| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2006 11:21:47 AM |
| Object: |
Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
To expose such young, impressionable children to such degenerate "art" is
reasonable enough cause to fire this woman. There is much decency in the art
world; it is not necessary to subject these students to pornographic
figures.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y267153ED
FRISCO, Tex., Sept. 28 - "Keep the 'Art' in 'Smart' and 'Heart,' " Sydney
McGee had posted on her Web site at Wilma Fisher Elementary School in this
moneyed boomtown that is gobbling up the farm fields north of Dallas.
But Ms. McGee, 51, a popular art teacher with 28 years in the classroom, is
out of a job after leading her fifth-grade classes last April through the
Dallas Museum of Art. One of her students saw nude art in the museum, and
after the child's parent complained, the teacher was suspended.
Although the tour had been approved by the principal, and the 89 students
were accompanied by 4 other teachers, at least 12 parents and a museum
docent, Ms. McGee said, she was called to the principal the next day and
"bashed."
She later received a memorandum in which the principal, Nancy Lawson, wrote:
"During a study trip that you planned for fifth graders, students were
exposed to nude statues and other nude art representations." It cited
additional complaints, which Ms. McGee has challenged.
The school board suspended her with pay on Sept. 22.
In a newsletter e-mailed to parents this week, the principal and Rick Reedy,
superintendent of the Frisco Independent School District, said that Ms.
McGee had been denied transfer to another school in the district, that her
annual contract would not be renewed and that a replacement had been
interviewed.
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 04:24:00 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:RmGVg.34922$tT6.6235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Hey, *****.
I am not a child molester.
You abortionistic god damned fool of hell.
I haev no proiblem casting every person who is so gad damnably unust and
wicked as you into the fiery pits of hell.
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
Well, that was embarassing.
As much as I detest these crazy fundies, I still feel a little uncomfortable
watching them drive themselves into a mental breakdown like this.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Faith doesn't move mountains - it levels buildings."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 12:24:24 PM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
As much as I detest these crazy fundies, I still feel a little uncomfortable
watching them drive themselves into a mental breakdown like this.
I rather enjoy it, but I'm going to hell anyway...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:02:32 AM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg09mdgs5i5s70@chris...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:08:47 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg0lm1ow5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:07:00 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tgxlgyc55i5s70@chris...
People don't prove negatives.
Still presenting that lie?
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile,
I know it is worthwhile.
You are a moron.
You're damned, ***** ant.
I am at least two orders of magnitude smarter than you.
then please prove to me that you did _not_ rape a dozen pre-pubescent
girls when you were 18 years old.
I do not need to prove that to you.
Oh, well, if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it is AUTOMATICALLY
TRUE!
Bullahit, idiot.
Your logic, not mine, you sick, dirty serial rapist kiddyfucker.
Nah, you god damned fool.
It is your task to prove that I did as you mentioned to satisfy the
requirements of proof.
So now you're backpedaling and saying that I have to prove what _is_
instead of you proving what _isn't_.
I am NOT backpedaling even one iota, you god damned underling of proof.
You are not even in kindergarten compared to me when it comes to proof.
You just made my point for me. Thanks.
Nah, idiot.
You are still wallowing in the pig sty of idiocy.
If you cannot prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is only
sensible to deem you a serial rapist, by your own logic.
Nah.
Yup. Telling others they have to prove a negative while you refuse to
subject yourself to the exact same logic just makes it ever clearer how
completely full of ***** you are.
Not so, you underling fool.
While you resist, you are in error.
See how ridiculous the idea of proving a negative is?
It isn't ridiculous.
If you say so, child molestor. *snickers*
Hey, *****.
I am not a child molester.
Your medical records could prove or disprove that. Where are they?
You abortionistic god damned fool of hell.
I haev no proiblem casting every person who is so gad damnably unust and
wicked as you into the fiery pits of hell.
Are you claiming to be god again? Take your meds, fer cryin out loud.
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 3
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0402042145.2faac5c9@posting.google.com
you're a *****
1414fd53.0301242012.7786001e@posting.google.com
*I* said you were a *****, and you are
1414fd53.0201151612.5d801f91@posting.google.com
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:08:01 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbadnV5v-eqEqLrYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Are you claiming to be god again? Take your meds, fer cryin out loud.
How about realizing for the first time that you haev no place to advise me,
and that you are not my physician.
When will you god DAMNED fools realize that you haev no authority to issue
medical advice?
DAMN!
I hate you god daned conglomerate pharmaceutical drug-pushing criminal
uncaring idiotic assoles who think they are physicians when they aren't
licensed to practice medicine.
I hate it so much I hope you die tonight as well as every other GOD DAMNED
PIECE OF ***** ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FALSE AUTHORITY IN THE USA.
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 3
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0402042145.2faac5c9@posting.google.com
you're a *****
1414fd53.0301242012.7786001e@posting.google.com
*I* said you were a *****, and you are
1414fd53.0201151612.5d801f91@posting.google.com
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:08:13 PM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbadnV5v-eqEqLrYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Are you claiming to be god again? Take your meds, fer cryin out loud.
How about realizing for the first time that you haev no place to advise me,
and that you are not my physician.
Meltdown in 5...4...3...2...
When will you god DAMNED fools realize that you haev no authority to issue
medical advice?
DAMN!
I hate you god daned conglomerate pharmaceutical drug-pushing criminal
uncaring idiotic assoles who think they are physicians when they aren't
licensed to practice medicine.
I hate it so much I hope you die tonight as well as every other GOD DAMNED
PIECE OF ***** ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FALSE AUTHORITY IN THE USA.
Looks like you lose again.
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 3
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0402042145.2faac5c9@posting.google.com
you're a *****
1414fd53.0301242012.7786001e@posting.google.com
*I* said you were a *****, and you are
1414fd53.0201151612.5d801f91@posting.google.com
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 2
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0210041619.6a748430@posting.google.com
miserable fishreek skankwhore
1414fd53.0401182312.d795ffd@posting.google.com
fishreek skank *****
8505fb$b0u$1@nnrp1.deja.com (as asaurus)
Nice try, fishreek.
8822ia$v22$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 (as asaurus)
She's a fishreek hypocrite
894cmj$frh$1@nnrp1.deja.com (as asaurus)
fishreek ho
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 01:16:23 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
How about realizing for the first time that you haev no place to
advise me, and that you are not my physician.
Meltdown in 5...4...3...2...
Perhaps we should introduce him to "Dr. Dach..."
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 12:42:11 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbadnV5v-eqEqLrYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Are you claiming to be god again? Take your meds, fer cryin out loud.
How about realizing for the first time that you haev no place to advise me,
and that you are not my physician.
Meltdown in 5...4...3...2...
Get those guys in the white jackets! Here we go:
When will you god DAMNED fools realize that you haev no authority to issue
medical advice?
DAMN!
I hate you god daned conglomerate pharmaceutical drug-pushing criminal
uncaring idiotic assoles who think they are physicians when they aren't
licensed to practice medicine.
I hate it so much I hope you die tonight as well as every other GOD DAMNED
PIECE OF ***** ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FALSE AUTHORITY IN THE USA.
Yikes! How embarrassing for you!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:22:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:08:01 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbadnV5v-eqEqLrYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Are you claiming to be god again? Take your meds, fer cryin out loud.
How about realizing for the first time that you haev no place to advise
me,
and that you are not my physician.
Frankly, I don't think any medication could help you, psycho. But if you
were prescribed something, it was for a reason--you should take that
stuff. :)
When will you god DAMNED fools realize that you haev no authority to
issue
medical advice?
DAMN!
I hate you god daned conglomerate pharmaceutical drug-pushing criminal
uncaring idiotic assoles who think they are physicians when they aren't
licensed to practice medicine.
All this just because someone disguised their "you're fucking crazy"
comment as a comment on your medication. Wow. You must be drunk or
something.
I hate it so much I hope you die tonight as well as every other GOD
DAMNED
PIECE OF ***** ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FALSE AUTHORITY IN THE USA.
I _hope_ you're drunk or something--if you're not, then you have just
painted a very clear picture of just how utterly FUCKED up you are.
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:26:17 AM |
|
|
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1c7yuh5i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:08:01 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbadnV5v-eqEqLrYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Are you claiming to be god again? Take your meds, fer cryin out loud.
How about realizing for the first time that you haev no place to advise
me,
and that you are not my physician.
Frankly, I don't think any medication could help you, psycho. But if you
were prescribed something, it was for a reason--you should take that
stuff. :)
When will you god DAMNED fools realize that you haev no authority to
issue
medical advice?
DAMN!
I hate you god daned conglomerate pharmaceutical drug-pushing criminal
uncaring idiotic assoles who think they are physicians when they aren't
licensed to practice medicine.
All this just because someone disguised their "you're fucking crazy"
comment as a comment on your medication. Wow. You must be drunk or
something.
I hate it so much I hope you die tonight as well as every other GOD
DAMNED
PIECE OF ***** ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FALSE AUTHORITY IN THE USA.
I _hope_ you're drunk or something--if you're not, then you have just
painted a very clear picture of just how utterly FUCKED up you are.
This from someone who thinks he is smart?
LOL!
Why don't you learn to read english instead of actng the fool for idiots?
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 01:02:20 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1c7yuh5i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:08:01 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
[...]
I hate it so much I hope you die tonight as well as every other GOD DAMNED
PIECE OF ***** ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FALSE AUTHORITY IN THE USA.
I _hope_ you're drunk or something--if you're not, then you have just
painted a very clear picture of just how utterly FUCKED up you are.
This from someone who thinks he is smart?
He's obviously smarter than you, since you can't even figure out what an order
of magnitude is, as you demonstrated recently.
LOL!
Why don't you learn to read english instead of actng the fool for idiots?
Why don't you do as you demand of others, Screaming Loon of Anderson County?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:35:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:26:17 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1c7yuh5i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:08:01 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbadnV5v-eqEqLrYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Are you claiming to be god again? Take your meds, fer cryin out loud.
How about realizing for the first time that you haev no place to advise
me,
and that you are not my physician.
Frankly, I don't think any medication could help you, psycho. But if you
were prescribed something, it was for a reason--you should take that
stuff. :)
When will you god DAMNED fools realize that you haev no authority to
issue
medical advice?
DAMN!
I hate you god daned conglomerate pharmaceutical drug-pushing criminal
uncaring idiotic assoles who think they are physicians when they aren't
licensed to practice medicine.
All this just because someone disguised their "you're fucking crazy"
comment as a comment on your medication. Wow. You must be drunk or
something.
I hate it so much I hope you die tonight as well as every other GOD
DAMNED
PIECE OF ***** ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FALSE AUTHORITY IN THE USA.
I _hope_ you're drunk or something--if you're not, then you have just
painted a very clear picture of just how utterly FUCKED up you are.
