Rick Hatton - Linux

This is a discussion on Rick Hatton - Linux ; In article , Snit wrote: (snip) > He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support giving > him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the court *but* > would want the courts to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13
Results 241 to 251 of 251

Thread: Rick Hatton

  1. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    In article ,
    Snit wrote:

    (snip)

    > He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support giving
    > him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the court *but*
    > would want the courts to allow all available contrary evidence and, if the
    > trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found guilty. While Steve will
    > blather on about how horrid this is, I bet he felt Saddam was guilty even
    > *before* his trial.



    Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many broken U.N.
    resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt. You once wrote:

    "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush has
    broken the law."

    To which I'll issue the following logical correction:

    You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe to be "the
    facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken the law".

    Any time you need another lesson in reality just let me know, Snit.

    (snip more Snit crap)

    --
    "Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
    clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
    just throw it away". - Snit

  2. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:24:47 -0700, Aratzio wrote these lies, denials,
    arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or obfuscations:
    > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:53:08 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks, Snarky
    > bloviated:
    >>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:47:13 -0700, Aratzio wrote these lies, denials,
    >>arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or obfuscations:
    >>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:09:27 GMT, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
    >>> Synthetic Networked Android Responsible for Killing and Yardwork got
    >>> double secret probation for writing:
    >>>>Hail Eris! On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:27:49 -0600, Eris Kallisti Discordia
    >>>>was laughing at the antics of Steve Carroll, when they suddenly burst
    >>>>out in tears:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> "same nym and email".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That Snit (Michael Glasser) has changed email addresses and/or
    >>>>> service providers doesn't change the fact that he has been posting to
    >>>>> usenet prior to Sept. of 2004
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> You keep trying to alter what was written to fit your delusion that
    >>>>>> every person that has used snit and every person who thinks you are
    >>>>>> a lying, delusional ****wit is the same poster. Just how many
    >>>>>> posters on usenet do you believe make up the snit collective?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So you are saying that you disagree that this Snit (aka Michael
    >>>>> Glasser) is not the same Snit that posted in the post from the mid
    >>>>> 90's I yanked out of the google archive, right? Yes, this *must* be
    >>>>> your argument.
    >>>>
    >>>>If it's possible that Snit has changed emails, and possibly nyms, it's
    >>>>equally possible that Aratzio has. In fact, it's true.
    >>>
    >>> If you were to believe Bowtie I am a poster that has a record running
    >>> as far back as 1982.

    >>
    >>Now, _that_ I'd find harder to believe.

    >
    > He was wrong about the who. He claimed I am Berry Kercheval. Berry
    > Kercheval taught me how to use "rn" on our PDP-11/70 in 1981.


    ROFL

    --
    __________________________________________________ ______________________
    Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
    TEH USENETS BULLIE
    http://www.runescape.com/
    Join my RuneScape clan!
    http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pre...abal/index.php
    Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
    And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

    Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
    Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
    http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

    Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
    Hammer of Thor, July 2008

    "But the other thing about her, she does know about international
    relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to
    Russia." -- Steve Doocy of FOX News was obviously a football player in
    his early adulthood.

    Hey, Aggie! Does this sound familiar?
    Message-ID:

    "Marcella proves once again that she's an ignorant racist bigot." -- OK,
    what race are Greeks, again? Aggie's so much more knowledgeable than I
    about that sort of thing. Message-ID:


    "It could be several." -- Aggie answers marc_CH's question about which
    drugs Jamaican athletes such as Powell and Bolt have been taking.
    Message-ID:

    "Only athletes on drugs win meddles. [...]

