🚀 go-pugleaf

Queenie wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:21:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
>>>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
>>>>>>>>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
>>>>>>>>>>> with?
>>>>>>>>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
>>>>>>>>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
>>>>>>>>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
>>>>>>>>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
>>>>>>>>>> actually arguing the point?
>>>>>>>>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
>>>>>>>> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
>>>>>>>> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
>>>>>>>> other twit's cat's paw?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
>>>>>>>> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
>>>>>>>> are all style and no substance.
>>>>>>> When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
>>>>>>> syllogism can be inferred.
>>>>>> You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly
>>>>>> avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of
>>>>>> which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue
>>>>>> is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any
>>>>>> of your own thoughts on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike
>>>>>> sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment
>>>>>> into making you work against their interests?  They are
>>>>>> not well served by things that perpetuate their
>>>>>> homelessness, but that's what you're doing.
>>>>> So wh...
>>>> There's the predictable continued evasion.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us your thoughts on homelessness, shithead.  And you can leave out
>>>> where you got them, because no one cares.  Just state your case.  Stop
>>>> with the sophomoric evasiveness.
>>> So, what do you want to
>> Still going with the sophomoric evasiveness.
>>
>> I know that you think you're "winning" some kind of 
>> game here.  You are wrong.
> 
> OMG, you guys are driving me nuts.
> 
> Rudy, Daniel is homeless.  I think his last response was serious.  If
> you're really interested in his "thoughts on homelessness", just ask
> him.  I believe he has a whole website devoted to the issue, by the
> way.
> 
> ~Queenie in Santa Cruz, now returning you to your regular programming.

Queenie, Rudy is a troll. Don't respond to him. We have better things to do.


-- 
Americans for the Separation of Drugs and Alcohol.