right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:57:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:53:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:


Dutch wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.
Not in the slightest.
You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly
thought-out knee-jerk responding.
angie girl really isn't a serious participant at all.
To angie girl and other impotent and ineffectual "ara"
types, merely blabbering the bullshit about "ar" is
what counts for activism. This clearly applies to
rupie as well.
More a reflection
Not a "reflection" of anything, angie girl. You demonstrate lack of
substance and empty symbolism every time you blabber away about "ar".

How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot

Lying do-nothing passivist.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:13:38 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:49:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.

Not in the slightest.
You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly thought-out
knee-jerk responding.
Not at all.
Like that.

If you can't understand the argument, I can't help you.
And again. Tip: you might start by articulating an argument.

I have already done so.
No.


Yes.


No, you never even tried. You couldn't.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now


Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur

You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already done
so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those of
us born since World War II.


I have
No.

I can't help being a lying, fearful, do-nothing passivist.

Angus Macmillan

No, you probably can't.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now
Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur
You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
No, very clearly you don't, which is why you haven't even tried, angie
girl, preferring instead to do your snarky and juvenile puppet show.

In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:35:07 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now


Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.

Parrot.
non sequitur

You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.

Of course I do.
Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already
done
so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those
of
us born since World War II.


I have in this thread.

Look back.
I have, all I see are mostly meaningless comments and a few statements of
your beliefs, no defenses of those beliefs. Give me a hint, or better,
summarize your arguments now, for the record.



See other post.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:54:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:23:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:38:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.
Not in the slightest.
Profoundly! Stunningly!
Nothing profound or stunning about
The irony of your plagiarized comment is, indeed, stunning and
profound. You are blind, angie girl, mostly blind to your own lack of
ability.

In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot.

Liar.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:35:07 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now


Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.

Parrot.
non sequitur

You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.

Of course I do.
Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already
done
so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those
of
us born since World War II.


I have in this thread.

Look back.
I have, all I see are mostly meaningless comments and a few statements of
your beliefs, no defenses of those beliefs. Give me a hint, or better,
summarize your arguments now, for the record.



See other post.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now
Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur
You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
No, very clearly you don't, which is why you haven't even tried, angie
girl, preferring instead to do your snarky and juvenile puppet show.

In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now


Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur

You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already done
so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those of
us born since World War II.


I have
No.

I can't help being a lying, fearful, do-nothing passivist.

Angus Macmillan

No, you probably can't.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:13:38 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:49:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.

Not in the slightest.
You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly thought-out
knee-jerk responding.
Not at all.
Like that.

If you can't understand the argument, I can't help you.
And again. Tip: you might start by articulating an argument.

I have already done so.
No.


Yes.


No, you never even tried. You couldn't.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:57:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:53:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:


Dutch wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.
Not in the slightest.
You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly
thought-out knee-jerk responding.
angie girl really isn't a serious participant at all.
To angie girl and other impotent and ineffectual "ara"
types, merely blabbering the bullshit about "ar" is
what counts for activism. This clearly applies to
rupie as well.
More a reflection
Not a "reflection" of anything, angie girl. You demonstrate lack of
substance and empty symbolism every time you blabber away about "ar".

How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot

Lying do-nothing passivist.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:35:07 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now


Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.

Parrot.
non sequitur

You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.

Of course I do.
Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already
done
so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those
of
us born since World War II.


I have in this thread.

Look back.
I have, all I see are mostly meaningless comments and a few statements of
your beliefs, no defenses of those beliefs. Give me a hint, or better,
summarize your arguments now, for the record.



See other post.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now
Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur
You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
No, very clearly you don't, which is why you haven't even tried, angie
girl, preferring instead to do your snarky and juvenile puppet show.

In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:13:38 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:49:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.

Not in the slightest.
You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly thought-out
knee-jerk responding.
Not at all.
Like that.

If you can't understand the argument, I can't help you.
And again. Tip: you might start by articulating an argument.

I have already done so.
No.


Yes.


No, you never even tried. You couldn't.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:57:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:53:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:


Dutch wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.
Not in the slightest.
You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly
thought-out knee-jerk responding.
angie girl really isn't a serious participant at all.
To angie girl and other impotent and ineffectual "ara"
types, merely blabbering the bullshit about "ar" is
what counts for activism. This clearly applies to
rupie as well.
More a reflection
Not a "reflection" of anything, angie girl. You demonstrate lack of
substance and empty symbolism every time you blabber away about "ar".

How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot

Lying do-nothing passivist.