Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
the utter defeat of Goo
On 7/11, Goo amusingly wrote to "David Wright Sr." >:
__________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT I think you also know full well that there is an obvious qualitative difference between the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog when you hold up the can of dog food ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ but when asked to explain what he was trying to talk about, the "best" that he was able to do--three times!-- was say: "Stop talking to yourself" Hilarious!!! he has completely defeated himself, and has proven without any doubt at all that he has absolutely no clue what he's pretending to discuss. Once more it's time to thank Goo for the hilarity via his incredible stupidity. Thanks again Goo! |
|
|||
|
|||
Goo ****wit wrote:
> On 7/11, Rudy Canoza set "David Wright Sr." straight: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT > > I think you also know full well that there is an > obvious qualitative difference between the kind of > stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog > when you hold up the can of dog food > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ You left a lot of it off, Goo****wit. Here's the whole thing: I think you also know full well that there is an obvious qualitative difference between the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog when you hold up the can of dog food, and the kind of emotionally meaningful anticipation you get from a child when you tell him you're going to take him to the movies or the baseball game the coming weekend. The child can conceive of the commitment; the dog cannot. _____________________________________________ I am right: there is a meaningful, qualitative difference. You have utterly failed, ****wit. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Goo ****wit wrote: > > > On 7/11, Rudy Canoza set "David Wright Sr." straight: > > __________________________________________________ _______ > > From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza > > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT > > > > I think you also know full well that there is an > > obvious qualitative difference between the kind of > > stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog > > when you hold up the can of dog food > > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > > You left a lot of it off, Goo****wit. Here's the whole > thing: > > I think you also know full well that there is an > obvious qualitative difference between the kind of > stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog > when you hold up the can of dog food, and the kind of > emotionally meaningful anticipation you get from a > child when you tell him you're going to take him to the > movies or the baseball game the coming weekend. The > child can conceive of the commitment; the dog cannot. > _____________________________________________ > > > I am right: there is a meaningful, qualitative difference. > > You have utterly failed, ****wit. No he hasn't. You are the one who is backing down gradually ~jonnie~ Goo. You went from saying there is no ability by animals to anticipate to saying that there is a "qualitive difference in anticipation" Yer not very bright are you Goo? |
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Jul 2005 11:01:40 -0700, "Ron" > wrote:
> > >Rudy Canoza wrote: >> Goo ****wit wrote: >> >> > On 7/11, Rudy Canoza set "David Wright Sr." straight: >> > __________________________________________________ _______ >> > From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza >> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT >> > >> > I think you also know full well that there is an >> > obvious qualitative difference between the kind of >> > stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog >> > when you hold up the can of dog food >> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >> You left a lot of it off, Goo****wit. Here's the whole >> thing: >> >> I think you also know full well that there is an >> obvious qualitative difference between the kind of >> stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog >> when you hold up the can of dog food, and the kind of >> emotionally meaningful anticipation you get from a >> child when you tell him you're going to take him to the >> movies or the baseball game the coming weekend. The >> child can conceive of the commitment; the dog cannot. >> _____________________________________________ >> >> >> I am right: there is a meaningful, qualitative difference. >> >> You have utterly failed, ****wit. > > >No he hasn't. > >You are the one who is backing down gradually ~jonnie~ Goo. > >You went from saying there is no ability by animals to anticipate to >saying that there is a "qualitive difference in anticipation" > >Yer not very bright are you Goo? That sure is a nice way of pointing out what a retard he is... maybe nicer than the nasty ass deserves. |
