Gay NorthWest Airlines pilots nearly kill 144 passengers while doing tubesteak boogie at 37,000 feet
Brian
"Pilots should have had warning of airport approach". The two
queers did, but they were blowing each other and not paying
attention. This is why queers cannot be trusted in a combat
zone. Bullets don't give second chances.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jx2fJRl2HA8EkI
9Zi8Qa1yuvjYdQD9BGMEB02
Shop talk "pretty clearly wasn't all that was going on," Berman
said.
The two pilots have been suspended from flying while Delta Air
Lines Inc. conducts an internal investigation, said Anthony
Black, a spokesman for the Atlanta-based airline, which acquired
Northwest last year. He refused to name them or give further
details on their background or what happened in the air.
Corporate speak for, "We caught a couple of fucking queers".
Mark LeFage
Email me, I love cock!
--
Some of us are a lot like cement - all mixed up and permanently
set.
Darkwing
"Brian" <bri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:170fba37922f4887...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
I figured they fell asleep, funny that you think they were involved in a
homosexual act, says A LOT about yourself but not much about these pilots.
Wilson Woods
It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit -
they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation"
regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as
there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero
shtup going on.
Matt Barrow
news:r9GdnbNYF4Ejf3zX...@earthlink.com...
> Darkwing wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jx2fJRl2HA8EkI
>>> 9Zi8Qa1yuvjYdQD9BGMEB02
>>>
> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit -
> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation"
> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as
> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero
> shtup going on.
And you can tell they are female...how?
Jim Logajan
scene from "Never Cry Wolf" where the pilot played by Brian Dennehy
explains the root cause (1 minute 5 seconds into the video - but the lead
up is great):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wda2ApLh-Z4&feature=PlayList&p=8D36E76BD4A5888A&index=1
Darkwing
That's a helluva heated conversation. I'm saying they were asleep and that
was the best excuse they had come up with in the time alloted. Fuckwit.
Wilson Woods
Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was
just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one
female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
Wilson Woods
I'm not buying it that's what it was, but it's what they said. They
weren't asleep, douchebag. They were awake and doing something they
shouldn't have been doing.
> I'm saying they were asleep
You're full of shit.
PT
> "Wilson Woods" <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Of course they were male pilots ~ they didn't stop and ask for
directions :-)
pt
ne...@millions.com
wrote:
Might you think it's possible that someone could a question if you?
Like: What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
Just sort of wondering, sort of.
DCI
ne...@millions.com
>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:48:30 -0700, Wilson Woods <ban...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:r9GdnbNYF4Ejf3zX...@earthlink.com...
>>>> Darkwing wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jx2fJRl2HA8EkI
>>>>>> 9Zi8Qa1yuvjYdQD9BGMEB02
>>>>>>
>>>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit -
>>>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation"
>>>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as
>>>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero
>>>> shtup going on.
>>>
>>> And you can tell they are female...how?
>>
>>Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was
>>just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one
>>female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
>>
Correction of below BS:
>>What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
>
>Might you think it's possible that someone could ask a question of you?
>
>Like: What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole? Why? Because the answer
>would be a screamer.
>
>Just sort of wondering, sort of. ;D
>
>DCI
Jeffrey Bloss
> Pilot and copilot have been named:
> http://www.startribune.com/local/65778012.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU
>
> They had male names, anyway.
>
> One of them allegedly does his own yardwork - and a good job of it too.
> That make me suspicious right there! ;-)
Along with being an assclown, you're a homophobe too.
It sucks being you, doesn't it Jimmie?
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User
Jeffrey Bloss
Meet Jimmie Logajan, Homophobe Superior and part time assclown.
Good News, Jimmie!
I hunt the archives of Usenet with great endeavour to find people who I
can award scholarships. Congratulations, you have qualified for one
entire week at AssClown U.
Yes, being your normal assclown is not enough! You have all the
qualities to become a real, full-fledged AssClown!
If I can have your MasterCard, assclown, we can get started
immediately!!!
Jeffrey Bloss
> Want to know what causes pilots like that to screw up?
No, now STFU, Jimmie.
Jeffrey Bloss
> On Oct 23, 8:13�pm, Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>> "Matt Barrow" <matt_bar...@coax.net> wrote:
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Pilot and copilot have been named:http://www.startribune.com/local/65778012.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEy...
>>
>> They had male names, anyway.
>>
>> One of them allegedly does his own yardwork - and a good job of it too.
>> That make me suspicious right there! ;-)
>>
>> (Note: removed cross-posts.)
>
> The cockpit --- opps, bad choice of words -- area where the pilots
> sit should have a (sorry) cockpit voice recorder record of what went
> on. Or will it? Don't those devices record only the last 30 minutes
> of conversation?
Do you actually have a certificate? I don't mean one that allows you to
fly sims, dimwit.
Btw, when plagiarizing *real* pilots off *real* forums, it would be
better to disguise your pilot act with more aplomb.
Dimwit that you are.
<http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=508232&postcount=80>
Generalisimo Franco
> Darkwing wrote:
>
> > "Brian" <bria...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's called a "Cock Pit" for some reason, isn't it???
frank
Matt Barrow
Evidently what's wrong here is that part between your ears.
You're making accusations and providing nothing to substantiate them
Evidently you've got orifices on the brain.
<plonk>
Matt Barrow
<ne...@millions.com> wrote in message
news:ska5e59al0mgtmgea...@4ax.com...
Ignore the troll.
Phxbrd
"Matt Barrow" <matt_...@coax.net> wrote in message
news:2u6dnT0oHrIr837X...@giganews.com...
Dumbfucker Rude-ee alienates and antagonizes everywhere he goes. That's why
he constantly shifts nyms. Pay him no mind.
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bY2dnRHj7udzwX_X...@earthlink.com...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:r9GdnbNYF4Ejf3zX...@earthlink.com...
>>>> Darkwing wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jx2fJRl2HA8EkI
>>>>>> 9Zi8Qa1yuvjYdQD9BGMEB02
>>>>>>
>>>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit -
>>>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation"
>>>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as
>>>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero
>>>> shtup going on.
>>> And you can tell they are female...how?
>> Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was just
>> saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one female
>> and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
>>
>> What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
>
> Evidently what's wrong here is
...is that you're a stupid cunt-for-braincell who can't read.
> You're making accusations and providing nothing to substantiate them
I made no "accusations", fuckwit. I /speculated/ as to what /might/
have been the cause.
You are far too stupid for this, fuckwit.
ne...@millions.com
He has absolutely no serious issues. He is academically sound, well
read, has no friends at the extremes. And that's a good thing.
DCI
Mark LeFage
I give up, I'm gay! May I suck your rim?
Montgomery Ward
their bodies.
Mark LeFage
> Actually, the pilots were abducted by aliens, probed, and returned to
> their bodies.
Probe me!
BossDog
THE TRUTH IS GOING TO COME OUT SOON.
THEY ARE BOTH GAY
Can you imagine how its going to look for the Airlines and GAYS in
general?
They are questionably both members of the Gay Airline Pilots
Association. (yes its real)
These two really FUCKED "up", literally.
Ken S. Tucker
dh
<ban...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What led people to believe they might have been doing the
"rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
>What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a
dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious
sometimes, Goober.
a
I hope the gay allegations prove false -- that group has enough bias/
image problems without this adding to them.
I had better be careful here, my airplane is a Mooney, and we Mooney
drivers do like our tail backwards!
Ken S. Tucker
Well the pilots need to account for such a significant nav oversite,
as we (especially) pro's are responsibly commited to explain the
oversight, so it's not repeated.
We all hope there's an honest mistake in this that we can learn from.
> I had better be careful here, my airplane is a Mooney, and we Mooney
> drivers do like our tail backwards!
You overwhelm my imagination.
Ken
Jeffrey Bloss
You'll be happy to know while "a" is riding your rump he'll be carrying
his sidearm. You know, just in case he has to shoot you to keep you bent
over.
a
Don't you hate being so predictable? I had zero doubt you'd take that
bait, you're a cut and paste homophobe: try offering useful content
sometimes: but wait, only real pilots do that.
Paste lol or another of your hopelessly inane comments here:
________________________________
Ken S. Tucker
You mean like what the govmonks do to taxpayers?
Ken
David Bradley
>
> Don't you hate being so predictable? I had zero doubt you'd take that
> bait, you're a cut and paste homophobe: try offering useful content
> sometimes: but wait, only real pilots do that.
>
express disgust at but fuckers?
