One of the advantages of e-discussion over verbal discussion is that there is a record of participants' approaches to argument.
In the case of this discussion, WillyTex, you have shown that you do not have the evidence to support your "argument", you do not have the emotional ability to admit you lack such evidence or to answer direct questions when such answers would indicate flaws in your "argument". I was a "WillyTex virgin" - and I have been deflowered. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > The boy pundits see the doctor all the > > > time, according to my sources in Vedic > > > City. > > > > scienceofabundance wrote: > > Given that there is nothing in the URL you > > posted about Dr. Lonsdorf related to Dr. > > Lonsdorf seeing the pundits, it has not > > relevance. > > > Yes, I have sources deep withing the TMO and > according to them, not only do the boy pundits > not smoke, they see Dr. Lonsdorf all the time. > > > Why did you post it? > > > To make the point that the boy pundits don't > smoke the betel nuts? > > > Your final "argument" [final two sentences > > above] remains as it was initially - "you > > have sources." Sources - no evidence. > > > And not only that, but the boys see their > mother's all the time too. Were you thinking > the boys smoke the betel nuts, don't see a > doctor, and have no mothers? >
