Taichiskiing

On May 25, 1:10*pm, twobuddha wrote:
On May 25, 11:54*am, Scottum wrote:





On May 25, 10:32*am, twobuddha wrote:

On May 25, 9:15*am, Scottum wrote:

On May 24, 2:18*pm, twobuddha wrote:

On May 24, 12:19*pm, Scottum wrote:

On May 24, 12:38*pm, twobuddha wrote:

On May 24, 4:04*am, Dave Cartman wrote:

A psychopathic pathological
liar playing pathologically psychopathic
games?
You know what is really hilarious?

The number of things wrong with the preceding sentence?

The number of things right, you mean? *Hilarious to me, for damn sure.

I'm sure that fantasy world is pretty hilarious.

I could not ask for a more powerful validation that for you to write
that.

What does that even mean? *Maybe it makes sense in your fantasy world
but here in the real world it just makes you look even more crazy.

Clue for you. *You do not know you are lying. *You are not a
psychopath. *You are mentally ill. *Get help.

Back to the 'I don't have any response because Scottum is right' cop
out, I see.-

Clue for you. *You do not know you are lying. *You are not a
psychopath. *You are mentally ill. *Get help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What lies? *Would you care to point out some?

Holy ****, you really are insane.



Do you mean the ones that you made up about me?

Holy ****, you really are insane. *You do not know you are lying.



Do you mean your lie that you showed up at Copper?

Holy ****, you really are insane. *I showed. *You didn't. *Reality.
Get help.



Where's the clock, Porkchop?-

Happy to show you. *In person, next time you are in MY neighborhood.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What lies? You can't even answer a simple question like that.
Everything you said in that post is a lie, as usual.

The clock isn't in your neighborhood, Porkchop. I guess we'll just
chalk it up to more weasling.

On May 25, 12:44 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
Chinese sage Lao-Zi had resolved the fallacy of "begging the question"
more than 2500 years ago.

(snip)

Again, please. "begging the question" is simply one of many classic
logical fallacies. It can no more be "resolved" than a "non sequitur"
or a "straw man" can be resolved. They are well known and well
understood errors of reasoning.

Not really, that was to say you are only operated in undergrad math;
for post PhD program's view (more serious discussion on the fallacy of
logic), read "The Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell; then
again, what am I talking about, if you can read that book and
understand what is said in there, we would not have this argument.
Nevertheless, for your reference.

Lao-Zi no more resolved the fallacy of
"begging the question" than a dictionary resolves typographical errors.

That is, for all things, definition comes first.

You might want to tell that to all the things that humans haven't seen
or discovered yet.

Where your words don't touch the ground, you are living in an
illusion.

You are wiggling. There are two "shameless" in that sentence, but each
reflects a different meaning, as the first one gives "shameless" a
label, and the second one gives the label a meaning, which is "derived
from all previous expositions, i.e. an external source," it may be
double defined (a Zen Buddhism Koan's technique) but not a circular
reasoning. Here's one that I learned it in junior high, "I saw a saw
saw a saw," does that make sense? Your English!

You've done this before. When caught being mistaken about physics or,
in this case, logical fallacies to retreat into Chinese philosophy.

No, this argument only proves that you're operating in your small
English domain, if not racism; from Chinese philosophy I can see your/
Western world, but you have no ideas what my (Chinese Unism) world is.
So, you ARE living in a "smaller" world. And no, I haven't made any
physics mistake here, those ideas of "I being mistaken" only reflects
that you are either not know enough, or you're in denial, i.e. lying
to yourself, to give your mutated ego a lick.

It doesn't matter that you use the same word or a different word in your
circular reasoning. It's still circular. It's no different than both
you and Scott claiming that I'm a liar, but "proving" by saying I lie.

"Proving" was done before "you're a liar" was coined, so your argument
is only reflecting your shameless denial continued.

Those no rule that says you can't make nutty claims, but for it to be
valid or believable, you need to back it up with more than circular
reasoning. You might want to appear silly and nonsensical. That is
certainly your prerogative.

