"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
newsan.2008.08.27.22.34.10.378599@e86.GTS...
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:13:29 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> newsan.2008.08.27.22.11.51.847681@e86.GTS...
>>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:01:14 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:g91kit$d5h$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>>>>> majority of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? Show me your source of information. Do it right now.
>>>
>>> Will you look at what you just questioned?!?!?!
>>>
>>> DAMN, Son, are you *THAT* STUPID?!?!?!?!?!
>>
>>
>> No, but you are. Show me your statistics RIGHT NOW. You said:
>>
>>
>> "Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>> majority
>> of time."
>>
>> Show me the source for your "information".
>
>
> After you get your foot out of your mouth, you'll probably realize BGM
> said it, not me.
>
> But, you're always so analytical. Put the bottle or the crack pipe
> down, analyze BGM's statement for a minute or two (if you can focus for
> that long), and then get back to me with why any source isn't needed.
>
>


Since you're defending what it (BGM) said, you will be treated as his
surrogate until he reappears. You think his statement was factual.
Therefore, you must defend your belief just as he must.

Show me the data.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:50:25 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

>>> "Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>>> majority
>>> of time."
>>>
>>> Show me the source for your "information".
>>
>>
>> After you get your foot out of your mouth, you'll probably realize BGM
>> said it, not me.
>>
>> But, you're always so analytical. Put the bottle or the crack pipe
>> down, analyze BGM's statement for a minute or two (if you can focus for
>> that long), and then get back to me with why any source isn't needed.
>>
>>
>
>
> Since you're defending what it (BGM) said, you will be treated as his
> surrogate until he reappears. You think his statement was factual.
> Therefore, you must defend your belief just as he must.

If I were you, I'd just shut up while I was ahead, instead of continuing
to show that I'm denser than Concrete...

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
newsan.2008.08.27.23.05.43.514944@e86.GTS...
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:50:25 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>>> "Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>>>> majority
>>>> of time."
>>>>
>>>> Show me the source for your "information".
>>>
>>>
>>> After you get your foot out of your mouth, you'll probably realize BGM
>>> said it, not me.
>>>
>>> But, you're always so analytical. Put the bottle or the crack pipe
>>> down, analyze BGM's statement for a minute or two (if you can focus for
>>> that long), and then get back to me with why any source isn't needed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Since you're defending what it (BGM) said, you will be treated as his
>> surrogate until he reappears. You think his statement was factual.
>> Therefore, you must defend your belief just as he must.
>
> If I were you, I'd just shut up while I was ahead, instead of continuing
> to show that I'm denser than Concrete...
>
>
>


You defended his statement, therefore you believe it's true. You've done
this before: Made or supported statements with absolute certainty, but
either could not or (more likely) would not reveal your source of
information. Since neither you education nor your experience enables you to
support or prove the statement below, you either have the data to back it
up, or you're full of shit.

Pick one.

This is the statement about which you are making a fool of yourself:
"Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast majority
of time."

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:11:13 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

>>>>> "Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>>>>> majority
>>>>> of time."
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me the source for your "information".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After you get your foot out of your mouth, you'll probably realize BGM
>>>> said it, not me.
>>>>
>>>> But, you're always so analytical. Put the bottle or the crack pipe
>>>> down, analyze BGM's statement for a minute or two (if you can focus for
>>>> that long), and then get back to me with why any source isn't needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you're defending what it (BGM) said, you will be treated as his
>>> surrogate until he reappears. You think his statement was factual.
>>> Therefore, you must defend your belief just as he must.
>>
>> If I were you, I'd just shut up while I was ahead, instead of continuing
>> to show that I'm denser than Concrete...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> You defended his statement, therefore you believe it's true. You've done
> this before: Made or supported statements with absolute certainty, but
> either could not or (more likely) would not reveal your source of
> information.

LOL! Boy, are you hilarious!

Density now approaching that of lead.

Instead of picking at me, why don't you GO BACK AND READ THE ORIGINAL
STATEMENT, and tell me why it does not need supporting?

WOW! Simply amazing...

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "edspyhill01@yahoo.com"
<edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Aug 26, 1:35*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net>
>wrote:
>> "Herman Cardon" <s...@woo.fer> wrote in message
>>
>> news:i6Xsk.370278$eu.163035@fe01.news.easynews.com ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> >> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:46346c2f-acb8-47b3-8f8a-86d4f1ff0e38@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Aug 25, 11:48 pm, Herman Cardon <s...@woo.fer> wrote:
>> >>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> >>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddollnofeckingspam1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:g8vaq1.120.1@news.evilcabal.org...
>> >>>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
>> >>>>> "Wickeddoll®"
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "tak" ...
>> >>>>>>>> Heard on Convention coverage (MSNBC)
>> >>>>>>>> McCain campaign has an ad running featuring a former Clinton
>> >>>>>>>> delegate
>> >>>>>>>> saying that she is going to vote for McCain. Of course, now that
>> >>>>>>>> she
>> >>>>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>> been informed that McCain is committed to reversing Roe v. Wade,
>> >>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>> may
>> >>>>>>>> well be her last ad for the McCainites in the opinion of the
>> >>>>>>>> reporter.
>> >>>>>>>> The
>> >>>>>>>> silly season gone desperately ugly early.
>> >>>>>>> Did you hear about these scared little men?
>> >>>>>>>http://www.tmz.com/2008/08/25/obama-under-fire/
>> >>>>>>> Pathetic.
>> >>>>>>> Natalie
>> >>>>>> Despicable. They are exactly that, scared little [white boys] men.
>> >>>>>> ============
>> >>>>>> Women, too:
>> >>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffre...t-wishes-for-o...
>> >>>>>> It should be legal for parents to snuff out their kids (of any age)
>> >>>>>> with
>> >>>>>> a pillow or whatever other item is handy. Put this reporter first in
>> >>>>>> line.
>> >>>>> Er...no, Joe.
>> >>>>> I think it's amazing that there is such panic over religious extremism
>> >>>>> from a (possible) president, when the current one didn't hesitate to
>> >>>>> express his own imbedded, sometimes extremes beliefs. Despite his
>> >>>>> efforts, he hasn't forced the rest of the world to become Christians.
>> >>>>> I
>> >>>>> doubt anyone else would have that power either.
>> >>>> Actually, Bush and his ilk may have managed to kill a few Africans
>> >>> STFU you mewling liberal tit-biter.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> You distracted me with "tit-biter". *What's wrong with that?
>>
>> >> ===========
>>
>> >> Ms. Cardoon really needs straightening out.... * :-)
>> > You are a liar and a fraud - and anyone who reads you knows that to be
>> > true.
>>
>> Yah...OK, Uncle Herman.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well, we know what kind of cheap-ass stereo equipment he has near his
>computer.

He is kicking your arse and you talk about stereo equipment?

--

Scott in Florida

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:35:49 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:g91i5q$b9t$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>>>Are you in favor of adultery?
>>>
>>>Extramarital sex does not necessarily mean adultery. Nice try.
>>
>> What does it mean then?
>
>
>zzzzzzzz........ You're not qualified to discuss this. Goodbye.
>
Extramarital sex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extramarital sex occurs when a married person engages in sexual
activity with someone other than their marriage partner.
--

Scott in Florida

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:12:11 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:11:13 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>>>>>> majority
>>>>>> of time."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me the source for your "information".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After you get your foot out of your mouth, you'll probably realize BGM
>>>>> said it, not me.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, you're always so analytical. Put the bottle or the crack pipe
>>>>> down, analyze BGM's statement for a minute or two (if you can focus for
>>>>> that long), and then get back to me with why any source isn't needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you're defending what it (BGM) said, you will be treated as his
>>>> surrogate until he reappears. You think his statement was factual.
>>>> Therefore, you must defend your belief just as he must.
>>>
>>> If I were you, I'd just shut up while I was ahead, instead of continuing
>>> to show that I'm denser than Concrete...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You defended his statement, therefore you believe it's true. You've done
>> this before: Made or supported statements with absolute certainty, but
>> either could not or (more likely) would not reveal your source of
>> information.
>
>LOL! Boy, are you hilarious!
>
>Density now approaching that of lead.
>
>Instead of picking at me, why don't you GO BACK AND READ THE ORIGINAL
>STATEMENT, and tell me why it does not need supporting?
>
>WOW! Simply amazing...
>
>

The drugs are catchin up with Dougie....


--

Scott in Florida

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:41:14 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:12:11 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:11:13 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>> of time."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show me the source for your "information".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After you get your foot out of your mouth, you'll probably realize BGM
>>>>>> said it, not me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, you're always so analytical. Put the bottle or the crack pipe
>>>>>> down, analyze BGM's statement for a minute or two (if you can focus for
>>>>>> that long), and then get back to me with why any source isn't needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you're defending what it (BGM) said, you will be treated as his
>>>>> surrogate until he reappears. You think his statement was factual.
>>>>> Therefore, you must defend your belief just as he must.
>>>>
>>>> If I were you, I'd just shut up while I was ahead, instead of continuing
>>>> to show that I'm denser than Concrete...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You defended his statement, therefore you believe it's true. You've done
>>> this before: Made or supported statements with absolute certainty, but
>>> either could not or (more likely) would not reveal your source of
>>> information.
>>
>>LOL! Boy, are you hilarious!
>>
>>Density now approaching that of lead.
>>
>>Instead of picking at me, why don't you GO BACK AND READ THE ORIGINAL
>>STATEMENT, and tell me why it does not need supporting?
>>
>>WOW! Simply amazing...
>>
>>
>
> The drugs are catchin up with Dougie....

Gotta be something. I can't believe he made such an asinine request...

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:50:09 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:41:14 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:12:11 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:11:13 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> "Communicable sex diseases ARE caused by extramarital sex the vast
>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>> of time."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me the source for your "information".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After you get your foot out of your mouth, you'll probably realize BGM
>>>>>>> said it, not me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, you're always so analytical. Put the bottle or the crack pipe
>>>>>>> down, analyze BGM's statement for a minute or two (if you can focus for
>>>>>>> that long), and then get back to me with why any source isn't needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you're defending what it (BGM) said, you will be treated as his
>>>>>> surrogate until he reappears. You think his statement was factual.
>>>>>> Therefore, you must defend your belief just as he must.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I were you, I'd just shut up while I was ahead, instead of continuing
>>>>> to show that I'm denser than Concrete...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You defended his statement, therefore you believe it's true. You've done
>>>> this before: Made or supported statements with absolute certainty, but
>>>> either could not or (more likely) would not reveal your source of
>>>> information.
>>>
>>>LOL! Boy, are you hilarious!
>>>
>>>Density now approaching that of lead.
>>>
>>>Instead of picking at me, why don't you GO BACK AND READ THE ORIGINAL
>>>STATEMENT, and tell me why it does not need supporting?
>>>
>>>WOW! Simply amazing...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The drugs are catchin up with Dougie....
>
>Gotta be something. I can't believe he made such an asinine request...
>
>
Yup....

He does it all the time.

Back him into a corner (easy) and he flails around.....

--

Scott in Florida

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:04:55 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

>
>
> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:13:04 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote:
>
>> Conservatives *DO* think, and from what I've seen of the current crop of
>> Democrats, do it a hell of a lot better.
>>
>> > So explain why writers featured in the Weekly Standard and National
>> > Review have said conservatism has run out of ideas.
>>
>> The idea is to keep the k00ks from ruining the country...
>
> ...by not letting them get a third presidential term in a row. McCain
> has almost completely caved to extremists in the Republican party.


See my response to Ed in the next thread up.

Having Democrats in total control scares me to death.