Re: IOM nomination

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-05, David <[email hidden]> wrote:

I'd like to add this as another exhibit for consideration in the voting:

Quoted message said:

"You lost this debates hands down."

-- idiot, responding to his own IOM nomination.

Unfortunately for you Donovan he is quite right, and you now have to
deal with your own IOM nomination! ;o)

Don't lose sight of the fact that we do this for fun! ;o)

Have a great weekend dear boy - you know I will! ;o)

TFIF!

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2005-08-05, David <[email hidden]> wrote:

I'd like to add this as another exhibit for consideration in the voting:

Quoted message said:

"You lost this debates hands down."

-- idiot, responding to his own IOM nomination.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Why? Are you the only one allowed a platform? (a bright boy like you should
be able to come up with something more creative than repeating 'idiot' at
every opportunity. Particularly because the 'idiot' trounced you in this
debate and exposed your argument as full of [censored].) This debate is stark
testimony that debating skill does not equal content or substance. Keep
calling me 'idiot', idiot, and I'll find one or two choice epithets for you.
In the meantime, suck my fat one you cheap dime store pseudo intellectual.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:27:33 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2005-08-05, David <[email hidden]> wrote:

I'd like to add this as another exhibit for consideration in the voting:

Quoted message said:

"You lost this debates hands down."

-- idiot, responding to his own IOM nomination.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Why? Are you the only one allowed a platform? (a bright boy like you should
be able to come up with something more creative than repeating 'idiot' at
every opportunity. Particularly because the 'idiot' trounced you in this
debate and exposed your argument as full of [censored].) This debate is stark
testimony that debating skill does not equal content or substance. Keep
calling me 'idiot', idiot, and I'll find one or two choice epithets for you.
In the meantime, suck my fat one you cheap dime store pseudo intellectual.

For the inestimable Dally's benefit, the taunt from Donovan would
clearly fall into the "ad hominem" category you queried earlier, while
David the Oz's reply would also be so categorised, only in the more
extreme echelons of "ad hominem" responses by way of provocation.

I do hope that helps!! ;o)

Have a great weekend David - you know I will!! ;o)

TFIF!

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:27:33 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2005-08-05, David <[email hidden]> wrote:

I'd like to add this as another exhibit for consideration in the

voting:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"You lost this debates hands down."

-- idiot, responding to his own IOM nomination.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Why? Are you the only one allowed a platform? (a bright boy like you

should

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be able to come up with something more creative than repeating 'idiot' at
every opportunity. Particularly because the 'idiot' trounced you in this
debate and exposed your argument as full of [censored].) This debate is stark
testimony that debating skill does not equal content or substance. Keep
calling me 'idiot', idiot, and I'll find one or two choice epithets for

you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the meantime, suck my fat one you cheap dime store pseudo

intellectual.

Quoted message said:

For the inestimable Dally's benefit, the taunt from Donovan would
clearly fall into the "ad hominem" category you queried earlier, while
David the Oz's reply would also be so categorised, only in the more
extreme echelons of "ad hominem" responses by way of provocation.

I do hope that helps!! ;o)

Have a great weekend David - you know I will!! ;o)

TFIF!

Yes, said under extreme provocation - let it be recorded as well that my
opponent has initiated this degrading name calling which is contrary to my
character and breeding.
Have a great weekend Charles! You know I intend to!