    "And the funny thing is the Greek weightlifters were not winning meddles
    even while on drugs. Clearly every single weightlifter that beat a Greek
    weightlifter was taking more drugs than they were." -- Yeah, that's the
    ticket, Aggie! Message-ID:


    "Do Usenet posters on drugs not know how to spell 'medals'?" -- They
    really don't, marc_CH. Message-ID:
    <6iifvaFqlv6kU1@mid.individual.net>

    "Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." --
    John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID:
    <33km2419sg6fnq3shtbatqa602eagfbskl@4ax.com>

    "You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen
    Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone
    who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID:


    "Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?" -- Owen Harper, "Dead Man
    Walking", Torchwood (20/207)

    Eric "Reality CheckĀ©"/"Vox"/"_ Prof. Jonez _" Ross is a racist and
    homophobic liar, k00k, and paedophile, as well as a coprophage.

  3. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:25:26 -0600, Steve Carroll wrote these lies,
    denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or
    obfuscations:
    > Snit wrote:
    >
    > (snip)
    >
    >> He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support
    >> giving him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the court
    >> *but* would want the courts to allow all available contrary evidence
    >> and, if the trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found guilty.
    >> While Steve will blather on about how horrid this is, I bet he felt
    >> Saddam was guilty even *before* his trial.

    >
    > Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many broken
    > U.N. resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt. You once
    > wrote:
    >
    > "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush
    > has broken the law."
    >
    > To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    >
    > You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe to
    > be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken the law".


    The facts show exactly that, especially now, and if Bush or Cheney set
    foot outside the US after January 20th, 2009, they're _asking_ to be
    arrested, or even kidnapped by one of the various foreign intelligence
    services.

    --
    __________________________________________________ ______________________
    Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
    TEH USENETS BULLIE
    http://www.runescape.com/
    Join my RuneScape clan!
    http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pre...abal/index.php
    Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
    And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

    Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
    Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
    http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

    Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
    Hammer of Thor, July 2008

    "But the other thing about her, she does know about international
    relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to
    Russia." -- Steve Doocy of FOX News was obviously a football player in
    his early adulthood.

    Hey, Aggie! Does this sound familiar?
    Message-ID:

    "Marcella proves once again that she's an ignorant racist bigot." -- OK,
    what race are Greeks, again? Aggie's so much more knowledgeable than I
    about that sort of thing. Message-ID:


    "It could be several." -- Aggie answers marc_CH's question about which
    drugs Jamaican athletes such as Powell and Bolt have been taking.
    Message-ID:

    "Only athletes on drugs win meddles. [...]

    "And the funny thing is the Greek weightlifters were not winning meddles
    even while on drugs. Clearly every single weightlifter that beat a Greek
    weightlifter was taking more drugs than they were." -- Yeah, that's the
    ticket, Aggie! Message-ID:


    "Do Usenet posters on drugs not know how to spell 'medals'?" -- They
    really don't, marc_CH. Message-ID:
    <6iifvaFqlv6kU1@mid.individual.net>

    "Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." --
    John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID:
    <33km2419sg6fnq3shtbatqa602eagfbskl@4ax.com>

    "You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen
    Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone
    who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID:


    "Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?" -- Owen Harper, "Dead Man
    Walking", Torchwood (20/207)

    Eric "Reality CheckĀ©"/"Vox"/"_ Prof. Jonez _" Ross is a racist and
    homophobic liar, k00k, and paedophile, as well as a coprophage.

  4. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    "Snarky" stated in post
    pan.2008.10.14.05.08.12.654394@jm.ck...diautp.hcnb.gg
    ghd.bcb.cem.fi on 10/13/08 10:08 PM:

    > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:25:26 -0600, Steve Carroll wrote these lies,
    > denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or
    > obfuscations:
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>
    >> (snip)
    >>
    >>> He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support
    >>> giving him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the court
    >>> *but* would want the courts to allow all available contrary evidence
    >>> and, if the trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found guilty.
    >>> While Steve will blather on about how horrid this is, I bet he felt
    >>> Saddam was guilty even *before* his trial.

    >>
    >> Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many broken
    >> U.N. resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt. You once
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush
    >> has broken the law."
    >>
    >> To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    >>
    >> You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe to
    >> be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken the law".

    >
    > The facts show exactly that, especially now, and if Bush or Cheney set
    > foot outside the US after January 20th, 2009, they're _asking_ to be
    > arrested, or even kidnapped by one of the various foreign intelligence
    > services.


