|
|
Posted by Steve on 01/07/08 17:49
"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:fltnqm$t1f$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:16:03 -0600, "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
>>news:flr5nu$ikf$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>
>>> Jerry claims suing is illegal
>>>
>>> From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>> Message-ID: <dMWdnRMixOBvfx3anZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>
>>>
>>> You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There
>>> are other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.
>>
>>look, gary...jerry is functionally illiterate and has trouble with
>>completing thought processes. it could be because of his advanced
>>geriatics,
>>or just a mental facility limitation due to piss poor genetics. either
>>way,
>>he can't logically put that together. help him out some so that at least
>>he'll eventually face his blatant stupidity...which is when he leaves
>>threads.
>>
>>here jerry-berry...
>>
>>'but i don't need to sue you.' (logical case A)
>>'i prefer the legal ways.' (logical case B)
>>
>>A can set the context for B, which by reference means you consider A to be
>>illegal.
>>
>>'there are other ways to handle people like you.' (logical case C)
>>
>>C does NOT give logical cause to SET THE CONTEXT that A is legal or
>>illegal...A just very well may be an illegal alternative to handling
>>people,
>>but, you just don't prefer that option.
>>
>>this is yet ANOTHER fine demonstration of jerry being ILLITERATE AND
>>ILLOGICAL. any claim he's made that defends the 'clarity' of his remark
>>merely makes that fact scream out! further, demeaning you, gary, for your
>>interpretation of jerry's comment makes his pea-sized brain failings not
>>only scream, but dance around and do cartwheels.
>
> Yes, but there's the entertainment factor to consider.
well, it's good to see i'm not the only one he provides such musings. :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|