Friday, February 25, 2011

Another Victim of the Troof

The world's most famous truther, well after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at least, follows in the footsteps of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, and hits the unemployment line for the "troof". Somehow I don't think this will cut into his supply of hookers and blow though.

CBS has ended production of the hit comedy "Two and a Half Men" for the season, the network said late Thursday.

The move came after star actor Charlie Sheen took to the air waves Thursday to slam show creator Chuck Lorre in a rambling, erratic interview on syndicated radio's "The Alex Jones Show."

"Based on the totality of Charlie Sheen's statements, conduct and condition, CBS and Warner Bros. Television have decided to discontinue production of "Two and a Half Men" for the remainder of the season," CBS Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television said in a statement.

The show had been in hiatus since January when Sheen entered rehab after displaying erratic behavior.

I wonder if he will show up in Oneonta with Jason and Korey now.

Labels:

65 Comments:

At 25 February, 2011 17:51, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"I wonder if he will show up in Oneonta with Jason and Korey now."

Korey apparently has the hook-ups. I feel bad for the rest of the cast though. Pretty decent show, and it gave Jon Cryer a career again. Of course the crazed coke fiend had to go and "blow" it.

 
At 25 February, 2011 18:15, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Actually that may be a pretty good idea for a show. "3 Men & a Basement"?

 
At 25 February, 2011 18:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

"3 Men & a Basement"?

"Voice Morphin Power Rangers"?

 
At 25 February, 2011 18:52, Blogger Ian said...

My favorite part of that "interview" is where Sheen rambles about how Chuck Lorre is using a fake name (of course the sinister Jew wants to hide his Jew-ness from people to rob them).

Yes, Carlos Estevez, um, I mean Charlie Sheen, has a real problem with people in Hollywood trying to hide their ethnic identities.

 
At 25 February, 2011 20:21, Blogger bacci40 said...

so the most famous troofer, is just as much as a nutjob and jew hater as the rest

who woulda guessed that?

 
At 26 February, 2011 10:57, Blogger Pat said...

Listening to that does kind of reveal the downside of being that rich. Instead of having real friends, Sheen has a toady like Alex Jones who sucks up to him all the time and can't or won't tell him, "You need professional help, my friend."

 
At 26 February, 2011 11:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Good point, Pat. Those folks get the idea that money can solve all problems, and they don't realize that it only gives the appearance of solving the problems.

 
At 26 February, 2011 11:34, Blogger Ian said...

Good point, Pat. Those folks get the idea that money can solve all problems, and they don't realize that it only gives the appearance of solving the problems.

Too much money will never be a problem for Brian, given that he's an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.

Ever see the movie "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill"? Brian is like that guy, except that guy isn't a creepy sex stalker and liar who wastes his life babbling about nothing on an obscure blog.

 
At 26 February, 2011 12:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you not only seem to think you're an expert on my net worth, my employment history, and my sex life; you also seem to think they are of general interest.

You live in a fantasy world, and unfortunately that world is as dull, as misinformed, and as lifeless as you are.

 
At 26 February, 2011 12:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you not only seem to think you're an expert on my net worth, my employment history, and my sex life; you also seem to think they are of general interest.

It takes no expertise to know you're an unemployed janitor who stalks Carol Brouillet. It's common knowledge.

You live in a fantasy world, and unfortunately that world is as dull, as misinformed, and as lifeless as you are.

Squeal squeal squeal! Poor Brian, life's hard when you're a failed janitor and normal people laugh at you.

 
At 26 February, 2011 12:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Common knowledge is frequently wrong. The last poll on the matter I heard of showed that 50% of Americans still thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Compulsive liars frequently cite "common knowledge" that just ain't so.

 
At 26 February, 2011 13:17, Blogger Ian said...

Common knowledge is frequently wrong. The last poll on the matter I heard of showed that 50% of Americans still thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

We're not talking about Saddam Hussein. We're talking about the fact that you're a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking other members of the group.

