Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit's Shit Hemorrhage Finally Appears

Fuckwit's Shit Hemorrhage Finally Appears
Posts: 16

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2012-08-28 17:33:10 EST
Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.

Mr.Smartypants
2012-08-29 02:18:03 EST
On Aug 28, 3:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.


So let me get this straight, Goober. You dropped out of pursuing a PhD
in economics so you could practice your amateur, fuckwitted psychiatry
on the several Ruperts you think you talk to on newsgroups. Is that
correct?

Rupert
2012-08-29 06:38:09 EST
On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.

How edifying of you to share that with us.

George Plimpton
2012-08-29 11:14:19 EST
On 8/29/2012 3:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
>> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.
>
> How edifying of you to share that with us.

How wasteful of time for you to comment on it.


Rupert
2012-08-29 11:17:44 EST
On aug. 29, 17:14, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 3:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
> >> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.
>
> > How edifying of you to share that with us.
>
> How wasteful of time for you to comment on it.

On the other hand, your original post was a thoroughly productive use
of time, wasn't it?

George Plimpton
2012-08-29 11:36:43 EST
On 8/29/2012 8:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 29, 17:14, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 3:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
>>>> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.
>>
>>> How edifying of you to share that with us.
>>
>> How wasteful of time for you to comment on it.
>
> On the other hand, your original post was a thoroughly productive use
> of time, wasn't it?

It definitely was more productive than your post, even though it was
probably a less cost effective use of my time than your post was of your
time, due to your extraordinarily low time value.


Rupert
2012-08-29 11:38:47 EST
On aug. 29, 17:36, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 8:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On aug. 29, 17:14, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2012 3:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
> >>>> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.
>
> >>> How edifying of you to share that with us.
>
> >> How wasteful of time for you to comment on it.
>
> > On the other hand, your original post was a thoroughly productive use
> > of time, wasn't it?
>
> It definitely was more productive than your post, even though it was
> probably a less cost effective use of my time than your post was of your
> time, due to your extraordinarily low time value.

Did it contribute to the productivity of society in some way, did it?

George Plimpton
2012-08-29 11:46:25 EST
On 8/29/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 29, 17:36, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 8:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On aug. 29, 17:14, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/2012 3:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
>>>>>> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.
>>
>>>>> How edifying of you to share that with us.
>>
>>>> How wasteful of time for you to comment on it.
>>
>>> On the other hand, your original post was a thoroughly productive use
>>> of time, wasn't it?
>>
>> It definitely was more productive than your post, even though it was
>> probably a less cost effective use of my time than your post was of your
>> time, due to your extraordinarily low time value.
>
> Did it contribute to the productivity of society in some way, did it?

There's no such thing as the productivity of society. It may have
contributed a little to the productivity of others, but mainly it
contributed to the betterment of others in ways unrelated to their
economic productivity.


Rupert
2012-08-30 03:19:21 EST
On Aug 29, 5:46 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On aug. 29, 17:36, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2012 8:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On aug. 29, 17:14, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/29/2012 3:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
> >>>>>> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.
>
> >>>>> How edifying of you to share that with us.
>
> >>>> How wasteful of time for you to comment on it.
>
> >>> On the other hand, your original post was a thoroughly productive use
> >>> of time, wasn't it?
>
> >> It definitely was more productive than your post, even though it was
> >> probably a less cost effective use of my time than your post was of your
> >> time, due to your extraordinarily low time value.
>
> > Did it contribute to the productivity of society in some way, did it?
>
> There's no such thing as the productivity of society.  It may have
> contributed a little to the productivity of others, but mainly it
> contributed to the betterment of others in ways unrelated to their
> economic productivity.

What do you mean by the "betterment of others"? Do you mean the
satisfaction of their preferences?

George Plimpton
2012-08-30 04:02:41 EST
On 8/30/2012 12:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 29, 5:46 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On aug. 29, 17:36, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/2012 8:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On aug. 29, 17:14, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/29/2012 3:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 28 Aug., 23:33, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Any time I refresh a.a.e.v. and a dozen or more messages suddenly
>>>>>>>> appear, I know Fuckwit had taken another massive dump into Usenet.
>>
>>>>>>> How edifying of you to share that with us.
>>
>>>>>> How wasteful of time for you to comment on it.
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, your original post was a thoroughly productive use
>>>>> of time, wasn't it?
>>
>>>> It definitely was more productive than your post, even though it was
>>>> probably a less cost effective use of my time than your post was of your
>>>> time, due to your extraordinarily low time value.
>>
>>> Did it contribute to the productivity of society in some way, did it?
>>
>> There's no such thing as the productivity of society. It may have
>> contributed a little to the productivity of others, but mainly it
>> contributed to the betterment of others in ways unrelated to their
>> economic productivity.
>
> What do you mean by the "betterment of others"?

Go read "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". I think - in
fact, I'm almost certain - you'll find the answer to your query there.
If not, then just re-read some of your old comic books - you'll be no
worse off.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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