Jeffrey Bloss
More or less except "a" calls it "making society polite".
lol
Mr.Smartypants
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:48:30 -0700, Wilson Woods
>
>
>
>
>
> <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>news:r9GdnbNYF4Ejf3zX...@earthlink.com...
> >>> Darkwing wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jx2fJRl2HA8EkI
> >>>>> 9Zi8Qa1yuvjYdQD9BGMEB02
>
> >>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit -
> >>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation"
> >>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as
> >>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero
> >>> shtup going on.
>
> >> And you can tell they are female...how?
>
> >Did I say I could *tell* the sexes of the two pilots, fuckwit? I was
> >just saying there's some possibility it could have been one male and one
> >female and they were just doing the rumpy-pumpy in the hetero way.
>
> What led people to believe they might have been doing the
> "rumpy-pumpy" in the homo way, Goo?
>
> >What the fuck is wrong with you, jackhole?
>
> LOL! Maybe he's learned--or is getting an idea--what a
> dishonest ass you are Goob. You do make it pretty obvious
Is Goobs showing people how dishonest and stupid he is *AGAIN*?
Gray Ghost
> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r9GdnbNYF4Ejf3zX...@earthlink.com...
>> Darkwing wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jx2fJRl2HA8EkI
>>>> 9Zi8Qa1yuvjYdQD9BGMEB02
>>>>
>> It says nothing about the poster. The pilots were not asleep, fuckwit -
>> they already have claimed they were having a "heated conversation"
>> regarding airline policy. It isn't necessarily a couple of homos, as
>> there are female pilots; it could have been a good-old-fashioned hetero
>> shtup going on.
>
> And you can tell they are female...how?
'Cause they missed thier exit.
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
dh
Apparently he was. He hasn't responded to any of the replies
I've made to him though. This thread, the bank fee one and one
about Obamacare are threads Goo was abusing that I found by doing
some Googling. Google Goo... But the Goober hasn't replied even
after I told him how much we miss his stupidities and
dishonesties. It's kind of selfish of Goob really to keep all
that stupidity to himself, instead of sharing it with people who
can appreciate how amusing it is. I haven't checked to see if
he's doing anything at all lately. Why don't you give it a go?
See if you can find a thread or two and get him to "kick your
ass" as his boy would say, and don't forget to link to aaev.
Maybe you'll have better luck baiting the Goober than I've had.
Mr.Smartypants
I'll do that possibly tomorrow as I don't have much time today.
I'm beginning to think perhaps Goo is trying to avoid us, which is
really a shame because if there are any two people in the entire world
who enjoy his hilarious antics it is we.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:70662a43-d732-457a...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
----------------->
The problem is, he doesn't find you entertaining. You're not funny or witty,
your insults are not clever and you're no challenge. Ignoring you is a wise
course.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
We don't have to be funny. Goo supplies the hilarity.
No need to insult Goo. His outstupidifications do it.
Goobs "ignores" us because he can't even start to explain why he
disagrees with himself.
dh
LOL!!! I would guess he doesn't. LOL...
>You're not funny or witty,
We don't have to be. Goo's stupidity is what's funny. Witty?
LOL...not hardly, but sometimes it's still hilarious. The general
rule is that when Goo tries to be funny it turns out stupid and
pathetic, but when he tries to be intelligent it's often
hilarious.
>your insults are not clever
We just point out what he does while laughing about it. Goo
makes absurd claims or/and blatantly lies, and we have fun
pointing out how absurd or dishonest they are. THEN we challenge
the Goober to try to back them up, which he can't do and that too
is quite amusing. THEN Goo begins to lie some more, dishonestly
claiming to have met the countless challenges which is again
amusing because in fact he has not. THEN we challenge him to try
providing examples of what he thinks he's trying to talk about
and again he amusingly is incapable of doing so. It would be fun
if he would at least make an attempt, but unfortunately he's so
inept that he can't even do that...which is amusing... Oh, and
btw, we do the exact same thing to you with the exact same
results, though it's usually not quite as amusing as when we do
it to Goo.
>and you're no challenge.
In contrast to that lie I believe I have a list of challenges
that the Goober was afraid to attempt...let's see....yes! It's in
a text document I named cowardice of Goo.txt, and it has even
more examples of his failures than I had thought. Here we go:
Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius
and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven
himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly
declining to answer questions and perform things which he
has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is
afraid to even attempt include:
1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and can not
experience.