Compulsive liars frequently cite "common knowledge" that just ain't so.

Hmm, I think someone here likes to reference "84%" of something....

Give it up, Brian. Your incompetent janitor mind is in no way capable of handling my brilliant intellect. All the squealing, babbling dumbspam in the world won't change that.

 
At 26 February, 2011 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, Ian, a mainstream poll showed that only 16% of the American people believed that the government was telling the complete truth about 9/11.

For you to cite as "common knowledge" information that is sourced entirely from you and for which you have never provided any evidence is dishonest.

 
At 26 February, 2011 14:07, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, Ian, a mainstream poll showed that only 16% of the American people believed that the government was telling the complete truth about 9/11.

So what?

For you to cite as "common knowledge" information that is sourced entirely from you and for which you have never provided any evidence is dishonest.

It's not sourced from me, Brian. It's sourced from the people in the truth movement who you stalked like Carol Brouillet. All the babbling lies don't change what you are: a failed janitor and sex stalker with no friends, family, or job.

 
At 26 February, 2011 15:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't stalk anybody. Who do you think you are, Agent Reid? You'd better turn in that dissertation, boy, or you're not going to get your degree.

 
At 26 February, 2011 15:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I didn't stalk anybody.

False.

Anyway, now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you plan on presenting evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or are you just going to babble about magic thermite elves again?

 
At 26 February, 2011 16:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've got a better idea. Let's talk about GutterBilge's microsphere theory or the Bentham paper.

Was the 6% microspheres in the JR Lee report by weight as Bilge claims with no justification, or was it by number of particles?

Was it or was it not dishonest of Bilge to use a report that concludes that the spheres were formed in the fires to try to show that they were inherent in the concrete?

Does it make any sense for a supplier to add 10,000 tons of unnecessary weight to the concrete when that material could easily be removed with magnets and sold for up to 8X the price of the fly ash itself?

Do you have any specific criticisms of the thermite paper's methodology, logic, or conclusions?

If they'd asked me, I would have asked for more solvent tests and more electroresistivity tests on a wide variety of paint samples, and a whole set of electronmicrographs on paint samples. This would have helped to clearly distinguish the red/gray chips from paint. I'd also like to see the possibility of the geological origin of the iron rhomboids addressed.

But can you, Ian, explain the tiny aluminum platelets of stereotyped size? Are those a common component of paint? What is the process for making them?
I could imagine that an abrasive process (grinding on an artificial abrasive wheel) followed by a centrifugal sorting process for size might yield such plates of such stereotypical morphology but I'm just speculating. Do you have any information on how the aluminum nano-plates were created?

 
At 26 February, 2011 16:59, Blogger Ian said...

Reds or Brewers, Brian. Who is going to win the NL Central?

 
At 26 February, 2011 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can't address the issues, can you? I never heard of the NL central. Is that a Dutch iceskating race?

 
At 26 February, 2011 19:28, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 February, 2011 21:00, Blogger Ian said...

You can't address the issues, can you?

What issue? We've already addressed the important issue: you are a babbling liar, failed janitor, and sex stalker. No other issues are worth addressing.

With that out of the way, Milwaukee or Cincinnati, Brian, who wins the NL Central?

 
At 26 February, 2011 22:27, Blogger bacci40 said...

how did this thread deteriorate so quickly?

and why should i care if one troofer stalks another?

let them at each other

 
At 27 February, 2011 11:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

It deteriorated because I totally took down GutterBilge's fly ash theory and showed that no one knows enough about Jones's Bentham paper to provide any valid criticisms--and Ian is trying to bury that under dumb-gossip-spam.

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:52, Blogger Ian said...

It deteriorated because I totally took down GutterBilge's fly ash theory and showed that no one knows enough about Jones's Bentham paper to provide any valid criticisms--and Ian is trying to bury that under dumb-gossip-spam.

