>>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit - >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation" >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero >>> shtup going on.
>> And you can tell they are female...how?
>Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
What led people to believe they might have been doing the "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
>What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious sometimes, Goober.
> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit - > >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation" > >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as > >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero > >>> shtup going on.
> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was > >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one > >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > sometimes, Goober.-
Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
>> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit - >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation" >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero >> >>> shtup going on.
>> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
>> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
>> What led people to believe they might have been doing the >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
>> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
>> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious >> sometimes, Goober.-
>Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.
> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit - > >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation" > >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as > >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero > >> >>> shtup going on.
> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was > >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one > >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > >> sometimes, Goober.-
> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we.
> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, > >> >>> fuckwit - > >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation" > >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, > >> >>> as > >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned > >> >>> hetero > >> >>> shtup going on.
> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was > >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and > >> >one > >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > >> sometimes, Goober.-
> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. ----------------->
The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining. You're not funny or witty, your insults are not clever and you're no challenge. Ignoring you is a wise course.
> > >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, > > >> >>> fuckwit - > > >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation" > > >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, > > >> >>> as > > >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned > > >> >>> hetero > > >> >>> shtup going on.
> > >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> > >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was > > >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and > > >> >one > > >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> > >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > > >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> > >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> > >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > > >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > > >> sometimes, Goober.-
> > >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> > Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > > I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > > about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > > some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > > after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > > dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > > that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > > can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > > he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > > See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > > ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > > Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
> I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
> I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is > really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world > who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. > ----------------->
> The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining. You're not funny or witty, > your insults are not clever and you're no challenge. Ignoring you is a wise > course.-
We don't have to be funny. Goo supplies the hilarity.
No need to insult Goo. His outstupidifications do it.
Goobs "ignores" us because he can't even start to explain why he disagrees with himself.
>> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, >> >> >>> fuckwit - >> >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation" >> >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, >> >> >>> as >> >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned >> >> >>> hetero >> >> >>> shtup going on.
>> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
>> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was >> >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and >> >> >one >> >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
>> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the >> >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
>> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
>> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a >> >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious >> >> sometimes, Goober.-
>> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
>> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies >> I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one >> about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing >> some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even >> after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and >> dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all >> that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who >> can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if >> he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? >> See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your >> ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. >> Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
>I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
>I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is >really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world >who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. >----------------->
>The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining.
LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
>You're not funny or witty,
We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty? LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often hilarious.
>your insults are not clever
We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do it to Goo.
>and you're no challenge.
In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly declining to answer questions and perform things which he has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is afraid to even attempt include:
1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not experience.
2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their elimination objective.
7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to better lives for food animals.
9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience than another.
10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and disappointment, if there are any.
12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to the elimination of domestic animals.
13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.
14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog.
16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from experience with animals.
17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for food than the experiencing of their lives.
18. describing any tests which have been done to test for self-awareness in dogs.
19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
>>> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, >>> >> >>> fuckwit - >>> >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated >>> >> >>> conversation" >>> >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, >>> >> >>> as >>> >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned >>> >> >>> hetero >>> >> >>> shtup going on.
>>> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
>>> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was >>> >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and >>> >> >one >>> >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
>>> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the >>> >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
>>> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
>>> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a >>> >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious >>> >> sometimes, Goober.-
>>> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
>>> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies >>> I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one >>> about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing >>> some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even >>> after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and >>> dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all >>> that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who >>> can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if >>> he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? >>> See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your >>> ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. >>> Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
>>I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
>>I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is >>really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world >>who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. >>----------------->
>>The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining.
> LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
>>You're not funny or witty,
> We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty? > LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general > rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and > pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often > hilarious.
>>your insults are not clever
> We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo > makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun > pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge > the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too > is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly > claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again > amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try > providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about > and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun > if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so > inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and > btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same > results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do > it to Goo.
>>and you're no challenge.
> In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges > that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in > a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even > more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
> Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius > and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven > himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly > declining to answer questions and perform things which he > has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is > afraid to even attempt include:
> 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not > experience.
> 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
> 3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
> 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
> 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
> 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by > the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their > elimination objective.