2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
3. providing any opposition at all to the misnomer.
4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are disturbed by
the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit from their
elimination objective.
7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
better lives for food animals.
9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience
than another.
10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans
and other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
disappointment, if there are any.
12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
to the elimination of domestic animals.
13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be
experiencing certain emotions, under conditions which could
easily trigger those particular emotions, if it is not those
particular emotions.
14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you
can get from a dog.
16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from
experience with animals.
17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for
food than the experiencing of their lives.
18. describing any tests which have been done to test for
self-awareness in dogs.
19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see,
if "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:d22og5hrolmfs2u2q...@4ax.com...
He obviously still has your knickers in a bunch since you can't stop whining
about him.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:d22og5hrolmfs2u2q...@4ax.com...> >>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Shouldn't the most absurd character to ever post on newsgroups have
his legacy preserved and displayed for future generations?
BTW, as his most fervent apologist you don't seem too eager to explain
why Goobs so often disagreed with himself.
Explain.
Dutch
Explain.
------>
You even sound like the fuckwit now, how pathetic.
Mr.Smartypants
Why don't you try the 19 challenges on Goo's behalf?
Dutch
------------------
You know where he posts, ask him yourself.
Mr.Smartypants
We have repeatedly.........but alas poor Goobs is too frightened to
attempt it.
Dutch
------------->
Or you're not worth the effort.. and stop saying "we", you're enough of a
dunce all by yourself without associating yourself with fuckwit.
dh
He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright,
and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
Dutch
> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>, just a couple of sad
doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
News flash, nobody cares, and you got your asses kicked.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright,
>
> > and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
> > Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>
> There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>, just a couple of sad
> doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
That would be you and Goo.
> News flash, nobody cares, and you got your asses kicked.
Not by Goobs and certainly not by you.
dh
><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright,
>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>
>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>just a couple of sad
>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you
have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to
talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>News flash, nobody cares,
You're almost right about that, which is as close to the
truth as we can hope for from you.
>and you got your asses kicked.
That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it,
but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of
it?
Dutch
On Nov 29, 4:31 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright,
>
> > and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
> > Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>
> There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>, just a couple of
> sad
> doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
That would be you and Goo.
--->
'fraid not, clown
> News flash, nobody cares, and you got your asses kicked.
Not by Goobs and certainly not by you.
-------->
By Ball.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:reo8h5lofcnd7ts54...@4ax.com...
Go back and read the archives, day after day, week after week, month, year,
he mopped the floor with you, everybody did.
dh
LOL...oh, you must be talking about Goo's arguments in
support of the misnomer:
"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." -
Goo
""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not
to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
but I don't agree with you people about much of it. Only three of
the above, in fact. We know misnomer advocates agree with every
bit of it/you goos agree with every bit of it.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:7ofah5tna6juc5d3q...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:11:57 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:reo8h5lofcnd7ts54...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:31:08 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring
>>>>bright,
>>>>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
>>>>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>>>>
>>>>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
>>>
>>> You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>>>
>>>>just a couple of sad
>>>>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
>>>
>>> The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you
>>> have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to
>>> talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>>>
>>>>News flash, nobody cares,
>>>
>>> You're almost right about that, which is as close to the
>>> truth as we can hope for from you.
>>>
>>>>and you got your asses kicked.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it,
>>> but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of
>>> it?
>>
>>Go back and read the archives
>
> LOL...oh, you must be talking about
Ball's relentless dismantling of the Logic of the Larder and consistent
revealing of what a creep you are.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:reo8h5lofcnd7ts54...@4ax.com...
NO Dutch! Enough of your cowardly bullshit.
Find an example of Goo "mopping the floor" or "manhandling" anyone,
ever.
Do it, or admit you're nothing but a liar like Goober.
Dutch
NO
Yes
dh
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:07:15 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:11:57 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:reo8h5lofcnd7ts54...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:31:08 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>and you got your asses kicked.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it,
>>>> but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of
>>>> it?
>>>
>>>Go back and read the archives
>>
>Ball's relentless dismantling of the Logic of the Larder and consistent
>revealing of what a creep you are.
There's not a hint of that to be found anywhere. In contrast
to that some of the Goober's arguments in support of the misnomer
are clearly obvious and right here in front of us.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
So now you've resorted to snipping text as an argument.
