Vegetarian Discussion: Rupert McCallum's Continuing Fuckwittery

Rupert McCallum's Continuing Fuckwittery
Posts: 36

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-03-09 15:35:27 EST
Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
not based in any way on anything I said. It is solely on his
sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.

You shall acknowledge this.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-09 15:42:55 EST
On Mar 9, 1:35 pm, George Plimpton <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
> not based in any way on anything I said.  It is solely on his
> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.


Apparently you misread the story, Goo. Why else did you agree with me
by answering "exactly"?

>
> You shall acknowledge this.

He's already acknowledged that you amuse him greatly, Goo.

George Plimpton
2011-03-09 16:38:31 EST
On 3/9/2011 12:42 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 9, 1:35 pm, George Plimpton<notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
>> not based in any way on anything I said. It is solely on his
>> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>
>
> Apparently

WITHOUT DOUBT, you leapt to a fuckwitted and wrong inference, douchebag.

Douchebag, you were just wasting time, and trying to waste mine, with
your hysterical faggot demands to post your direct and immediate
response to the news story.

Rupert
2011-03-09 18:33:14 EST
On Mar 10, 7:35 am, George Plimpton <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
> not based in any way on anything I said.  It is solely on his
> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>
> You shall acknowledge this.

You posted a news story. Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted
to imply by posting this news story. You responded by saying
"Exactly". So it looks as though at the time you wanted to confirm
that Ron's conjecture was correct.

George Plimpton
2011-03-09 18:48:20 EST
On 3/9/2011 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:35 am, George Plimpton<notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
>> not based in any way on anything I said. It is solely on his
>> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>>
>> You shall acknowledge this.
>
> You posted a news story.

Right. Why didn't you disabuse the douchebag Hamilton of his false
claim that I hadn't?


> Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted
> to imply by posting this news story.

Correct: and his conjecture was baseless - fuckwitted and wrong.

Rupert
2011-03-09 20:09:16 EST
On Mar 9, 3:48 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/9/2011 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 7:35 am, George Plimpton<notgen...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
> >> not based in any way on anything I said.  It is solely on his
> >> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>
> >> You shall acknowledge this.
>
> > You posted a news story.
>
> Right.  Why didn't you disabuse the douchebag Hamilton of his false
> claim that I hadn't?
>

Because you were doing that.

> > Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted
> > to imply by posting this news story.
>
> Correct:  and his conjecture was baseless - fuckwitted and wrong.

Well, actually, it looks as though it was correct, because you
responded "Exactly".

George Plimpton
2011-03-09 22:24:35 EST
On 3/9/2011 5:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:48 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2011 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 10, 7:35 am, George Plimpton<notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
>>>> not based in any way on anything I said. It is solely on his
>>>> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>>
>>>> You shall acknowledge this.
>>
>>> You posted a news story.
>>
>> Right. Why didn't you disabuse the douchebag Hamilton of his false
>> claim that I hadn't?
>>
>
> Because you were doing that.

Cut the shit, rupie - he was *denying* for several days that I had
posted a news story, and you sat there with your thumb up your ass,
pretending to enjoy the show. Why didn't you spare your good buddy some
embarrassment?


>>> Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted
>>> to imply by posting this news story.
>>
>> Correct: and his conjecture was baseless - fuckwitted and wrong.
>
> Well, actually, it looks as though it was correct

Actually, it clearly was *wrong*, because the story didn't say anything
that remotely suggested what douchebag Ronnie inferred.

Rupert
2011-03-09 22:28:17 EST
On Mar 10, 2:24 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/9/2011 5:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 3:48 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/9/2011 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 10, 7:35 am, George Plimpton<notgen...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
> >>>> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
> >>>> not based in any way on anything I said.  It is solely on his
> >>>> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>
> >>>> You shall acknowledge this.
>
> >>> You posted a news story.
>
> >> Right.  Why didn't you disabuse the douchebag Hamilton of his false
> >> claim that I hadn't?
>
> > Because you were doing that.
>
> Cut the shit, rupie - he was *denying* for several days that I had
> posted a news story, and you sat there with your thumb up your ass,
> pretending to enjoy the show.  Why didn't you spare your good buddy some
> embarrassment?
>

Why is it my job to set him straight?

