Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|