Goo taught you well, grasshopper.
dh
><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright,
>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>
>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>just a couple of sad
>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you
have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to
talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>News flash, nobody cares,
You're almost right about that, which is as close to the
truth as we can hope for from you.
>and you got your asses kicked.
That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it,
dh
><dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright,
>> and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
>> Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>
>There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>,
You're all that's left of it, and you're sucking badly.
>just a couple of sad
>doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you
have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to
talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>News flash, nobody cares,
You're almost right about that, which is as close to the
truth as we can hope for from you.
>and you got your asses kicked.
That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it,
Dutch
---->
There is no argument, just the facts, Ball filleted fuckwit like a bass on a
daily basis, you were an irrelevant bystander, and now you've hitched your
wagon to the biggest loser ever, It's hilarious.
dh
That's a lie about a liar. LOL! Goo never even acknowledged
what I actually believe, much less could he attack it. How could
he possibly have defeated something he never even acknowledged
much less approached? By persuading people who wanted to believe
his lies to believe them? From my pov it's still nothing but
lying so he lost even when he got people to believe his lies.
From you people's pov I guess the Goober could have won if you're
afraid people actually would have learned to have consideration
for the animals if Goo, and you, and whoever else had not worked
so hard to prevent it. You're still nothing but liars, but that's
what you do and you're completely comfortable doing it.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5ov7h5ldego3mnnom...@4ax.com...
They're all in the archives, every day for ten years, take your pick. You
appear to have the time to comb through them looking for quotes, try doing
it objectively.
Oh, I forgot who I was talking to..
Dutch
You're a doormat and an idiot, you always have been and you always will be.
You believe ridiculous shit by choice and you concoct nonsense to justify
abuse of animals. Nothing anyone could say about you could surprise me.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
On Nov 29, 4:31 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote> He can't. The blatancy of his dishonesty is glaring bright,
>
> > and he can't deal with the challenges when challenged to do so.
> > Team Gooer is sucking badly, as usual.
>
> There is no challenge, there is no "team Gooer" <sic>, just a couple of
> sad
> doormats trying to rewrite history so they get to win.
That would be
fuckwit, and you're on his team, for no plausible reason.
Dutch
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 02:03:37 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>There is no argument, just the facts, Ball filleted fuckwit like a bass on
>>a
>>daily basis
>
> That's a lie
It's the truth, accept it and move on.
Mr.Smartypants
Like Goo you really do live in your own little world of your own
making don't you?
In "your world" the Google archives are chock full of posts showing
Goobs manhandling everyone.
Too bad you can't bring some of those post to the real world and show
them to us.
LOL!!
Dutch
-------------------
They are already in the real world chump, in the Google archives, by the
thousands, go read them for yourself. Or live in your fantasy world, I don't
care, but I just thought you might prefer to live in reality.
Mr.Smartypants
Find ONE, Dutch......just ONE and show it to us.
Dutch
-------------->
Why? Only two people care, you and your fellow ass-chump the fuckwit and
you're too fucking dense to recognize a ten year shit-kicking when you get
one.
End of story pinhead, I'm not going to waste one minute proving something we
all know is true.
Mr.Smartypants
Unfortunately for you Goober we all know you never kicked anyone's ass
in 10 years of trying. You provided much hilarity and many memorable
gooberisms but no ass-kickings.......none at all.
Dutch
-------------->
We're not talking about me pinhead, we're talking about Jonathan Ball and
David the real goober fuckwit Harrison, your snuggle-buddy. Every time you
utter another of these asinine denials you just prove again what a sap you
are.
Mr.Smartypants
Then PROVE it!
Dig up ONE post of Goo's that shows him "manhandling"
someone,...anyone.
Dutch
Then PROVE it!
------->
I don't do post mining, particularly not when it is this blatantly obvious.
No, you just just remain in denial, joined at the hip with the world's
biggest loser cock-fighting dope, you're obviously in some kind of mental
distress.
Mr.Smartypants
Why don't you get Goo the pet food expert and Rick Etter the cow food
expert and field mouse genius to join you in searching the archive for
posts of Goo's that plainly show him "manhandling" anyone else.
Surely the three of you should come up with something....anything.