Quote (cut&paste from another your post):
You're being silly. Ancient Egyptians and Chinese didn't think in
"pictographs" anymore than I think in letters. Written word is simply a
physical expression of spoken language.

Not really, where in your written words that say "bass" and "trout"
are both fish? In other words, how can you tell the "physical
expression" of the words in their written appearance? Silly you?

Your "history" is at least 1200 years behind.

Now it appears that you don't know what the word "history" means. What
do you think it means, and I'll try to help you sort it out.

Dave

Sounds like you know I know what does it mean but deny it, so, what do
you mean by "history"?
End quote.

The "circling reasoning" is only in your shameless denial. Thanks for
coming to the "head banging session."

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

Not really, that was to say you are only operated in undergrad math;
for post PhD program's view (more serious discussion on the fallacy of
logic), read "The Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell; then
again, what am I talking about, if you can read that book and
understand what is said in there, we would not have this argument.
Nevertheless, for your reference.

Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" is not a book written
for a "post PhD program." It's in its 17th printing and is available
for free online. Ironically, one of Russell's goals in writing the book
was to make philosophy more accessible to anyone. It's taught as a core
text in many undergraduate philosphy courses.

Regardless, I am only willing to discuss facts with you. Your unique
punctuation and word redefinitions would make any discussion of
philosophy with you hopeless.

Lao-Zi no more resolved the fallacy of
"begging the question" than a dictionary resolves typographical errors.

That is, for all things, definition comes first.

You might want to tell that to all the things that humans haven't seen
or discovered yet.

Where your words don't touch the ground, you are living in an
illusion.

Dude, that is so deep, I'm in awe!... So things *do* or *don't* need to
have a definition to exist? I say they don't.


You are wiggling. There are two "shameless" in that sentence, but each
reflects a different meaning, as the first one gives "shameless" a
label, and the second one gives the label a meaning, which is "derived
from all previous expositions, i.e. an external source," it may be
double defined (a Zen Buddhism Koan's technique) but not a circular
reasoning. Here's one that I learned it in junior high, "I saw a saw
saw a saw," does that make sense? Your English!

You've done this before. When caught being mistaken about physics or,
in this case, logical fallacies to retreat into Chinese philosophy.

No, this argument only proves that you're operating in your small
English domain, if not racism; from Chinese philosophy I can see your/
Western world, but you have no ideas what my (Chinese Unism) world is.
So, you ARE living in a "smaller" world. And no, I haven't made any
physics mistake here, those ideas of "I being mistaken" only reflects
that you are either not know enough, or you're in denial, i.e. lying
to yourself, to give your mutated ego a lick.

Look, I don't know what you mean by "give your mutated ego a lick." Are
you using "mutated" in the "to change" sense or in the "x-men" sense?

Your race (whatever it might be) is of no issue here. And actually your
philosophical views aren't either.

This discuss began because you made the claim "begging the question" is
a sound logical reasoning that you learn in college math." I pointed
out it's actually a logical FALLACY of circular reasoning. You were
wrong, but instead of admitting your mistake you insult me and make wild
claims about your own intellectual ability.

It doesn't matter that you use the same word or a different word in your
circular reasoning. It's still circular. It's no different than both
you and Scott claiming that I'm a liar, but "proving" by saying I lie.

"Proving" was done before "you're a liar" was coined, so your argument
is only reflecting your shameless denial continued.

If you proved that I'm not only a liar but a "recycled" liar you should
show that proof to the world. Otherwise, you are just calling me names.


Those no rule that says you can't make nutty claims, but for it to be
valid or believable, you need to back it up with more than circular
reasoning. You might want to appear silly and nonsensical. That is
certainly your prerogative.

Quote (cut&paste from another your post):
You're being silly. Ancient Egyptians and Chinese didn't think in
"pictographs" anymore than I think in letters. Written word is simply a
physical expression of spoken language.

Not really, where in your written words that say "bass" and "trout"
are both fish?

In the definition of the word "fish." A trout is a fish. A opossum is
not.

