Ron wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have
> > aideding or
> > > > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers
> > probably.
> > >
> > > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
child to
> > > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > actions.
> >
> > If that's really what you stated, then you're an even more moronic
> > fudgepacker than previously thought, because that is COMPLETELY
wrong.
> > As a fudgepacker, all you know about children is how to bugger the
> > boys. Children think they're reponsible for NOTHING, you ignorant
fat ****.
>
> Fat?

Fat ****.

As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever you are proved
wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct responses -
admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven to make a
substance-free snarky response.

The fact remains that your belief about what is "consistent" with the
thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone to believe.