Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
> On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
>>
>>>>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> You've been wasting time. You are an out-of-tune violin.
>>
>>>>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have.
>>
>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>> Why would that be?
>>
>>>> <chuckle>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may take ****wit's ****witted attempts at evasion
>>>>>>>>>> seriously, if you wish, but it makes you look stupid and in fact it *is*
>>>>>>>>>> stupid to do so.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not a question of taking it seriously,
>>
>>>>>>>> That's exactly what it is.
>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>> No, I'm right. You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously.
>>>>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin.
>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"?
>>
>>>> That question was just more time-wasting.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> So is that one.
>
> If it's a waste of time to ask you what you mean,

It is. It's a waste of time for two reasons. First, you already know
what I mean. Second, you aren't really interested in knowing anything
more about what I mean. You're just bored and you've already had your
daily wank and you don't know what else to do, so you **** away time
posing stupid questions.

It really does suck to be you.