Brian, you can declare victory all you want, but it still won't ever get the widows questions answered. HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at Ian, imagining sexual solicitations in insults, and chortling about the continued frustration of the victims of 9/11. You making this site look really good, guy. Making America look really good.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:51, Blogger Ian said...

Look at Ian, imagining sexual solicitations in insults, and chortling about the continued frustration of the victims of 9/11. You making this site look really good, guy. Making America look really good.

My, such squealing!

You're so easy to taunt, Brian. If only you had a modicum of intelligence or sanity, you wouldn't be so easy to bait.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...It deteriorated because I totally took down GutterBilge's fly ash theory...[blah][blah][blah]."

You did no such thing. Unless, of course, you consider lying, obfuscation and pseudo-science a valid rebuttal.

You should stick to mopping floors and drinking the contents of used condoms, mangina.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

I totally took down your theory Bill. Please provide a stoichometric analysis that shows that iron must be 30% of the weight of the fly ash for the reaction to go forward. Please provide a source for your claim that the iron is necessary for the reaction to go forward. Please explain why the iron microspheres are not consumed in the reaction, so that 10,000 tons of them remain in the dust after the world trade center comes down.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

You'd better watch that angina talk, Bilge. Very bad luck for someone with your handicaps.

 
At 27 February, 2011 18:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I totally took down your theory Bill."

No you did nothing of the sort.

You made an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. The remainder of your intellectually dishonest argument was a lame attempt to elevate your worthless opinion to the realm of fact.

You really need to expand your intellectual dishonesty skill-set, mangina. Frankly, you're really quite boring and your idiotic arguments are child's play to debunk.

Grade: F-

 
At 27 February, 2011 19:24, Blogger Triterope said...

how did this thread deteriorate so quickly?

They pretty much all do that.

 
At 27 February, 2011 19:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

In what way did I make an argument from ignorance? I don't think you understand these fallacies at all. You clearly haven't got a clue about what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is about.

Please provide a stoichometric analysis that shows that iron must be 30% of the weight of the fly ash for the cement reaction to go forward.

Please provide a source for your claim that the iron is necessary for the reaction to go forward.

Please explain why the iron microspheres are not consumed in the reaction, so that 10,000 tons of them remain in the dust after the world trade center comes down.

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...In what way did I make an argument from ignorance? I don't think you understand these fallacies at all. You clearly haven't got a clue about what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is about."

Repeating the same lies ad nauseum will convince no one, mangina. Furthermore, it's not incumbent on me to prove or disprove your argument. I've already provided the relevant quote from the RJ Lee report that shows they were arguing from the standpoint of weight. And all you supply in reply is your worthless opinion. If you want to argue that the RJ Lee Report is arguing from anything other than weight, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders, not mine.

"...Please provide a stoichometric analysis that shows that iron must be 30% of the weight of the fly ash for the cement reaction to go forward...Please provide a source for your claim that the iron is necessary for the reaction to go forward...Please explain why the iron microspheres are not consumed in the reaction, so that 10,000 tons of them remain in the dust after the world trade center comes down."

I don't need to go to all that trouble to prove you're wrong, mangina. All I need to do is cite Carrol Sanders and Dr. Frank Greening, who, as it turns out, agrees with my theory for the origin of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.

"...And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile." -- Dr Frank Greening

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=70&MMN_position=186:186

Have another bowl of FAIL, mangina.

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...In what way did I make an argument from ignorance? I don't think you understand these fallacies at all. You clearly haven't got a clue about what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is about."

Repeating the same lies ad nauseum will convince no one, mangina. Furthermore, it's not incumbent on me to prove or disprove your argument. I've already provided the relevant quote from the RJ Lee report that shows they were arguing from the standpoint of weight. And all you supply in reply is your worthless opinion. If you want to argue that the RJ Lee Report is arguing from anything other than weight, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders, not mine.

Continued...

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

"...Please provide a stoichometric analysis that shows that iron must be 30% of the weight of the fly ash for the cement reaction to go forward...Please provide a source for your claim that the iron is necessary for the reaction to go forward...Please explain why the iron microspheres are not consumed in the reaction, so that 10,000 tons of them remain in the dust after the world trade center comes down."

