Re: When the phone rings

who'sthat wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:31:17 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:40:05 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:33:57 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:07:14 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:30:23 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:21:58 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:26:54 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:11:03 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:48:48 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:30:30 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:25:30 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

who'sthat wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:38:25 GMT, mario in victoria
<mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

I agree with at least 66% of the rest of the world that your religion
is a joke.
MY religion? I gave that up at the age of 12.
Again, you lie.

mario in victoria
You led me to believe you had faith. I didn't lie, I made a mistake.
But you obviously have a problem when you accuse someone of lying when
all they did was make a mistake.
No, your reading comprehension and retention skills are nil.
The first time religion came up, I told you I agreed with you but had serious problems with your discussion/proof/argument techniques.

In this latest round, you jump on someone because of the way a "post was phrased" (to wit: 'pray or protest') and accuse him of lying. That is not only wrong, it is childish and petty. And you continue to throw "liar, liar" around like it's an absolute truth.

It may be, in your mind, but as usual, your syllogistic errors and stupidity far overshadow any positive arguments you might have.

So. I told you was areligious a long time ago and you either ignored it, missed it, didn't believe it or whatever. It is a convenient stance. Or you made a mistake. Others make mistakes too. Grammatical, even. Yet, when you are called out "for using the wrong word [typo or not]" you start screaming about others' pettiness. You can't have it both ways, kid.

On your terms: you are a liar.

Bye.

mario in victoria
I certainly don't keep track of your posts...you're not that important
in the grand scheme of things. It seems, however that I am that
important to you as you remember telling me that you were "areligious
a long time ago". A long time ago? I guess you're just not that
important.

And he did lie and he tried to weasel out of it. I don't worry about typos...no idea what you're talking about but I'm
sure you've been logging every post of mine and you'll find something.

Again..you're just not that important but it seems I fascinate you.
Whatever flushes your drain.

mario in victoria
By the way..in a sentence when he said protest AND pray, not or...AND.
The and means that BOTH are true statements and can be taken
individually. He lied and you're wrong.

Like I said...you're just not worth remembering and I guess I am.

You're right. You win.
Happy?

mario in victoria
Also did a googlegroups search for "areligious" prior to you're last
using it and I didn't find it. Did the search miss it or....did you
use some other term or.......?
It's a neologism.

mario in victoria
You said "I told you was areligious" and I was just looking for that.
I guess you used some other term....or you weren't quite clear. Or
maybe you.....
Why google? Why not use a tried and true reference like a. . .wait for it. . ."dictionary!"

mario in victoria
You said you told me "So. I told you was areligious a long time ago"
and I was looking for that post. Where is it? I was using the
googlegroups search to find it after looking back at the thread and
not finding any reference to that.

You also haven't admitted you were wrong when you said "In this latest
round, you jump on someone because of the way a "post was phrased" (to
wit: 'pray or protest')". He said AND and not or...YOU changed it to
"or". You had previous said of me "No, your reading comprehension and
retention skills are nil" but it seems like that's your problem here
because you transposed "or" for "and". You haven't apologized for
accusing me of have problems when it's evident that you have a
problem.

Oh..this is where you filter me, right?
No. I'd say my writing comprehension skills lapsed. As yours do quite often. Yet, when I took you to task (I did not use the phrase "take to task") for your 'wrong' words, misspellings, typos or transpositions, you took umbrage to the extreme.

Double standard? Use your head.

mario in victoria
Nope. You put "or" in quotes. When you use quotes a responsible person
actually quotes the previous statement. You made that up trying to
imply that I was wrong. I've not only proven that I was right (he said
protest AND pray) and that he lied because it's not illegal to pray I
also proved that you purposely misquoted.
No. In the referenced post it said: "pray OR protest" (the caps are mine).

And no..you didn't take me task. You TRIED to take me to task and I've
proved you lied to do it.
No. You used the wrong word and threw a fit for "reading what you wrote instead of what you meant." Period.

Like him you lied and like him you can't admit it.
Man, you're worse than RC!

I just admitted I transposed words in my reply (as you have diligently pointed out through your extensive research).
You did not transpose. You changed it to imply something completely
different. You lied.
You're right. I got confused by your convoluted grammar. I did not transpose. You're writing is confusing because you don't edit, use the wrong words, make typos, etc.

What more do you want?

