🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Baldwin, Bruce writes:

>>>>> Bruce AKA the alleged jmalloy wrote:

>>>>>> Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:

>>>>>>> Dickless Davie tholoon@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined and
>>>>>>> tholed:

>>>>>>>> The ones you removed from your follow-up, Bruce.  Classic evasion.

>>>>>>> "Clasic" lie, Dickless. No lines or words were removed by me in my
>>>>>>> follow-up. You would know that by now, had you better reading
>>>>>>> "comprehenion" skills, Dickless.

>>>>>> This oar pin has a "lassic" inferiority complex, Bruce, he's posted at
>>>>>> least 22 "responses" to cooa in the last 16 hours and he's probably not
>>>>>> done yet. Yikes!  He's got it bad...

>>>>> I know, Bruce.

>>>> Why are you addressing Joe Malloy as "Bruce", Bruce?  Still suffering
>>>> from attribution problems?

>>> Your cluelessness and stupidity noted,

>> Classic projection.  I see that you didn't answer the question, Bruce.
>> No surprise there, really.

> "Clasic" projection and evasion,

I'm well aware of your projection and evasion, Bruce.  No need to tell
me about it.

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

>>> Dickless.

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

Note:  no response.

>>> Who is "Bruce",

>> Still suffering from schizophrenia, Bruce?

> On your part,

Non sequitur.

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

>>> Dickless?

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> Who is "Bruce",

Still suffering from schizophrenia, Bruce?

> Dickless?

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> Still suffering from attribution problems?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

>>> Still suffering from reading "comprehenion" problems?

>> Classic erroneous presupposition.

> On your part,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

>>>>> No need to remind me of Dickless' "clasic" inferiority
>>>>> complex.

>>>> There is no "Dickless" involved in the discussion, Bruce.

>>> Your cluelessness and stupidity noted once again,

>> Classic projection.  I see that you didn't answer the question, Bruce.
>> No surprise there, really.

> "Clasic" stupidity on your part,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> No surprise there, really.

That you would make an unsubstantiated and erroneous claim is indeed
no surprise, Bruce.

>>> Dickless.

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

Note:  no response.

>>> Who is "Bruce",

>> Still suffering from schizophrenia, Bruce?

> "Clasic" repetition of "lassic" stupidity,

Is that how you choose to describe your question about the name you've
been using, Bruce?

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> No surprise there, really.

What does your lack of surprise have to do with colored text in
DeScribe, Bruce?

>>> Dickless?

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

Note:  no response.

>>> Still suffering from attribution problems?

>> Classic erroneous presupposition.

> On your part,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

>>>>> He's insanely jealous of us because, like his siblings, we're
>>>>> all better than him.

>>>> There is no "Dickless" involved in the discussion, Bruce.

>>> "Clasic" hallucination,

>> Is that your explanation for your use of a name for a person not
>> involved in the discussion, Bruce?

> Who would that be,

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Bruce?

> Dickless?

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> Still hallucinating?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

> No surprise there, really.

That you would make another erroneous presupposition is indeed no
surprise, Bruce.

>>> Dickless.

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

>>>>>> Still, it doesn't match his record which is about 125 postings in 24
>>>>>> hours.  Gosh, you'd think an astrologer would have more to do than he does.

>>>>> He obviously doesn't work out his ephemerides with a pencil, Bruce,
>>>>> like every good astrologer should.

>>>> There is no "Dickless" involved in the discussion, Bruce.

>>> "Clasic" stupidity,

>> Is that your explanation for your use of a name for a person not
>> involved in the discussion, Bruce?

> Who would that be,

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Bruce?

> Dickless?

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> Still hallucinating?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

> No surprise there, really.

That you would make another erroneous presupposition is indeed no
surprise, Bruce.

>>> Dickless.

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

Note:  no response.

>>>>>> Hey, Dickless, here's a simple task: Get your favorite word processor to
>>>>>> print a sentence in which each letter is in a different color.  Ha!

>>>>> He'd sooner do it in FORTRAN, Bruce - once he gets his FORTRAN code
>>>>> fixed.

>>>> There is no "Dickless" involved in the discussion, Bruce.

>>> "Clasic" hallucination,

>> Is that your explanation for your use of a name for a person not
>> involved in the discussion, Bruce?

> Who would that be,

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Bruce?

> Dickless?

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> Still hallucinating?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

> No surprise there, really.

That you would make another erroneous presupposition is indeed no
surprise, Bruce.

>>> Dickless.

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

Note:  no response.

>>> If you had better reading
>>> "comprehenion" and logic skills, Dickless,

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

Note:  no response.

>>> you would realise by now
>>> that you are responding to us when we call you Dickless,

>> Who are "us" and "we", Bruce?  Still suffering from schizophrenia?

> Lack of a clue on your part noted,

I see that you didn't answer the questions, Bruce.  No surprise there
really.  Rather ironic that you would demonstrate the lack of a clue.

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

>>> Dickless.

>> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

Note:  no response.

>>> Therefore, this implies tacit admission that you acknowledge your
>>> nickname.

>> Classic illogic, coupled with an unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> On your part,

Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?

> Now, what does your ongoing antagonism have to do with coloured text in
> DeScribe,

Classic erroneous presupposition.

> Dickless?

Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still suffering from attribution problems?