Little Old Lady Rape Analogy – and questionnaire

[Darwinist]

Like an army of other highly trained experts. ...

We're done. You haven't refuted with evidence a single thing I've said. You haven't even mounted coherent argument against it. You're a horse's patoot with a chronic case of oral dysentery, and it shows.

Bye.

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

Like an army of other highly trained experts. ...

We're done. You haven't refuted with evidence a single thing I've said. You haven't even mounted coherent argument against it. You're a horse's patoot with a chronic case of oral dysentery, and it shows.

Bye.

Bye Darwinist. Don’t forget to get that tattoo. When you’re a little older you can try to answer all those questions you didn’t answer in this thread (about fifty). My advice would be, read a little more, live a few years longer, get the answers, and THEN reply (If this board is still here). In the meantime, enjoy another serve of Bush.

[Darwinist]

For your information, it’s FYI (for your information). Sheesh, you can’t even get that right . . .

"For Your information" is not quite what those letters stand for... but this being a "family forum" I can't give you a precise translation. ...I'm sure you can figure it out, though.

[Darwinist]

Bye Darwinist. Don’t forget to get that tattoo. ...

In response I'd like to toss into the public record the PM I sent to you a little while ago. I'm sure you won't mind.
_____________________________________________

What is it with people like you? Are you congenital wanks, or is it something you have to practice doing?

You know damn well (at least I suspect you do - God, I hope you're that intelligent!) that Rumsfeld's possession of that artifact from the 9/11 Pentagon attack is wrong regardless of how he obtained it, and that his refusal to return it - except under conditions he sets - is simply criminal (literally, by statute!) behavior under the circumstances of its obtainment and continued possession.

You know damn well I answered the questions pertaining to your rigged scenario.

You know damn well that the conclusions of the Kay Report are the official 'book' on WMDs in Iraq - much to the administration's extreme embarrassment. ...You don't really have any idea at all if other inspectors disagree, do you? You just said that to muddy the water - and that's why you resist providing a link or two supporting the claim.

Here: I did some work FOR you: here are two links (for example) from Google's first page, using the keyword search 'Kay Report + disagreement':

www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s959668.htm

www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/us-cia-kay-100203.htm

I suggest you do a "Find" function for the words 'disagreement,' 'disagree,' 'flawed,' 'flaws,' and 'invalid' in both those articles. You'll find that the word 'disagreement' (and none of the others) appears exactly once in each article; and in neither article does it refer to anyone's disagreement with the conclusion of the Report itself.

Now, Rob, I suppose you might scour the Web until you find some ranting "true believer" like yourself who disagrees with the Report's conclusions, and then you might cite them on behalf of your claim ...but that's just not the same as finding disagreement from an expert authority, is it?

Man. I give up talking to you on this issue. I may as well be arguing with a biblical literalist over creationism - your "religious belief" is that Bush and his cronies can do no wrong, and no amount of argumentation, or fact-citing, or access to physical evidence is going change your mind. ...Have you thought about applying for a job in the administration? They could use a loyal robot like you.

C-ya, Allen. ...Wouldn't wanna be ya.


RC

[Rob Larrikin]

author=Darwinist link=board=Politics&thread=1078975335&start=47#3 date=1079324974]For your information, it’s FYI (for your information). Sheesh, you can’t even get that right . . .

"For Your information" is not quite what those letters stand for... but this being a "family forum" I can't give you a precise translation. ...I'm sure you can figure it out, though.

Oops, sorry Darwinist. If you meant, “follow you always,” I do apologize. And thanks, but really, if you wish to master debating you will need to come to the point faster.

author=Darwinist link=board=Politics&thread=1078975335&start=48#3 date=1079325295]Bye Darwinist. Don’t forget to get that tattoo. ...

In response I'd like to toss into the public record the PM I sent to you a little while ago. I'm sure you won't mind.

What PM? I haven’t even read it yet. Hmm, rather strange.

Rumsfeld's possession of that artifact from the 9/11 Pentagon attack is wrong regardless of how he obtained it, and that his refusal to return it - except under conditions he sets - is simply criminal (literally, by statute!) behavior under the circumstances of its obtainment and continued possession.

This is no way to prove someone a thief. Try using this approach in court and you will be sent packing by the judge. This, folks, is why having courts is so very vital. They separate Neanderthal thinking from Homo Sapien thinking. Darwinist is just a sack of hormones. He’s not interested in debate, just in marking out a territory with his rancid smelling urine. He grunts and bangs his chest, and throws branches about, but never debates. In the past his kind killed many a sensitive, intelligent rival. That was then. Nowadays we have civilization; laws; prisons, and the internet. So Darwinist will just have to stew in his juices.

[Darwinist]

This is no way to prove someone a thief. Try using this approach in court and you will be sent packing by the judge.

Interesting. Observe that someone who knows and admits they are in possession of a piece of evidence obtained illegitimately from a crash-investigation site (as demonstrated by the fact that it's uncataloged, and Rummy's office admits it's aware of that fact) is in the current commission of a federal crime (since it was a federal investigation), and it's "no way to prove" they're a thief. And that a judge would send me packing for presenting such an argument.

Where'd you get your law degree from, Johnny C?


This, folks, is why having courts is so very vital. They separate Neanderthal thinking from Homo Sapien thinking. Darwinist is just a sack of hormones.

Sigh. True. I tried having my adrenal glands removed, and my thyroid, and my pituitary ...but the doctor told me I'd die without them. I tried arguing with him, but after he showed me pictures of Rob's double orchiectomy, I had to clam up and do what he wanted.


He’s not interested in debate, just in marking out a territory with his rancid smelling urine.

So, having been crushed on the intellectual front, Rob pulls out the Ol' Standby most favored on debate boards, the personal attack.


He grunts and bangs his chest,

"GRUNT, GRUNT!!" (bang, bang!)


and throws branches about

<Crackle * crackle>



but never debates.

No, me never debate. GRUNT!!


In the past his kind killed many a sensitive, intelligent rival.

Me use branch to KILL! GRUNT!!


That was then.

Yeah! That then! Just few posts ago!! Then! Like Rob say! GRUNT!![/b][/color]


Nowadays we have civilization; laws; prisons, and the internet. So Darwinist will just have to stew in his juices.

GRUNT? ...STEW?? Me LOVE stew!!

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

Where'd you get your law degree from, Johnny C?

Again, if you have bona fide evidence that the man is a thief, present it. If you only have innuendo, opinion, banter, conjecture, accusations and phlegm, please don’t egest them at us. We’ve had enough regurgitated clichés. I would again say you should try thinking, but I guess you may not have the wit to consider that after all.

This, folks, is why having courts is so very vital. They separate Neanderthal thinking from Homo Sapien thinking. Darwinist is just a sack of hormones.

Sigh. True. I tried having my adrenal glands removed, and my thyroid, and my pituitary ...but the doctor told me I'd die without them. I tried arguing with him, but after he showed me pictures of Rob's double orchiectomy, I had to clam up and do what he wanted.

Now see, there is another example of your myth making, Darwinist. I had no double orchiectomy – that was Bill Clinton. He gave them to his dear wife. The wicked witch of the East now swings the family jewels ‘tween her hairy thighs.

He’s not interested in debate, just in marking out a territory with his rancid smelling urine.

So, having been crushed on the intellectual front, Rob pulls out the Ol' Standby most favored on debate boards, the personal attack.

Sorry for the misunderstanding Darwinist – it wasn’t an attack, just an observation. And if you think you are a crushing intellectual front, I have crushing news for you. No, I can’t do it. I’ll leave it to someone else. I’ve shed enough blood.

