🚀 go-pugleaf

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 know about homelessness?