John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 09:14:16 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 06:33:37 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 12:19:18 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

Then you must get violently upset about the two major
reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H


Hmm, let's see if I can understand you logic.....nope.

Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be explicit.
What
would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about seals
being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".

You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H


As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you don't
know
what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no
idea
about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And
having
no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.

You *seem* a little upset.
--
John H

ANOTHER ignorant statement. Please show how you came to such a
conclusion. Remember, now, we're talking about seals here, not
your
inability to realize that you don't know what you are talking
about,
when making statements about me. Where did I ever say anything
that
would make you think that I'd get either "violently upset" over
taking
seals for their body parts, or, that I "seem to be a little
upset"
over
taking seals for their body parts?

Does it not upset you that "pelts and penises" are the primary
reasons for
killing the little buggers?
--
John H

Hmm, so, you aren't going to answer my above questions, huh? By the
way, by now ASKING if it upsets me, proves that by definition, your
posts about me being violently upset, as well as the one that I
"seem
to be a little upset", were posted in ignorance. Thank you for
helping
make my point!

You're welcome! Goodness, that's the nicest thing you've said all
day!

--
John H

Great, at least you've thereby agreed that you were posting in pure
ignorance!

On 17 Mar 2005 10:35:09 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 09:14:16 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 06:33:37 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 12:19:18 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

Then you must get violently upset about the two major
reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H


Hmm, let's see if I can understand you logic.....nope.

Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be explicit.
What
would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about seals
being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".

You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H


As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you don't
know
what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no
idea
about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And
having
no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.

You *seem* a little upset.
--
John H

ANOTHER ignorant statement. Please show how you came to such a
conclusion. Remember, now, we're talking about seals here, not
your
inability to realize that you don't know what you are talking
about,
when making statements about me. Where did I ever say anything
that
would make you think that I'd get either "violently upset" over
taking
seals for their body parts, or, that I "seem to be a little
upset"
over
taking seals for their body parts?

Does it not upset you that "pelts and penises" are the primary
reasons for
killing the little buggers?
--
John H

Hmm, so, you aren't going to answer my above questions, huh? By the
way, by now ASKING if it upsets me, proves that by definition, your
posts about me being violently upset, as well as the one that I
"seem
to be a little upset", were posted in ignorance. Thank you for
helping
make my point!

You're welcome! Goodness, that's the nicest thing you've said all
day!

--
John H

Great, at least you've thereby agreed that you were posting in pure
ignorance!

Pure ignorance?

What is impure ignorance?

Were you not upset by the pelt and penis collecting?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 17 Mar 2005 10:34:10 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 09:15:26 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 06:35:26 -0800, wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Fritz, I see that you are the only one in this whole
newsgroup
who's
not decided to act like an adult.

Harry is still calling names... but you'll give him the special
pass,
eh?

I've always stated that name calling here is childish. Do you
disagree?

I agree. I've even seen you do it as you're calling someone a
name!
--
John H

Proof?

Yes!

Let's see it, then.

Google yourself up and check yourself out.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

wrote in message
ups.com...

Jack Goff wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Fritz, I see that you are the only one in this whole newsgroup
who's
not decided to act like an adult.

Harry is still calling names... but you'll give him the special pass,
eh?

Nope. What would make you think I'd "give him a special pass"?

You just said that Fritz was "the only one in this whole newsgroup that
who's not decided to act like an adult" when he called you the "King of the
NG idiots".

You are wrong, however... Harry is still calling people names. You don't
call him on it, so you are giving him a pass. We all know Harry is a bit
"special", therefore you must be giving him a "special pass", no?

Of course, you could point out the post where you've scolded him for acting
childish, and prove me wrong. There's certainly been plenty of
opportunities.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

Jack Goff wrote:
Harry is still calling names... but you'll give him the special pass,


Another of the "Obsessed with Harry" idjuts...

You're so vain... you thought this was about you. It's not. It's about the
fact that bassy said something he knew was a lie, and now can't admit it.
You just happen to be in the proof, Harry.

Oh, and you did it again. Better scold him, bassy!

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Another screed from one of the "Obsessed with Harry" Idjuts.

You are simply enamored with me, aren't you Harry? You can't stop yourself
from posting on my heels, and jumping into threads that have nothing to do
with you just to get close to me. You claim you don't care about my kind,
but are sitting there salivating, waiting on posts from me so you can
respond.

It's really sick.

Jack Goff wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Jack Goff wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Fritz, I see that you are the only one in this whole newsgroup
who's
not decided to act like an adult.

Harry is still calling names... but you'll give him the special
pass,
eh?

Nope. What would make you think I'd "give him a special pass"?

You just said that Fritz was "the only one in this whole newsgroup
that
who's not decided to act like an adult" when he called you the "King
of the
NG idiots".

There are other mitigating factors in Fritz's posts. Namely, he never,
ever posts anything of any relevance. The only posts you'll see from
him are either cut and pastes, or name calling.

You are wrong, however... Harry is still calling people names. You
don't
call him on it, so you are giving him a pass. We all know Harry is a
bit
"special", therefore you must be giving him a "special pass", no?

No is correct.

Of course, you could point out the post where you've scolded him for
acting
childish, and prove me wrong. There's certainly been plenty of
opportunities.

John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 10:35:09 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 09:14:16 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 06:33:37 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 12:19:18 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800,
wrote:


John H wrote:

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for
food.

Then you must get violently upset about the two
major
reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H


Hmm, let's see if I can understand you
logic.....nope.

Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be
explicit.
What
would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about
seals
being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".

You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H


As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you
don't
know
what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no
idea
about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And
having
no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.

You *seem* a little upset.
--
John H

ANOTHER ignorant statement. Please show how you came to such a
conclusion. Remember, now, we're talking about seals here, not
your
inability to realize that you don't know what you are talking
about,
when making statements about me. Where did I ever say anything
that
would make you think that I'd get either "violently upset"
over
taking
seals for their body parts, or, that I "seem to be a little
upset"
over
taking seals for their body parts?

Does it not upset you that "pelts and penises" are the primary
reasons for
killing the little buggers?
--
John H

Hmm, so, you aren't going to answer my above questions, huh? By
the
way, by now ASKING if it upsets me, proves that by definition,
your
posts about me being violently upset, as well as the one that I
"seem
to be a little upset", were posted in ignorance. Thank you for
helping
make my point!

You're welcome! Goodness, that's the nicest thing you've said all
day!

--
John H

Great, at least you've thereby agreed that you were posting in pure
ignorance!

Pure ignorance? Yes, see number 7 below.

1=2EHaving a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2=2EFree from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3=2EFree of dirt, defilement, or pollution: "A memory without blot or
contamination must be... an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment"
(Charlotte Bront=EB).
5=2EFree of foreign elements.
6=2EContaining nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary
style.
7=2EComplete; utter: pure folly.
8=2EHaving no faults; sinless: "I felt pure and sweet as a new baby"
(Sylvia Plath).


What is impure ignorance?

Moot point. Do you think that because there is a pure ignorance, that
there must be an IMPURE ignorance? Sheesh.......

Were you not upset by the pelt and penis collecting?

--


John, let's back up. Why are you now asking IF I was "upset by the pelt
and penis collecting"? Before you made a statement that I MUST get
upset about it. Which IS it, John?

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

Another screed from one of the "Obsessed with Harry" Idjuts.


You are simply enamored with me, aren't you Harry? You can't stop
yourself
from posting on my heels, and jumping into threads that have nothing to
do
with you just to get close to me. You claim you don't care about my
kind,
but are sitting there salivating, waiting on posts from me so you can
respond.

It's really sick.



Sigh. Another screed from one of the "Obsessed with Harry" Idjuts.

It didn't take Harry long to reply to your post which verified your
assertion that Harry is stalking you.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


It didn't take Harry long to reply to your post which verified your
assertion that Harry is stalking you.


What...?? Every Harry post is followed by a Jackoff post. Go back to
playing with your toy soldiers.