Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


"JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133975341.949320.16220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>> "JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1133936627.252319.113000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Jim McGinn wrote:
>> >> "JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> >>
>> >> >> Read upthread. We're not talking about the same books here.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > What book are you talking about, Jim? I mentioned two books. Which
>> >> > one did you read?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, if you read upthread, as I suggested, you'd be able to answer
>> >> your
>> >> own
>> >> question. Okidoke?
>> >
>> > No, dickless, it didn't answer the question. I mentioned two books.
>> > You said you read that book but didn't specify which one. That is
>> > unless the answer is that you're a lying sack of *** and you didn't
>> > read a damn thing. That answer is one we already knew though.
>> >
>>
>> Are you saying there's anything in these books that has direct bearing on
>> my
>> hypothesis? Indirect? Anything? Anything at all?
>
> You dodged the question. Which book are you claiming to have read?

Upthread.

> It's irrelevant to my question whether or not anything contradicts your
> mythical hypothesis. You claimed to have read something and then said
> you didn't remember the title, then said you were referring to another
> book, then claimed you were actually skiing at the time you said you
> were reading the book. Your story doesn't pan out. Now, which book
> were you lying about reading, Jimmy?

If your question has no bearing on my hypothesis then why did you pose it?

Jim


.

Quantcast