🚀 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've been asking the sophomoric and evasive little shit, but he thinks
it cute to keep playing his silly evasion game.  He isn't really a
serious person.

> I believe he has a whole website devoted to the issue, by the
> way.

It hasn't been linked in any of his posts.  The only links were to some
other mental defective named "Tim", for whom danny apparently is
content to be a cat's paw.