🚀 go-pugleaf

Double-A <double-aa@hush.ai> wrote:

>honestjohn wrote:
>> "Double-A" <double-aa@hush.ai> wrote in message
>> news:1156947206.158886.110470@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > mbbr@mighty.co.za wrote:
>> > > Kookdancing queen, Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the "irrelevaant"
>> > > Ignoranus whined and tholed like the antagonistic arsehole that he is:
>> > > > Greg Hennessy writes:
>> > > >
>> > > > >>>>>> Astronomers don't need a definition for "planet", and IMO
>> creating one
>> > > > >>>>>> was a big mistake.
>> > > >
>> > > > >>>>> How else are astronomers supposed to answer the question "how
>> many
>> > > > >>>>> planets are there in the solar system?" if we don't have a
>> definition
>> > > > >>>>> of what a planet is?
>> > > >
>> > > > >>>> That question comes from the public, not from astronomers.
>> > > >
>> > > > >>> You erroneously presuppose the question comes from the public, not
>> > > > >>> astronomers.
>> > > >
>> > > > >> Not at all.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Yes at all. The question came from me, and I am an astronomer, so
>> you
>> > > > > were erroneous in your presupposition that the question comes from
>> the
>> > > > > public.
>> > > >
>> > > > You're the first astronomer I've encountered who can't answer the
>> > > > question.
>> > >
>> > > Unlike your "lassic" evasions, eh, Dickless? A0L!!!
>> > >
>> > > > Too bad you're not in a position to answer that question
>> > > > when the public asks it.
>> > >
>> > > Unlike you, eh, Dickless? You're noted for answering all the questions
>> > > put to you.
>> > >
>> > > > >>> It is oxymoronic to assert that a definition isn't needed and that
>> > > > >>> questions can be answered by using a definition.
>> > > >
>> > > > >> Irrelevant, given that no such assertion has been made.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Incorrrect.
>> > > >
>> > > > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> > >
>> > > On your part, Dickless.
>> > >
>> > > > > Check the text quoted above.
>> > > >
>> > > > Indeed, do so.  Nowhere does it say that a definition isn't needed.
>> > >
>> > > So you k'lame, Dickless.
>> > >
>> > > > > The assertion that a definition is not need has indeed been made.
>> > > >
>> > > > Incorrect.
>> > >
>> > > "Irrelevaant".
>> > >
>> > > > > I don't know why you make such easily disproved claim.
>> > > >
>> > > > You're erroneously presupposing that the claim can be easily
>> disproved.
>> > >
>> > > On your part, Dickless. Also non sequitur and rather ironic.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why don't you find someone to pick on who is more at your own
>> > intellecual level, Bruce, another kindergarten drop out like yourself?
>> >
>> >
>> > Double-A
>> >
>> Like Art "the fart" Deco?
>>
>> C.H.J.
>
>
>Those two were the perfect couple until AUK's official shunning of
>Bruce doomed their relationship.

Poor baby, so oppressed you are.
>
>Double-A
>

-- 
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
  as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus?  Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
  -- Dr. David Tholen