|
|
Posted by Steve on 01/07/08 21:36
"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:flu0bb$h8o$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:52:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>> "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:flr5nu$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.
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Talking things out of context again, stalker?
>
> So now he's a stalker because he replies to you, poodle? Guess that
> makes you my stalker, eh?
he's more of an addict i think...among other things.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|