I don't need to go to all that trouble to prove you're wrong, mangina. All I need to do is cite Carrol Sanders and Dr. Frank Greening, who, as it turns out, agrees with my theory for the origin of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.

"...And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile." -- Dr Frank Greening

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=70&MMN_position=186:186

Have another bowl of FAIL, mangina.

 
At 27 February, 2011 21:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

It is not repeating a lie to point out that you have failed to show how I was making an argument from ignorance. What I did was point out that you have failed to prove your claim that the RJ Lee report was based on weight.

Also, it appears that you were lying when you claimed that iron was necessary to the cement reaction, because your link did not show that.

You are indulging in a logical fallacy if you are assuming that if some of the spheres are from concrete, then there are no thermitic spheres. In fact you have proved nothing.

 
At 27 February, 2011 22:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...It is not repeating a lie to point out that you have failed to show how I was making an argument from ignorance. What I did was point out that you have failed to prove your claim that the RJ Lee report was based on weight."

I never claimed the report was based on weight. You claimed the report may not be based on weight. Then I provided a direct quote from the RJ Lee Report that mentions to total quantity of debris pulverized by the collapse--1.2 million tons. When I asked you to substantiate your claims as concerns "composition," you changed the subject--which is proof positive that you're lying.

FAIL.

"...Also, it appears that you were lying when you claimed that iron was necessary to the cement reaction, because your link did not show that."

I never gave you a direct link--you liar. I gave you a link to google that produced over 800 links on the subject. So how could I possibly misrepresent the contents of a link I never produced?

Again, you're proven to be an habitual liar.

FAIL.

"...You are indulging in a logical fallacy if you are assuming that if some of the spheres are from concrete, then there are no thermitic spheres. In fact you have proved nothing."

I don't have to prove the presence of "thermitic spheres." Steven Jones has already failed to prove that claim, because the result of his experiments are not reproducible.

FAIL.

 
At 27 February, 2011 23:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you don't claim the report was based on weight, why do you keep multiplying 6% X 180,000 tons?

GutterFail, you cheat like a little girl. An ugly little girl.

You can not produce a link supporting your claim that iron was necessary to the cement reaction. And then you try to make that my fault.

I never said you have to prove the presence of thermitic spheres. Your non sequiturs are quite amusing. I pointed out that your 10,000 tons figure is doubtful, (and partly this is because you acknowledged yourself that the 6% figure was much higher than what USGS found).

How do you know Dr. Jones's experiments are not reproducable?

 
At 28 February, 2011 01:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...If you don't claim the report was based on weight, why do you keep multiplying 6% X 180,000 tons?"

Making up lies again, mangina?

Pathetic.

"...GutterFail, you cheat like a little girl. An ugly little girl."

We know you find girls unattractive, Mangina. That's why you're gay.

Duh!

"...You can not produce a link supporting your claim that iron was necessary to the cement reaction. And then you try to make that my fault."

Oh yes, I can.

"...I never said you have to prove the presence of thermitic spheres."

Is your Altzheimers flaring up again, grandpa?

"...I pointed out that your 10,000 tons figure is doubtful, (and partly this is because you acknowledged yourself that the 6% figure was much higher than what USGS found)."

Wrong again, mangina. Clearly, you can't read. It's not surprising that you're a high school dropout and a complete failure in life who lives with his mother.

"...How do you know Dr. Jones's experiments are not reproducable?"

Playing stupid now, mangina?

Obviously, you're a Alzheimers outpatient.

In the land of the witless, the mangina is king.

 
At 28 February, 2011 11:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, GutterBall, the Emperor of Reality, is now operating by decree!

You won't back up a single one of your claims. You're just trying to spam over the fact that it's been shown that you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 28 February, 2011 14:54, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, have you ever watched "Loose Change: An American Coup" through to the end?

