Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison And His Invalid Moral Criticism Of "vegans"

Fuckwit David Harrison And His Invalid Moral Criticism Of "vegans"
Posts: 30

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-21 22:57:37 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
"vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated. But his irritation has
nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
bred in the first place. Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
some harm...on animals that don't exist:

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001


What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the [moral] loss if their
lives are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
animals", Goo. You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
non-existent animals. You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
animals of something. You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
non-existent farm animals.

Stop lying about it, Goo.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Rupert
2010-06-22 01:24:52 EST
On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
wrote:
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated.  But his irritation has
> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
> bred in the first place.  Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>
>         What gives you the right to want to deprive
>         them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>         could have?
>         Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
>         What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>         *could* get to live, is for people not to
>         consider the fact that they are only keeping
>         these animals from being killed, by keeping
>         them from getting to live at all.
>         Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
>         Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>         born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>         that would experience the [moral] loss if their
>         lives are prevented.
>         Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
>         The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>         are more than just "nothing", because they
>         *will* be born unless something stops their
>         lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>         if something stops their lives from happening,
>         whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>         them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>         Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
> animals", Goo.  You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
> non-existent animals.  You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
> animals of something.  You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
> non-existent farm animals.
>
> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>

He may have changed his mind since then.


Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-22 01:28:04 EST
On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> wrote:
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
>> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated. But his irritation has
>> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
>> bred in the first place. Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
>> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>>
>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>> could have?
>> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>>
>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>> them from getting to live at all.
>> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>>
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the [moral] loss if their
>> lives are prevented.
>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>
>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>>
>> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
>> animals", Goo. You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
>> non-existent animals. You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
>> animals of something. You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
>> non-existent farm animals.
>>
>> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>>
>
> He may have changed his mind since then.

He hasn't - only his wording.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Rupert
2010-06-22 02:14:23 EST
On Jun 22, 3:28 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> > wrote:
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
> >> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated.  But his irritation has
> >> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
> >> bred in the first place.  Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
> >> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>
> >>          What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >>          them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >>          could have?
> >>          Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> >>          What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >>          *could* get to live, is for people not to
> >>          consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >>          these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >>          them from getting to live at all.
> >>          Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
> >>          Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >>          born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >>          that would experience the [moral] loss if their
> >>          lives are prevented.
> >>          Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> >>          The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >>          are more than just "nothing", because they
> >>          *will* be born unless something stops their
> >>          lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >>          if something stops their lives from happening,
> >>          whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >>          them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >>          Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> >> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
> >> animals", Goo.  You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
> >> non-existent animals.  You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
> >> animals of something.  You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
> >> non-existent farm animals.
>
> >> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>
> > He may have changed his mind since then.
>
> He hasn't - only his wording.
>

How do you know?


Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-22 02:41:52 EST
On 6/21/2010 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:28 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
>>>> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated. But his irritation has
>>>> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
>>>> bred in the first place. Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
>>>> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>>
>>>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>>>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>>>> could have?
>>>> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>>
>>>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>>>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>>>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>>>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>>>> them from getting to live at all.
>>>> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>>
>>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>>> that would experience the [moral] loss if their
>>>> lives are prevented.
>>>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>
>>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>>> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>>
>>>> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
>>>> animals", Goo. You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
>>>> non-existent animals. You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
>>>> animals of something. You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
>>>> non-existent farm animals.
>>
>>>> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>>
>>> He may have changed his mind since then.
>>
>> He hasn't - only his wording.
>>
>
> How do you know?

You know. We all know.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Rupert
2010-06-22 05:03:10 EST
On Jun 22, 4:41 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 3:28 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
> >>>> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated.  But his irritation has
> >>>> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
> >>>> bred in the first place.  Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
> >>>> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>
> >>>>           What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >>>>           them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >>>>           could have?
> >>>>           Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> >>>>           What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >>>>           *could* get to live, is for people not to
> >>>>           consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >>>>           these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >>>>           them from getting to live at all.
> >>>>           Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
> >>>>           Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >>>>           born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >>>>           that would experience the [moral] loss if their
> >>>>           lives are prevented.
> >>>>           Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> >>>>           The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >>>>           are more than just "nothing", because they
> >>>>           *will* be born unless something stops their
> >>>>           lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >>>>           if something stops their lives from happening,
> >>>>           whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >>>>           them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >>>>           Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> >>>> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
> >>>> animals", Goo.  You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
> >>>> non-existent animals.  You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
> >>>> animals of something.  You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
> >>>> non-existent farm animals.
>
> >>>> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>
> >>> He may have changed his mind since then.
>
> >> He hasn't - only his wording.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> You know.  We all know.
>

That's not true, and it's not an answer to the question.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-22 08:55:09 EST
On 6/22/2010 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:41 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2010 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 22, 3:28 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
>>>>>> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated. But his irritation has
>>>>>> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
>>>>>> bred in the first place. Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
>>>>>> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>>
>>>>>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>>>>>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>>>>>> could have?
>>>>>> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>>
>>>>>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>>>>>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>>>>>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>>>>>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>>>>>> them from getting to live at all.
>>>>>> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>>
>>>>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>>>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>>>>> that would experience the [moral] loss if their
>>>>>> lives are prevented.
>>>>>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>
>>>>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>>>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>>>>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>>>>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>>>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>>>>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>>>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>>>>> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>>
>>>>>> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
>>>>>> animals", Goo. You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
>>>>>> non-existent animals. You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
>>>>>> animals of something. You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
>>>>>> non-existent farm animals.
>>
>>>>>> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>>
>>>>> He may have changed his mind since then.
>>
>>>> He hasn't - only his wording.
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> You know. We all know.
>>
>
> That's not true

It is true.