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote: > On 18 Jul 2005 11:01:40 -0700, "Ron" > wrote: > > > > > > >Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> Goo ****wit wrote: > >> > >> > On 7/11, Rudy Canoza set "David Wright Sr." straight: > >> > __________________________________________________ _______ > >> > From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza > >> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT > >> > > >> > I think you also know full well that there is an > >> > obvious qualitative difference between the kind of > >> > stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog > >> > when you hold up the can of dog food > >> > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > >> > >> You left a lot of it off, Goo****wit. Here's the whole > >> thing: > >> > >> I think you also know full well that there is an > >> obvious qualitative difference between the kind of > >> stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog > >> when you hold up the can of dog food, and the kind of > >> emotionally meaningful anticipation you get from a > >> child when you tell him you're going to take him to the > >> movies or the baseball game the coming weekend. The > >> child can conceive of the commitment; the dog cannot. > >> _____________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> I am right: there is a meaningful, qualitative difference. > >> > >> You have utterly failed, ****wit. > > > > > >No he hasn't. > > > >You are the one who is backing down gradually ~jonnie~ Goo. > > > >You went from saying there is no ability by animals to anticipate to > >saying that there is a "qualitive difference in anticipation" > > > >Yer not very bright are you Goo? > > That sure is a nice way of pointing out what a retard he is... > maybe nicer than the nasty ass deserves. Well when you find someone mortally wounded and flopping around snapping at his own entrails, the right thing is to deliver the coup de grace quickly and mercifully. Goobernicus Goo=20 R.I.P. |
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote in :
> On 7/11, Goo amusingly wrote to "David Wright Sr." > >: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT > > I think you also know full well that there is an > obvious qualitative difference between the kind of > stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog > when you hold up the can of dog food > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > but when asked to explain what he was trying to talk about, > the "best" that he was able to do--three times!-- was say: > > "Stop talking to yourself" > > Hilarious!!! he has completely defeated himself, and has proven > without any doubt at all that he has absolutely no clue what he's > pretending to discuss. Once more it's time to thank Goo for > the hilarity via his incredible stupidity. Thanks again Goo! It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. He comes across as a somewhat advanced 5 year old, unable to respond with anything other than "because I say so" and 'everyone other than him is a F**wit'. Nothing but profanity and a total lack of any reasoning capability. He appears to have *no* valid knowledge base from which to work. Has he ever heard of the 'scientific method'? Did he finish grammar school?, high school, college? If he did any of these, then it is a really sad reflection on our 'educational' system. His childish behavior should be apparent to everyone. David W. -- There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe everything, or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking. Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_ (1921) |
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> dh@. wrote in : > > > On 7/11, Goo amusingly wrote to "David Wright Sr." > > >: > > [snip ****wit David Harrison rubbish] > > It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. Davey, what's sad is that, when *you* were asked how you know, scientifically, that your dog exhibits disappointment - this after you had run your fat ignorant yap about science - you suddenly did a complete whiff-off and said that you didn't need science; you just "knew". You were *exactly* like the late U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart who, when asked how he knew some material was obscene or pornographic, replied, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." You're not seeing disappointment in any dog, Davey. You *want* to see it, because you have some emotional need to try to connect with your dog. But it just isn't there. Dogs don't have the cognitive ability to see themselves in the sort of relationship to other entities, or their universe, that is required to be able to experience disappointment. Now, be a good doddering old duffer, go pet your dog, and stop this silly sentimental nonsense. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in news:1122061589.300655.79320