[Darwinist]

Again, if you have bona fide evidence that the man is a thief, present it. If you only have innuendo, opinion, banter, conjecture, accusations and phlegm, please don’t egest them at us. We’ve had enough regurgitated clichés. I would again say you should try thinking, but I guess you may not have the wit to consider that after all.

The evidence has been presented. I don't need to state what it is again, "counselor."


Now see, there is another example of your myth making, Darwinist. I had no double orchiectomy – that was Bill Clinton. He gave them to his dear wife. The wicked witch of the East now swings the family jewels ‘tween her hairy thighs.

You can use a dictionary! I'm thrilled to see that because it means you might be educable, since it seems to indicate you can retain information at least for the tiny interval of time between the acts of reading it on one page and writing it on another! ...Of course, you could have gotten a 5-year old to look it up for you, and maybe even do the typing.

Yeah ...that's gotta be the case. You had a child answer for you. Damn. I had such hopes for you too!


Sorry for the misunderstanding Darwinist – it wasn’t an attack, just an observation. And if you think you are a crushing intellectual front, I have crushing news for you. No, I can’t do it. I’ll leave it to someone else. I’ve shed enough blood.

Yes, you've shed enough. Of your own. You remind me a little of the Black Knight from The Holy Grail - except not him, but his clumsier brother, the Hopeless Knight, who guarded the bridge up the road. And when he was challenged by Arthur, the Hopeless Knight drew his mighty falchion ...and hacked off his own arms and legs[/b] while Arthur watched bemusedly.

And that's how I leave you now, Hopeless One, sitting limbless on the ground, begging for my return as I stroll away, so you can bite my legs off.

[Rob Larrikin]

Okay Darwinist, I’ll shed more of your blood, you masochist you.

Darwinist said:

Again, if you have bona fide evidence that the man is a thief, present it. If you only have innuendo, opinion, banter, conjecture, accusations and phlegm, please don’t egest them at us. We’ve had enough regurgitated clichés. I would again say you should try thinking, but I guess you may not have the wit to consider that after all.

The evidence has been presented. I don't need to state what it is again, "counselor."

That’s not evidence; it’s just some words with the sign “exit” above them.

Now see, there is another example of your myth making, Darwinist. I had no double orchiectomy – that was Bill Clinton. He gave them to his dear wife. The wicked witch of the East now swings the family jewels ‘tween her hairy thighs.

You can use a dictionary!

Yeah right; as if I can’t spell Bill Clinton. He’s not in there anyway!

it seems to indicate you can retain information at least for the tiny interval of time between the acts of reading it on one page and writing it on another!

To absorb the content of your points takes about the life of a gluon. They exist for only the amount of time that it takes light to travel across the width of a hydrogen atom. In your case we could call them ‘clueons’, as in, “Darwinist hasn’t a clue on this, or a clue on that.”<br>

Sorry for the misunderstanding Darwinist – it wasn’t an attack, just an observation. And if you think you are a crushing intellectual front, I have crushing news for you. No, I can’t do it. I’ll leave it to someone else. I’ve shed enough blood.
Yes, you've shed enough. Of your own. You remind me a little of the Black Knight from The Holy Grail - except not him, but his clumsier brother, the Hopeless Knight, who guarded the bridge up the road. And when he was challenged by Arthur, the Hopeless Knight drew his mighty falchion ...and hacked off his own arms and legs

[/b] while Arthur watched bemusedly. [/quote]

Look closely at that guy Darwy. Now pan up to his head – attaboy – and notice the tattoo? Yes, it reads THINK. You’ve caught yourself looking in the mirror, daydreaming again. Stop daydreaming and start thinking. You’ll like it when you get used to it.

[Ogilvy]

Rob said:

I guess it wouldn't hurt. She was the daughter of my accountant. He had stock in the meat industry. She tried to force him to sell it, and when he wouldn't, she 'divorced' him, living in seclusion in a bungalow in the back yard (his back yard). It was a haunt for spiders and mice, which she refused to kill or move away. Spider webs everywhere. Like some kind of demented witch.