> 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
> 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to > better lives for food animals.
> 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience > than another.
> 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans > and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
> 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and > disappointment, if there are any.
> 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative > to the elimination of domestic animals.
> 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be > experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could > easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those > particular emotions.
> 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
> 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you > can get from a dog.
> 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from > experience with animals.
> 17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for > food than the experiencing of their lives.
> 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for > self-awareness in dogs.
> 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, > if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop whining about him.
> >>> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, > >>> >> >>> fuckwit - > >>> >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated > >>> >> >>> conversation" > >>> >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, > >>> >> >>> as > >>> >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned > >>> >> >>> hetero > >>> >> >>> shtup going on.
> >>> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> >>> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was > >>> >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and > >>> >> >one > >>> >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> >>> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > >>> >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> >>> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> >>> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > >>> >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > >>> >> sometimes, Goober.-
> >>> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> >>> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > >>> I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > >>> about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > >>> some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > >>> after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > >>> dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > >>> that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > >>> can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > >>> he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > >>> See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > >>> ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > >>> Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
> >>I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
> >>I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is > >>really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world > >>who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. > >>----------------->
> >>The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining.
> > LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
> >>You're not funny or witty,
> > We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty? > > LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general > > rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and > > pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often > > hilarious.
> >>your insults are not clever
> > We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo > > makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun > > pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge > > the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too > > is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly > > claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again > > amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try > > providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about > > and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun > > if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so > > inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and > > btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same > > results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do > > it to Goo.
> >>and you're no challenge.
> > In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges > > that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in > > a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even > > more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
> > Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius > > and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven > > himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly > > declining to answer questions and perform things which he > > has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is > > afraid to even attempt include:
> > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not > > experience.
> > 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
> > 3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
> > 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
> > 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
> > 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by > > the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their > > elimination objective.
> > 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
> > 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to > > better lives for food animals.
> > 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience > > than another.
> > 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans > > and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
> > 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and > > disappointment, if there are any.
> > 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative > > to the elimination of domestic animals.
> > 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be > > experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could > > easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those > > particular emotions.
> > 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
> > 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you > > can get from a dog.
> > 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from > > experience with animals.
> > 17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for > > food than the experiencing of their lives.
> > 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for > > self-awareness in dogs.
> > 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, > > if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
> He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop whining > about him.-
Shouldn't the most absurd character to ever post on newsgroups have his legacy preserved and displayed for future generations?
BTW, as his most fervent apologist you don't seem too eager to explain why Goobs so often disagreed with himself.
> >>> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, > >>> >> >>> fuckwit - > >>> >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated > >>> >> >>> conversation" > >>> >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of > >>> >> >>> homos, > >>> >> >>> as > >>> >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a > >>> >> >>> good-old-fashioned > >>> >> >>> hetero > >>> >> >>> shtup going on.
> >>> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> >>> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I > >>> >> >was > >>> >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male > >>> >> >and > >>> >> >one > >>> >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> >>> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > >>> >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> >>> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> >>> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > >>> >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > >>> >> sometimes, Goober.-
> >>> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> >>> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > >>> I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > >>> about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > >>> some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > >>> after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > >>> dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > >>> that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > >>> can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > >>> he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > >>> See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > >>> ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > >>> Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
> >>I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
> >>I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is > >>really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world > >>who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. > >>----------------->
> >>The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining.
> > LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
> >>You're not funny or witty,
> > We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty? > > LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general > > rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and > > pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often > > hilarious.
> >>your insults are not clever
> > We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo > > makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun > > pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge > > the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too > > is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly > > claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again > > amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try > > providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about > > and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun > > if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so > > inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and > > btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same > > results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do > > it to Goo.
> >>and you're no challenge.
> > In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges > > that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in > > a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even > > more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
> > Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius > > and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven > > himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly > > declining to answer questions and perform things which he > > has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is > > afraid to even attempt include:
> > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not > > experience.
> > 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
> > 3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
> > 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
> > 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
> > 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by > > the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their > > elimination objective.
> > 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
> > 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to > > better lives for food animals.
> > 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience > > than another.
> > 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans > > and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
> > 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and > > disappointment, if there are any.
> > 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative > > to the elimination of domestic animals.
> > 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be > > experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could > > easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those > > particular emotions.
> > 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
> > 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you > > can get from a dog.
> > 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from > > experience with animals.
> > 17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for > > food than the experiencing of their lives.
> > 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for > > self-awareness in dogs.
> > 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, > > if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
> He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop > whining > about him.-
Shouldn't the most absurd character to ever post on newsgroups have his legacy preserved and displayed for future generations?
BTW, as his most fervent apologist you don't seem too eager to explain why Goobs so often disagreed with himself.
Explain. ------>
You even sound like the fuckwit now, how pathetic.
> >>> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, > >>> >> >>> fuckwit - > >>> >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated > >>> >> >>> conversation" > >>> >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, > >>> >> >>> as > >>> >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned > >>> >> >>> hetero > >>> >> >>> shtup going on.
> >>> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> >>> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was > >>> >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and > >>> >> >one > >>> >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> >>> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > >>> >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> >>> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> >>> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > >>> >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > >>> >> sometimes, Goober.-
> >>> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> >>> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > >>> I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > >>> about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > >>> some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > >>> after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > >>> dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > >>> that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > >>> can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > >>> he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > >>> See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > >>> ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > >>> Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
> >>I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
> >>I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is > >>really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world > >>who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. > >>----------------->
> >>The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining.
> > LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
> >>You're not funny or witty,
> > We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty? > > LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general > > rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and > > pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often > > hilarious.
> >>your insults are not clever
> > We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo > > makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun > > pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge > > the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too > > is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly > > claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again > > amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try > > providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about > > and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun > > if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so > > inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and > > btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same > > results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do > > it to Goo.
> >>and you're no challenge.
> > In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges > > that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in > > a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even > > more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
> > Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius > > and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven > > himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly > > declining to answer questions and perform things which he > > has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is > > afraid to even attempt include:
> > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not > > experience.
> > 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
> > 3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
> > 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
> > 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
> > 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by > > the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their > > elimination objective.
> > 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
> > 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to > > better lives for food animals.
> > 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience > > than another.
> > 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans > > and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
> > 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and > > disappointment, if there are any.
> > 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative > > to the elimination of domestic animals.
> > 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be > > experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could > > easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those > > particular emotions.
> > 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
> > 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you > > can get from a dog.
> > 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from > > experience with animals.
> > 17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for > > food than the experiencing of their lives.
> > 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for > > self-awareness in dogs.
> > 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, > > if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
> He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop whining > about him.-
Why don't you try the 19 challenges on Goo's behalf?
> >>> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, > >>> >> >>> fuckwit - > >>> >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated > >>> >> >>> conversation" > >>> >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of > >>> >> >>> homos, > >>> >> >>> as > >>> >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a > >>> >> >>> good-old-fashioned > >>> >> >>> hetero > >>> >> >>> shtup going on.
> >>> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> >>> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I > >>> >> >was > >>> >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male > >>> >> >and > >>> >> >one > >>> >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> >>> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > >>> >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> >>> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> >>> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > >>> >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > >>> >> sometimes, Goober.-
> >>> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> >>> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > >>> I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > >>> about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > >>> some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > >>> after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > >>> dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > >>> that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > >>> can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > >>> he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > >>> See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > >>> ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > >>> Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
> >>I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
> >>I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is > >>really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world > >>who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. > >>----------------->
> >>The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining.
> > LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
> >>You're not funny or witty,
> > We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty? > > LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general > > rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and > > pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often > > hilarious.
> >>your insults are not clever
> > We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo > > makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun > > pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge > > the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too > > is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly > > claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again > > amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try > > providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about > > and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun > > if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so > > inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and > > btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same > > results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do > > it to Goo.
> >>and you're no challenge.
> > In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges > > that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in > > a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even > > more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
> > Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius > > and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven > > himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly > > declining to answer questions and perform things which he > > has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is > > afraid to even attempt include:
> > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not > > experience.
> > 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
> > 3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
> > 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
> > 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
> > 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by > > the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their > > elimination objective.
> > 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
> > 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to > > better lives for food animals.
> > 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience > > than another.
> > 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans > > and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
> > 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and > > disappointment, if there are any.
> > 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative > > to the elimination of domestic animals.
> > 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be > > experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could > > easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those > > particular emotions.
> > 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
> > 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you > > can get from a dog.
> > 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from > > experience with animals.
> > 17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for > > food than the experiencing of their lives.
> > 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for > > self-awareness in dogs.
> > 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, > > if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
> He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop > whining > about him.-
Why don't you try the 19 challenges on Goo's behalf? ------------------
> > >>> >> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, > > >>> >> >>> fuckwit - > > >>> >> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated > > >>> >> >>> conversation" > > >>> >> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of > > >>> >> >>> homos, > > >>> >> >>> as > > >>> >> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a > > >>> >> >>> good-old-fashioned > > >>> >> >>> hetero > > >>> >> >>> shtup going on.
> > >>> >> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
> > >>> >> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I > > >>> >> >was > > >>> >> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male > > >>> >> >and > > >>> >> >one > > >>> >> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
> > >>> >> What led people to believe they might have been doing the > > >>> >> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
> > >>> >> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
> > >>> >> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a > > >>> >> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious > > >>> >> sometimes, Goober.-
> > >>> >Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
> > >>> Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies > > >>> I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one > > >>> about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing > > >>> some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even > > >>> after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and > > >>> dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all > > >>> that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who > > >>> can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if > > >>> he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go? > > >>> See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your > > >>> ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev. > > >>> Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.-
> > >>I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
> > >>I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is > > >>really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world > > >>who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we. > > >>----------------->
> > >>The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining.
> > > LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
> > >>You're not funny or witty,
> > > We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty? > > > LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general > > > rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and > > > pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often > > > hilarious.
> > >>your insults are not clever
> > > We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo > > > makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun > > > pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge > > > the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too > > > is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly > > > claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again > > > amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try > > > providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about > > > and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun > > > if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so > > > inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and > > > btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same > > > results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do > > > it to Goo.
> > >>and you're no challenge.
> > > In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges > > > that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in > > > a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even > > > more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
> > > Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius > > > and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven > > > himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly > > > declining to answer questions and perform things which he > > > has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is > > > afraid to even attempt include:
> > > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not > > > experience.
> > > 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
> > > 3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
> > > 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
> > > 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
> > > 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by > > > the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their > > > elimination objective.
> > > 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
> > > 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to > > > better lives for food animals.
> > > 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience > > > than another.
> > > 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans > > > and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
> > > 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and > > > disappointment, if there are any.
> > > 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative > > > to the elimination of domestic animals.
> > > 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be > > > experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could > > > easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those > > > particular emotions.
> > > 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
> > > 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you > > > can get from a dog.
> > > 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from > > > experience with animals.
> > > 17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for > > > food than the experiencing of their lives.
> > > 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for > > > self-awareness in dogs.
> > > 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, > > > if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
> > He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop > > whining > > about him.-
> Why don't you try the 19 challenges on Goo's behalf? > ------------------
> You know where he posts, ask him yourself.-
We have repeatedly.........but alas poor Goobs is too frightened to attempt it.
<bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote: >On Nov 25, 12:12 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: >> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:d22og5hrolmfs2u2qar552g2e54fr8ppjs@4ax.com... >> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:31:02 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >>you're no challenge.
>> > In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges >> > that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in >> > a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even >> > more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
>> > Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius >> > and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven >> > himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly >> > declining to answer questions and perform things which he >> > has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is >> > afraid to even attempt include:
>> > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not >> > experience.
>> > 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
>> > 3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
>> > 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
>> > 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
>> > 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by >> > the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their >> > elimination objective.
>> > 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
>> > 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to >> > better lives for food animals.
>> > 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience >> > than another.
>> > 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans >> > and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
>> > 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and >> > disappointment, if there are any.
>> > 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative >> > to the elimination of domestic animals.
>> > 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be >> > experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could >> > easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those >> > particular emotions.
>> > 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
>> > 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you >> > can get from a dog.
>> > 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from >> > experience with animals.
>> > 17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for >> > food than the experiencing of their lives.
>> > 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for >> > self-awareness in dogs.
>> > 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, >> > if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
>> He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop whining >> about him.-
>Why don't you try the 19 challenges on Goo's behalf?
He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright, and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so. Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:31:08 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: ><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright, >> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so. >> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>just a couple of sad >doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>News flash, nobody cares,
You're almost right about that, which is as close to the truth as we can hope for from you.
>and you got your asses kicked.
That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it, but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of it?
>><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring >>bright, >>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so. >>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
> You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>>just a couple of sad >>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
> The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you > have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to > talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>>News flash, nobody cares,
> You're almost right about that, which is as close to the > truth as we can hope for from you.
>>and you got your asses kicked.
> That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it, > but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of > it?
Go back and read the archives, day after day, week after week, month, year, he mopped the floor with you, everybody did.
>>><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring >>>bright, >>>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so. >>>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>>>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
>> You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>>>just a couple of sad >>>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
>> The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you >> have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to >> talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>>>News flash, nobody cares,
>> You're almost right about that, which is as close to the >> truth as we can hope for from you.
>>>and you got your asses kicked.
>> That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it, >> but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of >> it?
>Go back and read the archives
LOL...oh, you must be talking about Goo's arguments in support of the misnomer:
"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions of animals" at any point "get to experience life." ZERO importance to it." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the breeding of livestock" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live in bad conditions." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
but I don't agree with you people about much of it. Only three of the above, in fact. We know misnomer advocates agree with every bit of it/you goos agree with every bit of it.
>>>><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring >>>>bright, >>>>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so. >>>>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>>>>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
>>> You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>>>>just a couple of sad >>>>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
>>> The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you >>> have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to >>> talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>>>>News flash, nobody cares,
>>> You're almost right about that, which is as close to the >>> truth as we can hope for from you.
>>>>and you got your asses kicked.
>>> That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it, >>> but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of >>> it?
>>Go back and read the archives
> LOL...oh, you must be talking about
Ball's relentless dismantling of the Logic of the Larder and consistent revealing of what a creep you are.
> >><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring > >>bright, > >>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so. > >>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
> >>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
> > You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
> >>just a couple of sad > >>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
> > The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you > > have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to > > talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
> >>News flash, nobody cares,
> > You're almost right about that, which is as close to the > > truth as we can hope for from you.
> >>and you got your asses kicked.
> > That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it, > > but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of > > it?
> Go back and read the archives, day after day, week after week, month, year, > he mopped the floor with you, everybody did.-
NO Dutch! Enough of your cowardly bullshit.
Find an example of Goo "mopping the floor" or "manhandling" anyone, ever.
Do it, or admit you're nothing but a liar like Goober.
> >><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring > >>bright, > >>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so. > >>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
> >>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
> > You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
> >>just a couple of sad > >>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
> > The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you > > have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to > > talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
> >>News flash, nobody cares,
> > You're almost right about that, which is as close to the > > truth as we can hope for from you.
> >>and you got your asses kicked.
> > That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it, > > but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of > > it?
> Go back and read the archives, day after day, week after week, month, > year, > he mopped the floor with you, everybody did.-
>>>> That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it, >>>> but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of >>>> it?
>>>Go back and read the archives
>> LOL...oh, you must be talking about Goo's arguments in >>support of the misnomer:
>>"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing >>them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might >>derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST >>conclude that not raising them in the first place is the >>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other >>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not >>in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral >>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing >>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral >>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions >>of animals" at any point "get to experience life." >>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to >>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration >>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the >>breeding of livestock" - Goo
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate >>killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude >>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >>their deaths" - Goo
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - >>Goo
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals. >>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would >>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not >>to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>but I don't agree with you people about much of it. Only three of >>the above, in fact. We know misnomer advocates agree with every >>bit of it/you goos agree with every bit of it.
>Ball's relentless dismantling of the Logic of the Larder and consistent >revealing of what a creep you are.
There's not a hint of that to be found anywhere. In contrast to that some of the Goober's arguments in support of the misnomer are clearly obvious and right here in front of us.
|
