🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

This is what you appear to be saying:

1.  Anyone who forwards another's posting concurs with its content
2.  dhm forwards other's postings
3.  Therefore, dhm concurs with what is said in the forwarded posting.
4.  Therefore, dhm is clearly unable to articulate independent thoughts
and is a cat's paw, with all style and no substance.

Do you see now where you became a moron?