGAINST you, IF you're not Goo. If you are Goo you're just   
   lying   
   >>again in a way you've lied dozens of times in the past that I'm aware of.   
   >>   
   >>>, other   
   >>>than your paranoia. And that's no reason at all.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> 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   
   >>>   
   >>>I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand   
   >>   
   >>    Quote what you want people to think you're trying to refer to. Go:   
   >>   
   >>>the reasons is your problem, not mine.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>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 for either benefits or the opposite, but   
   >>>>>it's neither in itself.   
   >>>   
   >>>>    Now you need to try explaining what you want people to think prevents   
   any   
   >>>>prerequisite from being a benefit.   
   >>>   
   >>>I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand   
   >>   
   >>    Quote what you want people to think you're trying to refer to. Go:   
   >>   
   >>>the reasons is your problem, not mine.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>"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   
   >>>   
   >>>I have no claim; you do. My disagreement with your claim   
   >>>isn't a claim   
   >>   
   >>    That's a blatant lie. You claim life is not the benefit it clearly   
   appears   
   >>to be but can't even pretend to try explaining what you want people to think   
   >>prevents it from being one, JUST LIKE GOO.   
   >>   
   >>>which requires evidence, only logic. Which I   
   >>>suppose explains why you can't understand it.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>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   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>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   
   >>>   
   >>>Sorry, but I won't take your word for that.   
   >>   
   >>    If you can't acknowledge the truth about Goo you're either someone other   
   >>than Goo who is impressively stupid, or you're really Goo and lying about it   
   >>again.   
   >   
   >Nope. And you know it   
      
       LOL! Just like Goo. There's no way I could know it, and so far no reason to   
   suspect it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)