🚀 go-pugleaf

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.