    Even in a trial there is one side arguing that the defendant is guilty...
    and they make those arguments *before* the jury makes its decision. Can you
    imagine Steve Carroll as, somehow, a judge:

    Prosecutor: We will show the defendant committed the crime
    and broke the law.
    Steve: Nope! Not in my court! In my court you must
    presume innocence until the defendant is proved
    guilty!
    Prosecutor: Well, we will prove his guilt!
    Steve: None of that talk here! He is presumed to be
    innocent! Who are you, a Snit sock puppet!

    The facts show Bush broke the law. Steve claims to have "reasonable" doubt
    but resorts to oft-discussed logical fallacies when he is asked why he
    doubts.

    Steve Carroll is a complete hypocrite.

    Saddam, he says, was guilty... *before* he was tried.

    Clinton, says Steve, was guilty of perjury, even though he
    was not found guilty of such.

    Steve has claimed I am guilty of all sorts of crimes, even
    such things as rape and sexual harassment (yes, Steve has
    claimed I am a rapist and that he was one of my victims).

    Steve makes, to use one his own favorite phrases, "absolute statements"
    against many people - and refuses to support his BS with anything resembling
    reasons and facts. Look at how he has accused people of being sock puppets
    and run from all efforts to get him to even *try* to support his clearly
    dishonest drivel.

    Bush, for Steve, is a "special case"; he cannot be *actually* guilty unless
    found so in a court (and even then Steve would no doubt insist the court was
    wrong). And Steve keeps getting confused and talking about people posting
    to Usenet having the same obligation as *jurors*. He really is a moron.



    --
    "Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
    be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates



  5. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    In article
    ..bcb.cem.fi>,
    Snarky wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:25:26 -0600, Steve Carroll wrote these lies,
    > denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or
    > obfuscations:
    > > Snit wrote:
    > >
    > > (snip)
    > >
    > >> He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support
    > >> giving him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the court
    > >> *but* would want the courts to allow all available contrary evidence
    > >> and, if the trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found guilty.
    > >> While Steve will blather on about how horrid this is, I bet he felt
    > >> Saddam was guilty even *before* his trial.

    > >
    > > Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many broken
    > > U.N. resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt. You once
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush
    > > has broken the law."
    > >
    > > To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    > >
    > > You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe to
    > > be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken the law".

    >
    > The facts show exactly that


    Well if you say so then it must be so

    --
    "Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
    clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
    just throw it away". - Snit

  6. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    Steve Carroll wrote these lies, denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous
    presuppositions, and/or obfuscations:
    > In article
    > > .bcb.cem.fi>,
    > Snarky wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:25:26 -0600, Steve Carroll wrote these lies,
    >> denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or
    >> obfuscations:
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>> (snip)
    >>>
    >>>> He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support
    >>>> giving him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the court
    >>>> *but* would want the courts to allow all available contrary evidence
    >>>> and, if the trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found guilty.
    >>>> While Steve will blather on about how horrid this is, I bet he felt
    >>>> Saddam was guilty even *before* his trial.
    >>> Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many broken
    >>> U.N. resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt. You once
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush
    >>> has broken the law."
    >>>
    >>> To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    >>>
    >>> You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe to
    >>> be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken the law".

    >> The facts show exactly that

    >
    > Well if you say so then it must be so


    AGREED!!