I ask because Willie Rodriguez gets acknowledged in the credits. Do you know who doesn't get acknowledged? You.

More evidence that Rodriguez is a prominent truther in good standing with the movement while Brian is a liar who has been kicked out.

 
At 28 February, 2011 18:17, Blogger bacci40 said...

know what is really funny?

im a techie

i can pretty much tell a customer anything about their computer...and they will believe me

most troofers are the same

they will believe anything from someone with a little bit of knowledge and the ability to toss around technical jargon

doesnt mean squat

 
At 28 February, 2011 23:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I have never watched "Loose Change: An American Coup".

I watched "Loose Change Final Cut" but I fell asleep about half way through.

The Loose Change guys couldn't even figure out that John Schroeder was pulling their leg. Who they acknowledge makes no nevermind for me.

I do a lot of work that doesn't get acknowledged. So what?

 
At 01 March, 2011 04:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I have never watched "Loose Change: An American Coup".

Of course not, after all, you'd never want to see something that shows how much Craig Ranke pwns you.

I do a lot of work that doesn't get acknowledged. So what?

Brian, I don't think endless babbling about magic thermite elves on an obscure blog counts as "work".

 
At 01 March, 2011 08:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You won't back up a single one of your claims. You're just trying to spam over the fact that it's been shown that you don't know what you're talking about."

Projecting, goat molester? Of course you're projecting.

You never proved the "10,000 tons figure is doubtful." All you've done is make an appeal to unknowable statistics, which is intellectually dishonest and designed to end debate (ie., stonewalling).

Resorting to stonewalling tactics does not constitute debate. You repeatedly resort to appeal to permanent unknowability or unknowable statistics, which is a tactic designed to end debate. When asked to substantiate your argument with quotes from the RJ Lee Report, you ignored my requests for the relevant information, which is another tactic designed to cut off further discussion (ie., blatant stonewalling). The reason you ignored my requests is easy to determine. You ignored my requests because you lied about the contents of the RJ Lee Report. In fact, you refused to answer my questions because to do so would instantly nullify your argument.

Thus, you lose the debate because you failed to provide confirming evidence in the face of repeated opportunities to do so--which is intellectually dishonest, and constitutes blatant stonewalling.

Conclusion: Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.

 
At 01 March, 2011 10:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Craig Ranke has never pwned me. In fact he has fled from debate with me five times.

I don't babble about anything magic, Ian. And I don't spend my life at this obscure blog. You don't know what I do.

GutterFail, you have so polluted the issue with your lying, contradictory, evidence-free, and fantasy-based material on microspheres that there's no point in trying to clear the waters you've muddied.

You don't care about truth. All you care about is creating the illusion that you've won--which is easy to do if you're willing to lie persistently enough.

 
At 01 March, 2011 11:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterFail, you have so polluted the issue with your lying, contradictory, evidence-free, and fantasy-based material on microspheres that there's no point in trying to clear the waters you've muddied."

You haven't proven anything, goat molester. Well, you've proven that you're not above stonewalling and changing the subject when you're caught lying.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

I'm waiting, goat molester.

Failure to answer my questions is not debate, it's stonewalling.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

Now, get to work, goat molester, because you're sinking fast.

 
At 01 March, 2011 12:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I'm not out to prove anything, and you're not either.

You're the one making the claims, you're the one who has to prove the point. Your silly questions are a transparent ploy. I'm not the one making claims--you are.

 
At 01 March, 2011 12:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat molester, that's another evasion.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

If you're not lying, then you should have nothing to hide.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 01 March, 2011 13:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, do you have a point other than to spray your foppish malignity on everything?

 
At 01 March, 2011 13:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat molester, that's another evasion.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

If you're not lying, then you should have nothing to hide.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

IF YOU EVADE MY QUESTIONS ONE MORE TIME, YOU AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT THE DEBATE.

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 01 March, 2011 15:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

What makes you think I have something to hide? Did Ian's Uncle Steve tell you I did?

