<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:00:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:40:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:rfjlg2dqlruq3dj242oi2s9fckj8hdva6u@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:3v0jg2tub5uuaas0ng0939q1lagrk186jn@4 ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so
>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yep
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you want to then?
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is
>>>>
>>>>The question is
>>>
>>> It's not a question any more
>>
>>No it's not
>
> Nope.

No it's not, it's now rhetorical, the answer is, you push the Logic of the
Larder with transparent strawmen and equivocations because you're a stubborn
fool.

It ought to be obvious to you by now that there MUST be something wrong with
an argument that must be propped up with obvious strawmen and equivocating.
Make sense?