Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1131560958.309574.217050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1131557598.581795.299590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/38.htm
First, "homoblade" is not a word,
Wrong, liar.
Not at all.
It is a word.
I coined it.
So it is meaningless, and can be ignored.
It isn't meaningless and you know it isn't.
It is to everyone but you.
You act as if the gay blade is a non-existent descriptor.
It is. Show a reputable, objective cite that defines "gay blade".
Hence, homoblade is valid.
No it is not.
And, since I coined it, I get full credit for the term 'homoblade'.
And everyone else can ignore it.
You ignorant types will ignore it and those who are not ignorant will not
ignore it.
I am far better informed than you are. That is why I will ignore it.
All you are doing is making up words and then expecting others to
accept them even when you do not provide a definition for the word.
Can and will are different.
I know that better than you do.
Your ignorance is shown by your choice to ignore.
My intelligence shows in the fact that it does not exist as a word
except in your mind.
so it cannot be a descriptor of SF.
Wrong, liar.
I am not wrong. The word in not in the dictionary,
There are many terms in there which were not in there prior to publication.
And the words that are defined where they are used, so that people
understand what is meant by the word. You have never provided any
definition that I have seen for the words that you make up.
Lexicographers know these things, while you show me your less than stellar
intelligence level yet again.
I am more of a stellar intelligence than you are.
and thus is a valid
and generally known word. There is no published account of it that I
am away of. There is no definition of it that I am away of. Therefore
nobody else has to recognize the word as being valid.
It does not matter what you think.
It matters just as much what I think as it does what you think.
Probably more, given that I have not shown any signs of delusion,
megalomania, or a desire to control others.
It matters what is perceived.
Then you are in big trouble.
Your logic is laden with fallacy.
That is what you usually call the facts, especially ones that you do
not like, I have noticed. You have yet to show that anything that I
have stated is false.
It isn't my fault that you do not recognize your own faults.
I recognize my faults just fine. However, the faults that you
subscribe to me are almost always lies and delusions of yours, which is
why I do not accept them.
Second, I saw nothing in the voting results that suggests that anyone
in San Francisco like to kill infants at all.
Almost eighty percent voted against parental notification requirements.
That has nothing to do with killing infants. And the number was 52%.
If it was 8%, the measure would have passed overwhelmingly.
Almost eighty (80%) percent in San Francisco.
So I miss read it.
You failed to read the link?
I did read the link.
You confuse the entire State of California and San Francisco, too?
Your link was to the state of California, not to San Francisco. I used
the link that you gave, and that was it.
How many more erroneous statements do you want to make for people to really
know you are ignorant and given to forming erroneous conclusions?
Well, you have made thousands of erroneous statements, and people know
that you are ignorant and prone to form erroneous conclusions. On the
other hand, I am not prone to doing that, and I can usually prove that
my conclusions are not erroneous using citable facts. What's more,
people know that I am not ignorant because I have consistently shown
that I am not. Therefore, it would take a long time for me to make
people think that I am ignorant or that I form erroneous conclusions,
since I am not in the habit of doing either.
Or any one else of any age, for that matter.
Your reading skills are quite unsatisfactory.
It is better than yours are.
Not even close.
Your right, your reading skills are so inferior to mine that they are
not even close to them.
I comprehend what I read, unlike you.
Not so.
Very much so. I have shown that I comprehend what I read better than
you do.
Therefore, your entire subject line is a lie, as usual.
Nope.
I am not a liar.
Yes, you are.
Not so.
My statement is correct and accurate.
All people have to do is read this post and see where you are off and I am
correct.
And they will see that you are a liar.
You do it all the time, especially about me.
I wouldn't call you a liar if I did not detect you lying.
You have called me a liar many times where you have not detected me
lying. In fact, you call me a liar almost every time that I am telling
the truth that you do not want to hear.
That is your area of practice.
Anyone that knows me will laugh in your face about that accusation.
I really think you are deceived by your own mind.
No, that is you. I am not deceived about anything.
Therefore, you just told another lie about me.
Not so.
Yes, you did tell a lie about me. You stated that I was lying, which
is a lie. You stated that I have a habit of lying, which is a lie.
You stated that I am deluded, which is a lie. You just continue to
insist on lying about me.
Try telling the truth, Johnny. It works much better in a debate.
People can read the link and see what they see.
And they see that you are lying.
They won't though.
Yes, they will.
Your lies do nothing to change the situation.
That is because I am telling the truth, not lies.
Wrong, again.
I am right, again.
And I am describing
the situation quite accurately.
Wrong, again.
Yes, I am, again. That is why you cannot prove that anything that I
have said is a lie.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
.