You're a liar beyond anyone else in this group.
Nice try. Would you like a little pat on the head for that whine?

Prove it. I didn't put quotes on something and then try to bullshit my
way out of it. You still haven't shown where you used "areligiuos" do
you lied there too.
Where did I put quotes on anything. Examples, please.
Areligious is a word. It is a neologism. Almost any word can be neutered by sticking "a" in front of it. You can't understand that, can't find it in your M/W (which is a sludge of a dictionary, in my opinion), and decide you're right and I'm wrong. Fine. I found a reference.

In "your" words, THAT IS PROOF. It doesn't exist?

***PROVE IT***
And you're always right, okay?

I give up.

You're still a twit and a liar.

mario in victoria
Nah..I've nailed you and you can't admit it.
Fine, if that's how you feel.

Let's see: you don't edit (it's our fault we can't follow your logic); you use the wrong words (grammatical/spelling, whatever) and it's our fault for not noticing 'what you meant' vs 'what you wrote;' you make typos (which alter the meaning of your sentences) and it's our fault we can't follow your succinct reasoning.

Have I left anything out?

Need we be psychic to understand what you're writing, much less what you mean?

What about areligious? Did I "say" I was areligious? Probably not. But you know what? If I tell you I'm a socialist, it's a reasonable assumption that I'm a liberal in outlook. If I say 'I don't eat meat,' it's a reasonable assumption that I'm a vegetarian, right?

Did I say "I am areligious?" Again, probably not.

But I DID SAY: (paraphrased) that I agree with your viewpoint on religion and god, but was in violent disagreement with your tactics, your logic, your discussion techniques and your browbeating others in the argument.

My stance on religion is that: areligious. I don't care, but love a good argument.

You can't understand that.

There is no word such as "areligious?"

PROVE IT.

mario in victoria
So first you admit you transposed and now you say you didn't?
Are you writing for bush on the side?
No to both.

who's, I can't believe anyone as old as you claim to be can be so obtuse.

Did I admit I transposed? I remember replying to you, saying "if" I transposed, I was sorry. Looking back, I didn't, but your writing style makes your logic nebulous. If you don't see it, I can't help it.

You win.
I lied.
They lied.
You never lie.
You are always right.
Okay?

mario in victoria
And you can't admit you're wrong, just like bush. Are you sure you're
not writing for him?
Oh, I've admitted I'm wrong when others have pointed out errors in my posts. Certainly more often than you.

But I give up. You really ARE that obtuse.
What is there in the above lines you don't understand?

You are incapable of a rational discussion.

Personally, I think you're the one writing for Bush, as you are completely incapable of seeing another side of the equation, dealing with facts (PROVE IT!), never address the questions which are outlined in each post (but constantly hark back to others), and essentially come off as a childish, stupid, ignorant lummox with no understanding of syllogistic reasoning.

I feel sorry for you, actually.
I think the drug-taking that caused your hepC had seriously damaged your cognitive processes. You certainly can't read and comprehend at the same time.

I think you're a closet baptist.

mario in victoria

Drugs don't cause Hep C. Wrong again.
When you quote you're saying it's exact. You don't put quotes around a
guess. You lied and you can't admit it.

Let me guess...you transposed baptist for....? That's your new excuse
isn't it?

True. I should have said idiot.

What drugs? I said "drug-taking." How am I wrong? Because you jumped to a conclusion due to your poor reading abilities. I get it.

Can't you read?

No, you've already established that.

mario in victoria
--
tsk, tsk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When the phone rings
    ... On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:34:59 GMT, mario in victoria ... You did not transpose. ... You still haven't shown where you used "areligiuos" do ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: When the phone rings
    ... mario in victoria ... The first time religion came up, I told you I agreed with you but had serious problems with your discussion/proof/argument techniques. ... You still haven't shown where you used "areligiuos" do ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: When the phone rings
    ... mario in victoria ... You did not transpose. ... You still haven't shown where you used "areligiuos" do ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: When the phone rings
    ... On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:40:05 GMT, mario in victoria ... You did not transpose. ... You still haven't shown where you used "areligiuos" do ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: When the phone rings
    ... mario in victoria ... The first time religion came up, I told you I agreed with you but had serious problems with your discussion/proof/argument techniques. ... You still haven't shown where you used "areligiuos" do ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)