🚀 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.

> 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 reading "comprehenion" problems?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

>>> 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.

> 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.

>>> 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?

> 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?

> Dickless.

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

>>>> 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?

> 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?

> 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?

> Dickless.

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

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

Classic illogic, coupled with an unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.