Rupert
2010-06-22 20:54:29 EST
On Jun 22, 10:55 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/22/2010 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 4:41 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/21/2010 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 22, 3:28 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
> >>>>>> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated.  But his irritation has
> >>>>>> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
> >>>>>> bred in the first place.  Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
> >>>>>> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>
> >>>>>>            What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >>>>>>            them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >>>>>>            could have?
> >>>>>>            Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> >>>>>>            What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >>>>>>            *could* get to live, is for people not to
> >>>>>>            consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >>>>>>            these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >>>>>>            them from getting to live at all.
> >>>>>>            Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
> >>>>>>            Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >>>>>>            born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >>>>>>            that would experience the [moral] loss if their
> >>>>>>            lives are prevented.
> >>>>>>            Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> >>>>>>            The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >>>>>>            are more than just "nothing", because they
> >>>>>>            *will* be born unless something stops their
> >>>>>>            lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >>>>>>            if something stops their lives from happening,
> >>>>>>            whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >>>>>>            them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >>>>>>            Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> >>>>>> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
> >>>>>> animals", Goo.  You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
> >>>>>> non-existent animals.  You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
> >>>>>> animals of something.  You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
> >>>>>> non-existent farm animals.
>
> >>>>>> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>
> >>>>> He may have changed his mind since then.
>
> >>>> He hasn't - only his wording.
>
> >>> How do you know?
>
> >> You know.  We all know.
>
> > That's not true
>
> It is true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What's the foundation for this belief of yours?

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-23 01:08:35 EST
On 6/22/2010 5:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:55 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/22/2010 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 22, 4:41 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2010 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 22, 3:28 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
>>>>>>>> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated. But his irritation has
>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
>>>>>>>> bred in the first place. Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
>>>>>>>> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>>
>>>>>>>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>>>>>>>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>>>>>>>> could have?
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>>
>>>>>>>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>>>>>>>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>>>>>>>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>>>>>>>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>>>>>>>> them from getting to live at all.
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>>>>>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>>>>>>> that would experience the [moral] loss if their
>>>>>>>> lives are prevented.
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>
>>>>>>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>>>>>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>>>>>>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>>>>>>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>>>>>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>>>>>>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>>>>>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>>
>>>>>>>> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
>>>>>>>> animals", Goo. You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
>>>>>>>> non-existent animals. You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
>>>>>>>> animals of something. You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
>>>>>>>> non-existent farm animals.
>>
>>>>>>>> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>>
>>>>>>> He may have changed his mind since then.
>>
>>>>>> He hasn't - only his wording.
>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>> You know. We all know.
>>
>>> That's not true
>>
>> It is true.
>
> What's the foundation for this belief of yours?

You know he hasn't changed his thinking, bitch. Cut the bullshit.


Rupert
2010-06-23 20:15:08 EST
On Jun 23, 3:08 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/22/2010 5:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 10:55 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/22/2010 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 22, 4:41 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/2010 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 22, 3:28 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/21/2010 10:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been harping for 11 years on
> >>>>>>>> "vegans'" wish to see livestock eliminated.  But his irritation has
> >>>>>>>> nothing to do with the loss of the products for which the animals are
> >>>>>>>> bred in the first place.  Instead, he accuses "vegans" of inflicting
> >>>>>>>> some harm...on animals that don't exist:
>
> >>>>>>>>             What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >>>>>>>>             them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >>>>>>>>             could have?
> >>>>>>>>             Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> >>>>>>>>             What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >>>>>>>>             *could* get to live, is for people not to
> >>>>>>>>             consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >>>>>>>>             these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >>>>>>>>             them from getting to live at all.
> >>>>>>>>             Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
> >>>>>>>>             Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >>>>>>>>             born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >>>>>>>>             that would experience the [moral] loss if their
> >>>>>>>>             lives are prevented.
> >>>>>>>>             Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> >>>>>>>>             The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >>>>>>>>             are more than just "nothing", because they
> >>>>>>>>             *will* be born unless something stops their
> >>>>>>>>             lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >>>>>>>>             if something stops their lives from happening,
> >>>>>>>>             whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >>>>>>>>             them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >>>>>>>>             Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> >>>>>>>> You are criticizing "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
> >>>>>>>> animals", Goo.  You are accusing them of doing something "unfair" to
> >>>>>>>> non-existent animals.  You are accusing them of "depriving" non-existent
> >>>>>>>> animals of something.  You are accusing them of imposing a "loss" on
> >>>>>>>> non-existent farm animals.
>
> >>>>>>>> Stop lying about it, Goo.
>
> >>>>>>> He may have changed his mind since then.
>
> >>>>>> He hasn't - only his wording.
>
> >>>>> How do you know?
>
> >>>> You know.  We all know.
>
> >>> That's not true
>
> >> It is true.
>
> > What's the foundation for this belief of yours?
>
> You know he hasn't changed his thinking, bitch.  Cut the bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What I know is that you are not able to offer reasons for why you
think I know this... because if you were able to offer reasons then
you would.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron