Is it true Goo is the ****er?
On 11/14/2012 11:47 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:34:00 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 13, 10:42 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:09:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 6:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:27:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 1, 4:49 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Okt., 23:03, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 9:36 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so then why does Goo lie about little things if the big thing is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself a lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What has he lied about?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For one thing Goo lied that I told you I knew Slater forged it, when of
>>>>>>>>>>> course I still don't know that and in fact it's looking more and more like he
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't as time goes along. If you're going to try to help the Goober lie about
>>>>>>>>>>> this (imo of course because of your admiration for him) then you need to present
>>>>>>>>>>> the evidence for it that Goo has been completely unable to attempt presenting.
>>>>>>>>>>> What Goo's trying to do is wuss away from it for however long he waits, and then
>>>>>>>>>>> he'll begin lying that it's already been presented and hilariously suggest that
>>>>>>>>>>> we go back and try to find it for him. Why do you want to support Goo's lie
>>>>>>>>>>> about this particular thing anyway, do you know?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don`t wish to support anything Ball has said. I simply asked you a
>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> You questioned him about it before, which of course was/is a surprise to me.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe he scolded you for it through email?
>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not;
>>>
>>>>>>> Of course that's what you would say if he did, and we know it.
>>>
>>>>>> Why do you suppose that would be?
>>>
>>>>> Because you wouldn't want me to think you're both on the same team as I do,
>>>>> and that you sometimes discuss things through email.
>>>
>>>> If Ball took it into his head to email me for whatever reason, that
>>>> would not mean that "we sometimes discuss things through email",
>>>
>>> It seems most likely that you do though, from my pov.
>>
>> Your point of view lacks rational foundation.
>
> It sure does
Right.
|