Vegetarian Discussion: Is It True Goo Is The Pisser?

Is It True Goo Is The Pisser?
Posts: 21

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)

D*@.
2012-10-23 18:36:57 EST
So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?

Rupert
2012-10-24 05:32:51 EST
On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>     So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?

It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.

D*@.
2012-10-24 15:36:47 EST
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>>     So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
>It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.

If so then why does Goo lie about little things if the big thing is not
itself a lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?

George Plimpton
2012-10-24 16:05:47 EST
On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
>>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
>>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
>>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
>>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
>>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
>>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>>
>> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> If so then why does he lie about little things

I don't.

You knew all along that Slater forged the post.


Mr.Smartypants
2012-10-25 02:27:47 EST
On Oct 24, 2:05 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> >>>      So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> >>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> >>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> >>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> >>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> >>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> >>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> >> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> >      If so then why does he lie about little things
>
> I don't.
>
> You knew all along that Slater forged the post.



apparently he didn't know that. What happened to the original post,
Wussypussy?

Rupert
2012-10-25 04:38:27 EST
On Oct 25, 8:27 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2:05 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> > >>>      So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> > >>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> > >>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> > >>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> > >>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> > >>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> > >>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> > >> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> > >      If so then why does he lie about little things
>
> > I don't.
>
> > You knew all along that Slater forged the post.
>
> apparently he didn't know that. What happened to the original post,
> Wussypussy?

Ball provided a link to the original post in a previous thread.

Rupert
2012-10-25 04:38:52 EST
On Oct 24, 9:36 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> >> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> >> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> >> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> >> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> >> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> >> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> >It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
>     If so then why does Goo lie about little things if the big thing is not
> itself a lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?

What has he lied about?

Mr.Smartypants
2012-10-25 14:05:06 EST
On Oct 25, 2:38 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 8:27 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 2:05 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> > > >>>      So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> > > >>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> > > >>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> > > >>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> > > >>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> > > >>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> > > >>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> > > >> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> > > >      If so then why does he lie about little things
>
> > > I don't.
>
> > > You knew all along that Slater forged the post.
>
> > apparently he didn't know that. What happened to the original post,
> > Wussypussy?
>
> Ball provided a link to the original post in a previous thread.

there's no proof it's the original. Goo used to delete many of his
posts when these groups were on Deja News.

Rupert
2012-10-26 04:59:43 EST
On Oct 25, 8:05 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2:38 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 8:27 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 2:05 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> > > > On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> > > > >>>      So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> > > > >>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> > > > >>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> > > > >>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> > > > >>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> > > > >>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> > > > >>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> > > > >> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> > > > >      If so then why does he lie about little things
>
> > > > I don't.
>
> > > > You knew all along that Slater forged the post.
>
> > > apparently he didn't know that. What happened to the original post,
> > > Wussypussy?
>
> > Ball provided a link to the original post in a previous thread.
>
> there's no proof it's the original. Goo used to delete many of his
> posts when these groups were on Deja News.

Well, it is a post made by Ball, and Slater's post is a modified
version of it.

Mr.Smartypants
2012-10-26 15:15:53 EST
On Oct 26, 2:59 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 8:05 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 2:38 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 8:27 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 24, 2:05 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> > > > > >>>      So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> > > > > >>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> > > > > >>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> > > > > >>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> > > > > >>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> > > > > >>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> > > > > >>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> > > > > >> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> > > > > >      If so then why does he lie about little things
>
> > > > > I don't.
>
> > > > > You knew all along that Slater forged the post.
>
> > > > apparently he didn't know that. What happened to the original post,
> > > > Wussypussy?
>
> > > Ball provided a link to the original post in a previous thread.
>
> > there's no proof it's the original. Goo used to delete many of his
> > posts when these groups were on Deja News.
>
> Well, it is a post made by Ball, and Slater's post is a modified
> version of it.


Yeh, and Goo's post might be the 2nd of it's kind.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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