BP burning sea turtles alive?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 3 Jul 2010 21:56 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:57:38 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>Not at all. I've told you you're a dumbass Chowderhead many, many times! >> >> > > When he can no longer avoid responding to facts he can only spew his best > 3rd grade playground insults and is incapable of actually addressing > anything substantive. His standard response will now be a denial of some > sort. Not at all. You certainly are a dumbass Chowderhead. Now, how would you like your turtle fried? Batter dipped, Southern fried?
From: Not Me General Obama is an on 3 Jul 2010 23:22 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:42:38 -0500, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:04:29 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> >wrote: > > >You said MOST of the oil could have been taken by the skimmers. Are >you going to deny that? >> >>I believe I said it *may* have averted as much oil getting to the coast. > >You MAY have said that too. You said MOST. I think you'll find the * MOST* quote came from the cite below. http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers Excerpt: "Using the Dutch skimmers should have prevented most of the oil from ever getting even close to shore. " ---- >Now deny it and I'll prove you're lying again. Why wait, go ahead and provide the proof that he's lying.
From: Not Me General Obama is an on 3 Jul 2010 23:26 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:54:57 -0500, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:19:13 -0500, Alchemist <someplace(a)terra.net> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:43:19 -0500, Lookout wrote: >> >>>> >>>>Maybe that Japanese Skimmer that can clean-up 500,000 barrels daily >>>>would help Skippy? >>> >>> Which one? I did a Google search and found NOTHING! >>> >>> I think they call it the largest in the world? >>> >> >>Then you know of the one I'm speaking of Skippy, what's your problem? > >Uhh...HE SAID THAT, not me. See? You've jumped in and you don't know >who has said what. Your fault. You fucked your formatting on the message. Message-ID: <sinq26tl630ia05mujbt0m64ooe79hccsq(a)4ax.com> Simple speak for lookout: Look at the ( >>'s ) in your message.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 3 Jul 2010 23:59 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:22:25 -0400, Not Me General wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:42:38 -0500, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:04:29 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> >>wrote: >> >> >>You said MOST of the oil could have been taken by the skimmers. Are you >>going to deny that? >>> >>>I believe I said it *may* have averted as much oil getting to the coast. >> >>You MAY have said that too. You said MOST. > > I think you'll find the * MOST* quote came from the cite below. > > http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers > > Excerpt: > > "Using the Dutch skimmers should have prevented most of the oil from ever > getting even close to shore. " ---- > >>Now deny it and I'll prove you're lying again. > > Why wait, go ahead and provide the proof that he's lying. He can't It's just something he says to try to get under my skin. It doesn't work.
From: Not Me General Obama is an on 4 Jul 2010 00:38
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:59:27 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:22:25 -0400, Not Me General wrote: > >> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:42:38 -0500, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:04:29 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>You said MOST of the oil could have been taken by the skimmers. Are you >>>going to deny that? >>>> >>>>I believe I said it *may* have averted as much oil getting to the coast. >>> >>>You MAY have said that too. You said MOST. >> >> I think you'll find the * MOST* quote came from the cite below. >> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers >> >> Excerpt: >> >> "Using the Dutch skimmers should have prevented most of the oil from ever >> getting even close to shore. " ---- >> >>>Now deny it and I'll prove you're lying again. >> >> Why wait, go ahead and provide the proof that he's lying. > >He can't It's just something he says to try to get under my skin. > >It doesn't work. :) I read you loud and clear. Lookout is an empty shirt. The minute someone asks him for PROOF! he backpedals and makes himself look like a complete fool. |