    --
    __________________________________________________ ______________________
    Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069; Usenet Ruiner #5
    The God of Odd Statements, the Ugliest Pig****er In The Universe
    Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
    Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16

  7. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:00:05 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks, Snarky
    bloviated:

    >On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:24:47 -0700, Aratzio wrote these lies, denials,
    >arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or obfuscations:
    >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:53:08 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks, Snarky
    >> bloviated:
    >>>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:47:13 -0700, Aratzio wrote these lies, denials,
    >>>arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or obfuscations:
    >>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:09:27 GMT, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
    >>>> Synthetic Networked Android Responsible for Killing and Yardwork got
    >>>> double secret probation for writing:
    >>>>>Hail Eris! On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:27:49 -0600, Eris Kallisti Discordia
    >>>>>was laughing at the antics of Steve Carroll, when they suddenly burst
    >>>>>out in tears:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> "same nym and email".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That Snit (Michael Glasser) has changed email addresses and/or
    >>>>>> service providers doesn't change the fact that he has been posting to
    >>>>>> usenet prior to Sept. of 2004
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You keep trying to alter what was written to fit your delusion that
    >>>>>>> every person that has used snit and every person who thinks you are
    >>>>>>> a lying, delusional ****wit is the same poster. Just how many
    >>>>>>> posters on usenet do you believe make up the snit collective?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So you are saying that you disagree that this Snit (aka Michael
    >>>>>> Glasser) is not the same Snit that posted in the post from the mid
    >>>>>> 90's I yanked out of the google archive, right? Yes, this *must* be
    >>>>>> your argument.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>If it's possible that Snit has changed emails, and possibly nyms, it's
    >>>>>equally possible that Aratzio has. In fact, it's true.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you were to believe Bowtie I am a poster that has a record running
    >>>> as far back as 1982.
    >>>
    >>>Now, _that_ I'd find harder to believe.

    >>
    >> He was wrong about the who. He claimed I am Berry Kercheval. Berry
    >> Kercheval taught me how to use "rn" on our PDP-11/70 in 1981.

    >
    >ROFL


    Hell bein' old.

  8. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    In article ,
    Snit wrote:

    > "Snarky" stated in post
    > pan.2008.10.14.05.08.12.654394@jm.ck...diautp.hcnb.gg
    > ghd.bcb.cem.fi on 10/13/08 10:08 PM:
    >
    > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:25:26 -0600, Steve Carroll wrote these lies,
    > > denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or
    > > obfuscations:
    > >> Snit wrote:
    > >>
    > >> (snip)
    > >>
    > >>> He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support
    > >>> giving him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the court
    > >>> *but* would want the courts to allow all available contrary evidence
    > >>> and, if the trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found guilty.
    > >>> While Steve will blather on about how horrid this is, I bet he felt
    > >>> Saddam was guilty even *before* his trial.
    > >>
    > >> Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many broken
    > >> U.N. resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt. You once
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush
    > >> has broken the law."
    > >>
    > >> To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    > >>
    > >> You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe to
    > >> be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken the law".

    > >
    > > The facts show exactly that, especially now, and if Bush or Cheney set
    > > foot outside the US after January 20th, 2009, they're _asking_ to be
    > > arrested, or even kidnapped by one of the various foreign intelligence
    > > services.

    >
    > Even in a trial


    .... the outcome is always reached as an opinion.


    Don't worry, Snit... I'm sure you'll be getting the hang of using reality any
    minute now.

    --
    "Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
    clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
    just throw it away". - Snit

  9. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    "The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity"
    stated in post
    pan.2008.10.14.18.13.18.77047@lucife...t.666.or.is.it.616 on
    10/14/08 11:13 AM:

    > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:10:26 -0600, Steve Carroll did the cha-cha, and
    > screamed:
    >> Snarky wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:25:26 -0600, Steve Carroll wrote these lies,
    >>> denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or
    >>> obfuscations:
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> (snip)
    >>>>
    >>>>> He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support
    >>>>> giving him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the
    >>>>> court *but* would want the courts to allow all available contrary
    >>>>> evidence and, if the trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found
    >>>>> guilty. While Steve will blather on about how horrid this is, I bet
    >>>>> he felt Saddam was guilty even *before* his trial.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many
    >>>> broken U.N. resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt.
    >>>> You once wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush
    >>>> has broken the law."
    >>>>
    >>>> To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    >>>>
    >>>> You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe
    >>>> to be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken
    >>>> the law".
    >>>
    >>> The facts show exactly that

    >>
    >> Well if you say so then it must be so

    >
    > Well, going by the logic you like to use against Saddam and Clinton,
    > yep. If I say it, it's true, AFAYAC.


