Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction
- From: boots <no@xxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:27:06 -0600
"Stan (the Man)" <srkidLOSETHIS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:14:05 +0100, Jackson Pillock
<jacksonpillock@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:57:08 -0700, Ed <edrhodes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:30 am, Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@xxxxxxxxxxx>I did, actually.
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:24:07 -0700, Ed <edrho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I'm going to misspell this, I'm sorry. Did you ever see (or read) the
On Sep 29, 2:08 am, Sylvia <syl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yes it does. It makes it far less valid.
Ed <edrho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I thought you were explaining why you dropped the "1" Oh well.
Sylvia wrote:.
Ed <edrho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sylvia wrote:
.<...>
"Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality
testing;
that is, they are unable to distinguish personal, subjective
experience from the reality of the external world."
.Now, Ed, Ray Haddad *insists* to have bombed Hanoi in 974, long
after the rest of the world agrees that the United States
signed a peace treaty and withdrew from the war in Vietnam.
There is NO record anywhere of the bombing Ray Haddad claims.
Not even in Hanoi.
Hello? I'm quoting *you*.That actually happens to be a major problem with me too! Still fun toI don't think there <was> a Hanoi <or> a United States in 974... Ray"Sorry, I type quickly and don't catch many errors. [...]
may have been around though.
make fun of though!
You ask me to "prove" why your posts are scary and obsessed. I am."I've noticed that in picking apart my post's spelling flaws,
you've ignored once again its main point."
-- The Hypocrisy of Ed Rhodes
Sorry if I didn't provide a case by case scenario that could be peerI did not say that, Ed. Those are *also* your words.
reviewed in an appropriate journal.
unable to "prove" a personal opinion. That doesn't make the opinion
any less valid.
Well, how can you tell it's not frivolous, silly, and delighful? YouProbably. Sometimes you just can't take this crap so seriously.It was just a snarky comment inspired by an impression upon goingSo, Ed, is "just a snarky comment" going to be your standard response to
through these threads.
avoid admitting you've been repeatedly making unfounded accusations or
to avoid facing that you've been defending Haddad's lies?
I haven't made "unfounded accusations." I don't believe I've accused
you of anything. I've simply stated my opinion that, in following
these many threads you've developed, your persona is scary, obsessed
and disturbing.
must have something to base your opinion on. Do you just go around,
forming random opinions?
'In my opinion, cats are dogs.'
Valid.
play "Rinoscerous?"
There's a philospher who's a strict logician in the opening who youI see. Because I don't consider all opinions equally valid, whether or
would appreciate.
not they are supported by any kind of argument or example, I must
therefore be exactly the same as an absurd logician.
Reminds me of an argument I had with Stan. He insisted in the
patronizing superior know-it-all voice that he adopts when he's about
to say something particularly silly that an opinion couldn't be wrong.
Still too stupid to grasp the difference between matters of opinion and
matters of fact, eh, Hotlips? Tell everyone again how rilly, rilly smart
you are. Give us all a good titter.
Yes Josh, please do, I like tits.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction
- References:
- Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction
- From: Stan (the Man)
- Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction
- Prev by Date: Re: Charge of the light brigade
- Next by Date: since necessity is the mother of invention...
- Previous by thread: Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction
- Next by thread: Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|