Re: I like wabbits! - OS2

This is a discussion on Re: I like wabbits! - OS2 ; :nelohT >Still suffering from attribution problems, Deco? Classic >inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution above, >Deco. Classic erroneous presupposition. Interesting that you regard >your "this" as pathetic, Deco. Another unsubstantiated and erroneous >claim. Classic erroneous presupposition. Another unsubstantiated ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 101 to 103 of 103

Thread: Re: I like wabbits!

  1. Re: I like wabbits!

    :nelohT

    >Still suffering from attribution problems, Deco? Classic
    >inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution above,
    >Deco. Classic erroneous presupposition. Interesting that you regard
    >your "this" as pathetic, Deco. Another unsubstantiated and erroneous
    >claim. Classic erroneous presupposition. Another unsubstantiated and
    >erroneous claim. What you think is irrelevant, Deco. Classic
    >inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution above,
    >Deco. Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You mean your
    >boilerplate spam, Deco. It's hardly your "sig", Deco. Classic
    >inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution above,
    >Deco. Classic hallucination on your part, Deco. Classic
    >hallucination on your part, Deco. Classic inconsistency, given your
    >use of the ":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. Classic erroneous
    >presupposition. Classic hallucination on your part, Deco. Classic
    >inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution above,
    >Deco. Classic erroneous presupposition. Classic hallucination on
    >your part, Deco. Classic inconsistency, given your use of the
    >":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. Classic erroneous presupposition.
    >Classic hallucination on your part, Deco. Classic inconsistency,
    >given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. Classic
    >erroneous presupposition. Classic hallucination on your part, Deco.
    >Classic erroneous presupposition. Classic inconsistency, given your
    >use of the ":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. Classic hallucination
    >on your part, Deco. Classic inconsistency, given your use of the
    >":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. Classic erroneous presupposition.
    >I'm well aware that your inconsistency is illogical, Deco. No need
    >to tell me about it. Classic hallucination on your part, Deco.
    >Classic inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution
    >above, Deco. Classic erroneous presupposition. Classic hallucination
    >on your part, Deco. Classic inconsistency, given your use of the
    >":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. There is no need to remind me.
    >Classic hallucination on your part, Deco. Classic erroneous
    >presupposition. Classic inconsistency, given your use of the
    >":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. Still suffering from reading
    >comprehension problems, Deco? There is no such agreement in anything
    >that I wrote, Deco. Classic inconsistency, given your use of the
    >":nelohT" attribution above, Deco. Classic erroneous presupposition.
    >Classic inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution
    >above, Deco. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems,
    >Deco? There is no such agreement in anything that I wrote, Deco.
    >Classic inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution
    >above, Deco. Irrelevant, given that I neve claimed otherwise, Deco.
    >Classic inconsistency, given your use of the ":nelohT" attribution
    >above, Deco. Classic kookery on your part, Deco:


    Ouch, Tholen. 38 Classics, this really hurts. I'm going to have to
    leave usenet forever again.

    --
    "Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
    should be your concern, Deco."
    -- David Tholen

  2. Re: I like wabbits!

    Art Deco writes:

    > :nelohT


    Still suffering from attribution problems, Deco?

    >>> :nelohT


    >>>>> :nelohT


    >>>>>>> :nelohT


    >>>>>>>>> :nelohT


    >>>>>>>>>>> :nelohT


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still Non Classic


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on your definition of the word "classic", Tholen.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sequitur.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.


    >>>>>>>>>>>> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.


    >>>>>>>>>>> Still non classic.


    >>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.


    >>>>>>>>> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.


    >>>>>>>> On your part, Deco.


    >>>>>>> Illogical.


    >>>>>> I'm well aware that another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim on
    >>>>>> your part is illogical, Deco. No need to tell me about it.


    >>>>> Still illogical.


    >>>> I'm well aware that another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim on
    >>>> your part is still illogical, Deco. No need to tell me about it.


    >>> I'm well aware that you love to resort to "I know you are but what am
    >>> I" schoolyard lames, Tholen.


    >> Classic hallucination on your part, Deco.


    > Classic illogic on your part, Tholen.


    Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim on your part, Deco.

    > "Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
    > should be your concern, Deco."
    > -- David Tholen


    Classic kookery on your part, Deco:

    "Out-of-context quotes in your boilerplate spam, Davie,
    how kooky."
    --Art Deco


  3. Re: I like wabbits!

    :nelohT

    >Art Deco writes:
    >
    >> :nelohT

    >
    >>>> :nelohT

    >
    >>>>>> :nelohT

    >
    >>>>>>>> :nelohT

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> :nelohT

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> :nelohT

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still Non Classic

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on your definition of the word "classic",

    >Tholen.
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sequitur.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Still non classic.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> On your part, Deco.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Illogical.

    >
    >>>>>>> I'm well aware that another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim on
    >>>>>>> your part is illogical, Deco. No need to tell me about it.

    >
    >>>>>> Still illogical.

    >
    >>>>> I'm well aware that another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim on
    >>>>> your part is still illogical, Deco. No need to tell me about it.

    >
    >>>> I'm well aware that you love to resort to "I know you are but what am
    >>>> I" schoolyard lames, Tholen.

    >
    >>> Classic hallucination on your part, Deco.

    >
    >> Classic illogic on your part, Tholen.

    >
    >Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim on your part, Deco.


    Classic hallucination on your part, Tholen.

    --
    "Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
    should be your concern, Deco."
    -- David Tholen

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6