Uncle Davey wrote:
>
>>
>>Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>>>news:7tVdc.6216$BR1.5954@okepread03...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c58hq4$qb0$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>news:uMEdc.6138$BR1.5638@okepread03...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:c574j2$eua$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>>> No one believes he does not read these exchanges except for you,
>>>>>>Renfield, and even the departure of evil does not mean that it cannot
>>>
>>>be
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>discussed. Stalin has been dead for over 50 years and his evil is
>>>
>>>still
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>discussed, as is Hitler's. Whether Mr Gastrich is as evil as these
>>>>>
>>>>>men--and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not abide by 'levels' of evil, evil is still evil--we can also
>>>
>>>talk
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>about the evil transgressions of persons such as the evangelists who
>>>>
>>>>have
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>never posted in Usenet. A lack of presence does not shield an evil
>>>>
>>>>person
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>from scrutiny or prosecution. You are simply avoiding the facts, as
>>>
>>>you
>>>
>>>
>>>>>are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wont to do, and the ridiculous part of it is that you interjected
>>>>
>>>>yourself
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>into these discussions in the first place. Deciding now that his
>>>>
>>>>absence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>means he should not be discussed is interesting consider how long you
>>>>>
>>>>>*have*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>been discussing him. If his absence means we cannot discuss him
>>>
>>>*now*,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>why
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>did his absence not mean we could not discuss him *before*, when you
>>>>
>>>>were
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>fully involved in these threads?
>>>>>> Your capriciousness is so obvious, Renfield, as is your
>>>
>>>unilateral
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>rather questionable applications of what you would claim are polite
>>>>>>standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anastasia
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Like I say, I'm not discussing him, but if you want to talk about
>>>
>>>Hitler,
>>>
>>>
>>>>go
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ahead.
>>>>
>>>> I see you still will resort to rhetoric, little demon. I will
>>>
>>>discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>>what I like; and I simply noted that the standard you presumed to invoke
>>>>yesterday was not the standard prior. You invoked the standard out of
>>>>convenience and, I am sure, a recognition of the fact that your position
>>>
>>>was
>>>
>>>
>>>>indefensible, but that was not your *stated* reason. So you were being
>>>>disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I mean, screw Godwin.
>>>>
>>>> It is a stupid "rule."
>>>>
>>>> Anastasia
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Discuss what you like. I mean screw godwin, I agree it is a stupid rule.
>
> All
>
>>>I'm saying is that I'm not gonna be drawn on Jason, but I might be drawn
>
> on
>
>>>Hitler.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Translation; "let's change the subject".
>>
>
>
> Correct. I'm not doing that subject, so let's change the subject.
>
Well, Davey, unfortunately for you, no one gives a flying fuck about
you, so you have neither the authority nor the ability to change the
subject. <shrug>
Me, I rather like this subject, so I will stick with it for a while.
You are of course entirely free to tuck your tail between your balls and
flee, just like your, uh, "friend" Jason did. Bye.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 |
|