Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
You are a Pr*ck for implying that I was attempting to hide something when the link was prominently posted above it. You are also a Pr*ck for implying that the part not included somehow changes the meaning of what was.

If he's a Pr*ck, then you're a double or triple-Pr*ck, as it's abundantly clear that I wasn't attempting to hide anything earlier. I had even earlier posted a quote virtually identical to the one you falsely called me a LIAR over.

275 posted on 04/19/2013 1:54:24 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston
If he's a Pr*ck, then you're a double or triple-Pr*ck, as it's abundantly clear that I wasn't attempting to hide anything earlier. I had even earlier posted a quote virtually identical to the one you falsely called me a LIAR over.

You are STILL attempting to hide the fact that Bingham IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE!

How about you just admit it? Here is some suggested words.
"Bingham is not on my side."
Here's a variation. "Bingham agrees with you, not me. "
"Bingham has stabbed my theory in the back." Also works.

Face it Jeff, Losing Bingham is a Mortal blow to your argument, and you just can't stand it. You tried to finesse his words into supporting your argument, but you couldn't do it without cutting off his clarification. And you were caught attempting to do it!

282 posted on 04/19/2013 8:00:42 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson