On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:49:00 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, "L.W.
\(Bill\) ------ III" <----------@***.net> top posting ----wit and
spud peeling netKKKop wrote:

> Us the responsible people that use their real name and address.

I am puzzled by you lack of logic. Do you actually believe the use of
a real name and e-mail address is someone an indicator of being
"responsible"?

I wish to introduce you to Edmond Wollmann, Bruce Dan Kettler,
Raymond Karczewski, Steven R Young, Richard Bullis, Peter Stapleton,
HugH Jeffcoat, Sylvia Sullivan, Gerald C Newton, Charles Cagel, JP
Turcard, Jay Stevens, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, Brad Guth, Andre Liven,
Jayne Kulikauskas and the late Earl Curley. None of which have one
shred of responsibility, posted with their real name and real e-mail
address.

What you were bragging about has just been shown to a be a logical
fallacy. Proud now?



May I add you name to the above list of kooks?

>Apposed to you cowards.

Do you need me to show the fallacy of your claim, one half has
already been shown to be a fallacy, the other half can be discounted
also in the same manner.

I can show there is no logical relationship between those that post
with a real name and e-mail address and the level of personal
responsibility.

Actually you would be my prime and newest example.

> God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Joeseph P. Blow" <jpblow@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f01i9e$mvg$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>
>> Us? You and who, liar.
>> --
>> Just your average Joe

--
Bob Officer
COOSN-266-06-01986
Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005

 

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:49:00 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, "L.W.
\(Bill\) ------ III" <----------@***.net> top posting ----wit and
spud peeling netKKKop wrote:

> Us the responsible people that use their real name and address.

I am puzzled by you lack of logic. Do you actually believe the use of
a real name and e-mail address is someone an indicator of being
"responsible"?

I wish to introduce you to Edmond Wollmann, Bruce Dan Kettler,
Raymond Karczewski, Steven R Young, Richard Bullis, Peter Stapleton,
HugH Jeffcoat, Sylvia Sullivan, Gerald C Newton, Charles Cagel, JP
Turcard, Jay Stevens, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, Brad Guth, Andre Liven,
Jayne Kulikauskas and the late Earl Curley. None of which have one
shred of responsibility, posted with their real name and real e-mail
address.

What you were bragging about has just been shown to a be a logical
fallacy. Proud now?



May I add you name to the above list of kooks?

>Apposed to you cowards.

Do you need me to show the fallacy of your claim, one half has
already been shown to be a fallacy, the other half can be discounted
also in the same manner.

I can show there is no logical relationship between those that post
with a real name and e-mail address and the level of personal
responsibility.

Actually you would be my prime and newest example.

> God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Joeseph P. Blow" <jpblow@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f01i9e$mvg$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>
>> Us? You and who, liar.
>> --
>> Just your average Joe

--
Bob Officer
COOSN-266-06-01986
Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005

 

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:51:40 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, "L.W.
\(Bill\) ------ III" <----------@***.net> net ----wit and netKKKop
wrote:

> Us, you know, Real men that are responsible, meaning they use their real
>name and address, you know, not low life cowards like you.

Logically fallacy in play... you lose ten points. and get reduced
from ----wit to KKKlueless KKKlown

> God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@insurgent.org> wrote in message
>news:f01ilg$ng0$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>
>> Us?
>>
>> <turns up volume for senile old coot>
>>
>> GOT FRESH GOAT TURDS IN YOUR POCKET, ----NUTS?
>>
>> I pity anything that is downwind of a smelly **** bum like you.

--
Bob Officer
COOSN-266-06-01986
Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005

 

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:51:40 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, "L.W.
\(Bill\) ------ III" <----------@***.net> net ----wit and netKKKop
wrote:

> Us, you know, Real men that are responsible, meaning they use their real
>name and address, you know, not low life cowards like you.

Logically fallacy in play... you lose ten points. and get reduced
from ----wit to KKKlueless KKKlown

> God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@insurgent.org> wrote in message
>news:f01ilg$ng0$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>
>> Us?
>>
>> <turns up volume for senile old coot>
>>
>> GOT FRESH GOAT TURDS IN YOUR POCKET, ----NUTS?
>>
>> I pity anything that is downwind of a smelly **** bum like you.

--
Bob Officer
COOSN-266-06-01986
Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005

 

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:51:40 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, "L.W.
\(Bill\) ------ III" <----------@***.net> net ----wit and netKKKop
wrote:

> Us, you know, Real men that are responsible, meaning they use their real
>name and address, you know, not low life cowards like you.

Logically fallacy in play... you lose ten points. and get reduced
from ----wit to KKKlueless KKKlown

> God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@insurgent.org> wrote in message
>news:f01ilg$ng0$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>
>> Us?
>>
>> <turns up volume for senile old coot>
>>
>> GOT FRESH GOAT TURDS IN YOUR POCKET, ----NUTS?
>>
>> I pity anything that is downwind of a smelly **** bum like you.

--
Bob Officer
COOSN-266-06-01986
Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005

 

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:51:40 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, "L.W.
\(Bill\) ------ III" <----------@***.net> net ----wit and netKKKop
wrote:

> Us, you know, Real men that are responsible, meaning they use their real
>name and address, you know, not low life cowards like you.

Logically fallacy in play... you lose ten points. and get reduced
from ----wit to KKKlueless KKKlown

> God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@insurgent.org> wrote in message
>news:f01ilg$ng0$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>
>> Us?
>>
>> <turns up volume for senile old coot>
>>
>> GOT FRESH GOAT TURDS IN YOUR POCKET, ----NUTS?
>>
>> I pity anything that is downwind of a smelly **** bum like you.