This from someone who thinks he is smart?
LOL!
Why don't you learn to read english instead of actng the fool for idiots?
Why don't you learn to spell "English?" LMAO
Get back to your bottle, Wentzky. I'm sure it's your only friend. :)
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:05:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:51:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg09mdgs5i5s70@chris...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:08:47 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg0lm1ow5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:07:00 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tgxlgyc55i5s70@chris...
People don't prove negatives.
Still presenting that lie?
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile,
I know it is worthwhile.
You are a moron.
You're damned, ***** ant.
I am at least two orders of magnitude smarter than you.
lol, no, I'm pretty sure your IQ is not 13,000. XD Or do you now know what
an order of magnitude is either?
then please prove to me that you did _not_ rape a dozen pre-pubescent
girls when you were 18 years old.
I do not need to prove that to you.
Oh, well, if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it is AUTOMATICALLY
TRUE!
Bullahit, idiot.
I know--but you're the one who uses this logic, not me. I know that "if
you can't disprove it, it is right" is a ridiculous logical fallacy.
Your logic, not mine, you sick, dirty serial rapist kiddyfucker.
Nah, you god damned fool.
lol
It is your task to prove that I did as you mentioned to satisfy the
requirements of proof.
So now you're backpedaling and saying that I have to prove what _is_
instead of you proving what _isn't_.
I am NOT backpedaling even one iota, you god damned underling of proof.
You are not even in kindergarten compared to me when it comes to proof.
lol
You just made my point for me. Thanks.
Nah, idiot.
You are still wallowing in the pig sty of idiocy.
lol, man...it's so funny that you _really_ seem to believe what you say.
If you cannot prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is only
sensible to deem you a serial rapist, by your own logic.
Nah.
Yup. Telling others they have to prove a negative while you refuse to
subject yourself to the exact same logic just makes it ever clearer how
completely full of ***** you are.
Not so, you underling fool.
While you resist, you are in error.
You wish, lol.
See how ridiculous the idea of proving a negative is?
It isn't ridiculous.
If you say so, child molestor. *snickers*
Hey, *****.
I am not a child molester.
By your own logic, you are, since you can't prove that you have never
molested a child. Turnabout is fair play--if you're going to try this *****
on others, you'd better be prepared to deal with it yourself. :)
You abortionistic god damned fool of hell.
lol
I haev no proiblem casting every person who is so gad damnably unust and
wicked as you into the fiery pits of hell.
Wow, I can tell that you're getting really bothered by my exposition of
your idiocy by the amount of typos right there. Does it ***** you off, huh?
Does it? That I know you're full of *****? That someone likely less than
_half_ your age is logically _schooling_ you in public for all the world
to see?
Yeah, I bet it doesn't feel too good. Not my problem--next time, keep your
mockery of logic to yourself and others gullible enough to believe your
nonsense.
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
lol, please. Superstitions stopped affecting me long ago. Hell? LMAO, come
_on_. I wasn't born yesterday.
But scream to your imaginary friend all you want, but it won't change a
thing. Bet that makes it hurt all the more, huh?
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:18:40 AM |
|
|
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1ce7c95i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:51:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg09mdgs5i5s70@chris...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:08:47 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg0lm1ow5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:07:00 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tgxlgyc55i5s70@chris...
People don't prove negatives.
Still presenting that lie?
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile,
I know it is worthwhile.
You are a moron.
You're damned, ***** ant.
I am at least two orders of magnitude smarter than you.
lol, no, I'm pretty sure your IQ is not 13,000.
So, you're IQ is 130?
You sure a dumbshit if that is true.
Then again, you forgot about the logarithmic measure, huh?
XD Or do you now know what an order of magnitude is either?
You think I don;t know?
then please prove to me that you did _not_ rape a dozen pre-pubescent
girls when you were 18 years old.
I do not need to prove that to you.
Oh, well, if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it is AUTOMATICALLY
TRUE!
Bullahit, idiot.
I know--but you're the one who uses this logic, not me.
Nah, two order magnitude less IQ boy.
How about understanding how I do not say that because someone can not prove
something that its coverse must be automatically true.
Obviously, you are hellbent on being an idiot.
I know that "if you can't disprove it, it is right" is a ridiculous
logical fallacy.
That is your cntention, not mine.
Your logic, not mine, you sick, dirty serial rapist kiddyfucker.
Nah, you god damned fool.
lol
Keep on laughing then if you can.
It is your task to prove that I did as you mentioned to satisfy the
requirements of proof.
So now you're backpedaling and saying that I have to prove what _is_
instead of you proving what _isn't_.
I am NOT backpedaling even one iota, you god damned underling of proof.
You are not even in kindergarten compared to me when it comes to proof.
lol
Still laughing, you erroneous conclusion former?
You just made my point for me. Thanks.
Nah, idiot.
You are still wallowing in the pig sty of idiocy.
lol, man...it's so funny that you _really_ seem to believe what you say.
It is you who is holding onto false assumptions.
If you cannot prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is only
sensible to deem you a serial rapist, by your own logic.
Nah.
Yup. Telling others they have to prove a negative while you refuse to
subject yourself to the exact same logic just makes it ever clearer how
completely full of ***** you are.
Not so, you underling fool.
While you resist, you are in error.
You wish, lol.
I'm not wishing n this case.
You are an unrelenting error prone individual.
You haven't yet grasped the logic of proof and disproof.
See how ridiculous the idea of proving a negative is?
It isn't ridiculous.