They are both fish by virtue of their shared characteristics. Here is
one (casual) description, from Webster's, "any of numerous cold-blooded
strictly aquatic craniate vertebrates that include the bony fishes and
usually the cartilaginous and jawless fishes and that have typically an
elongated somewhat spindle-shaped body terminating in a broad caudal
fin, limbs in the form of fins when present at all, and a 2-chambered
heart by which blood is sent through thoracic gills to be oxygenated"

A trout is a fish. A kangaroo is not.

Not really, where in your written words that say "bass" and "trout"
are both fish?
In other words, how can you tell the "physical
expression" of the words in their written appearance? Silly you?

Unless your pictogram of a fish is drawn with magic ink, the pictogram
of a fish won't reveal it's species UNLESS it has modifers, like
stylistic changes, or context, or other modifying pictograms. (I may
not know hieroglyphics, but I am unstoppable at Pictionary.)

Similarly, in English we use context and adjectives. Same idea.
Different shape.


Your "history" is at least 1200 years behind.

Now it appears that you don't know what the word "history" means. What
do you think it means, and I'll try to help you sort it out.

Dave

Sounds like you know I know what does it mean but deny it, so, what do
you mean by "history"?

Typically, "history" refers to "a chronological record of significant
events." (Webster) In that context, your statement "Your 'history' is at
least 1200 years behind" is gibberish. So, what do mean by "history?"

The "circling reasoning" is only in your shameless denial. Thanks for
coming to the "head banging session."

It's an intellectual exercise to refresh my memory of logical fallacies,
or consider "what is a fish?" or whether pictographic writing is really
any different than our Roman alphabet (it's not) In the past, your
stubborn ignorance has been a motivation to review flight mechanics and
basic physics, and I get to make a pompous blowhard look silly in the
process.

Now,

1) What is it you say I'm lying about? Be specific.

2) What do you mean when you by disagreeing with you when you are
clearly and easily demonstrably wrong that there is "no redemption for
(my) soul."

3) I am really curious to see what you think the word "history" means in
English.

Dave

Dave Cartman wrote:


Now,

1) What is it you say I'm lying about? Be specific.

Any thing that disagrees with my pronouncements is a lie!

2) What do you mean when you by disagreeing with you when you are
clearly and easily demonstrably wrong that there is "no redemption for
(my) soul."

Like a muslim thing kill the infidel

3) I am really curious to see what you think the word "history" means in
English.

HIS STORY subject to no known truths as accepted by the rest of the US
population and other logical thinkers



Dave
good luck with getting a straight answer

On May 25, 1:13*pm, Richard Henry wrote:

Happy to show you. *In person, next time you are in MY neighborhood.

The clock tower is in your neighborhood?

You have to take into consideration the source Richard. Of course the
clock is not in his neighborhood. It's not even at Copper where he
thought it was. And consider that lately he's come up with, just where
it concerns me, just in the limited amount of his drivel that I see,
that I am a draft dodger, that I lied to authorities, and that I
claimed to have had him banned from Canada. All easily proveable if
true. But all outright lies without any basis whatsoever. Just more of
the same. But a little more intense, don't you think? Hopefully he's
about to bust a vein.

On May 25, 1:44*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Those no rule that says you can't make nutty claims, but for it to be
valid or believable, you need to back it up with more than circular
reasoning. *You might want to appear silly and nonsensical. *That is
certainly your prerogative.

And the one thing he appears successful at so far.

On May 26, 7:31*am, pigo wrote:
On May 25, 1:44*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Those no rule that says you can't make nutty claims, but for it to be
valid or believable, you need to back it up with more than circular
reasoning. *You might want to appear silly and nonsensical. *That is
certainly your prerogative.

And the one thing he appears successful at so far.

This from Brain Fried Bob Thompson, who just whined that I am an
extremely violent man likely to go postal and harm innocents?
The mind boggles.
Especially considering Thompson brags about making such nutty claims
to LE.
Irony meter makes a truly nutty claim, saying Brain Fried Bob is sane.

On May 26, 7:29*am, pigo wrote:
On May 25, 1:13*pm, Richard Henry wrote:

Happy to show you. *In person, next time you are in MY neighborhood..

