🚀 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.

> "lassic" evasion and projection on your part,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

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

> No surprise, 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.

>>>>> Dickless.

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

>> Note:  no response.

Note:  still no response.

>>>>> Who is "Bruce",

>>>> Still suffering from schizophrenia, Bruce?

>>> On your part,

>> Non sequitur.

> "Clasic" illogic,

I'm well aware of your use of illogic, 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.

>>>>> Dickless?

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

>>> 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?

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?

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

>>>> Classic erroneous presupposition.

>>> On your part,

>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Note:  no response.

>>> Dickless.

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

Note:  no response.

>>>>>>> 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.

> "Clasic" projection,

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

> Dickless.

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

> I see that you didn't answer the question,

Classic erroneous presupposition of a question.  Still suffering from
reading comprehension problems, Bruce?

> Dickless.

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

> No surprise there, really.

That you're still suffering from reading comprehension problems is
indeed no surprise, Bruce.

>>> Dickless.

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

Note:  no response.

>>> No surprise there, really.

>> That you would make an unsubstantiated and erroneous claim is indeed
>> no surprise, 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?

>> Note:  no response.

Note:  still 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?

> "Clasic" evasion,

I'm well aware that your failure to answer the question constitutes
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?

>>> No surprise there, really.

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

> That's what I'm asking you,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

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

>>>>> Dickless?

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

>> Note:  no response.

Note:  still no response.

>>>>> Still suffering from attribution problems?

>>>> Classic erroneous presupposition.

>>> On your part,

>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Note: no response.

I'm well aware that you didn't respond, Bruce.  No need to tell me.

>>> Dickless.

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

Note:  no response.

>>>>>>> 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?

> 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?

Note:  no response.

>>> Still hallucinating?

>> Classic erroneous presupposition.
  
> 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 another erroneous presupposition is indeed no
>> surprise, 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?

>>>>>>>> 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?

> 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?

> On your part,

Non sequitur.

> Dickless.

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

>>> Still hallucinating?

>> Classic erroneous presupposition.

> 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 another erroneous presupposition is indeed no
>> surprise, 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?

>> Note:  no response.

> Note: no response from Dickless. No surprise there, really.

Classic illogic, given that there is no "Dickless" involved in the
discussion, Bruce.

>>>>>>>> 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?

> 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?

> On your part,

Non sequitur.

> Dickless.

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

>>> Still hallucinating?

>> Classic erroneous presupposition.

> 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 another erroneous presupposition is indeed no
>> surprise, 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?

>> Note:  no response.

> On your part,

Non sequitur.

> Dickless.

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

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

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

>> Note:  no response.

> On your part,

Non sequitur.

> Dickless.

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

>>>>> 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.

> 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?

Note:  no response.

>>>>> Dickless.

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

>> Note:  no response.

Note:  still 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.

> On your part,

Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

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

>>> Dickless.

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

> On your part,

Non sequitur.

> 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.

> On your part,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Dickless.

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

>>> Dickless?

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

> "Clasic" evasion,

I'm well aware that your failure to answer the questions constitutes
evasion, Bruce.  No need to tell me about it.

> Dickless.

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