If you say so, child molestor. *snickers*
Hey, *****.
I am not a child molester.
By your own logic, you are,
Nah, idiot.
You are still holding onto things that you yourself say are not valid.
since you can't prove that you have never molested a child. Turnabout is
fair play--if you're going to try this ***** on others, you'd better be
prepared to deal with it yourself. :)
I never said something must be true if it can not be disproven.
You're the idiot who insist that I do.
You are a wicked piece of ***** for brans, imo.
You abortionistic god damned fool of hell.
lol
Open wide next tme.
I haev no proiblem casting every person who is so gad damnably unjust and
wicked as you into the fiery pits of hell.
Wow, I can tell that you're getting really bothered by my exposition of
your idiocy by the amount of typos right there. Does it ***** you off, huh?
Does it? That I know you're full of *****? That someone likely less than
_half_ your age is logically _schooling_ you in public for all the world
to see?
You are not expsooign my idiocy.
You are showing me you are a fool compared to me.
You are unrelenting in your insistence of falsehoods about me and about some
things that are already shown to be valid in the realm of proof.
Yeah, I bet it doesn't feel too good. Not my problem--next time, keep your
mockery of logic to yourself and others gullible enough to believe your
nonsense.
You are the idiot who is actng as if logic doesn't apply when there are
matters than can be disproven.
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
lol, please. Superstitions stopped affecting me long ago. Hell? LMAO, come
_on_. I wasn't born yesterday.
But scream to your imaginary friend all you want, but it won't change a
thing. Bet that makes it hurt all the more, huh?
Your id lets me know you can and possibly will be defeated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:32:18 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:18:40 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1ce7c95i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:51:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg09mdgs5i5s70@chris...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:08:47 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg0lm1ow5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:07:00 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tgxlgyc55i5s70@chris...
People don't prove negatives.
Still presenting that lie?
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile,
I know it is worthwhile.
You are a moron.
You're damned, ***** ant.
I am at least two orders of magnitude smarter than you.
lol, no, I'm pretty sure your IQ is not 13,000.
So, you're IQ is 130?
Something like that, yes.
You sure a dumbshit if that is true.
You don't seem to understand that 130 is like the top 5%, lol. Then again,
what DO you understand? XD
Then again, you forgot about the logarithmic measure, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
Fucking _learn_ something, douchebag.
XD Or do you now know what an order of magnitude is either?
You think I don;t know?
You sure don't, with that retarded claim you made.
then please prove to me that you did _not_ rape a dozen
pre-pubescent
girls when you were 18 years old.
I do not need to prove that to you.
Oh, well, if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it is
AUTOMATICALLY
TRUE!
Bullahit, idiot.
I know--but you're the one who uses this logic, not me.
Nah, two order magnitude less IQ boy.
See? You obviously don't know what an order of magnitude is. And you call
me an idiot, lol.
How about understanding how I do not say that because someone can not
prove
something that its coverse must be automatically true.
Obviously, you are hellbent on being an idiot.
Backpedal allll you want, psycho.
I know that "if you can't disprove it, it is right" is a ridiculous
logical fallacy.
That is your cntention, not mine.
lol
Your logic, not mine, you sick, dirty serial rapist kiddyfucker.
Nah, you god damned fool.
lol
Keep on laughing then if you can.
Oh, don't worry, I am--as well as my girlfriend who I am linking to every
one of these posts. XD
It is your task to prove that I did as you mentioned to satisfy the
requirements of proof.
So now you're backpedaling and saying that I have to prove what _is_
instead of you proving what _isn't_.
I am NOT backpedaling even one iota, you god damned underling of proof.
You are not even in kindergarten compared to me when it comes to proof.
lol
Still laughing, you erroneous conclusion former?
lmao
You just made my point for me. Thanks.
Nah, idiot.
You are still wallowing in the pig sty of idiocy.
lol, man...it's so funny that you _really_ seem to believe what you say.
It is you who is holding onto false assumptions.
lol
If you cannot prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is
only
sensible to deem you a serial rapist, by your own logic.
Nah.
Yup. Telling others they have to prove a negative while you refuse to
subject yourself to the exact same logic just makes it ever clearer
how
completely full of ***** you are.
Not so, you underling fool.
While you resist, you are in error.
You wish, lol.
I'm not wishing n this case.
You are an unrelenting error prone individual.
You haven't yet grasped the logic of proof and disproof.
lol
See how ridiculous the idea of proving a negative is?
It isn't ridiculous.
If you say so, child molestor. *snickers*
Hey, *****.
I am not a child molester.
By your own logic, you are,
Nah, idiot.
You are still holding onto things that you yourself say are not valid.
lol, just giving you a taste of your own medicine, kiddyfucker. :)
since you can't prove that you have never molested a child. Turnabout
is
fair play--if you're going to try this ***** on others, you'd better be
prepared to deal with it yourself. :)
I never said something must be true if it can not be disproven.
You're the idiot who insist that I do.
You are a wicked piece of ***** for brans, imo.
Good thing we all know how trivial "yo" is, lol.
You abortionistic god damned fool of hell.
lol
Open wide next tme.
I really hope that isn't a come on.
I haev no proiblem casting every person who is so gad damnably unjust
and
wicked as you into the fiery pits of hell.
Wow, I can tell that you're getting really bothered by my exposition of
your idiocy by the amount of typos right there. Does it ***** you off,
huh?
Does it? That I know you're full of *****? That someone likely less than
_half_ your age is logically _schooling_ you in public for all the world
to see?
