In article .com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > dribbling homo wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter.
> >
> > I think it does matter.
>
> It doesn't, I don't even think you believe it does; you're just taking
> a shit.
>
> > Which vegan killed what animal?
>
> It doesn't matter.

I notice your objection to responding to a simple question. How the
great minds of the world seem so less than great at this moment.

> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > Reread that. What a moron you are. If you never make it, it
> doesn't
> > > exist, so I can't know where "it" is, because "it isn't".
> >
> > More of that dishonest editing.
> No, no editing at all. You wrote an absurd piece of nonsense.