Re: digest 2453240
From: dizzy (dizzy_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 09/06/04
- Next message: dtr: "Re: Take back your Usenet experience by filtering off the following!"
- Previous message: Charlotte L. Blackmer: "Re: Take back your Usenet experience by filtering off the following!"
- In reply to: tholen_at_antispam.ham: "Re: digest 2453240"
- Next in thread: tholen_at_antispam.ham: "Re: digest 2453240"
- Reply: tholen_at_antispam.ham: "Re: digest 2453240"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:12:36 GMT
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 23:56:15 GMT, tholen tholed:
>dizzy writes:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:11:57 GMT, tholen tholed:
>
>How does one allegedly endure when posting, dizzy?
Non sequitur.
>>> dizzy writes:
>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:55:08 GMT, tholen tholed:
>
>>> How does one allegedly endure when posting, dizzy?
>
>> Non sequitur.
>
>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
On your part, tholen.
>>>>> dizzy writes:
>
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:42:10 GMT, tholen tholed:
>
>>>>> How does one allegedly endure when posting, dizzy?
>
>>>> Non sequitur.
>
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>> On your part, tholen.
>
>Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
On your part, tholen.
>>>>>>> dizzy writes:
>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:27:55 GMT, tholen tholed:
>
>>>>>>> How does one allegedly endure when posting, dizzy?
>
>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>>>> On your part, tholen.
>
>>> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>> On your part, tholen.
>
>Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
On your part, tholen.
>>>>> I see that you didn't
>>>>> answer the question, dizzy, choosing instead to evade it with an
>>>>> unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>>>> How ironic.
>
>>> Where is the alleged irony, dizzy?
>
>> In you complaining about someone else's evasion of questions,
>> tholokook.
>
>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim,
Liar. You evade questions all the time, tholen.
>laced with invective,
Irrelevant.
>as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
How ironic.
>>>>>>>>> Aratzio writes:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> dizzy writes:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bisectional2004@yahoo.ca (b s) wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I notice that you continue to coment on people not answering
>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, but don't answer the questions people ask you.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FACT: Tholen is a hypocrite.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Classic avoidance of the issue at hand.
>
>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that noting the lack of substantiation for dizzy's
>>>>>>>>> claim deals directly with dizzy's issue at hand.
>
>>>>>>>> But with a lame (and erroneous) scripted response.
>
>>>>>>> If you find your response to be lame, erroneous, and scripted,
>>>>>>> that's your problem, dizzy.
>
>>>>>> Classic thole.
>
>>>>> Non sequitur,
>
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>>> On your part, dizzy.
>
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>On your part, dizzy.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>> given that oar pins are not involved, dizzy.
>
>>>> Irrelevant, tholen, given that I've never claimed that they were.
>
>>> Then why did you refer to them, dizzy?
>
>> I didn't, tholen.
>
>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
On your part, tholen.
>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?
>
>Obviously not, dizzy, given that you did refer to an oar pin:
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> "Classic thole."
> --dizzy
I'm aware of what I wrote, tholen, and "thole", in that context, has
nothing to do with oar pins.
>>>>>>>>>> Have any k00ks to discuss, abusive x-poasting k00k?
>
>>>>>>>>> You'll have to ask dizzy, Aratzio.
>
>>>>>>>> I've been discussing a kook, tholen.
>
>>>>>>> Discussing yourself, dizzy?
>
>>>>>> No, I've been discussing you, tholen.
>
>>>>> Illogical, dizzy.
>
>>>> Wrong again, tholen, given that you are a kook.
>
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
>>> expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
>> Illogical, tholen, given that the fact that you are a kook is
>> pertinent information in the discussion at hand.
>
>Classic erroneous presupposition, and a rather ironic one at that.
Not at all, tholen, considering that I've never won USENET Kook of the
Month.
>> I could not have
>> made my point while omitting the fact that you are a kook.
>
>Classic erroneous presupposition, and a rather ironic one at that.
Not at all, tholen, considering that I've never won USENET Kook of the
Month.
>>>>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?
>
>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I've been suffering from
>>>>> reading comprehension problems at all, dizzy.
>
>>>> I'm presupposing nothing, tholen.
>
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>> On your part, tholen.
>
>Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
On your part, tholen.
>>>> Your question "Discussing yourself,
>>>> Dizzy?", after I had written "FACT: Tholen is a hypocrite.", is
>>>> evidence of your severe reading comprehension problems.
>
>>> Evidence of your severe reading comprehension problems, dizzy,
>
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>On your part, dizzy.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> given
>>> that I did not ask that question in response to your erroneous claim
>>> of fact. Rather, it came in response to your remark that you have
>>> been discussing a kook.
>
>> Yes, and my remark that I had been discussing a kook immediately
>> followed my "Tholen is a hypocrite" statement, just as one would
>> expect.
>
>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
On your part, tholen.
>> You're still suffering from illogic problems, I see, tholen.
>
>Classic erroneous presupposition.
Nope.
>>>>>>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?
>
>>>>>>> Classic erroneous presupposition.
>
>>>>>> Wrong again, tholen.
>
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>>>> See above for substantiation, tholen.
>
>>> You're erroneously presupposing that there is any substantiation from
>>> you above, dizzy.
>
>> Wrong again, tholen.
>
>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
On your part, tholen.
>> Of course your willingness to lie does not surprise.
>
>Classic erroneous presupposition.
Nope.
- Next message: dtr: "Re: Take back your Usenet experience by filtering off the following!"
- Previous message: Charlotte L. Blackmer: "Re: Take back your Usenet experience by filtering off the following!"
- In reply to: tholen_at_antispam.ham: "Re: digest 2453240"
- Next in thread: tholen_at_antispam.ham: "Re: digest 2453240"
- Reply: tholen_at_antispam.ham: "Re: digest 2453240"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