You are not expsooign my idiocy.
....ROFL, I just don't have the words--how the hell can I mock _that_? You,
sir, are much better at making fun of you than I am.
[snipped blahblahblah stuff]
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
lol, please. Superstitions stopped affecting me long ago. Hell? LMAO,
come
_on_. I wasn't born yesterday.
But scream to your imaginary friend all you want, but it won't change a
thing. Bet that makes it hurt all the more, huh?
Your id lets me know you can and possibly will be defeated.
Whatever you say, psycho. Let's see some more of that fundie rage, eh?
It's really entertaining. :)
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:48:39 AM |
|
|
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1dn2dl5i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:18:40 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1ce7c95i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:51:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg09mdgs5i5s70@chris...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:08:47 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg0lm1ow5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:07:00 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tgxlgyc55i5s70@chris...
People don't prove negatives.
Still presenting that lie?
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile,
I know it is worthwhile.
You are a moron.
You're damned, ***** ant.
I am at least two orders of magnitude smarter than you.
lol, no, I'm pretty sure your IQ is not 13,000.
So, you're IQ is 130?
Something like that, yes.
You sure a dumbshit if that is true.
You don't seem to understand that 130 is like the top 5%, lol. Then again,
what DO you understand? XD
Then again, you forgot about the logarithmic measure, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
Fucking _learn_ something, douchebag.
You didn't read?
Or, was it you didn'lt understand?
..
XD Or do you now know what an order of magnitude is either?
You think I don;t know?
You sure don't, with that retarded claim you made.
LOL!
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top 0.05percent.
LOL!
Eat it two orders of magnitude less IQ bitchboy.
then please prove to me that you did _not_ rape a dozen
pre-pubescent
girls when you were 18 years old.
I do not need to prove that to you.
Oh, well, if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it is
AUTOMATICALLY
TRUE!
Bullahit, idiot.
I know--but you're the one who uses this logic, not me.
Nah, two order magnitude less IQ boy.
See? You obviously don't know what an order of magnitude is. And you call
me an idiot, lol.
Nah.
Your problem is you do not know what infinitely smarter than you is at this
point.
How about understanding how I do not say that because someone can not
prove
something that its coverse must be automatically true.
Obviously, you are hellbent on being an idiot.
Backpedal allll you want, psycho.
I am still going forward.
Do you think i learned to ride a bicycle backwards?
I know that "if you can't disprove it, it is right" is a ridiculous
logical fallacy.
That is your cntention, not mine.
lol
You're laughing at yourself?
Your logic, not mine, you sick, dirty serial rapist kiddyfucker.
Nah, you god damned fool.
lol
Keep on laughing then if you can.
Oh, don't worry, I am--as well as my girlfriend who I am linking to every
one of these posts. XD
Good thing.
She will see that I am smarter than you if she has the capability to
understand.
LOL!
"preciate it.
It is your task to prove that I did as you mentioned to satisfy the
requirements of proof.
So now you're backpedaling and saying that I have to prove what _is_
instead of you proving what _isn't_.
I am NOT backpedaling even one iota, you god damned underling of proof.
You are not even in kindergarten compared to me when it comes to proof.
lol
Still laughing, you erroneous conclusion former?
lmao
Depending on how much ***** you have that could be a good thing.
You just made my point for me. Thanks.
Nah, idiot.
You are still wallowing in the pig sty of idiocy.
lol, man...it's so funny that you _really_ seem to believe what you say.
It is you who is holding onto false assumptions.
lol
LOL!
Whle you still are wallowing in that pig sty of logical fallacies you laugh?
If you cannot prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is
only
sensible to deem you a serial rapist, by your own logic.
Nah.
Yup. Telling others they have to prove a negative while you refuse to
subject yourself to the exact same logic just makes it ever clearer
how
completely full of ***** you are.
Not so, you underling fool.
While you resist, you are in error.
You wish, lol.
I'm not wishing n this case.
You are an unrelenting error prone individual.
You haven't yet grasped the logic of proof and disproof.
lol
You think that is funny?
Sometimes idiots respond with a lol to avoid racking their brains to
understand the real meaning.
See how ridiculous the idea of proving a negative is?
It isn't ridiculous.
If you say so, child molestor. *snickers*
Hey, *****.
I am not a child molester.
By your own logic, you are,
Nah, idiot.
You are still holding onto things that you yourself say are not valid.
lol, just giving you a taste of your own medicine, kiddyfucker. :)
Again, you are wrong.
You are doing nothng more than hurling your self-formed delusion(s) about
things to which I do not adhere.
since you can't prove that you have never molested a child. Turnabout
is
fair play--if you're going to try this ***** on others, you'd better be
prepared to deal with it yourself. :)
I never said something must be true if it can not be disproven.
You're the idiot who insist that I do.
You are a wicked piece of ***** for brans, imo.
Good thing we all know how trivial "yo" is, lol.
Immaterial, if I understand you correctly.
You abortionistic god damned fool of hell.
lol
Open wide next tme.
I really hope that isn't a come on.
I haev no proiblem casting every person who is so gad damnably unjust
and
wicked as you into the fiery pits of hell.
Wow, I can tell that you're getting really bothered by my exposition of
your idiocy by the amount of typos right there. Does it ***** you off,
huh?
Does it? That I know you're full of *****? That someone likely less than
_half_ your age is logically _schooling_ you in public for all the world
to see?
You are not expsooign my idiocy.
