soupdragon
5/1/2012 8:25:00 AM
sutartsorric <sutartsorric@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:39e99f25-c8a5-46cb-a91e-e133f0f0c159@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 30, 9:26?pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
>> sutartsorric <sutartsor...@googlemail.com> wrote
>> innews:b6382e5b-756e-4ec
> b-9fb4-33ccd332232b@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 6:39?pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
>> >> sutartsorric <sutartsor...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:865bd356-d366-
>> >> 4e37-95f0-12bccfa10...@z2g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 30, 1:03?pm, francis <francis.mall...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 30, 11:15?am, sutartsorric <sutartsor...@googlemail.com>
>> >> >> wrot
>> > e:
>>
>> >> >> > Or are you a hypocrite, and your demands for proof of
>> >> >> > membership onl
>> > y
>> >> >> > applies to one particular organisation which everyone tells
>> >> >> > us is op
>> > en
>> >> >> > and innocent of any wrongdoing?
>>
>> >> >> Funny I didn't know this group was discussing Al Qaeda, and
>> >> >> your use of the word probably is noted.
>>
>> >> > Not funny at all.
>>
>> >> > I was just giving an analogy.
>>
>> >> And a piss poor one it was, too.
>>
>> >> > Is that beyond your limited comprehension?
>>
>> >> > You might be happy with your double standards (that require
>> >> > proof of membership of certain organisations you love, but not
>> >> > other ones that you hate) but others of a higher intellect are
>> >> > anything but happy.
>>
>> >> So that excludes you. You seem to be following the old adage, "If
>> >> you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit"
>>
>> > I think not.
>>
>> Indeed you don't.
>>
>> > It is just that I have found the perfect riposte to you and your
>> > cronies' obsession with demanding proof of masonic membership, when
>> > this is not required when accusing terrorist organisations of
>> > illegality.
>>
>> But you haven't. All you do is babble incoherently. That's not
>> a 'riposte' in anyone's book. Proof is in the hands of the accuser,
>> not the accused, and your last comment is a non seqitur. Yet another
>> in your litany of fallacies.
>>
>> > I am not baffling you with anything.
>>
>> Indeed you're not. I can see through it for what it is. Rubbish. And
>> you know it, which is why you're so keen to be rid of me.
>>
>> >Just proving your hypocrisy.
>>
>> Except you haven't. All you've proven is that you haven't a clue.
>>
>> > Now do the decent thing and admit defeat graciously rather than
>> > become a wind-bag.
>>
>> Your desperation is obvious to all. Perhaps you should take your own
>> advice.
>
> Your bullshitting might work with the low-lifes that you normally try
> and argue with, but it will not wash with me sonny.
Except is has, as you have now abandoned your laughable 'analogy'
argument and resort to the last refuge of the half-wit - ad hominem
to hide your failure.
> I note your use of the same old crap comments you have tried to use
> for months in order to deflect attention from lost arguments;
Yeah. I bet you have. Except you haven't and that's just empty bluster
from you echoing my comments regarding your 'baffle 'em with bullshit'.
You can't even come up with your own ideas.
> and then
> if all else fails you pick on a typo or minor grammatical error in
> order to try to prove your superiority.
The errors I was correcting in *your* argument were rather more fatal
than just some typos. Aside from errors in fact were glaring errors in
logic and coherence of argument. In short, you were out of your depth
and thrashing. It doesn't take much to be superior to someone with such
poor debating skills as yourself.
> It's pathetic to watch really.
Indeed you are.
> Now just go and find another thread to try again.
Still trying to get rid of me? Why would I want to do that and miss
all the fun of watching your vain attempts to string together an
argument?
But if that's your wish, I accept your surrender. I'll leave you to go
back to playing Fatboi Henderson's lapdog.