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. > > Davey, what's sad is that, when *you* were asked how you know, > scientifically, that your dog exhibits disappointment - this after you > had run your fat ignorant yap about science - you suddenly did a > complete whiff-off and said that you didn't need science; you just > "knew". Wrong. Check the records, I didn't add the mention of my 'experience' until after I pointed out a number of reputable references which said the same thing. You then claimed that I did a google search to be able to throw out those references and I gave you my history with respect to those references. What are your references? What do you have to back up any of your claims *except* for your own 'opinion'? So far, you haven't given anything *except* your claim of 'I am able to think', and that appears highly doubtful. > You're not seeing disappointment in any dog, Davey. You *want* to see > it, because you have some emotional need to try to connect with your > dog. But it just isn't there. Dogs don't have the cognitive ability > to see themselves in the sort of relationship to other entities, or > their universe, that is required to be able to experience > disappointment. Prove it. Prove that *you* have emotions and prove that you have *any cognitive ability*. All we can go on is your behavior which, in the final analysis, is how all *emotions* in other people are defined and labeled. And your *emotions* appear to us to be pretty shallow as well as the depth of your intellectual reasoning. > > Now, be a good doddering old duffer, go pet your dog, and stop this > silly sentimental nonsense. > It's far, far better to be a 'doddering old duffer', than to be an apparent 5 year old ignoramus. Did you graduate from Kindergarten this year. I'll try to remember to send you a card, with something simple on it so you can, perhaps, comprehend it. Maybe just cartoons. Wouldn't want to tax you too much. David W. -- There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe everything, or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking. Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_ (1921) |
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in news:1122061589.300655.79320 > @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > >> > >> It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. > > > > Davey, what's sad is that, when *you* were asked how you know, > > scientifically, that your dog exhibits disappointment - this after you > > had run your fat ignorant yap about science - you suddenly did a > > complete whiff-off and said that you didn't need science; you just > > "knew". > > Wrong. Check the records, I didn't add the mention of my 'experience' unt= il > after I pointed out a number of reputable references which said the same > thing. Davey, you doddering old liar. Here's what you wrote when I asked you where you found support in science for your view of animals' ability to experience disappointment: I don't need to 'find in science' that animals can experience disappointment as well as other emotions. I have seen it myself. In other words, Davey, your references to "a number of reputable references" was entirely superfluous: whether you really read anything by them or not, you claim to have "seen" for yourself the experience of disappointment in animals. You're full of shit. > > You're not seeing disappointment in any dog, Davey. You *want* to see > > it, because you have some emotional need to try to connect with your > > dog. But it just isn't there. Dogs don't have the cognitive ability > > to see themselves in the sort of relationship to other entities, or > > their universe, that is required to be able to experience > > disappointment. > > Prove it. Prove that you saw disappointment in dogs, Davey. > Prove that *you* have emotions and prove that you have *any > cognitive ability*. All we can go on is your behavior which, in the final > analysis, is how all *emotions* in other people are defined and labeled. > And your *emotions* appear to us to be pretty shallow as well as the depth > of your intellectual reasoning. You're in no position to talk, Davey, if you try to settle debate =E0 la Potter Stewart: you know disappointment (in animals) when you see it. What a joke. > > > > > Now, be a good doddering old duffer, go pet your dog, and stop this > > silly sentimental nonsense. > > > > It's far, far better to be a 'doddering old duffer', No. That is not a good condition in which to be, Davey. |
|
|||
|
|||
"David Wright Sr." > wrote
[..] > There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe > everything, or to doubt everything; > both ways save us from thinking. > Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_ (1921) To doubt everything is not sliding throught life easily, it's called skepticism, and it's hard work. He should have said to disbelieve everything. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in news:1122072130.705605.247340
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Still ignoring the request to back up any of your claims, aren't you? Have you ever given one iota of 'proof' beyond your own opinion? You deride my 'experience', even though it was in addition to work done by reputable scientists who have studied the situation more formally and continue to give us absolutely *nothing* beyond your own 'experience'. What makes you think that your 'opinion' *alone* is worth anything? |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote: > David Wright Sr. wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in news:1122061589.300655.793= 20 > > @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > > >> > > >> It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. > > > > > > Davey, what's sad is that, when *you* were asked how you know, > > > scientifically, that your dog exhibits disappointment - this after you > > > had run your fat ignorant yap about science - you suddenly did a > > > complete whiff-off and said that you didn't need science; you just > > > "knew". > > > > Wrong. Check the records, I didn't add the mention of my 'experience' u= ntil > > after I pointed out a number of reputable references which said the same > > thing. > > Davey, you doddering old liar. Here's what you wrote when I asked you > where you found support in science for your view of animals' ability to > experience disappointment: > > I don't need to 'find in science' that animals > can experience disappointment as well as other > emotions. I have seen it myself. > > In other words, Davey, your references to "a number of reputable > references" was entirely superfluous: whether you really read anything > by them or not, you claim to have "seen" for yourself the experience of > disappointment in animals. > > You're full of shit. > > > > > You're not seeing disappointment in any dog, Davey. You *want* to see > > > it, because you have some emotional need to try to connect with your > > > dog. But it just isn't there. Dogs don't have the cognitive ability > > > to see themselves in the sort of relationship to other entities, or > > > their universe, that is required to be able to experience > > > disappointment. > > > > Prove it. > > Prove that you saw disappointment in dogs, Davey. Hey Goober! These are *your* words: "qualitive difference in anticipation" Suppose you prove them. Stupid little Goo. Eats his own poop. > > > > Prove that *you* have emotions and prove that you have *any > > cognitive ability*. All we can go on is your behavior which, in the fin= al > > analysis, is how all *emotions* in other people are defined and labeled. > > And your *emotions* appear to us to be pretty shallow as well as the de= pth > > of your intellectual reasoning. > > You're in no position to talk, Davey, if you try to settle debate =E0 la > Potter Stewart: you know disappointment (in animals) when you see it. > > What a joke. > > > > > > > > > > Now, be a good doddering old duffer, go pet your dog, and stop this > > > silly sentimental nonsense. > > > > > > > It's far, far better to be a 'doddering old duffer', >=20 > No. That is not a good condition in which to be, Davey. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:51:58 -0400, "David Wright Sr." > wrote:
>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in news:1122072130.705605.247340 : > >Still ignoring the request to back up any of your claims, aren't you? Goo is extremely consistent in that. >Have you ever given one iota of 'proof' beyond your own opinion? He never has. He can't do it now. He will never be able to do it, because there is none. >You deride my 'experience', Yet he has absolutely none of his own...or at least if he has any he is admittedly unaware of it. >even though it was in addition to work done by >reputable scientists who have studied the situation more formally and >continue to give us absolutely *nothing* beyond your own 'experience'. > >What makes you think that your 'opinion' *alone* is worth anything? Goo is a moron who thinks he's a genius. Since he believes he already knows everything, and probably has thought so all of his life, he doesn't learn. Therefore he is an ignorant moron deserving of the title Goobernicus. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Jul 2005 15:42:10 -0700, Goo wrote:
>you claim to have "seen" for yourself the experience of >disappointment in animals. Maybe you have too, Goo, but you are admittedly too stupid to recognise it if you ever have. Before you lie and say you haven't admitted it or something like that, your denial of the obvious is also you admitting that you can't recognise it even if it happens right in front of you. So we have established that if animals are capable of disappointment, you are admittedly too stupid to understand. Now back to you cowardly slinking and sliming away from your absurd sounding claims...let us continue again with Darwin's example: __________________________________________________ _______ the instantaneous and complete change of expression which came over him as soon as my body swerved in the least towards the path (and I sometimes tried this as an experiment) [Note: what Darwin did as an experiment is beyond your ability to grasp Goo, and understanding the results of it are even more beyond your severly limitted mental ability] was laughable. His look of dejection was known to every member of the family, and was called his hot-house face. This consisted in the head drooping much, the whole body sinking a little and remaining motionless; the ears and tail falling suddenly down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With the falling of the ears and of his great chaps, the eyes became much changed in appearance ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ What we have above, Goo, is an example of a dog's instantaneous and complete change of expression. The change occurred as soon as Darwin did something which could easily cause disappointment in a dog, and immediately after doing so the dog's behavior changed. Something did cause a change in the dog's behavior Goo, and you hilariously insist that it was not disappointment which caused the change. By doing that, you have obligated yourself to explain what did cause the change, if it wasn't disappointment. Try not to be such a contemptible coward Goo. Just explain what you think caused the change. If you can't do it Goober, then we will know that you are not only too stupid to understand what animals think, but you are also too stupid to understand what YOU think. |
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote: > On 22 Jul 2005 15:42:10 -0700, Goo wrote: > > >you claim to have "seen" for yourself the experience of > >disappointment in animals. > > Maybe you have too, Goo, but you are admittedly too stupid > to recognise it if you ever have. Before you lie and say you haven't > admitted it or something like that, your denial of the obvious is also > you admitting that you can't recognise it even if it happens right in > front of you. So we have established that if animals are capable of > disappointment, you are admittedly too stupid to understand. > > Now back to you cowardly slinking and sliming away from your > absurd sounding claims...let us continue again with Darwin's > example: > __________________________________________________ _______ > the instantaneous and complete change of expression which > came over him as soon as my body swerved in the least towards > the path (and I sometimes tried this as an experiment) > > [Note: what Darwin did as an experiment is beyond your ability > to grasp Goo, and understanding the results of it are even more > beyond your severly limitted mental ability] > > was laughable. His look of dejection was known to every > member of the family, and was called his hot-house face. This > consisted in the head drooping much, the whole body sinking > a little and remaining motionless; the ears and tail falling > suddenly down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With the > falling of the ears and of his great chaps, the eyes became > much changed in appearance > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > What we have above, Goo, is an example of a dog's > instantaneous and complete change of expression. The > change occurred as soon as Darwin did something which > could easily cause disappointment in a dog, and immediately > after doing so the dog's behavior changed. > > Something did cause a change in the dog's behavior Goo, > and you hilariously insist that it was not disappointment which > caused the change. By doing that, you have obligated yourself > to explain what did cause the change, if it wasn't disappointment. > > Try not to be such a contemptible coward Goo. Just explain > what you think caused the change. If you can't do it Goober, > then we will know that you are not only too stupid to understand > what animals think, but you are also too stupid to understand > what YOU think. That's assuming he *can* think. I've seen no evidence of it. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:03:27 +0000 (UTC), "David Wright Sr." > wrote:
>dh@. wrote in : > >> On 7/11, Goo amusingly wrote to "David Wright Sr." >> >: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza >> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT >> >> I think you also know full well that there is an >> obvious qualitative difference between the kind of >> stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog >> when you hold up the can of dog food >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> but when asked to explain what he was trying to talk about, >> the "best" that he was able to do--three times!-- was say: >> >> "Stop talking to yourself" >> >> Hilarious!!! he has completely defeated himself, and has proven >> without any doubt at all that he has absolutely no clue what he's >> pretending to discuss. Once more it's time to thank Goo for >> the hilarity via his incredible stupidity. Thanks again Goo! > >It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. I understand why you say that, and in many cases would probably agree with you, but Goo is a special case. >He comes across as a somewhat advanced 5 year old, True, and maybe at 5 he was advanced, but he has since fallen way behind. At some point he apparently decided that he knows it all--most likely in early high school--and therefore has progressed little if any since that point. >unable to respond with >anything other than "because I say so" and 'everyone other than him is a >F**wit'. Nothing but profanity and a total lack of any reasoning >capability. Agreed. And the two do seem to go together. >He appears to have *no* valid knowledge base from which to >work. None. He can't even *pretend* to have any! LOL...it is both sad and pathetic, but in Goober's case it's pretty funny too. >Has he ever heard of the 'scientific method'? Did he finish grammar >school?, high school, college? Goo boasts of having a good education, and of being intelligent. >If he did any of these, then it is a really >sad reflection on our 'educational' system. Yes, that's an excellent point, and in that way Goo's case is pathetically sad. He is so stupid while at the same time arrogantly insulting others as he stupidly/ignorantly thinks he's a genius. Pathetic as he is, I still find it quite amusing in Goo's particular case. The sad part for me does exist though, since I wonder if the poor moron is able to feed himself, or wipe his own ass.... >His childish behavior should be apparent to everyone. > >David W. It seems that his lies, childish behavior and incosideration should be very apparent to everyone. |
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote in :
(snip) > Something did cause a change in the dog's behavior Goo, > and you hilariously insist that it was not disappointment which > caused the change. By doing that, you have obligated yourself > to explain what did cause the change, if it wasn't disappointment. > "...the way a child has an expectation that a parent who has promised something will deliver on the promise." Since Rudy always keeps referring back to the emotion of 'disppointment', it makes me wonder what so disappointed him in life that he has this fixation on it as if *he* were the only *person* in existance who has ever experienced it, and before he can possibly consider that animals might experience it, he would have to admit that other *people* could. I wonder how Rudy's parents failed to deliver on their promises, or was it something he did and is now guilty about it? Maybe he is a solipsist and doesn't believe that anyone else other than him exists. He does appear to live in a phantasy world. David Wright Sr. |
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:03:27 +0000 (UTC), "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@a= lltel.net> wrote: > > >dh@. wrote in : > > > >> On 7/11, Goo amusingly wrote to "David Wright Sr." > >> >: > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza > >> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT > >> > >> I think you also know full well that there is an > >> obvious qualitative difference between the kind of > >> stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get from a dog > >> when you hold up the can of dog food > >> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > >> but when asked to explain what he was trying to talk about, > >> the "best" that he was able to do--three times!-- was say: > >> > >> "Stop talking to yourself" > >> > >> Hilarious!!! he has completely defeated himself, and has proven > >> without any doubt at all that he has absolutely no clue what he's > >> pretending to discuss. Once more it's time to thank Goo for > >> the hilarity via his incredible stupidity. Thanks again Goo! > > > >It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. > > I understand why you say that, and in many cases would > probably agree with you, but Goo is a special case. > > >He comes across as a somewhat advanced 5 year old, > > True, and maybe at 5 he was advanced, but he has since > fallen way behind. At some point he apparently decided that > he knows it all--most likely in early high school--and therefore > has progressed little if any since that point. > > >unable to respond with > >anything other than "because I say so" and 'everyone other than him is a > >F**wit'. Nothing but profanity and a total lack of any reasoning > >capability. > > Agreed. And the two do seem to go together. > > >He appears to have *no* valid knowledge base from which to > >work. > > None. He can't even *pretend* to have any! LOL...it is both > sad and pathetic, but in Goober's case it's pretty funny too. > > >Has he ever heard of the 'scientific method'? Did he finish grammar > >school?, high school, college? > > Goo boasts of having a good education, and of being intelligent. > > >If he did any of these, then it is a really > >sad reflection on our 'educational' system. > > Yes, that's an excellent point, and in that way Goo's case is > pathetically sad. He is so stupid while at the same time arrogantly > insulting others as he stupidly/ignorantly thinks he's a genius. > Pathetic as he is, I still find it quite amusing in Goo's particular > case. The sad part for me does exist though, since I wonder if > the poor moron is able to feed himself, or wipe his own ass.... After getting his dwarf ass kicked all over this newsgroup he's migrated to misc.rural where he's screeching and screaming about daylight savings time and cows. I guess he figures the hayseeds will put up with his nonsense. > > >His childish behavior should be apparent to everyone. > > > >David W. > > It seems that his lies, childish behavior and incosideration should > be very apparent to everyone. |
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in news:1122072130.705605.247340 > @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > Still ignoring the request to back up any of your claims, aren't you? Davey, you doddering asshole: YOU are the one who needs to back up your claim that you've witnessed dogs (or any other animal) experiencing disappointment. Get busy. Shut your mouth and get busy, and don't say anything until you have some independently verifiable support for your ****witted position. |
|
|||
|
|||
Goo ****wit wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2005 15:42:10 -0700, Rudy wrote: > > >>you claim to have "seen" for yourself the experience of >>disappointment in animals. > > > Maybe you have too, I've made no such claim. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Goo ****wit wrote: > > > On 22 Jul 2005 15:42:10 -0700, Rudy wrote: > > > > > >>you claim to have "seen" for yourself the experience of > >>disappointment in animals. > > > > > > Maybe you have too, > > I've made no such claim. ........because you have no such powers of observation. You are just a goober. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza > wrote in news:7LvEe.7990$oZ.4650
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net: >> Still ignoring the request to back up any of your claims, aren't you? > > Davey, you doddering asshole: YOU are the one who > needs to back up your claim that you've witnessed dogs > (or any other animal) experiencing disappointment. Get > busy. Shut your mouth and get busy, and don't say > anything until you have some independently verifiable > support for your ****witted position. > > Rudy is 'projecting' again. His shrink should be paying him for the tremendous learning experience that he is getting attempting to bring Rudy into reality again (or for the first time?). dw |
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Jul 2005 10:00:14 -0700, "Ron" > wrote:
> > >Rudy Canoza wrote: >> David Wright Sr. wrote: >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in news:1122061589.300655.79320 >> > @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> > >> > >> >> > >> It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. >> > > >> > > Davey, what's sad is that, when *you* were asked how you know, >> > > scientifically, that your dog exhibits disappointment - this after you >> > > had run your fat ignorant yap about science - you suddenly did a >> > > complete whiff-off and said that you didn't need science; you just >> > > "knew". >> > >> > Wrong. Check the records, I didn't add the mention of my 'experience' until >> > after I pointed out a number of reputable references which said the same >> > thing. >> >> Davey, you doddering old liar. Here's what you wrote when I asked you >> where you found support in science for your view of animals' ability to >> experience disappointment: >> >> I don't need to 'find in science' that animals >> can experience disappointment as well as other >> emotions. I have seen it myself. >> >> In other words, Davey, your references to "a number of reputable >> references" was entirely superfluous: whether you really read anything >> by them or not, you claim to have "seen" for yourself the experience of >> disappointment in animals. >> >> You're full of shit. >> >> >> > > You're not seeing disappointment in any dog, Davey. You *want* to see >> > > it, because you have some emotional need to try to connect with your >> > > dog. But it just isn't there. Dogs don't have the cognitive ability >> > > to see themselves in the sort of relationship to other entities, or >> > > their universe, that is required to be able to experience >> > > disappointment. >> > >> > Prove it. >> >> Prove that you saw disappointment in dogs, Davey. > > > >Hey Goober! These are *your* words: "qualitive difference in >anticipation" > >Suppose you prove them. LOL! It's funny just imagining him trying to do it. Of course he's not capable of trying, but it's amusing to think about him making an attempt. >Stupid little Goo. So stupid. Such a Goober. >Eats his own poop. With both hands and then licks his fingers, most likely. Hey, that would explain why he's so full of shit. Good work Ron. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
"David Wright Sr." > wrote in message ... __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: Rudy (Goo) Canoza > He comes across as a somewhat advanced 5 year old, unable to respond with > anything other than "because I say so" and 'everyone other than him is a > F**wit'. Nothing but profanity and a total lack of any reasoning > capability. He appears to have *no* valid knowledge base from which to > work. Has he ever heard of the 'scientific method'? Did he finish grammar > school?, high school, college? His self-claimed "education" was in economics, that branch of human stupidity that knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing. Note how the economic paradigm is destroying the planet? He claims he failed to complete his final degree. He has absolutory no comprehension of science, so he just makes it up to 'support' his Neanderthal mentality and lifestyle. He could not pass an 8th grade science quiz. Beyond simply being childish, Jon-a-thug noBalls, now masquerading as Rudy, voluntarily plays the role of a sick, vicious psychopath who attacks everyone silly enough to respond to his insane rants. He does this trying to make himself feel better than others by his fantasizing that his verbal abuse of others somehow reduces the others' stature simultaneously inflating his own, and he is so stupid that he does not know that he has destroyed his own "credibility", which has been zero for several years now. His vulgar behavior has resulted in the suspension of several e-mail accounts, yet he persists because he is terminally self-destructive. You are new here. This is some of his earlier, vintage work: http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt Laurie |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Utter Normality Of Ethnonationalism - Except For Whites By Prof.Kevin MacDonald | General Cooking | |||
Bush "Sick" Over His Amnesty Bill Defeat? | General Cooking | |||
Jamie Utter's Cranberry Pineapple Orange Jam | General Cooking | |||
Pots/Pans/Complete and Utter Confusion - Specifically, Calphalon | Cooking Equipment | |||
Coconut Water: No one drinks this? What a load of utter LOCO NUTZ! | General Cooking |