BP burning sea turtles alive?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 4 Jul 2010 15:05 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:08:02 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:56:00 -0400, in the land of alt.autos.toyota, > Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: > >>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. > > "His standard response will now be a denial of some sort." I bet you will > argue that your response is not a denial. Not at all. You *Are* a dumbass Chowderhead. > > >>You certainly are a dumbass Chowderhead. Now, how would you like your >>turtle fried? Batter dipped, Southern fried? >> >> > And yet you snipped all the context, So what? Seems to bother you quite a bit. You can't keep up with the discussion unless every single word is there? Too bad. Hire a nanny to keep track for you, meathead. > again failed to address anything in a > substansive manner and provided your pest 3rd grade playground insult. What's there to address with you? You get so off topic in your wandering, senseless rants that what started out as "BP burning sea turtles alive" has once again deteriorated to your snarling out vapid insults and trying to prove to your audience how intelligent you are. Same outcome as always. You get lost in the actual discussion, since you can't keep up and run out of newsphoto caption information so fast, you have nothing left to do but reduce to insults. Par for your course, and we've come to expect nothing less of you. > > You are consistent in your lack of ability. PKB, I'd say.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 4 Jul 2010 18:57 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:59:51 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> And yet you snipped all the context, >> >>So what? > > Couldn't leave it there, it might show you to be completely delusionsal as > opposed to somewhat delusionsal. > > >>Seems to bother you quite a bit. You can't keep up with the discussion >>unless every single word is there? Too bad. Hire a nanny to keep track >>for you, meathead. > > That or you are a coward. Given how many times you hve had to snip proof > of your stupidity, Occam would conclude you are a coward. Oh, dear. I'll lose sleep over that for sure... > > However, he will now deny he has ever been wrong. Nowhere near as much as you. > > >>> again failed to address anything in a substansive manner and provided >>> your pest 3rd grade playground insult. >> >> > <You are consistent in your lack of ability.> >>What's there to address with you? You get so off topic in your wandering, >>senseless rants that what started out as "BP burning sea turtles alive" >>has once again deteriorated to your snarling out vapid insults and trying >>to prove to your audience how intelligent you are. >> >>Same outcome as always. You get lost in the actual discussion, since you >>can't keep up and run out of newsphoto caption information so fast, you >>have nothing left to do but reduce to insults. Par for your course, and >>we've come to expect nothing less of you. > > And at no time in those two maundering paragraphs was there substansive > discussion of the points he had to snip previously. Because they were your usual, off-topic, repetative nonsense. Who really cares what you think about what I think, meathead? Your inablility to stay on topic either indicates anti-social behavior, or just a wandering mind that can't stay occupied with issues for more than a few mintues. I'm betting on the latter. > > >> >>> You are consistent in your lack of ability. >> >>PKB, I'd say. > > Say waht you want, it won't alter the fact "You are consistent in your > lack of ability." Sure thing. Coming from the master of inability, I'm worried. Chowderhead.
From: Veronica Karlsson on 5 Jul 2010 06:34 Hachiroku wrote: > > Aratzio wrote: > > > > Hachiroku wrote: > > > > > > Aratzio wrote: > > > > > > > > His standard response will now be a denial of some sort. > > > > > > Not at all. > > > > I bet you will argue that your response is not a denial. > > Not at all. :-D -- __ __ _____ _____ ______ __ _ _ _____ __ ||| \ \ ) )/ / \|| | \ \ / / \ \ | \ | || | / / \| ) \ ||.. \ \/ /| |_/| | |_/ /| | | || \ | || || | / \ |.PP. \ / | | \| | | \ \| | | || |\_\| || || | / /\ \ _\/___ \_( \_\__/||_| \_\\_\__/_/ |_| |_||_| \_\__/|(_( \_\ |_______ Troll Spokeswoman _____ http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/ ___|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 5 Jul 2010 10:54 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:34:17 +0000, Veronica Karlsson wrote: > Hachiroku wrote: >> >> Aratzio wrote: >> > >> > Hachiroku wrote: >> > > >> > > Aratzio wrote: >> > > > >> > > > His standard response will now be a denial of some sort. >> > > >> > > Not at all. >> > >> > I bet you will argue that your response is not a denial. >> >> Not at all. > > :-D Good catch. BTW, are you the nanny Ratzoo hired to keep track of things for him? :)
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 5 Jul 2010 10:55
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:58:32 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:57:18 -0400, in the land of alt.autos.toyota, > Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: > >>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:59:51 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >> >>>>> And yet you snipped all the context, >>>> >>>>So what? >>> >>> Couldn't leave it there, it might show you to be completely delusionsal >>> as opposed to somewhat delusionsal. >>> >>> >>>>Seems to bother you quite a bit. You can't keep up with the discussion >>>>unless every single word is there? Too bad. Hire a nanny to keep track >>>>for you, meathead. >>> >>> That or you are a coward. Given how many times you hve had to snip >>> proof of your stupidity, Occam would conclude you are a coward. >> >>Oh, dear. I'll lose sleep over that for sure... Rest of off topic k00k rant snipped. |