...ROFL, I just don't have the words--how the hell can I mock _that_? You,
sir, are much better at making fun of you than I am.
You are a victim of your own perspective and judgementalism and indequacies
at dealing with intelligeble, even if mistyped, information.
How trite of you to asssume that a typo by me would make you look somehow
any smarter.
[snipped blahblahblah stuff]
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
lol, please. Superstitions stopped affecting me long ago. Hell? LMAO,
come
_on_. I wasn't born yesterday.
But scream to your imaginary friend all you want, but it won't change a
thing. Bet that makes it hurt all the more, huh?
Your id lets me know you can and possibly will be defeated.
Whatever you say, psycho. Let's see some more of that fundie rage, eh?
It's really entertaining. :)
Fundie rage?
You are already defeated in my book.
The denial game is already growing amongst your policital enemies.
All the right must do now is deny everything you uncaring illegitimate
liberals say.
BYE, fool!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 01:08:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1dn2dl5i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:18:40 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1ce7c95i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:51:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg09mdgs5i5s70@chris...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:08:47 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg0lm1ow5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:07:00 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tgxlgyc55i5s70@chris...
People don't prove negatives.
Still presenting that lie?
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile,
I know it is worthwhile.
You are a moron.
You're damned, ***** ant.
I am at least two orders of magnitude smarter than you.
lol, no, I'm pretty sure your IQ is not 13,000.
So, you're IQ is 130?
Something like that, yes.
You sure a dumbshit if that is true.
You don't seem to understand that 130 is like the top 5%, lol. Then
again,
what DO you understand? XD
Then again, you forgot about the logarithmic measure, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
Fucking _learn_ something, douchebag.
You didn't read?
Or, was it you didn'lt understand?
lol
XD Or do you now know what an order of magnitude is either?
You think I don;t know?
You sure don't, with that retarded claim you made.
LOL!
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top 0.05percent.
I would put every cent to my name to a test that your IQ is nowhere near
149 (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html). LOL, who do you think
you're kidding?
LOL!
Eat it two orders of magnitude less IQ bitchboy.
rofl
then please prove to me that you did _not_ rape a dozen
pre-pubescent
girls when you were 18 years old.
I do not need to prove that to you.
Oh, well, if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it is
AUTOMATICALLY
TRUE!
Bullahit, idiot.
I know--but you're the one who uses this logic, not me.
Nah, two order magnitude less IQ boy.
See? You obviously don't know what an order of magnitude is. And you
call
me an idiot, lol.
Nah.
Your problem is you do not know what infinitely smarter than you is at
this
point.
LOL
How about understanding how I do not say that because someone can not
prove
something that its coverse must be automatically true.
Obviously, you are hellbent on being an idiot.
Backpedal allll you want, psycho.
I am still going forward.
Do you think i learned to ride a bicycle backwards?
lol, your posts just get crazier.
I know that "if you can't disprove it, it is right" is a ridiculous
logical fallacy.
That is your cntention, not mine.
lol
You're laughing at yourself?
Nope, laughing at you, obviously. :)
Your logic, not mine, you sick, dirty serial rapist kiddyfucker.
Nah, you god damned fool.
lol
Keep on laughing then if you can.
Oh, don't worry, I am--as well as my girlfriend who I am linking to
every
one of these posts. XD
Good thing.
She will see that I am smarter than you if she has the capability to
understand.
LOL!
"preciate it.
lol, no, she's pretty aware how retarded you are, as is practically
everyone else on Usenet who has crossed your path.
It is your task to prove that I did as you mentioned to satisfy the
requirements of proof.
So now you're backpedaling and saying that I have to prove what _is_
instead of you proving what _isn't_.
I am NOT backpedaling even one iota, you god damned underling of
proof.
You are not even in kindergarten compared to me when it comes to
proof.
lol
Still laughing, you erroneous conclusion former?
lmao
Depending on how much ***** you have that could be a good thing.
lol
You just made my point for me. Thanks.
Nah, idiot.
You are still wallowing in the pig sty of idiocy.
lol, man...it's so funny that you _really_ seem to believe what you
say.
It is you who is holding onto false assumptions.
lol
LOL!
Whle you still are wallowing in that pig sty of logical fallacies you
laugh?
lol
If you cannot prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is
only
sensible to deem you a serial rapist, by your own logic.
Nah.
Yup. Telling others they have to prove a negative while you refuse
to
subject yourself to the exact same logic just makes it ever clearer
how
completely full of ***** you are.
Not so, you underling fool.
While you resist, you are in error.
You wish, lol.
I'm not wishing n this case.
You are an unrelenting error prone individual.
You haven't yet grasped the logic of proof and disproof.
lol
You think that is funny?
Sometimes idiots respond with a lol to avoid racking their brains to
understand the real meaning.
Yeah, nice try. I don't fall for such weak provocation, lol. You're full
of *****, I know it, everyone else here with the least bit of perception
knows it, and now we're just enjoying the show. Nobody takes you
seriously, and for good reason.
Hope you enjoy being a laughingstock.
See how ridiculous the idea of proving a negative is?
It isn't ridiculous.
If you say so, child molestor. *snickers*
Hey, *****.
I am not a child molester.
By your own logic, you are,
Nah, idiot.
You are still holding onto things that you yourself say are not valid.
lol, just giving you a taste of your own medicine, kiddyfucker. :)
Again, you are wrong.
lol
You are doing nothng more than hurling your self-formed delusion(s) about
things to which I do not adhere.
since you can't prove that you have never molested a child. Turnabout
is
fair play--if you're going to try this ***** on others, you'd better
be
prepared to deal with it yourself. :)
I never said something must be true if it can not be disproven.
