"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Impotence wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > news:wnQZb.4022>
> > > >
> > > >>I hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No it doesn't.
> > >
> > > It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> > > and acknowledge it.
> >
> > **** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >
> > All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
> with
> > your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
> > seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>
> Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you disagree
> with about the proposition?

It's SHIT.

I'm not going to kick shit about, no matter how "nicely" you ask, especially
~~jonnie~~ the baldy dwarf's shit *.*

>
>

SuckHard wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>SuckHard > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>>Impotence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:wnQZb.4022>
>>>
>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>
>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>
>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>
>>with
>>
>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>
>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you disagree
>>with about the proposition?
>
>
> It's SHIT.

That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's
merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> SuckHard wrote:
>
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>SuckHard > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>>Impotence wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>news:wnQZb.4022>
> >>>
> >>>>>>I hope this helps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No it doesn't.
> >>>>
> >>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> >>>>and acknowledge it.
> >>>
> >>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >>>
> >>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
> >>
> >>with
> >>
> >>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
> >>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
> >>
> >>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
disagree
> >>with about the proposition?
> >
> >
> > It's SHIT.
>
> That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
> disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's

Who's "we all"?

> merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.

I read enough to determine it was shit, just like I don't need a full
laboratory report to know when I tread in dog shit.

Anyway, I'm not going to kick shit about until I loose it, particularly
dwarf droppings.

>

ESL wrote:
>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>
>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>
>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>
> disagree
>
>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's SHIT.
>>
>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>disagree?

That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
wrote in the original post?

<snip rest of evasion>

"useless ****ing texan prick" > wrote in message
...
> ESL wrote:
> >>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No it doesn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> >>>>>>and acknowledge it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self
congratulatory
> >>>>
> >>>>with
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
> >>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
> >>>>
> >>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
> >
> > disagree
> >
> >>>>with about the proposition?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's SHIT.
> >>
> >>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
> >>disagree?
>
> That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
> call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
> wrote in the original post?

Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?

I'm not going to kick shit about especially with ~~jonnie~~ and texmex AKA
pinky and perky.

>
> <snip rest of evasion>
>

Impotence wrote:

> usual suspect > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>ESL wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self
>
> congratulatory
>
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>>>
>>>disagree
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's SHIT.
>>>>
>>>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>>>disagree?
>>
>>That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
>>call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
>>wrote in the original post?
>
>
> Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?
>
> I'm not going to kick shit about

You can't say what it is in my article with which you
disagree, because

a) you didn't read it
b) you couldn't understand it even if you tried to read it

The answer to Mr. Suspect's question is, no, you cannot
correct anything I wrote in the original post. You
don't "disagree" with it, GregGeorge; you just don't
like the author, and you're letting that blind you to
the correct information contained in the post.

Thanks for making that clear.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > usual suspect > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>ESL wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> >>>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self
> >
> > congratulatory
> >
> >>>>>>with
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be
taken
> >>>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
> >>>
> >>>disagree
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>with about the proposition?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's SHIT.
> >>>>
> >>>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
> >>>>disagree?
> >>
> >>That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
> >>call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
> >>wrote in the original post?
> >
> >
> > Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?
> >
> > I'm not going to kick shit about
>
> You can't say what it is in my article with which you
> disagree, because
>
> a) you didn't read it
> b) you couldn't understand it even if you tried to read it
>
> The answer to Mr. Suspect's question is, no, you cannot


Calling your rent boy Mr. now?

> correct anything I wrote in the original post. You
> don't "disagree" with it, GregGeorge; you just don't
> like the author, and you're letting that blind you to
> the correct information contained in the post.

I don't like the author, AND it's SHIT.

The only person that took it up the, I mean, took it seriously is the texan
pansy boy.


>
> Thanks for making that clear.

All part of the service you baldy ****ing dwarf.
>

Suckhard wrote:

> "useless ****ing texan prick"

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

<...>
>>>>>It's SHIT.
>>>>
>>>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>>>disagree?
>>
>>That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
>>call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
>>wrote in the original post?
>
> Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

> I'm not going to kick shit about especially with ~~jonnie~~ and texmex AKA
> pinky and perky.

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

>><snip rest of evasion>

Continued evasion noted.

"texan pansy boy" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
>
> > "useless ****ing texan prick"

Come back with an original post you pansy.

Your guru ~~jonnie~~ boy will be miffed with you, and I wouldn't like to see
such sweet love fade after showing so much promise.

Impotence wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>SuckHard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>SuckHard > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Impotence wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>news:wnQZb.4022>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>
>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>
>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>
> disagree
>
>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's SHIT.
>>
>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's
>
>
> Who's "we all"?

Think about it for a couple of decades, GregGeorge.

>
>
>>merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.
>
>
> I read enough to determine it was shit

No, you didn't.

Zakhar wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>SuckHard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>SuckHard > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Impotence wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>news:wnQZb.4022>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>
>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>
>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>
> disagree
>
>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's SHIT.
>>
>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's
>
>
> Who's "we all"?
>
>
>>merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.
>
>
> I read enough

You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?

Jonathan Ball wrote:
<...>
>> I read enough
>
> You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?

He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> <...>
> >> I read enough
> >
> > You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>
> He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.

I've come to the conclusion tex, that you're easily influenced; first by
veganism, next by some baldy dwarf. Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?

>

Impotence wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>I read enough
>>>
>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>>
>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
>
>
> I've come to the conclusion

That you don't know your ass from your face. We've
been telling you that for a few years, GregGeorge.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't read my article.

Suckhard wrote:
>>>>I read enough
>>>
>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>>
>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
>
> I've come to the conclusion

You don't think hard enough to reach conclusions.

> that you're easily influenced;

That's what I thought of you when Lesley and others helped you overcome
your position on rabbits versus people. Too bad you couldn't hold your
ground on why vivisection can be of benefit to man AND beast.

> first by veganism,

My embrace was of *food*, not of politics or labels associated with it.
That's something which I've been clear about since posting at AFV, and
why I so easily discarded that label when given enough information and
experience with "vegans."

> ...Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
> second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?