PDA

View Full Version : Re: Bush exposes flaw in Kerry's debate stance


John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 08:57 PM
"DRS" > wrote:
>
>Bush exposed nothing but his stupidity and dishonesty. Kerry's criteria -
>being able to prove to the world at any such strike was for legitimate
>reasons - cannot be interpreted rationally by honest people to mean he
>intends getting permission from other countries first or the taking of any
>putative poll. It just means what he said. Bush is lying through his
>teeth, as usual.

This from someone who always sees his own interpretation as the only
valid interpretation possible.

You should stick to discussing your foreskin obsession.

Jeff Harper
October 5th 04, 03:59 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "DRS" > wrote:
>>
>>Bush exposed nothing but his stupidity and dishonesty. Kerry's criteria -
>>being able to prove to the world at any such strike was for legitimate
>>reasons - cannot be interpreted rationally by honest people to mean he
>>intends getting permission from other countries first or the taking of any
>>putative poll. It just means what he said. Bush is lying through his
>>teeth, as usual.

> This from someone who always sees his own interpretation as the only
> valid interpretation possible.
>
> You should stick to discussing your foreskin obsession.


The good ol' ad hominem attack, resorted to by those who can't argue on
merit.

(I'd post a substantive response, but you wrote nothing I could address,
other than your insulting, fallacious reasoning.)

DRS
October 5th 04, 04:10 PM
"Jeff Harper" > wrote in message

> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message ...
>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Bush exposed nothing but his stupidity and dishonesty. Kerry's
>>> criteria - being able to prove to the world at any such strike was
>>> for legitimate reasons - cannot be interpreted rationally by honest
>>> people to mean he intends getting permission from other countries
>>> first or the taking of any putative poll. It just means what he
>>> said. Bush is lying through his teeth, as usual.
>
>> This from someone who always sees his own interpretation as the only
>> valid interpretation possible.
>>
>> You should stick to discussing your foreskin obsession.
>
> The good ol' ad hominem attack, resorted to by those who can't argue
> on merit.
>
> (I'd post a substantive response, but you wrote nothing I could
> address, other than your insulting, fallacious reasoning.)

Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is obsessed
with me.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Lee Michaels
October 5th 04, 04:37 PM
"DRS" whined
>
> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is obsessed
> with me.
>
Just a little correction to your sentence structure.

It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is me".

HTH

DRS
October 5th 04, 05:04 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s54
> "DRS" whined
>>
>> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
>> obsessed with me.
>>
> Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
>
> It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is me".

No, it reads the way it was meant to. Anyway, you're supposed to have me
killfiled, fool.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Lee Michaels
October 5th 04, 05:21 PM
"DRS" whined some more

> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s54
> > "DRS" whined
> >>
> >> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
> >> obsessed with me.
> >>
> > Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
> >
> > It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is me".
>
> No, it reads the way it was meant to. Anyway, you're supposed to have me
> killfiled, fool.
>
Well, knowing it was you, I read it that way.

New computer. I haven't got around to killfiling everybody just yet. Aren't
you lucky?

Whiny, foreskin obsessed, fool.

DRS
October 5th 04, 05:22 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53
> "DRS" whined some more
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]_s54
>>> "DRS" whined
>>>>
>>>> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
>>>> obsessed with me.
>>>>
>>> Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
>>>
>>> It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is
>>> me".
>>
>> No, it reads the way it was meant to. Anyway, you're supposed to
>> have me killfiled, fool.
>>
> Well, knowing it was you, I read it that way.
>
> New computer. I haven't got around to killfiling everybody just yet.
> Aren't you lucky?
>
> Whiny, foreskin obsessed, fool.

That's three strikes. You're out.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Lee Michaels
October 5th 04, 05:29 PM
"DRS" whined again

> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s53
> > "DRS" whined some more
> >> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]_s54
> >>> "DRS" whined
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
> >>>> obsessed with me.
> >>>>
> >>> Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
> >>>
> >>> It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is
> >>> me".
> >>
> >> No, it reads the way it was meant to. Anyway, you're supposed to
> >> have me killfiled, fool.
> >>
> > Well, knowing it was you, I read it that way.
> >
> > New computer. I haven't got around to killfiling everybody just yet.
> > Aren't you lucky?
> >
> > Whiny, foreskin obsessed, fool.
>
> That's three strikes. You're out.
>
What so I win?

John M. Williams
October 5th 04, 06:49 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>"DRS" whined again:
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>> > "DRS" whined some more:
>> >> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>> >>> "DRS" whined
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
>> >>>> obsessed with me.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
>> >>>
>> >>> It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is
>> >>> me".
>> >>
>> >> No, it reads the way it was meant to. Anyway, you're supposed to
>> >> have me killfiled, fool.
>> >>
>> > Well, knowing it was you, I read it that way.
>> >
>> > New computer. I haven't got around to killfiling everybody just yet.
>> > Aren't you lucky?
>> >
>> > Whiny, foreskin obsessed, fool.
>>
>> That's three strikes. You're out.
>>
>What so I win?

I think that means you keep me company in BitchBoy's killfile.

John HUDSON
October 5th 04, 08:30 PM
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 02:04:06 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]_s54
>> "DRS" whined
>>>
>>> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
>>> obsessed with me.
>>>
>> Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
>>
>> It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is me".
>
>No, it reads the way it was meant to. Anyway, you're supposed to have me
>killfiled, fool.


I don't often agree with you Dave, but when you're right you're right
old chum!!

And can it be possible that the group dunce is giving advice on
"sentence structure"??!!

The mind absolutely boggles!! ****ing WOW!! ;o)

John HUDSON
October 5th 04, 08:33 PM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:21:12 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"DRS" whined some more
>
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]_s54
>> > "DRS" whined
>> >>
>> >> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
>> >> obsessed with me.
>> >>
>> > Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
>> >
>> > It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is me".
>>
>> No, it reads the way it was meant to. Anyway, you're supposed to have me
>> killfiled, fool.
>>
>Well, knowing it was you, I read it that way.
>
>New computer. I haven't got around to killfiling everybody just yet.

I hope I'm one you have Lee; please Lee, "killfile" me Lee - please
Lee!! Let me be one of the first!!

Thank you Lee!! ;o)

Jeff Harper
October 7th 04, 06:27 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s54...


>> Oh, just ignore him. I do, which is why the pathetic creature is
>> obsessed
>> with me.
>>
> Just a little correction to your sentence structure.
>
> It should read, "which is why the obsessed pathetic creature is me".


That makes no sense. Ignoring Williams would hardly make DRS obsessed.

Learn to think. Practice. Sure, it may hurt a bit at first, but the
rewards will be abundant. Among them will be a decrease in the number of
times you embarrass yourself.