    I just looked at Steve's replies to me. As is 100% predictable he freaked
    out and had to snip and run. Even Steve knows he is in way, way over his
    head - he has *no* reasoned responses.

    He is a hypocrite who demands Bush not be seen as guilty of the crimes he
    has clearly committed but then insists that it is fair to use other
    standards for Clinton, me, Saddam, and anyone else Steve loathes. He fails
    to understand the concepts of the presumption of innocence and of free
    speech (and the free thought it implies).

    Worse than that, when he knows he is completely beaten he targets people's
    personal and professional lives and even goes so far as to target
    health-related support groups with his drivel. What a pathetic specimen he
    is.


    --
    One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.


  10. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    In article ,
    Snit wrote:

    > "The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity"
    > stated in post
    > pan.2008.10.14.18.13.18.77047@lucife...t.666.or.is.it.616 on
    > 10/14/08 11:13 AM:
    >
    > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:10:26 -0600, Steve Carroll did the cha-cha, and
    > > screamed:
    > >> Snarky wrote:
    > >>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:25:26 -0600, Steve Carroll wrote these lies,
    > >>> denials, arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or
    > >>> obfuscations:
    > >>>> Snit wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> (snip)
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> He certainly should be tried for war crimes. I would fully support
    > >>>>> giving him the full benefit of the presumption of innocence in the
    > >>>>> court *but* would want the courts to allow all available contrary
    > >>>>> evidence and, if the trial were fair, I would expect Bush to be found
    > >>>>> guilty. While Steve will blather on about how horrid this is, I bet
    > >>>>> he felt Saddam was guilty even *before* his trial.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Of course I felt Saddam was guilty... I agreed with all the many
    > >>>> broken U.N. resolutions where even Saddam tacitly admitted his guilt.
    > >>>> You once wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> "Right. I have made an argument about the facts. The facts show Bush
    > >>>> has broken the law."
    > >>>>
    > >>>> To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe
    > >>>> to be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken
    > >>>> the law".
    > >>>
    > >>> The facts show exactly that
    > >>
    > >> Well if you say so then it must be so

    > >
    > > Well, going by the logic you like to use against Saddam and Clinton,
    > > yep. If I say it, it's true, AFAYAC.

    >
    > I just looked at Steve's replies to me. As is 100% predictable he



    ....pointed out the undeniable fact that assessing guilt of another person is
    always reached by an opinion of the assessor(s) as to what constitutes the
    facts... regardless of who assesses it or where they do it.


    Porr Snit... reality is just so painful for him

    --
    "Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
    clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
    just throw it away". - Snit

  11. Re: NOMONATION: Re: Rick Hatton

    "Demon Lord Benedict Snodgrass Jr of Confusion"
    stated in
    post pan.2008.10.19.02.45.24.286334@teh.usenets.bullie on 10/18/08 7:45 PM:

    >>>>> To which I'll issue the following logical correction:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You "have made an argument about" your *opinion* of what you believe
    >>>>> to be "the facts". You *opine* that "The facts show Bush has broken
    >>>>> the law".
    >>>>
    >>>> The facts show exactly that, especially now, and if Bush or Cheney set
    >>>> foot outside the US after January 20th, 2009, they're _asking_ to be
    >>>> arrested, or even kidnapped by one of the various foreign intelligence
    >>>> services.
    >>>
    >>> Even in a trial

    >>
    >> ... the outcome is always reached as an opinion.
    >>
    >>
    >> Don't worry, Snit... I'm sure you'll be getting the hang of using reality
    >> any minute now.

    >
    > Wow, you can win EVERY argument
    > that way!


    When Steve knows he has made a complete ass of himself he often snips and
    runs... as he did above. He simply knows he has no leg to stand on... and
    his immature "tactics" for dealing with his humiliation are repetitive and
    boring.


    --
    Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
    like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
    over Darwin's?


+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13