--
Bob Officer
COOSN-266-06-01986
Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005

 

The definition of Responsible, which you have failed:

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Anglo-French responsable, from respuns
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to
account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for
the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were
responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault
to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b :
able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible
financial policies> <a responsible job>
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the
electorate if defeated by the legislature -- used especially of the British
cabinet


--
God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/


"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:8nl823plpn7vppgehfnlk1drd0vd2lov7s@4ax.com
>
> I am puzzled by you lack of logic. Do you actually believe the use of
> a real name and e-mail address is someone an indicator of being
> "responsible"?
>
> I wish to introduce you to Edmond Wollmann, Bruce Dan Kettler,
> Raymond Karczewski, Steven R Young, Richard Bullis, Peter Stapleton,
> HugH Jeffcoat, Sylvia Sullivan, Gerald C Newton, Charles Cagel, JP
> Turcard, Jay Stevens, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, Brad Guth, Andre Liven,
> Jayne Kulikauskas and the late Earl Curley. None of which have one
> shred of responsibility, posted with their real name and real e-mail
> address.
>
> What you were bragging about has just been shown to a be a logical
> fallacy. Proud now?
>
>
>
> May I add you name to the above list of kooks?
>
> Do you need me to show the fallacy of your claim, one half has
> already been shown to be a fallacy, the other half can be discounted
> also in the same manner.
>
> I can show there is no logical relationship between those that post
> with a real name and e-mail address and the level of personal
> responsibility.
>
> Actually you would be my prime and newest example.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

The definition of Responsible, which you have failed:

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Anglo-French responsable, from respuns
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to
account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for
the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were
responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault
to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b :
able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible
financial policies> <a responsible job>
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the
electorate if defeated by the legislature -- used especially of the British
cabinet


--
God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/


"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:8nl823plpn7vppgehfnlk1drd0vd2lov7s@4ax.com
>
> I am puzzled by you lack of logic. Do you actually believe the use of
> a real name and e-mail address is someone an indicator of being
> "responsible"?
>
> I wish to introduce you to Edmond Wollmann, Bruce Dan Kettler,
> Raymond Karczewski, Steven R Young, Richard Bullis, Peter Stapleton,
> HugH Jeffcoat, Sylvia Sullivan, Gerald C Newton, Charles Cagel, JP
> Turcard, Jay Stevens, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, Brad Guth, Andre Liven,
> Jayne Kulikauskas and the late Earl Curley. None of which have one
> shred of responsibility, posted with their real name and real e-mail
> address.
>
> What you were bragging about has just been shown to a be a logical
> fallacy. Proud now?
>
>
>
> May I add you name to the above list of kooks?
>
> Do you need me to show the fallacy of your claim, one half has
> already been shown to be a fallacy, the other half can be discounted
> also in the same manner.
>
> I can show there is no logical relationship between those that post
> with a real name and e-mail address and the level of personal
> responsibility.
>
> Actually you would be my prime and newest example.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

The definition of Responsible, which you have failed:

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Anglo-French responsable, from respuns
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to
account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for
the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were
responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault
to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b :
able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible
financial policies> <a responsible job>
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the
electorate if defeated by the legislature -- used especially of the British
cabinet


--
God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/


"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:8nl823plpn7vppgehfnlk1drd0vd2lov7s@4ax.com
>
> I am puzzled by you lack of logic. Do you actually believe the use of
> a real name and e-mail address is someone an indicator of being
> "responsible"?
>
> I wish to introduce you to Edmond Wollmann, Bruce Dan Kettler,
> Raymond Karczewski, Steven R Young, Richard Bullis, Peter Stapleton,
> HugH Jeffcoat, Sylvia Sullivan, Gerald C Newton, Charles Cagel, JP
> Turcard, Jay Stevens, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, Brad Guth, Andre Liven,
> Jayne Kulikauskas and the late Earl Curley. None of which have one
> shred of responsibility, posted with their real name and real e-mail
> address.
>
> What you were bragging about has just been shown to a be a logical
> fallacy. Proud now?
>
>
>
> May I add you name to the above list of kooks?
>
> Do you need me to show the fallacy of your claim, one half has
> already been shown to be a fallacy, the other half can be discounted
> also in the same manner.
>
> I can show there is no logical relationship between those that post
> with a real name and e-mail address and the level of personal
> responsibility.
>
> Actually you would be my prime and newest example.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

The definition of Responsible, which you have failed:

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Anglo-French responsable, from respuns
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to
account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for
the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were
responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault
to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b :
able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible
financial policies> <a responsible job>
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the
electorate if defeated by the legislature -- used especially of the British
cabinet


--
God Bless America, Bill 0|||||||0
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/


"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:8nl823plpn7vppgehfnlk1drd0vd2lov7s@4ax.com
>
> I am puzzled by you lack of logic. Do you actually believe the use of
> a real name and e-mail address is someone an indicator of being
> "responsible"?
>
> I wish to introduce you to Edmond Wollmann, Bruce Dan Kettler,
> Raymond Karczewski, Steven R Young, Richard Bullis, Peter Stapleton,
> HugH Jeffcoat, Sylvia Sullivan, Gerald C Newton, Charles Cagel, JP
> Turcard, Jay Stevens, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, Brad Guth, Andre Liven,
> Jayne Kulikauskas and the late Earl Curley. None of which have one
> shred of responsibility, posted with their real name and real e-mail
> address.
>
> What you were bragging about has just been shown to a be a logical
> fallacy. Proud now?
>
>
>
> May I add you name to the above list of kooks?
>
> Do you need me to show the fallacy of your claim, one half has
> already been shown to be a fallacy, the other half can be discounted
> also in the same manner.
>
> I can show there is no logical relationship between those that post
> with a real name and e-mail address and the level of personal
> responsibility.
>
> Actually you would be my prime and newest example.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com