Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel
To His Magnificent Dumbness, duh-Scottie of San Diego: Arnii Krooborg has proven himself the worst excuse for a self-described "christian" in the history of Usenet. Of course, we all know the filthy Beast is off his rails, as in not all there, looney-tunes, bazonkers, etc. By contrast, you appear to be sane, albeit a bit slow. I would like to ask you, as a lifelong and devout Lutheran, why you condone Bratzi's racist rants. By way of explaining your responsibility to deliver a rationalization for your approval of RAO's little Nazi bedbug, I point out that you have adopted the Krooborg's "debating trade" religion. Therefore we Smart Guys demand that you conform to the least possible level of integrity in the performance of the "debating trade". That means that you, like your hideous, misbegotten idol Arnii Kroofeces, are required to utter frequent denunciations of every opinion and every post of which you disapprove. Lacking such overt denunciations, your allegiance to the "debating trade" indicates your acceptance of such posts. You've never been shy about tattling on me or Shhhh to Mistress Jenn. Nor have you been reticent about launching volley after volley of impotent puff-ball insults at John Atkinson, whose only crime, by the 'evidence' you've cited, is drawing breath. Since you are not obviously insane, you bear the obligation to denounce racism and other bigotry, else otherwise your fealty to those antihuman values be presumed as dominant. Get on the stick, you filthy mutt! |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel
On 24 Noi, 17:35, George M. Middius wrote:
To His Magnificent Dumbness, duh-Scottie of San Diego: Arnii Krooborg has proven himself the worst excuse for a self-described "christian" in the history of Usenet. Of course, we all know the filthy Beast is off his rails, as in not all there, looney-tunes, bazonkers, etc. By contrast, you appear to be sane, albeit a bit slow. I would like to ask you, as a lifelong and devout Lutheran, why you condone Bratzi's racist rants. By way of explaining your responsibility to deliver a rationalization for your approval of RAO's little Nazi bedbug, I point out that you have adopted the Krooborg's "debating trade" religion. Therefore we Smart Guys demand that you conform to the least possible level of integrity in the performance of the "debating trade". That means that you, like your hideous, misbegotten idol Arnii Kroofeces, are required to utter frequent denunciations of every opinion and every post of which you disapprove. Lacking such overt denunciations, your allegiance to the "debating trade" indicates your acceptance of such posts. You've never been shy about tattling on me or Shhhh to Mistress Jenn. Nor have you been reticent about launching volley after volley of impotent puff-ball insults at John Atkinson, whose only crime, by the 'evidence' you've cited, is drawing breath. Since you are not obviously insane, you bear the obligation to denounce racism and other bigotry, else otherwise your fealty to those antihuman values be presumed as dominant. Get on the stick, you filthy mutt! LOL!!! That wasn't a question, that was a speech |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel
Clyde Slick said: To His Magnificent Dumbness, duh-Scottie of San Diego: Arnii Krooborg has proven himself the worst excuse for a self-described "christian" in the history of Usenet. Of course, we all know the filthy Beast is off his rails, as in not all there, looney-tunes, bazonkers, etc. By contrast, you appear to be sane, albeit a bit slow. I would like to ask you, as a lifelong and devout Lutheran, why you condone Bratzi's racist rants. By way of explaining your responsibility to deliver a rationalization for your approval of RAO's little Nazi bedbug, I point out that you have adopted the Krooborg's "debating trade" religion. Therefore we Smart Guys demand that you conform to the least possible level of integrity in the performance of the "debating trade". That means that you, like your hideous, misbegotten idol Arnii Kroofeces, are required to utter frequent denunciations of every opinion and every post of which you disapprove. Lacking such overt denunciations, your allegiance to the "debating trade" indicates your acceptance of such posts. You've never been shy about tattling on me or Shhhh to Mistress Jenn. Nor have you been reticent about launching volley after volley of impotent puff-ball insults at John Atkinson, whose only crime, by the 'evidence' you've cited, is drawing breath. Since you are not obviously insane, you bear the obligation to denounce racism and other bigotry, else otherwise your fealty to those antihuman values be presumed as dominant. Get on the stick, you filthy mutt! LOL!!! That wasn't a question, that was a speech I believe in establishing a deep and detailed context for my probing questions. There is a question inside that peroration, you know. Also, your goofy "LOL!!!" suggests you're envious of Yapper's status as an acolyte in the "debating trade". You might want to tune your laughter reflex a bit. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel
On 24 Noi, 19:53, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said: To His Magnificent Dumbness, duh-Scottie of San Diego: Arnii Krooborg has proven himself the worst excuse for a self-described "christian" in the history of Usenet. Of course, we all know the filthy Beast is off his rails, as in not all there, looney-tunes, bazonkers, etc. By contrast, you appear to be sane, albeit a bit slow. I would like to ask you, as a lifelong and devout Lutheran, why you condone Bratzi's racist rants. By way of explaining your responsibility to deliver a rationalization for your approval of RAO's little Nazi bedbug, I point out that you have adopted the Krooborg's "debating trade" religion. Therefore we Smart Guys demand that you conform to the least possible level of integrity in the performance of the "debating trade". That means that you, like your hideous, misbegotten idol Arnii Kroofeces, are required to utter frequent denunciations of every opinion and every post of which you disapprove. Lacking such overt denunciations, your allegiance to the "debating trade" indicates your acceptance of such posts. You've never been shy about tattling on me or Shhhh to Mistress Jenn. Nor have you been reticent about launching volley after volley of impotent puff-ball insults at John Atkinson, whose only crime, by the 'evidence' you've cited, is drawing breath. Since you are not obviously insane, you bear the obligation to denounce racism and other bigotry, else otherwise your fealty to those antihuman values be presumed as dominant. Get on the stick, you filthy mutt! LOL!!! That wasn't a question, that was a speech I believe in establishing a deep and detailed context for my probing questions. There is a question inside that peroration, you know. Your question had more on it than a loded baked potato. http://baltimore.metromix.com/restau...708649/content |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel
Clyde Slick said: I believe in establishing a deep and detailed context for my probing questions. There is a question inside that peroration, you know. Your question had more on it than a loded[sic] baked potato. Watch those carbs, Tubby. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel | Audio Opinions | |||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel | Audio Opinions | |||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel | Audio Opinions | |||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel | Audio Opinions | |||
Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel | Audio Opinions |