Reply With Quote
I see Fuzzy has now found his little nut sack and is both asking and answering questions. Lets try this again.
I see no reason to answer your questions since you never answer any.
I see Fuzzy has now found his little nut sack and is both asking and answering questions. Lets try this again.
You know with all of your semantic dissembling that this statement is not true. I would also posit that you are both a coward and a liar.
I am not the one running from the truth and launching ad homs to cover my escape.
We both know that you do not want to answer the question about whether or not you support policies that 'weed out' --your word choice-- undesirable traits as well as the question about whether or not you found that there was a genetic basis for race.
We also know that you have complained about asking questions such as these are just an attempt to vilify.
We also both know which answer for each yes or no question would be found socially undesirable by most and thus defame you.
We also know that a refusal to answer the question would be interpreted by many as an avoidance of the socially undesirable answer.
We also know that an direct affirmative answer of the question would be interpreted by most everyone as socially undesirable.
We also know that a negative answer of the questions would be interpreted by most as socially desirable.
Thus I find no difficulty in concluding that your refusal to answer the question is because you would prefer that some people find you socially undesirable rather than the significant majority of people.
This argument I make here is for the sake of everyone else. I am not going to run around in circles because of your cowardly dissembling. Characterize this all you like as you do in the above. On this I rest my case.
We also know you are a liar and a coward.
So does anyone else have a question for me?
What should my next firearm purchase be?
something with balls
You are asking me if I support eugenics. The "weed out" statement is in reference to eugenics, which you improperly classified my statement as, and which I pointed out to you and you avoided conceding that point, opting instead to launch into a series of diversionary questions about my personal beliefs.
You use the term "eugenics" several times in describing the data I showed you. I showed you how you were wrong. You played the Hitler card. That's a clear attempt to vilify. That's done by people who are cornered and need to throw in the towel.We also know that you have complained about asking questions such as these are just an attempt to vilify.
You think this is a popularity contest. I am showing you scientific data, correlating data that wasn't compiled to make such connections, and you only consider your forum rep as if anyone here really gives two s about you.We also both know which answer for each yes or no question would be found socially undesirable by most and thus defame you.
I have a monkey dribbling a basketball in my avatar. Do you think I am concerned about "socially undesirable behavior"?We also know that a refusal to answer the question would be interpreted by many as an avoidance of the socially undesirable answer.
That's your concern, not mine.We also know that an direct affirmative answer of the question would be interpreted by most everyone as socially undesirable.
Again.We also know that a negative answer of the questions would be interpreted by most as socially desirable.
No, I didn't answer your questions because you don't merit a legit response. That's the option you're too stupid to get.Thus I find no difficulty in concluding that your refusal to answer the question is because you would prefer that some people find you socially undesirable rather than the significant majority of people.
You're such a martyr, defender of the morality, the good, against the tyranny of evil men like me. The Hitlers of the world.This argument I make here is for the sake of everyone else. I am not going to run around in circles because of your cowardly dissembling. Characterize this all you like as you do in the above. On this I rest my case.
Once again, you claim victory and that you're done. You aren't done. You've been embarrassed and you want some sort of a revenge feeling. You didn't address a single point I made, not one.
You're basically a low rent cubicle dweller, more concerned over your e-cred than in having a real adult conversation.
Something not so aggressively gay.
Any suggestions?
What do you like to shoot? Buy something you will actually shoot. I have a 17 HMR that's a blast to shoot. Ammo isn't cheap like the .22 but it's a fun round and you can shoot long distance (killed a hog at 180 yards).
Is that round basically a necked down .223? I've seen the rounds just never the firearms that use them. I definitely am interested. Any makes or models you can recommend? No evil features please, don't want to scare the Fuzzys of the world.
Pretty much. The axial alignment takes a few minutes, and the teaching, longer.
Do you ever make legit posts?
You are like a 50 year old cheerleader mom
NBC admits no AR15 used at Sandy Hook
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208224
Fuzzy will you answer different questions other than the ones I asked you in the OP?
I'd say 90% legit 10% frivolous.
The drudge report is your go to for news.
Most journalists check the drudge too.
As you can see I was asking if it was a dupe. I'm out of the Sandy Hook loop. Now that I see I'm not on your ignore list will you answer other questions besides the ones you refused to answer in the OP? I like debating with you.
Nah, it's a necked down 22 mag.
I shoot a Ruger 77/17 with some "evil" in it. I have the barrel cut down and threaded for a suppressor.
sup snc. you have a question for me?
I see how it is. What a you are. So be it.
I already asked it and got no response from you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
