Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison Shit Hemorrhage To-day?

Fuckwit David Harrison Shit Hemorrhage To-day?
Posts: 12

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
2013-04-22 14:53:16 EST
There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
post on Sundays - too hung over.

Mr.Smartypants
2013-04-23 02:37:22 EST
On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
> post on Sundays - too hung over.


was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?

D*@.
2013-04-23 16:26:08 EST
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
>> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>
>
>was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?

Goo's always hoping for a new place to start lying, and every thread has
potential. Of course we always hope for him to outstupid himself some more which
he does, but never as much as when he tries to back up his idiotic seeming
claims. Now days the Googoots is afraid to try backing up any of his idiocies,
and he's scared to even reply to any of your posts.

Mr.Smartypants
2013-04-27 20:07:38 EST
On Apr 23, 2:26 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>
> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, Goo wrote:
> >> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
> >> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>
> >was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?
>
>     Goo's always hoping for a new place to start lying, and every thread has
> potential. Of course we always hope for him to outstupid himself some more which
> he does, but never as much as when he tries to back up his idiotic seeming
> claims. Now days the Googoots is afraid to try backing up any of his idiocies,
> and he's scared to even reply to any of your posts.


Goo is afraid I'm going to set him up for one of his selfoutstupidings
if he replies to me. He prefers to set the stage for his
selfoutstupidings all by himself.

George Plimpton
2013-04-28 12:59:35 EST
On 4/23/2013 1:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, nothing but a juvenile heckler, burbled:
>
>> On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
>>> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>>
>>
>> was this a
>
> George is always hoping for a new place to start lying,

I don't lie, *Goo*. You do. For example, you lied when you said that

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.

is a "mistake in terminology." It was not a mistake, *Goo*. It is your
thought-out answer after I had been putting the question to you for nine
months. You lied when you tried to weasel out of that one by saying you
think of the unborn animals as "nothing", too. You do *not* think of
them as "nothing", *Goo*:

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.

You lied when you said your bullshit "getting to experience life" yarn
does not depend on pre-existence. It depends *entirely* on the concept
of pre-existence, as has been repeatedly shown.

You're the liar, *Goo*. That has been proved beyond all rational dispute.


D*@.
2013-04-30 17:19:05 EST
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:07:38 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Apr 23, 2:26 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>
>> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
>> >> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>>
>> >was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?
>>
>>     Goo's always hoping for a new place to start lying, and every thread has
>> potential. Of course we always hope for him to outstupid himself some more which
>> he does, but never as much as when he tries to back up his idiotic seeming
>> claims. Now days the Googoots is afraid to try backing up any of his idiocies,
>> and he's scared to even reply to any of your posts.
>
>
>Goo is afraid I'm going to set him up for one of his selfoutstupidings
>if he replies to me. He prefers to set the stage for his
>selfoutstupidings all by himself.

It's more than just a preference. Goo is afraid of you. Proved, and not in
dispute. Not by any of the Goos, or even Rupert so far.

D*@.
2013-04-30 17:19:16 EST
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:59:35 -0700, Goo lied:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:26:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>><bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
>>>> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>>>
>>>
>>>was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?
>>
>> Goo's always hoping for a new place to start lying, and every thread has
>>potential. Of course we always hope for him to outstupid himself some more which
>>he does, but never as much as when he tries to back up his idiotic seeming
>>claims. Now days the Googoots is afraid to try backing up any of his idiocies,
>>and he's scared to even reply to any of your posts.
>
>I don't lie

That's your most blatant lie of all Goob. In fact I believe that's as
blatant a lie as it's possible for a person to tell, Goo.

>, *Goo*. You do. For example, you lied when you said that
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
>
>is a "mistake in terminology." It was not a mistake, *Goo*. It is your
>thought-out answer

"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception; " - Goo

"Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
nothing prevents that from happening, that would
experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration."

>after I had been putting the question to you for nine
>months. You lied when you tried to weasel out of that one by saying you
>think of the unborn animals as "nothing", too. You do *not* think of
>them as "nothing", *Goo*:

"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives
of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
lot of consideration" - Goo

>You lied when you said your bullshit "getting to experience life" yarn
>does not depend on pre-existence.

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

>It depends *entirely* on the concept
>of pre-existence

What exactly do you want people to think it has to do with it, Goo?

George Plimpton
2013-04-30 17:25:43 EST
On 4/30/2013 2:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/28/2013 9:59 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/23/2013 1:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton,
>>> nothing but a juvenile heckler, burbled:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
>>>>> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?
>>>
>>> Goo's always hoping for a new place to start lying, and every thread has
>>> potential. Of course we always hope for him to outstupid himself some more which
>>> he does, but never as much as when he tries to back up his idiotic seeming
>>> claims. Now days the Googoots is afraid to try backing up any of his idiocies,
>>> and he's scared to even reply to any of your posts.
>>
>> I don't lie, *Goo*. You do. For example, you lied when you said that
>>
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>> are prevented.
>>
>> is a "mistake in terminology." It was not a mistake, *Goo*. It is your
>> thought-out answer
>
> "in the very next sentence, you

It's not a "mistake in terminology", *Goo*. That's settled - no more
discussion about it.


