On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:16 -0800, Goo wrote:

>dh challenged Goo:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:35:25 -0800, Goo defeated Goo easily again:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:04:29 -0500, dh challenged Goo:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:09:30 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lord Infomouse wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 2:30 PM, dh challenged Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They do
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the problem that I see is that you have made Goober and Rupert
>>>>>> both your enemies
>>>>>
>>>>> Everybody who bothers to figure out what a load of bullshit he's pushing
>>>>> is his enemy.
>>>>
>>>> Rupert is bullshitting by
>>>
>>> What Woopert has said, correctly, is that you can't give any coherent
>>> meaning to "lives of possitive [sic] value" except to bullshit
>>> tautologically. That is completely true: all you can offer as
>>> explanation is that a life of possitive [sic] value is one that doesn't
>>> have too much negative value in it.
>>
>> Negative value caused by what, Goo?
>
>The cruel treatment you advocate and personally inflict

Explain exactly what cruel treatment you want people to think cause
suffering to livestock animals or it will be known that once again you have no
idea what you think you're trying to talk about, Goo.

>, *Goo*.
>
>Your bullshit about "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" is
>tautological bullshit

What have I told you it means Goob, are you too incoherent to remember
because you're too incoherent to comprehend?

>It's incoherent

ONLY if a person is too stupid to comprehend, Goo. What did I tell you it
means Goober, don't you even know that?
.. . .
>>>> If not then he's mentally
>>>> restricted in ways that no one in my sixth grade class was
>>>
>>> There's that bullshit about your sixth grade class again; also bullshit
>>> about "mentally restricted."
>>>
>>> You are the one suffering from a limited intellect. You are stupid. You
>>> are congenitally stupid, and as if that weren't bad enough, you're willfully
>>> even more stupid. You *choose* stupidity.
>>
>> Goober Rupert is either HORRIBLY restricted which could explain why he was
>>stupid enough to become a misnomer addict in the first place, or he's lying
>
>No.

Those are the only two possibilities in this case, Goo.

>There is no "restriction" - LOL!!!! - at all, *Goo*. You are not
>looking at "the situation" - LOL!!!! - with any special insight that
>others don't have,

I've told you that Goob, when I mentioned that no one in my sixth grade
class had a problem with it. It's not that it's any special insight to
appreciate what I point out Goober, it's that it's a horrible mental restriction
to be unable to comprehend. Even being unable to appreciate it if he or you
COULD comprehend would still be a horrible mental restriction, Goo.
.. . .
>your own crippling mental restrictions.

What do you think you're trying to talk about Goo, don't you have any clue
about that either?