> >>> Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted
> >>> to imply by posting this news story.
>
> >> Correct:  and his conjecture was baseless - fuckwitted and wrong.
>
> > Well, actually, it looks as though it was correct
>
> Actually, it clearly was *wrong*, because the story didn't say anything
> that remotely suggested what douchebag Ronnie inferred.

What he said was something about what *you* wanted to tell us. And you
responded "Exactly". So obviously he was correct.

George Plimpton
2011-03-09 22:37:19 EST
On 3/9/2011 7:28 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2:24 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2011 5:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 3:48 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2011 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 7:35 am, George Plimpton<notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
>>>>>> not based in any way on anything I said. It is solely on his
>>>>>> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>>
>>>>>> You shall acknowledge this.
>>
>>>>> You posted a news story.
>>
>>>> Right. Why didn't you disabuse the douchebag Hamilton of his false
>>>> claim that I hadn't?
>>
>>> Because you were doing that.
>>
>> Cut the shit, rupie - he was *denying* for several days that I had
>> posted a news story, and you sat there with your thumb up your ass,
>> pretending to enjoy the show. Why didn't you spare your good buddy some
>> embarrassment?
>>
>
> Why is it my job to set him straight?

Thanks for admitting you're more interested in protecting The Side
rather than pursuing the truth.


>>>>> Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted
>>>>> to imply by posting this news story.
>>
>>>> Correct: and his conjecture was baseless - fuckwitted and wrong.
>>
>>> Well, actually, it looks as though it was correct
>>
>> Actually, it clearly was *wrong*, because the story didn't say anything
>> that remotely suggested what douchebag Ronnie inferred.
>
> What he said was something about what *you* wanted to tell us.

I told you that whole animals are received and processed by pet food
processors - something that is true, but something that douchebag Ron
Hamilton and Fuckwit David Harrison deny to this day.

Rupert
2011-03-09 22:42:27 EST
On Mar 10, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/9/2011 7:28 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2:24 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/9/2011 5:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 9, 3:48 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 3/9/2011 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 10, 7:35 am, George Plimpton<notgen...@yahoo.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> Woopert, douchebag Ron Hamilton's fuckwitted and wrong inference is
> >>>>>> not based in any way on anything I said.  It is solely on his
> >>>>>> sophomoric misreading of a legitimate news story I posted.
>
> >>>>>> You shall acknowledge this.
>
> >>>>> You posted a news story.
>
> >>>> Right.  Why didn't you disabuse the douchebag Hamilton of his false
> >>>> claim that I hadn't?
>
> >>> Because you were doing that.
>
> >> Cut the shit, rupie - he was *denying* for several days that I had
> >> posted a news story, and you sat there with your thumb up your ass,
> >> pretending to enjoy the show.  Why didn't you spare your good buddy some
> >> embarrassment?
>
> > Why is it my job to set him straight?
>
> Thanks for admitting you're more interested in protecting The Side
> rather than pursuing the truth.
>

You seem to be experiencing delusions. I obviously admitted no such
thing. I don't understand why you think it is my job to tell Ron he's
wrong. You were telling him that he was wrong, and I assumed it
wouldn't take very long for the matter to be resolved.

> >>>>> Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted
> >>>>> to imply by posting this news story.
>
> >>>> Correct:  and his conjecture was baseless - fuckwitted and wrong.
>
> >>> Well, actually, it looks as though it was correct
>
> >> Actually, it clearly was *wrong*, because the story didn't say anything
> >> that remotely suggested what douchebag Ronnie inferred.
>
> > What he said was something about what *you* wanted to tell us.
>
> I told you that whole animals are received and processed by pet food
> processors - something that is true, but something that douchebag Ron
> Hamilton and Fuckwit David Harrison deny to this day.

Ron made a conjecture about what you wanted to say, and you responded
"Exactly". So it looks as though at the time you did want to say that.
But you now call it a "fuckwitted and wrong inference". So it looks as
though you've changed your mind.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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