In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> 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 ****.

What is my weight, Hector the Projector?

> 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.

Which vegan killed what animal, Mr. Ego?

> 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.

Where is that substantive argument that you keep insisting I never make,
but assumes that you do. Please demonstrate that this thinking is
different or more adult than the child's.