You're the idiot who insist that I do.
You are a wicked piece of ***** for brans, imo.
Good thing we all know how trivial "yo" is, lol.
Immaterial,
Exactly what your opinion is to anyone with a logical brain.
if I understand you correctly.
I wouldn't bet on that. XD
You abortionistic god damned fool of hell.
lol
Open wide next tme.
I really hope that isn't a come on.
Phew, that was a close one.
I haev no proiblem casting every person who is so gad damnably unjust
and
wicked as you into the fiery pits of hell.
Wow, I can tell that you're getting really bothered by my exposition
of
your idiocy by the amount of typos right there. Does it ***** you off,
huh?
Does it? That I know you're full of *****? That someone likely less
than
_half_ your age is logically _schooling_ you in public for all the
world
to see?
You are not expsooign my idiocy.
...ROFL, I just don't have the words--how the hell can I mock _that_?
You,
sir, are much better at making fun of you than I am.
You are a victim of your own perspective and judgementalism and
indequacies
at dealing with intelligeble, even if mistyped, information.
How trite of you to asssume that a typo by me would make you look somehow
any smarter.
Pff, as if I need anything other than your own posts to show which of us
has his head on straight. It's not coincidence that people pay attention
to stuff I write and generally are annoyed or amused by what you say.
[snipped blahblahblah stuff]
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
lol, please. Superstitions stopped affecting me long ago. Hell? LMAO,
come
_on_. I wasn't born yesterday.
But scream to your imaginary friend all you want, but it won't change
a
thing. Bet that makes it hurt all the more, huh?
Your id lets me know you can and possibly will be defeated.
Whatever you say, psycho. Let's see some more of that fundie rage, eh?
It's really entertaining. :)
Fundie rage?
Yeah. You know, like this:
I REALY DON'T!
LOL!
I LOVE MAKING YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERTS BURN IN HELL!
LOL!
READYT TO BURN?, YOU GOD DAMNED PERVERT AND LIAR?
You are already defeated in my book.
lol
The denial game is already growing amongst your policital enemies.
All the right must do now is deny everything you uncaring illegitimate
liberals say.
BYE, fool!
LOL, more incoherent babbling from the loon. Is your bottle empty yet? XD
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 01:28:58 AM |
|
|
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1fc5wr5i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
The denial game is already growing amongst your policital enemies.
All the right must do now is deny everything you uncaring illegitimate
liberals say.
BYE, fool!
LOL, more incoherent babbling from the loon. Is your bottle empty yet? XD
No.
Your problem is your bottle is so worn out and exposed tha it is already
spilling over such that your uncaring attitude may be used against you.
You didn''t understand how that works?
Seems to me people such as you are so entrenched in the denial and ignorance
game that anyone who disagrees with you may now look the other way when you
propose a plan they do not like.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 09:07:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:28:58 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tg1fc5wr5i5s70@chris...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
The denial game is already growing amongst your policital enemies.
All the right must do now is deny everything you uncaring illegitimate
liberals say.
BYE, fool!
LOL, more incoherent babbling from the loon. Is your bottle empty yet?
XD
No.
I didn't think so. You've probably got quite the supply.
Or maybe your 'fundie rage' is actually not attached to alcohol
consumption--in which case you're simply a total wackjob.
Your problem is your bottle is so worn out and exposed
Excuse me? I don't drink--never have, and likely never will.
tha it is already
spilling over such that your uncaring attitude may be used against you.
lol, what, as supposed to your all-caps tirade about casting people into
hell?
[snip replaced with] lol
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 10:44:25 AM |
|
|
Strife767 wrote:
lol, what, as supposed to your all-caps tirade about casting people into
hell?
Seems as though they want to cast all the fun, intelligent people into
hell. I say we organize, go down there, and have a party! I'll bring
the marshmallows!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 01:28:51 PM |
|
|
Strife767 wrote:
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Your problem is your bottle is so worn out and exposed
Excuse me? I don't drink--never have, and likely never will.
You should try it sometime. Wentzky actually seems to make sense from
time to time. (The handy thing about that is, when it happens, one knows
that one is drunk.)
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 08:26:53 AM |
|
|
Strife767 wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top 0.05percent.
I would put every cent to my name to a test that your IQ is nowhere near
149 (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html). LOL, who do you think
you're kidding?
Intelligence recognizes intelligence, and intelligence recognizes the
absence of same. Strife is correct: Wentzky's IQ is not above
average, and certainly is not as high as 149. A person with an IQ of
149 will be able to present a logically valid argument without
prejudice, even if relatively uneducated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 01:32:14 AM |
|
|
"ScottyFLL" <ScottyFLL@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160227613.828937.234490@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top 0.05percent.
I would put every cent to my name to a test that your IQ is nowhere near
149 (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html). LOL, who do you think
you're kidding?
Intelligence recognizes intelligence,
Would that be why strife fails to recognize my 'intelligence'?
and intelligence recognizes the
absence of same.
Which you could say that I have done.
Strife is correct: Wentzky's IQ is not above
average, and certainly is not as high as 149. A person with an IQ of
149 will be able to present a logically valid argument without
prejudice, even if relatively uneducated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 09:03:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:32:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"ScottyFLL" <ScottyFLL@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160227613.828937.234490@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top
0.05percent.
