Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.support.girl-lovers "Dr.Reality"
> <james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.support.girl-lovers "Dr.Reality"
>>><james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.support.girl-lovers Shagrat <dnsaundersSHAGRAT@sympatico.ca>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Dr.Reality" <james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:ctrq43$glf$2@pita.alt.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You just lied again Frank, you have not proven your hilarious babble ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no greater source of "hilarious babble" in these groups than the
>>>>>>hate-filled psychopath Altered Reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still, his proposed solution to pedophilia, "Put a gun in your mouth
>>>>>>pedophile, that is your only hope," would have a truly beneficial effect:
>>>>>>it would cure the world's overpopulation problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A little *too* well, methinks.
>>>>>There wouldn't be enough people left to find each other and continue
>>>>>the Human Race ... Not that the few psychopaths left would even WANT
>>>>>to; since they wouldn't find those of the opposite sex of
>>>>>child-bearing age appealing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is good to see you continue to lie on usenet Frank, and to be honest
>>>>I didn't expect anything to be different from you.
>>>>You are a proven liar, you couldn't prove that 99.9% of the population
>>>>is comprised of pedophiles, you lied, plain and simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>I did so-prove.
>>
>>False, your pedophile opinions are utterly worthless.
>>You did not cite proof that 99.9% of the population consists of pedophiles.
>>
>>Frank McCoy is a proven liar.
>>
>
> Actually, I proved that 99.9% of the population is *defined by law* as
> being pedophiles. Whether they are, or are-not, is really a separate
> issue. I personally think the definition and the law are wrong.
>
> You think they are right ... Therefore it's YOU, not me, that says
> they are pedophiles, if you get right down to it.
>
> I disagree with the definition.
> YOU don't. Well ... after all, it WAS your definition.
>
> Do you need me to quote your own words back at you?
>
>
>>>You haven't the guts to even answer the post or point out even one
>>>inaccuracy in it, because there isn't any there for you to find.
>>
>>Bullshit pedo Frank, the main inaccuracy is when your sick pedo logic
>>comes into play, you basically claimed you know what turns on 99.9% of
>>the population, you left the human race when you decided to become a
>>pedophile, you have absolutely no idea what turns on normal humans, your
>>opinions are utterly worthless.
>>
>>
>>>All you can do is *claim* my proof is no good, because you don't like
>>>it. Not liking the *results* of a proof doesn't invalidate it.
>>
>>No dumbass, you submitted your own pedo feelings as proof, you seem to
>>think that humans and pedophiles think alike, you are so far gone in
>>your own depraved, mentally ill world that you think most everyone is
>>just like you.
>>
>
> Well ... if you disagree, pick even ONE of the stipulations I made,
> and tell where even YOU disagree with it.
>
> You obviously dislike intensely the conclusion I made; yet cannot
> point to even one mistake in the chain of logic.
>
> Mind you, I'll say again: I don't think 99.9% of people ARE
> pedophiles, at least as *I* define pedophiles (and yes, I probably
> *do* fit that description myself). I just say that according to your
> definition along with the law of the land, 99.9% of people are
> *defined* as being pedophiles, which is not the same thing.
>
> If the sky is defined as being bright purple, there's nothing wrong
> with the sky, only the definition. If pi is defined as being 3.0 by
> some idiot legislature, again, there's nothing wrong with pi, the
> ratio of a circle's diameter to it's circumference, what's wrong is
> with the LAW that defines it as something contrary to reality.
>
> As in the case of the *definition* of pedophile.
> But then, I didn't write either the definition nor the law.
> I used YOUR definition, and the normal laws of the USA for defining a
> "child" who cannot give consent to sex. You seem to have troubles
> with that being contradictory. Well, I wasn't responsible for either
> the definition (that's YOURS) nor the LAW, which you support fiercely.
>
> So don't blame *me* for the definition including far more people than
> what you want it to. It's your own fault. Either change your own
> definition, or change the law, or accept the fact that almost
> everybody IS so-defined.
>
Hey pedo Frank he's got you in the ground on this one, you seem to think
all adults would find Leann to be sexually attractive thus making them
pedophiles by definition.
That is where James has you because I know for certain that Leann is
definately *not* sexually attractive at all lmao oh god...
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|