>> after I had been putting the question to you for nine
>> months. You lied when you tried to weasel out of that one by saying you
>> think of the unborn animals as "nothing", too. You do *not* think of
>> them as "nothing", *Goo*:
>>
>> You lied when you said your bullshit "getting to experience life" yarn
>> does not depend on pre-existence. It depends *entirely* on the concept
>> of pre-existence, as has been repeatedly shown.
>>
>> You're the liar, *Goo*. That has been proved beyond all rational dispute.
>
> What exactly do you want people to think

Write in English, *Goo*.


D*@.
2013-05-02 17:56:12 EST
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:25:43 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:19:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:59:35 -0700, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:26:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>><bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't usually
>>>>>> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?
>>>>
>>>> Goo's always hoping for a new place to start lying, and every thread has
>>>>potential. Of course we always hope for him to outstupid himself some more which
>>>>he does, but never as much as when he tries to back up his idiotic seeming
>>>>claims. Now days the Googoots is afraid to try backing up any of his idiocies,
>>>>and he's scared to even reply to any of your posts.
>>>
>>>I don't lie
>>
>> That's your most blatant lie of all Goob. In fact I believe that's as
>>blatant a lie as it's possible for a person to tell, Goo.
>>
>>>, *Goo*. You do. For example, you lied when you said that
>>>
>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>>> are prevented.
>>>
>>>is a "mistake in terminology." It was not a mistake, *Goo*. It is your
>>>thought-out answer
>>
>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>believe the animals exist before conception; " - Goo
>>
>>"Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
>>nothing prevents that from happening, that would
>>experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
>>I don't believe that the individual animals exist
>>in any way before they are conceived, but I am
>>also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
>>as a result of the farming industry if nothing
>>(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
>>is a major aspect to take into consideration."
>>
>>>after I had been putting the question to you for nine
>>>months. You lied when you tried to weasel out of that one by saying you
>>>think of the unborn animals as "nothing", too. You do *not* think of
>>>them as "nothing", *Goo*:
>>
>>"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>>
>>"I also give the not-yet-begun lives
>>of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
>>lot of consideration" - Goo
>>
>>>You lied when you said your bullshit "getting to experience life" yarn
>>>does not depend on pre-existence.
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>>It depends *entirely* on the concept
>>>of pre-existence
>>
>> What exactly do you want people to think it has to do with it, Goo?
>
>Write in English, *Goo*.

You have no idea what you think you want people to think you think it has to
do with it, Goo.

George Plimpton
2013-05-02 23:45:42 EST
On 5/2/2013 2:56 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/30/2013 2:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/30/2013 2:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/28/2013 9:59 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2013 1:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton,
>>>>> nothing but a juvenile heckler, burbled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was an exceptionally large one yesterday, and he doesn't
>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>> post on Sundays - too hung over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> was this a use of your "valuable" time, Goober?
>>>>>
>>>>> Goo's always hoping for a new place to start lying, and every
>>>>> thread has
>>>>> potential. Of course we always hope for him to outstupid himself
>>>>> some more which
>>>>> he does, but never as much as when he tries to back up his idiotic
>>>>> seeming
>>>>> claims. Now days the Googoots is afraid to try backing up any of his
>>>>> idiocies,
>>>>> and he's scared to even reply to any of your posts.
>>>>
>>>> I don't lie, *Goo*. You do. For example, you lied when you said that
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>>>> are prevented.
>>>>
>>>> is a "mistake in terminology." It was not a mistake, *Goo*. It is your
>>>> thought-out answer
>>>
>>> "in the very next sentence, you
>>
>> It's not a "mistake in terminology", *Goo*. That's settled - no more
>> discussion about it.
>>
>>
>>>> after I had been putting the question to you for nine
>>>> months. You lied when you tried to weasel out of that one by saying you
>>>> think of the unborn animals as "nothing", too. You do *not* think of
>>>> them as "nothing", *Goo*:
>>>>
>>>> You lied when you said your bullshit "getting to experience life" yarn
>>>> does not depend on pre-existence. It depends *entirely* on the concept
>>>> of pre-existence, as has been repeatedly shown.
>>>>
>>>> You're the liar, *Goo*. That has been proved beyond all rational
>>>> dispute.
>>>
>>> What exactly do you want people to think
>>
>> Write in English, *Goo*.
>
> You have no idea what you

Write in English, *Goo*, if you want serious responses.

You won't, of course - you know you're beaten. You're crushed.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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