Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:28:12 GMT, Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:19:27 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:44:28 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
>>>>>>>about it a little farther:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-Rubystars
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please share any superior beliefs that you have about the issue.
>>>>
>>>>Please share a well-founded, thought out belief in the
>>>>first place, Fuckwit.
>>>
>>>I think it's less a belief and more of a fact that something that doesn't
>>>exist yet can't make any claims on a right to exist.
>> 
>> 
>>     Agreed. That was nothing.  Please share any superior
>
>Fuck you and "superior", Fuckwit.  You are demonstrably 
>inferior, in every way.

    LOL! If you were capable of contemplating the possibilities I feel
sure it would be quite amusing Gonad, but you can't, much less can
you share them with others.

>> beliefs that 
>> you have about the issue...but by now it's already apparent that you 
>> have none.