I would put every cent to my name to a test that your IQ is nowhere
near
149 (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html). LOL, who do you
think
you're kidding?
Intelligence recognizes intelligence,
Would that be why strife fails to recognize my 'intelligence'?
No, but that would be a very good reason to indeed put quotes around the
word "intelligence" when referring to yours.
Also, I just found out that my intelligence is actually more like top 3%
instead of the 5% I originally thought. So even _if_ orders of magnitude
would make sense to be applied _backwards_ to "top percentage" like he
tried to do when I showed him just how retarded it was for him to claim he
had an IQ 100 times higher than mine, a "top 0.03%" IQ would be 152, not
149.
Good fucking luck with that. XD
and intelligence recognizes the
absence of same.
Which you could say that I have done.
Except then I'd be lying, lol. You are
Strife is correct: Wentzky's IQ is not above
average, and certainly is not as high as 149. A person with an IQ of
149 will be able to present a logically valid argument without
prejudice, even if relatively uneducated.
See? :)
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 09:06:55 AM |
|
|
In News op.tg3v0otm5i5s70@chris,, Strife767 at strife767@gmail.com, typed
this:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:32:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"ScottyFLL" <ScottyFLL@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160227613.828937.234490@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top
0.05percent.
I would put every cent to my name to a test that your IQ is nowhere
near
149 (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html). LOL, who do you
think
you're kidding?
Intelligence recognizes intelligence,
Would that be why strife fails to recognize my 'intelligence'?
No, but that would be a very good reason to indeed put quotes around
the word "intelligence" when referring to yours.
Also, I just found out that my intelligence is actually more like top
3% instead of the 5% I originally thought. So even _if_ orders of
magnitude would make sense to be applied _backwards_ to "top
percentage" like he tried to do when I showed him just how retarded
it was for him to claim he had an IQ 100 times higher than mine, a
"top 0.03%" IQ would be 152, not 149.
Good fucking luck with that. XD
and intelligence recognizes the
absence of same.
Which you could say that I have done.
Except then I'd be lying, lol. You are
Strife is correct: Wentzky's IQ is not above
average, and certainly is not as high as 149. A person with an IQ
of 149 will be able to present a logically valid argument without
prejudice, even if relatively uneducated.
See? :)
One would think that a person with an IQ of 149 might have known what
happened in England in 1066, and they might have known that the Magna Carta
wasn't signed in that year.
Most of Wentzky's posts have been that of the village idiot, certainly not
someone with an IQ of 149.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
08 Oct 2006 09:59:50 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:06:55 -0400, Andrealphus
<NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
In News op.tg3v0otm5i5s70@chris,, Strife767 at strife767@gmail.com, typed
this:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:32:14 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"ScottyFLL" <ScottyFLL@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160227613.828937.234490@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top
0.05percent.
I would put every cent to my name to a test that your IQ is nowhere
near
149 (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html). LOL, who do you
think
you're kidding?
Intelligence recognizes intelligence,
Would that be why strife fails to recognize my 'intelligence'?
No, but that would be a very good reason to indeed put quotes around
the word "intelligence" when referring to yours.
Also, I just found out that my intelligence is actually more like top
3% instead of the 5% I originally thought. So even _if_ orders of
magnitude would make sense to be applied _backwards_ to "top
percentage" like he tried to do when I showed him just how retarded
it was for him to claim he had an IQ 100 times higher than mine, a
"top 0.03%" IQ would be 152, not 149.
Good fucking luck with that. XD
and intelligence recognizes the
absence of same.
Which you could say that I have done.
Except then I'd be lying, lol. You are
Strife is correct: Wentzky's IQ is not above
average, and certainly is not as high as 149. A person with an IQ
of 149 will be able to present a logically valid argument without
prejudice, even if relatively uneducated.
See? :)
One would think that a person with an IQ of 149 might have known what
happened in England in 1066, and they might have known that the Magna
Carta
wasn't signed in that year.
Most of Wentzky's posts have been that of the village idiot, certainly
not
someone with an IQ of 149.
Most likely much closer to that number with the first digit removed.
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
07 Oct 2006 12:00:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:26:53 -0400, ScottyFLL <ScottyFLL@gmail.com> wrote:
Strife767 wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:48:39 -0400, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
How ahout looking at the curve.
You say top 5%, then look at the top 0.5% and then the top
0.05percent.
I would put every cent to my name to a test that your IQ is nowhere near
149 (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html). LOL, who do you
think
you're kidding?
Intelligence recognizes intelligence, and intelligence recognizes the
absence of same. Strife is correct: Wentzky's IQ is not above
average, and certainly is not as high as 149. A person with an IQ of
149 will be able to present a logically valid argument without
prejudice, even if relatively uneducated.
Thank you. *nods and smiles*
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
06 Oct 2006 03:21:50 PM |
|
|
Strife767 wrote:
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile, then please prove to
me that you did _not_ rape a dozen pre-pubescent girls when you were 18
years old.
He could not have raped a dozen girls because he has no *****. He also
has no balls, but we already knew that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
06 Oct 2006 04:31:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:21:50 -0400, ScottyFLL <ScottyFLL@gmail.com> wrote:
Strife767 wrote:
If you believe that proving negatives is worthwhile, then please prove
to
me that you did _not_ rape a dozen pre-pubescent girls when you were 18
years old.
He could not have raped a dozen girls because he has no *****. He also
has no balls, but we already knew that.
Fingering a girl against her will is considered rape too.
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing |
04 Oct 2006 11:26:03 PM |
|
< |