🚀 go-pugleaf

Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined:
> Michael Baldwin, Bruce writes:
>
> > Why do you sneck the next line,
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition, and rather ironic, coming from
> someone who snecked several lines below.

I am well aware of your snecking of the line "Dickless Davie
tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined:" and
alt.usenet.kooks form the crossposted distribution, Dickless. No need
to remind me with another demonstration of your kookdancing.

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

How ironic, Dickless!

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>> "Clasic" repetition, Dickless, as to be expected of someone who evades
> >>> answering questions.
>
> >> Non sequitur.
>
> > Note: still no response.
>
> I'm well aware that you still haven't responded, Bruce.  No need
> to tell me about it.

"Clasic" evasion and note: still no response from Dickless.

> >> Glad you agree, Bruce.
>
> > Yes,
>
> So, what do you intend to do about your projection, Bruce?

I will continue to watch you kookdancing as you continue to evade my
questions, Dickless.

> > the projection was a "lassic" on your part.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and a rather ironic
> projection to boot.

On your part, Dickless.

> > Also "lassic" evasion of my questions.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > No surprise there, really.
>
> That you would make more unsubstantiated and erroneous claims in
> indeed no surprise, Bruce.

How evasive, Dickless! And poorly grammatical to boot!

> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > On your part,
>
> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

On your part, Dickless.

> That you would make more unsubstantiated and erroneous claims in
> indeed no surprise, Bruce.

Ditto!

> > Note: still no response.
>
> I'm well aware that you still haven't responded, Bruce.  No need
> to tell me about it.

Shazam! More "lassic" evasion from Dickless to avoid answering my
question. No surprise there, really.

> >>> Evasion noted,
>
> >> I'm well aware that your failure to answer my questions constitutes
> >> evasion, Bruce.  No need to tell me about it.
>
> > No need to remind me of the stunts you pull to evade my questions,
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition, and a rather ironic case of
> projection.

"Clasic" "pontfication", Dickless. You would know that by now, had you
better logical faculties.

> > I'm well aware of your evasive tactics.
>
> Classic hallucination.

"Clasic" "pontfication", Dickless, and rather ironic coming from a
kookdancer like you who fails to grasp the simplest of concepts.

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

You should know, Dickless, considering how I use your nickname
frequently. Suffering from schizophrenia now, Dickless? Or are you
merely hallucinating again?

> > If you had better reading
> > comprehension skills, you would have noticed the comma by now.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition.

"Clasic" evasion, Dickless. I certainly do not expect you to answer the
questions I put to you, Dickless. Your cowardice is well known. No need
to remind us of it.

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

Good to see you made a rather feeble attempt to correct your bad
grammar, Dickless. Too late, however, as you left the mistakes you made
above uncorrected.

> > "lassic" evasion,
>
> I'm well aware that you still haven't responded, which constitutes
> evasion, Bruce.  No need to tell me about it.

"Clasic" evasion and rather ironic, Dickless, as you feebly attempt to
deflect your evasion  with a pathetic attempt at "pontfication".

> > No surprise there, really, as I am well versed in your evasive tactics,
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition.

On your part, Dickless. You would know I am well versed in your evasive
tactics by now if you had better reading and "comprehenion" skills.

> >> Classic erroneous presupposition of an erroneous presupposition laced
> >> with invective.
>
> > "Clasic" gibberish
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  Still suffering from
> reading comprehension problems, Bruce?

Still suffering from logical sentence structure problems, Dickless? Go
read your previous sentence and prove it is not gibberish.

> > as to be expected from someone who continually
> > evades my questions,
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition, but an interesting case of
> projection.

"Clasic" "pontfication", Dickless, and rather ironic.

> > No surprise there, really.
>
> That you would fail to answer my questions is indeed no surprise,
> Bruce.

What is unsurprising is your continual evasion of my questions,
Dickless.

> > What does that have to do with classical music,
>
> You should know, Bruce, considering how you added the newsgroup to
> the distribution.  Having memory problems, Bruce?

"lassic" evasion, Dickless. Which comes as no surprise, really, since
you continually evade my questions. What have you to fear, Dickless?

> >>> while you continue to evade the questions I put to you.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
> >> from someone who continues to evade the questions put to him.
>
> > I'm well aware that your failure to answer the questions represents
> > classic evasion,
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition, and an interesting case of
> projection to boot.

"Clasic" "pontfication", Dickless. You should know by now that I won't
tollerate your "lassic" evasion, if you had better reading
"comprehenion" skills.

