XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared   
   >>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>You know that Bob is not me.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you   
   >>>   
   >>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of   
   >>>yours you know it,   
   >>   
   >>    LOL!!! There's no way I could know   
   >   
   >Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.   
      
       Hmmm. Since I've never known Goo to be that honest in over a dozen years of   
   reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not Goo. Still you can't say what   
   you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you, and so   
   far only you and Goo are in that incredibly stupid position. It's hard enough   
   to   
   believe even one person is that stupid, much less two people. Let's give you   
   another chance to try to defend your claim:   
      
       Do you think no prerequisites are benefits, or that some are but life is   
   one   
   that's not? What do you think distinguishes those that are from those that   
   aren't, do you have any clue at all?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)