 
At 01 March, 2011 17:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stonewalling is NOT debate--you lying scumbag! Stonewalling will earn you a big, fat "F" in a college debate course.

I gave you at least a DOZEN chances to answer the questions, and you continued to stonewall; thus,

FAIL.

END OF STORY. YOU LOSE.

Now put a fork in it--you no account charlatan.

 
At 01 March, 2011 17:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

What did I lose, Mr. StubbyPudgyFingers?

What do you think of my idea of you doing a Roy Rogers/Gene Autry tribute act? I saw a guy in NYC once wearing a cowboy costume that included a horse--the horse was like a skirt with a horse's head and tail on it. He was hilarious! I bet that with a bit of practice even a no-talent guy like you could pick up some beer money, anyway.

 
At 01 March, 2011 20:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Craig Ranke has never pwned me. In fact he has fled from debate with me five times.

False. He was part of the team of esteemed truthers who exposed you as the fraud and sex stalker you are and had you thrown out of the movement. I'd say that's major league pwnage.

I don't babble about anything magic, Ian. And I don't spend my life at this obscure blog. You don't know what I do.

You stalk Willie Rodriguez, you stalk Carol Brouillet, and you babble about magic thermite elves and invisible widows at this blog. That is your life, Brian. What a pathetic waste.

 
At 02 March, 2011 11:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...What did I lose"

You lose the debate because you don't debate in good faith--you cretin. How many times must I repeat myself--you jackass?

Debate involves answering your opponents questions. You steadfastly refuse to answer my questions, which is STONEWALLING. And stonewalling will get you a big, fat "F" in a debate class. Thus, YOU LOSE because you won't answer legitimate questions.

In debate, the opponent who shuts down the debate--and stonewalling is designed purely to end debate--loses the debate by default.

Perhaps someday you'll get an education, but I rather doubt it. After all, you are--by definition--a horse's ass.

FAIL

 
At 02 March, 2011 11:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I don't debate liars.

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't proven that I'm a liar.

In fact, I've proven that you're a liar who cherry picks data, quote mines source material and won't answer legitimate questions.

Making accusations without the benefit of evidence isn't proof of anything, and the lack of substance you provide betrays your bogus accusations.

FAIL

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you lied in your third post in this thread when you claimed that you had provided a quote that showed RJ Lee was arguing from weight.

 
At 02 March, 2011 13:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you lied in your third post in this thread when you claimed that you had provided a quote that showed RJ Lee was arguing from weight."

You desperation is palpable, goat molester.

Again, you made an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance doesn't invalidate my theory.

Are logical fallacies all you have, goat molester?

Pathetic.

FAIL

 
At 02 March, 2011 13:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, pointing out that your claim that you provided a quote was a lie is not an argument from ignorance.

You are simply trying to spread confusion.

Look Mr. Vienna Sausage Fingers, instead of so desperately trying to cover up the fact that you've been repeatedly shown to be a liar, why don't you just abandon the GuitarBill persona and clean up your act and return in some other guise?

Have you really got so much invested in that persona?

 
At 02 March, 2011 15:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Bill, Brian is a psychopath. Psychopaths are attracted to cons, because they love to fool and manipulate people...Brian doesn't give a shit about 9/11, he is just in it for the con-game. He will never concede that he's wrong because deep down he doesn't care. The con is all he has." -- M Gregory Ferris.

Babble on, psychopath.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 02 March, 2011 17:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I'm not the one who insists on lying about something that there's no reason in the world to lie about.

I think you come here because you think it's one thing in your life you can be right about--allying yourself with the powers that be in battle against people you regard as the stupidest and craziest in the world. And then you find you can't even hold your own against a failed mop jockey without lying a whole lot. How pathetic is that?

 
At 02 March, 2011 19:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You lie about everything, goat molester. After all, you're a psychopath.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 03 March, 2011 10:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, that was unkind of you to call M. Gregory Farris a babbling psychopath. He was trying to be supportive.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home