The clock tower is in your neighborhood?

You have to take into consideration the source Richard.

Sure, Bob.
Let us discuss the Cabin on Bald Mountain at Deer Valley. You know,
when I gave you THREE months notice of a meet, and you didn't have the
nads to show up?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA

Of course the
clock is not in his neighborhood.

Yes, but I am in my neighborhood. You know, the neighborhood you
claim to have stalked me in WHEN YOU KNEW I WAS IN SUN VALLEY?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA


It's not even at Copper where he
thought it was.

Really? You ever been to Copper? How about mentioning your pussy
buddy who said he'd show up at Copper and then didn't have the balls?
You forgot that? Of course you did. You two have so much in common.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA

And consider that lately he's come up with, just where
it concerns me, just in the limited amount of his drivel that I see,
that I am a draft dodger, that I lied to authorities, and that I
claimed to have had him banned from Canada.

You are a draft dodger. You bragged about getting me banned from
Canada by lying to Canadian LE (because there is no way you told the
truth).
The only drivel is this sentence. Busted lying again and again and
again.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA

All easily proveable if
true. But all outright lies without any basis whatsoever.

Exactly. Your statements are outright lies. Ridiculous, transparent,
laughable lies.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA

Just more of
the same. But a little more intense, don't you think? Hopefully he's
about to bust a vein.

Looks to me like you just busted a vein in your brain, writing such
absurd crap, you blithering dumb****.
Hey, Brain Fried Bitch? You never have offered an excuse for not
showing up at DV, or Temple Square, or Sun Valley, or.....
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAB WHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHA HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABW HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAH AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAH AHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHA HAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWH AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHA HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAH AAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH AHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAH AHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAB WHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHA HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABW HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAH AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAH AHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

On May 25, 2:59*pm, Scottum wrote:

What lies? *You can't even answer a simple question like that.
Everything you said in that post is a lie, as usual.

The clock isn't in your neighborhood, Porkchop. *I guess we'll just
chalk it up to more weasling.

Exactly as predicted. I don't suppose he's shown the post where I
claimed to have him banned from Canada yet? That would be too easy, if
it were true. If I were a draft dodger I wouldn't have a draft card,
status 1H would I? I think showing that would make trunky a liar. OH
WAIT! We already know that.

On May 26, 8:14*am, pigo wrote:
On May 25, 2:59*pm, Scottum wrote:

What lies? *You can't even answer a simple question like that.
Everything you said in that post is a lie, as usual.

The clock isn't in your neighborhood, Porkchop. *I guess we'll just
chalk it up to more weasling.

Yeah, but I am in my neighborhood, and I can show you proof I was at
Copper. In person. If you ever grow a set.
What am I supposed to do, show up at Copper again? So you can pussy
out again and wastemy time?

Exactly as predicted. I don't suppose he's shown the post where I
claimed to have him banned from Canada yet?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA
Holy ****, Brain Fried Bob. Are you really trying to lie your way out
of being busted? Bad enough that you claim to have lied to Canadian
LE, but you also claimed to have been successful, bragging about how I
couldn't come up during the Olympics. You know it, I know it,
everybody knows it.
No need to prove you a liar when everybody knows you lied,
ppppppuuuuuuussssssyyyyyyyy

That would be too easy,

Sure would be. But since I know for a fact that you did exactly that,
I'll just keep repeating the facts, and laugh my ass off when you try
to sell this bull****.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA

if
it were true. If I were a draft dodger I wouldn't have a draft card,
status 1H would I? I think showing that would make trunky a liar. OH
WAIT! We already know that.

Thompson, you are a dickless coward who avoided serving in the
military. You could have volunteered.
Hey, you still have your draft card? Do you keep your used diapers,
too?
You used your lottery number to duck serving, and then you have the
gall, the profound dishonesty, the ridiculous hypocrisy to trash
Senator John Kerry, who VOLUNTEERED!!!!!!!
I am amazed. Brain Fried Thompson is trying to cover up his blatant
lying about a decorated war hero by whining he didn't dodge the draft.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA
Who's a liar, Swift Boat Bob?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA