Re: Suspect's Attempt to Support His List Falls Short (Was Re: Blood Country - Texas shame)

"usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Defender of the Flakes wrote:
> >>>>>>(There are more threads with crop circle info, should anyone want to
> >>>>>>review each individual thread and/or post.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How about some specific quotes?  It's not my job to
> >>>>>read through volumes of verbiage to find them.  Quit shirking.
> >>>>
> >>>>I've no problem with suspect posting the truth, as I've stated it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That's what I figured.  You have enough controversial views that he
> >>>could have posted a more accurate list and still had a decent number
> >>>of items, if accuracy had been a concern for him.  But clearly it
> >>>wasn't and it makes one wonder about Usual Suspect's lack of interest
> >>>in being truthful.  It looks like a bad habit that he picked up from
> >>>his newly found buddy, jonnie.
> >>
> >>I knew you'd wuss out when faced with the truth. ...
> >
> > What truth?  The main truth in evidence here is that you haven't
> > been able to support a significant number of items on your list.
>
> They're all documented, Sophist Boob.

No, they aren't and I showed that they aren't.


> >>...You're the least
> >>respectable person in these groups.
> >>
> >>
> >>>BTW, I didn't know which items on the list were valid and which
weren't.
> >>>But I knew that jonnie and Usual Suspect were lying about some of
> >>>them.  Thanks for clarifying it (in your other post).
> >>
> >>Which ones do you consider lies, ...
> >
> > See my post of last Wednesday evening.  Every one of
> > your items that I indicated was undemonstrated, minus
> > the ones that pearl has since accepted, are lies.
>
> No. Those were all addressed elsewhere, including in Jon's response to
you.

To which I responded.  He did add some support that
you didn't have, but whining "she must believe it" like
he did a number of times does not constitute addressing
them.


> >>... dickhead?
>
> That epithet fits you. Be careful what you ask for next time, Boob. You
> wanted proof that the ditz is a flake, and you got it. ...

I wanted support for all items on your list. And you, even with
help from two others, can't provide it for many items on that list.
Run from that fact, if you choose, but it remains a fact
nevertheless.


> ... Defend her at
> your own reputation's peril.
>