Who knows what damage she has done to others since then, with any kind of power she managed to claw for herself?

Incidentally, we started with people suing people for anything that could cause any kind of injury, and then we were suing cigarette companies. Now there is talk about people suing food outlets that advertise their fat building food as “great for your shape” but made them fat. While we’re in the mood, how about we start suing schools that are responsible for witches like the one above? I imagine if you did some detective work, you would probably find one or two teachers in her school directly responsible for her fanatical vegetarian brainwashing – or for at least for helping to nurture it. You could sue the school in question, and you could take out civil suits against the teachers personally. That ought to rock their boat.

Man, psychologists should consider vegetarianism to be a mental disorder. They should have some sort of a name for it like meatophobia.

I'm glad I don't know any psychos like the one you mentioned here in my little area of West Virginia. Although I assume they might provide you entertainment sometimes, probably for the most part they're just annoying.

[Rob Larrikin]

Ogilvy said:

Man, psychologists should consider vegetarianism to be a mental disorder. They should have some sort of a name for it like meatophobia.

I'm glad I don't know any psychos like the one you mentioned here in my little area of West Virginia. Although I assume they might provide you entertainment sometimes, probably for the most part they're just annoying.

I’m always cautious now when I meat (pardon the pun) a vegetarian. I usually ask them whether they are against others eating meat. Most say they don’t object to that, saying it's for health reasons. My poor accountant had the misfortune of having the Jane Fonda of vegetarians for a daughter. I don’t know what became of her, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she works for PETA today. Those nutcases wouldn’t mind killing people to protect mice.

[Yukon]

*post deleted*
Edited for personal attack.

[rush22]

Oooo a quiz! I think I qualify to answer.

A) If a little old lady next door (a friend of yours) was being raped, and you could hear and see this, what would your basic response be (allowing for no other *extraneous, superfluous or irrelevant circumstances)?

Call the police!

B) Assume that for whatever reason, the police were not available, and that you had a gun, and plenty of friends and witnesses (who would testify that the woman was being raped, so you could not be framed in any way). Would you intervene to save her?

Doh! No police.

I assume you mean "would I shoot the guy with the gun?" If I couldn't stop him some other way, yes, shoot him in the leg or something. Then tie him up. (and if he tries to kill me, obviously kill him)

C) If you were able to call the police, what would you expect them to do?

The same thing.

Let’s say that you decided to intervene. Let’s say that the only way to stop the guy was to shoot him, so you shot him in the leg.

Hey that's what I picked!

D) Do you think this action would make you the “oppressor,” or would you say you were the “defender?” Would you say you were engaged in “preemptive aggression,” or “defensive aggression?”

Errr.... not sure what you mean. I'd say "defensive aggression" because he was already raping her when I got there.

E) If your answer to the above is that you would not interfere, and would not even call the police, then please explain your reason for this.

No need!

F) If you would intervene, either yourself or by bringing in the force of the police, do you agree that your action would be an action in defense of the old lady?

Yes of course.

G) If so, then why say that when a country goes to defend an ally under attack by a tyrant, this is aggression, and not defensive aggression?

Ummm. no. I personally never said that, so don't try to put words into my mouth. It is defensive aggression.

(and if you think this answer somehow proves the war in Iraq is justified, you're wrong).

[Anna Morton]

I call it pollticide every-BODY should wake up and smellthe dead people(s) if we were bombing iraq in hopes of hitting whats-'is-face then Y isn't he dead yet?/
how many bombs do you think your city could stand? would you feel diffrent if someone you knew personaly lived in Bagdad ECT... and how would you feel if you got bombed KA-BOOM I WOULDN'T LIKE IT. GORGE W. PUTS ME TO SHAME!!![glow=red,2,300]TEXT[/glow]

[MO]

YOU! Out of the gene pool!