Turning around in neighbor's driveway
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Would Consumer Reports say this is a shady practice?
Next: Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
From: Amos Dundee on 5 May 2007 16:12 Kent Wills wrote: > As I understand it, on Sat, 05 May 2007 16:22:20 GMT, Amos Dundee > <major(a)peckin.pa> wrote: > >> � UltraMan � = > > I can't believe it took me this long to catch on. > Spammy Sammy. Long time no see. > > So, he's now someone selling scooters out of his home? He's a TRAITOR!
From: Kent Wills on 6 May 2007 02:05 As I understand it, on Sat, 05 May 2007 20:12:56 GMT, Amos Dundee <major(a)peckin.pa> wrote: >Kent Wills wrote: >> As I understand it, on Sat, 05 May 2007 16:22:20 GMT, Amos Dundee >> <major(a)peckin.pa> wrote: >> >>> � UltraMan � = >> >> I can't believe it took me this long to catch on. >> Spammy Sammy. Long time no see. >> >> So, he's now someone selling scooters out of his home? > >He's a TRAITOR! How is selling scooters being a traitor? I honestly don't see the connection. -- Kent "I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all you need to know, gov!" - Shouting George
From: Kent Wills on 6 May 2007 02:06 As I understand it, on Sat, 5 May 2007 13:11:26 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote: >Larry wrote: >> In article <1178383438.823684.52500(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On May 5, 9:41 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> As I understand it, on 4 May 2007 22:56:37 -0700, Martin Phipps >>>> >>>> <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> So, Vox/Ultra/Jonez/whatever, why do you have such a >>>>>> compelling NEED to be dishonest? Why can't you be honest about >>>>>> anything, ever? >>>> >>>>> The pathological liar and the honest man both claim to tell the >>>>> truth. >>>> >>>> The difference is that the pathological liar (in this case, >>>> Vox/Ultra/Jonez/whatever) is lying when he claims to the telling the >>>> truth. >>>> >>>>> Kent, we know you aren't an honest man. So that makes you the >>>>> pathological liar. >>>> >>>> Please cite one lie from me. Just one is all I ask. >>>> I have crickets on stand-by. >>> >>> You've accused people of not offering you proofs of the non-existance >>> of gods. >> >> If someone makes that claim, is it unreasonable to ask them for proof? > >So where's their "proof" of their grotesque perverted superstition? > > >> >>> You've accused people of avoiding your questions. >> >> I've seen Kent do this frequently - in cases where people (usually >> Vox/Jonez who is notorious for doing so) avoid his questions. > >I'm right here. Where's Kent? > I'm here. I don't live on Usenet. I have a family and a life outside of the Internet. Since you posted information that clearly applies to you, it's clear you lead a solitary life. You probably only have the Internet to keep you company. This is not the case for everyone. > >> >>> You've >>> claimed that agnostics are not atheists (when they do clearly lack >>> belief in any gods). >> >> Agnosticism and atheism are different, so there can be an argument >> that they are different. >> >>> You've argued that quotes from the Bible have >>> nothing to do with Christianity and that people are presenting "lies" >>> when they quote the Bible and use them against you. The real >>> question is when have you ever told the truth? I honestly haven't >>> seen a single example yet of you telling the truth. >> >> Then you either selectively read his posts or are lying yourself. >> Kent and I don't agree on much, but I can't recall him every >> deliberately lying. > >Depends on what the definition of "lying" is, eh Larry? > lying: present part of LIE lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. Your claim that the woman who stabbed her baby is a Christian fits that, given that you couldn't offer any evidence to support the claim. Oh sure, you posted a link to a blog with screen caps from another woman's myspace page (the two women have the same first and last name, but live in different states). Interesting when this was pointed out, you stopped posting to the thread. While it is possible the woman is a Christian, there was nothing in the article the supported the claim, and nothing on the blog either. Yet you presented it as fact, even when your evidence was shown to be wrong. Very deceptive. -- Kent Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
From: Kent Wills on 6 May 2007 02:06 As I understand it, on Sat, 5 May 2007 14:00:05 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote: >Kent Wills wrote: >> As I understand it, on Sat, 05 May 2007 16:22:20 GMT, Amos Dundee >> <major(a)peckin.pa> wrote: >> >>> � UltraMan � = >> >> I can't believe it took me this long to catch on. >> Spammy Sammy. Long time no see. >> >> So, he's now someone selling scooters out of his home? It's >> possible, of course, but given that you've accused vox/jonez/whatever >> of being everyone this side of the Buddha, I'm not willing to accept >> your current claim. > >Yet you're willing to accept the perverted grotesque self-contradictory >claims of your absurd superstition, eh Kent? > What, exactly, does what I do or do not believe have to do with Spammy Sammy claiming you are the guy who sells scooters? Please be specific, as it currently looks like you're just crying about how I've "spanked" you again. -- Kent No todos los que ven tus obras ven tus virtudes.
From: Jeckyl on 6 May 2007 08:53
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote in message news:x-BF313D.12514405052007(a)news.west.earthlink.net... > In article <1178383438.823684.52500(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> You've accused people of not offering you proofs of the non-existance >> of gods. > If someone makes that claim, is it unreasonable to ask them for proof? He said accusing people of not offering it (I asusme that means when they acutally did) .. not of asking for it >> You've >> claimed that agnostics are not atheists (when they do clearly lack >> belief in any gods). > Agnosticism and atheism are different, so there can be an argument that > they are different. He didn't say they were not different. However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are Agnostics. |