meow
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Receiver for the car?
Next: Camry EGR Valve, Code P0401
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 14 Apr 2010 18:35 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:31:17 +0000, Poik wrote: >> > I find your excuses and explanations to ring of desperation. I've read the > exchanges and you did not troll anyone. The facts are quite evident that > you do not have the ability to support the statements you make as facts as > has been pointed out ad infinitum. Your own opinions do not match your > rhetoric which indicates a need to fit in with a group when in fact the > beliefs of the group are not yours. You lay blame for your failure upon > amorphous groups that have nothing to directly do with the conversation. > You change the subject whenever your arguments even begin to fray at the > edges. You alter the context and reply with strawman arguments to the > altered context. These are all tactics devised to disguise the loss of > control in the debate (if one wishes to call what is going on debate). > > Simply put, you lost the arguments on facts alone and cannot accept the > defeat and what you see as the loss of face. Your ego is driving your end > of the argument and your ego is overmatched by contrarian trolls with > grasp of the facts. > > The best example is your need to "prove" that the Nuclear Policy Review is > some document that weakens the overall defense of the United States. No > amount of factual evidence can possibly alter your view that the President > of the United States has willfully and with colusion of the Cabinet, the > DoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a document that creates a hole > in the greater defense of the USA. > > You inability to step back and reasses your own views describes just how > emotionally invested you have become. I'd say the dissertation above merely indicates your inablitity to read. You haven't grasped a thing I have said. Not surprising. Seems none of you from "flonk" can actually follow an arguement that goes against the accepted norms (i.e., Liberalism) Let us know when you begin to think for yourself.
From: Rebecca Ore on 14 Apr 2010 18:41 In article <hq5fv5$bur$5(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > You haven't grasped a thing I have said. Not surprising. Seems none of you > from "flonk" can actually follow an arguement that goes against the > accepted norms (i.e., Liberalism) Honey, some people are from alt.flame.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 14 Apr 2010 18:43 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:27:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >> But I DON'T prefer the 'insane' way! I would just as soon have no >> aggression at ALL! >> > Now I'm confused. You did say, didn't you, that you were upset with Obama > because (to you) it sounded like he was being wimpy about retaliation for > slights? You're confused because you're listening to Aratzio's twist on what I said. I said, you don't go around telling people what you're going to do to retaliate against attacks on your home country. THAT is what I said. I have NEVER advocated the use of nukes, EVER. Even IF we were attacked with dirty bombs. ALL I said was that by saying what Obama said shows weakness. I never meant, said, or even implied retaliation with nukes was a source of strength. What you say is sometimes as important as what you do. I never thought I'd see Jimmy Carter in the White House again. And yet, here we are.
From: Aratzio on 14 Apr 2010 19:58 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:31:03 -0400, in the land of alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:41:00 +0000, Veronica Karlsson wrote: > >>> >So, first you plonk him, then you respond to one of his posts... >>> >>> Now you are just being a liberal rewriting history to fit your world >>> view. >> >> No. I'm just noticing that he's either seeing invisible things or lying. >> Or maybe he just doesn't know what the word "plonk" means. > >Um, let's see. I have PAN. I can filter or unfilter at will. I think I >explained that. Yes, the mechanics are well understood. Now, about that whole emo goth chick flounce you did, can you explain that too? -- Hachiroku explaining his *daddy* issues: Message-ID: <homalb$usi$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> I just keep seeing a pudgy 50 year old with his nethers rattling against his knees... Hachiroku demonstrating his inner Drama Queen (Part 1): "I'm done with you, pal. I thought you were just a troll, but I see you're a stupid troll unable to do any thinking for yourself. Even worse than the usual slobbering Liberals. Bye now!~ Don't bother to write!" Hachiroku demonstrating his inner Drama Queen (part 2): "He's a piece of work. I finally got sick of his sophomoric rantings and plonked him." 9 minutes later in response to a post from me: "I can 'operate Google'. I told you where to look. Have at. You can't. You drink the K00L-Aid to the bottom of the cup. "
From: Aratzio on 14 Apr 2010 20:07
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:35:17 -0400, in the land of alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:31:17 +0000, Poik wrote: > >>> >> I find your excuses and explanations to ring of desperation. I've read the >> exchanges and you did not troll anyone. The facts are quite evident that >> you do not have the ability to support the statements you make as facts as >> has been pointed out ad infinitum. Your own opinions do not match your >> rhetoric which indicates a need to fit in with a group when in fact the >> beliefs of the group are not yours. You lay blame for your failure upon >> amorphous groups that have nothing to directly do with the conversation. >> You change the subject whenever your arguments even begin to fray at the >> edges. You alter the context and reply with strawman arguments to the >> altered context. These are all tactics devised to disguise the loss of >> control in the debate (if one wishes to call what is going on debate). >> >> Simply put, you lost the arguments on facts alone and cannot accept the >> defeat and what you see as the loss of face. Your ego is driving your end >> of the argument and your ego is overmatched by contrarian trolls with >> grasp of the facts. >> >> The best example is your need to "prove" that the Nuclear Policy Review is >> some document that weakens the overall defense of the United States. No >> amount of factual evidence can possibly alter your view that the President >> of the United States has willfully and with colusion of the Cabinet, the >> DoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a document that creates a hole >> in the greater defense of the USA. >> >> You inability to step back and reasses your own views describes just how >> emotionally invested you have become. > >I'd say the dissertation above merely indicates your inablitity to read. You didn't even address one point raised. How unsuprising. > >You haven't grasped a thing I have said. Not surprising. Given your incoherence, true dat. >Seems none of you from "flonk" can actually follow an arguement that goes against the >accepted norms (i.e., Liberalism) BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA Everyone else is wrong and fact free flouncing emo chick, is always right. > > >Let us know when you begin to think for yourself. > BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA run run run away!!!! -- Hachiroku explaining his *daddy* issues: Message-ID: <homalb$usi$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> I just keep seeing a pudgy 50 year old with his nethers rattling against his knees... Hachiroku demonstrating his inner Drama Queen (Part 1): "I'm done with you, pal. I thought you were just a troll, but I see you're a stupid troll unable to do any thinking for yourself. Even worse than the usual slobbering Liberals. Bye now!~ Don't bother to write!" Hachiroku demonstrating his inner Drama Queen (part 2): "He's a piece of work. I finally got sick of his sophomoric rantings and plonked him." 9 minutes later in response to a post from me: "I can 'operate Google'. I told you where to look. Have at. You can't. You drink the K00L-Aid to the bottom of the cup. " |