🚀 go-pugleaf

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.