Dutch
Why don't you
I don't do archive mining, my recollection is accurate, yours is not.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com> wrote
> Why don't you
>
> I don't do archive mining, my recollection is accurate, yours is not.
LOL!!
What you mean is your fantasies are your reality.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
LOL!!
----->
What I mean is your fantasies are not reality.
Dutch
Dig up ONE post of Goo's that shows him "manhandling"
someone,...anyone.
Virtually every response to dh, take your pick. Not that that is a great
feat, but you asked..
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
> Dig up ONE post of Goo's that shows him "manhandling"
> someone,...anyone.
>
> Virtually every response to dh, take your pick. Not that that is a great
> feat, but you asked..
Well post one.
After all we gave you plenty of goo's gooberisms to play with.
Dutch
On Dec 7, 12:43 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
> Dig up ONE post of Goo's that shows him "manhandling"
> someone,...anyone.
>
> Virtually every response to dh, take your pick. Not that that is a great
> feat, but you asked..
Well post one.
--->
You don't need me to post them, you were there, and they're there for you
now..
After all we gave you plenty of goo's gooberisms to play with.
---->
I didn't read them, I never read out of context quotes, and I don't post
them to create false impressions. I'll leave that to the fuckwit.
Fuckwit is a complete moron, PLUS he stands for everything you despise. How
your feelings must be hurt to have jumped into bed with him.
Tristan daCunha
<G>
dh
Well right now it appears very clear and obvious that YOU ARE
LYING AGAIN.
>Only two people care,
We're pointing out to you how very clear and obvious it is
that YOU ARE LYING, while at the same time trying to encourage
you to attempt to show that there is some tiny sliver of honesty
to your apparently blatant lyings. You of course are failing to
show any hint of honesty to your lies at all, of course showing
even more clearly the fact that you're lying...
. . .
>I'm not going to waste one minute proving something
I feel sure we both believe you have tried to find something
to back up your lyings, but have been unable to come up with a
single thing.
dh
Life to "Dutch" must be like dreams sometimes are for other
people. Did you ever have a dream in which you got something that
you had been wanting for a while but then you woke up realising
it was a dream and you never had actually gotten whatever it was
to begin with, so you couldn't go get it and do what you were
thinking about doing because it wasn't really there? I wonder if
it's that way for this poor sad goober, but he just can't wake
up? Or as usual we also have to wonder if he really does know the
truth--what with all the many examples of Goobal idiocies and
self-disagreements ect--or if he's honestly too stupid to
comprehend what actually does exist and is glaringly obvious.
dh
><dh@.> pointed out:
>
>> The part where you're sucking worst is that part where you
>> have no evidence of whatever it is you think you're trying to
>> talk about, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>>News flash, nobody cares,
>>
>> You're almost right about that, which is as close to the
>> truth as we can hope for from you.
>>
>>>and you got your asses kicked.
>>
>> That sounds like a lie, like every other time you've told it,
>> but if you think so then how about presenting some example(s) of
>> it?
>
>They're all in the archives, every day for ten years, take your pick.
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
That's a lie. Goo kicked his own ass by writing something so
stupid.
"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
That's a lie the Goober told a number of times, again clearly
displaying his own dishonesty and stupidity.
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo
I don't take it for granted that there was an actual
pre-existent "state" as the Goober obviously does. And even if
Goo is correct and there was, as long as life is of positive
value it is, even if Goo's pre-existent state thingy was better
as he obviously wants people to think it was.
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
I disagree with Goo's beliefs about that.
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
That's a blatant lie. Even you should acknowledge that.
"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the
first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
Not people who can appreciate when livestock have lives of
positive value.
Mr.Smartypants
He's probably torn the newsgroup archives apart trying to find even a
single instance of Goo "manhandling" anyone.
Mr.Smartypants
I think that's the part that made Goo come totally unglued. He got so
confused trying to deny the pre-existent state while maintaining that
he's no better off than he WAS BEFORE (in the pre-existent state) and
with you pestering him to explain WHY he disagreed with himself he
just lost it completely.
He's probably still trying to figure out why and how he disagrees with
himself............and it's made him a mental case.
LOL!!
>
> "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
> words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
> in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
>
> I disagree with Goo's beliefs about that.
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>
> That's a blatant lie. Even you should acknowledge that.
>
> "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the
> first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
> Not people who can appreciate when livestock have lives of
> positive value.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dutch
He's probably torn the newsgroup archives apart trying to find even a
single instance of Goo "manhandling" anyone.
Find a single example of me ever scouring archives for anything newsgroup
related. You won't because I don't do it. I leave the past be, and so should
you, trying to rewrite it in your favour is weak and cheesy.
dh
>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
>He's probably torn the newsgroup archives apart trying to find even a
>single instance of Goo "manhandling" anyone.
>
>Find a single example of me ever scouring archives for anything newsgroup
>related. You won't because I don't do it.
I believe you did and found nothing to support your lies, of
course because they ARE lies.
>I leave the past be, and so should you,
In contrast to that dishonesty you were encouraging us to
check the archives and read the old posts until you saw what they
really are like and how wrong you are. Now that you know you want
to disagree with yourself and say we should NOT check the
archives. LOL! What a goober you are...
>trying to rewrite it in your favour is weak and cheesy.
Goo's idiotic quotes are what his history IS, you poor
disappointed fool.
dh
He was pretty close from the start, but that may have tipped
him off the edge. He disagreed with himself on so many things,
but maybe he finally realised it....
Mr.Smartypants
Stop and consider the turmoil going on in his tiny brain. Disagreeing
with himselves about so many things is bound to bring about some kind
of mental breakdown.
Then we have Dutch telling us to check the archives. Now he's telling
us "DON'T check the archives!"
'Nother example of the Goo disagreeing with himself again?
I think so.
LOL!!
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:66nvh5tqf6at2spd1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:52:35 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
>>He's probably torn the newsgroup archives apart trying to find even a
>>single instance of Goo "manhandling" anyone.
>>
>>Find a single example of me ever scouring archives for anything newsgroup
>>related. You won't because I don't do it.
>
> I believe you did and found nothing to support your lies, of
> course because they ARE lies.
>
>>I leave the past be, and so should you,
>
> In contrast to that dishonesty
No, YOU are trying to rewrite the past, I encouraged you to stop and move
on.
Dutch
----------->
IF you are going to play in the archives, then do it honestly and
objectively, not in laughable attempts to revise history.
dh
>On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:26:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:52:35 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
>>>He's probably torn the newsgroup archives apart trying to find even a
>>>single instance of Goo "manhandling" anyone.
>>>
>>>Find a single example of me ever scouring archives for anything newsgroup
>>>related. You won't because I don't do it.
>>
>> I believe you did and found nothing to support your lies, of
>>course because they ARE lies.
>>
>>>I leave the past be, and so should you,
>>
>> In contrast to that dishonesty you were encouraging us to
>>check the archives and read the old posts until you saw what they
>>really are like and how wrong you are. Now that you know you want
>>to disagree with yourself and say we should NOT check the
>>archives. LOL! What a goober you are...
>>
>>>trying to rewrite it in your favour is weak and cheesy.
>>
>> Goo's idiotic quotes are what his history IS, you poor
>>disappointed fool.
>
>No
They obviously are, otherwise you would have provided
examples of something else by this time. Duh.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
We've been presenting quotes that are in the archives. YOU on the
other hand have absolutely FAILED to produce a single post or excerpt
of a post that shows Goobs manhandling anyone.
Your defense of the indefensible (Goobs) is so pathetic it's
hilarious.
Mr.Smartypants
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:03:15 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:26:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:52:35 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>He's probably torn the newsgroup archives apart trying to find even a
> >>>single instance of Goo "manhandling" anyone.
>
> >>>Find a single example of me ever scouring archives for anything newsgroup
> >>>related. You won't because I don't do it.
>
> >> I believe you did and found nothing to support your lies, of
> >>course because they ARE lies.
>
> >>>I leave the past be, and so should you,
>
> >> In contrast to that dishonesty you were encouraging us to
> >>check the archives and read the old posts until you saw what they
> >>really are like and how wrong you are. Now that you know you want
> >>to disagree with yourself and say we should NOT check the
> >>archives. LOL! What a goober you are...
>
> >>>trying to rewrite it in your favour is weak and cheesy.
>
> >> Goo's idiotic quotes are what his history IS, you poor
> >>disappointed fool.
>
> >No
>
> They obviously are, otherwise you would have provided
LOL!!
Indeed he would if anything else existed.
Dutch
quotes!!
quotes shmotes, I was there dimwit.