> >>> Who is Bruce,
>
> >> You should know, Bruce, considering how you use the name in your
> >> attribution.  Suffering from schizophrenia now, Bruce?

Classic erroneous presupposition, and an interesting case of projection
to boot, Dickless.

> > "Clasic" evasive tactic,
>
> I'm well aware that you didn't answer the question, Bruce, which
> represents an evasive tactic.  No need to tell me about it.

Another attempted evasion on your part, Dickless. No surprise there,
really.

> > So are you suffering from schizophrenia now,
>
> An illogical question, given that I haven't question my use of my
> name, Bruce, unlike you.

Another evasive resonse, Dickless, and another example of your typical
poor grammar. What does "I haven't question my" mean, Dickless? Note, I
know not to expect a response from Dickless since he continually evades
my questions.

> >>> All the while you evade my questions,
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > On your part,
>
> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

On your part, Dickless. Show me one question you have answered.

> > You are yet to answer any of my questions.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Prove you have answered any of my questions, Dickless, if you think you
can.

> > "lassic" evasion,
>
> I'm well aware that you didn't answer the question, Bruce, which
> represents evasion.  No need to tell me about it.

"Clasic" evasion, Dickless. Which comes as no surprise, really, since
you continually evade my questions.

> >>>>> On your part,
>
> >>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>> On your part,
>
> >> Also non sequitur.
>
> > Also on your part,
>
> Still non sequitur.

Still on your part, Dickless.

> >>> Who is Bruce,
>
> >> You should know, Bruce, considering how you use the name in your
> >> attribution.  Suffering from schizophrenia now, Bruce?
>
> > "Clasic" evasion,
>
> I'm well aware that you didn't answer the question, Bruce, which
> represents evasion.  No need to tell me about it.

Further "lassic" evasion on your part, Dickless. Which comes as no
surprise, really.

> > and another diversionary tactic employed by
> > you to evade answering my question.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition, but an interesting case of
> projection, Bruce.

"Clasic" "pontfication", Dickless, to be expected of someone who
continually evades my questions.

> > No surprise there, really.
>
> What is "ther",

Are you hallucinating again, Dickless?

> Bruce?

Who is "Bruce", Dickless? Having attribution problems again?

> >>> Note, I expect nothing but an evasive response from Dickless.
>
> >> Who is "Dickless", Bruce?  Still hallucinating about such an entity
> >> being involved in this discussion?
>
> > Evasive response noted.
>
> I'm well aware that you didn't answer the question, Bruce, which
> represents evasion.  No need to tell me about it.

What does your question have to do with colored text in DeScribe,
Dickless?

> > Just as I predicted.
>
> Predicting your own behavior isn't much of a prediction, Bruce.

Who is "Bruce", Dickless? Hallucinating again or having attribution
problems?

> >>> What does that have to do with classical music,
>
> >> I see that you didn't answer the question, Bruce.  No surprise
> >> there really.  Having trouble keeping track of the original
> >> newsgroup and the subject line, Bruce?
>
> > "lassic" evasion,
>
> I'm well aware that you didn't answer the question, Bruce, which
> represents evasion.  No need to tell me about it.

What does that have to do with classical music, Dickless?

> > No surprise there, really.
>
> As opposed to "ther", Bruce?

What is "ther", Dickless? Another one of your famous "mispellings", no
doubt.

> > Not that I expect a logical response from
> > you as I know you'll employ you usual evasive tactic of asking who is
> > Dickless rather than answering the question.
>
> Illogical, given that I'm the one who asked the question above, Bruce,
> thus it is you who hasn't answered the question.  Classic projection.

"Clasic" "pontfication", Dickless, and ironic to boot since you once
again evaded answering the question.

> >>> On your part,
>
> >> Non sequitur.
>
> > Shazam!
>
> What does that have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Bruce?

That you would engage in projection is indeed no surprise, Dickless.
Now, what does your evasive projection have to do with classical music,
Dickless?

> >>> If you had better reading comprehension skills,
> >>> you would know that by now.
>
> >> Classic erroneous presupposition, and rather ironic, coming from
> >> someone with ongoing attribution problems.
>
> > I see that you didn't answer the question,
>
> Illogical, given that I'm the one who asked the question above, Bruce,
> thus it is you who hasn't answered the question.  Classic projection.

"Clasic" evasion, Dickless. I am the one asking question. You are the
one evading them. You would know that by now had you better logical
reasoning skills.

> > Having trouble keeping track of my original question,
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who is having trouble keeping
> track of the names of the people involved in this exchange.

On what basis do you make that k'lame, Dickless?

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