Republicans Against Sarah Palin

ZappasGuitar said:
Well thank you for admitting all you've got are ASSUMPTIONS about who you think he/she is.

Now...you ask how many screen names I've been through??

Exactly ONE...UNO!

I know no amount of evidence will convince you your ASSUMPTIONS are wrong...but we all learned LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ago there's just no discussing the truth with you once your narrow mind is set.
Click to expand...

Untrue.
You used a different moniker, before the one you now have.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Untrue.
You used a different moniker, before the one you now have.
Click to expand...

I have used exactly ONE name since I joined JPP.

Waaaaaaaay back when I first joined the AOL/Rate Bush boards I had a different name, but that was almost a DECADE ago and I have used the current moniker for 6-7 years at least.

Now we'll all get to witness USF do his little tantrum dance as he tries to spin this six ways to Sunday.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Well thank you for admitting all you've got are ASSUMPTIONS about who you think he/she is.

Now...you ask how many screen names I've been through??

Exactly ONE...UNO!

I know no amount of evidence will convince you your ASSUMPTIONS are wrong...but we all learned LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ago there's just no discussing the truth with you once your narrow mind is set.
Click to expand...

I never assumed to know who he/she is, apparently you're having those reading comprehension troubles again. Based on what the admin said, I determined Schadenfreude is an old poster with a new name. I don't care who they were, or what stupid thing they said which shamed them into changing their name, that's up to them... I just don't appreciate dishonesty, and when you come here acting like you're new and haven't posted before, and that is not the case, you are a liar.

For the record, I don't buy that this is the only screen name you've posted under, and I have my reasons for that as well. You've not been around as "Zapped" long enough to develop the deep-rooted hatred you display towards me daily. Obviously, you are some moron I chewed up and spit out long ago, and you just don't want to admit that. It's okay, I don't blame you, I wouldn't admit I had been shamed out of my moniker either.
 
Dixie said:
I never assumed to know who he/she is, apparently you're having those reading comprehension troubles again. Based on what the admin said, I determined Schadenfreude is an old poster with a new name. I don't care who they were, or what stupid thing they said which shamed them into changing their name, that's up to them... I just don't appreciate dishonesty, and when you come here acting like you're new and haven't posted before, and that is not the case, you are a liar.

For the record, I don't buy that this is the only screen name you've posted under, and I have my reasons for that as well. You've not been around as "Zapped" long enough to develop the deep-rooted hatred you display towards me daily. Obviously, you are some moron I chewed up and spit out long ago, and you just don't want to admit that. It's okay, I don't blame you, I wouldn't admit I had been shamed out of my moniker either.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you believe Mr. "3 can't be divided into 1 equally".

Reading your reasoning behind that little debate convince me MONTHS ago just how narrow-minded you truly are.

Like I said before...no amount of evidence or proof will sway your narrow mind once you've set it. I could get the admins to back me up, but then you'd just ASSUME they were lying because they "don't like you" or some similar stupidity.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I have used exactly ONE name since I joined JPP.

Waaaaaaaay back when I first joined the AOL/Rate Bush boards I had a different name, but that was almost a DECADE ago and I have used the current moniker for 6-7 years at least.

Now we'll all get to witness USF do his little tantrum dance as he tries to spin this six ways to Sunday.
Click to expand...

OH, you should have clarified that you wanted to hold this to the JPP forum.
You were a little unclear.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I don't care what you believe Mr. "3 can't be divided into 1 equally".

Reading your reasoning behind that little debate convince me MONTHS ago just how narrow-minded you truly are.

Like I said before...no amount of evidence or proof will sway your narrow mind once you've set it. I could get the admins to back me up, but then you'd just ASSUME they were lying because they "don't like you" or some similar stupidity.
Click to expand...

"3 can't be divided into 1 equally?" Sure it can, it's 3, isn't it? Do you mean "1 can't be divided into 3 equally?" Because, that IS the case, unless you have new information. What is "narrow-minded" is insisting "1/3" is a value, when it's not, it is fractional representation of value. The point of the Great 1/3 Debate was to show what extremes liberals will go to, in order to argue with Dixie. Math is not debatable, we don't have differing opinions on math, it is always consistent and never changes, and it is not dependent on perspective. When you divide 1 into 3 parts, a remainder is produced. That is a fact of mathematics, regardless of what extremes you go to in order to deny the fact. Liberals literally attempted to argue that "math is flawed" to avoid admitting I was right. Truly an amazing moment in political forum history!
 
Dixie said:
"3 can't be divided into 1 equally?" Sure it can, it's 3, isn't it? Do you mean "1 can't be divided into 3 equally?" Because, that IS the case, unless you have new information. What is "narrow-minded" is insisting "1/3" is a value, when it's not, it is fractional representation of value. The point of the Great 1/3 Debate was to show what extremes liberals will go to, in order to argue with Dixie. Math is not debatable, we don't have differing opinions on math, it is always consistent and never changes, and it is not dependent on perspective. When you divide 1 into 3 parts, a remainder is produced. That is a fact of mathematics, regardless of what extremes you go to in order to deny the fact. Liberals literally attempted to argue that "math is flawed" to avoid admitting I was right. Truly an amazing moment in political forum history!
Click to expand...

Another typical Dixie stunt.

Focus on a typo rather than address the question at hand.

You know perfectly well what I meant and your blatant attempt at dodging the issue we were discussing is laughable.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Another typical Dixie stunt.

Focus on a typo rather than address the question at hand.

You know perfectly well what I meant and your blatant attempt at dodging the issue we were discussing is laughable.
Click to expand...

Well well well...


Once again the Dixie Douchebag runs for the hills when he's caught being a narrow-minded asswipe and can't find a way out!

Come back anytime you're ready for another schooling, you inbred hillbilly.
 
Beefy said:
Confirmed. Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I will anyway, we know who Schadenfreude is, and its not Froggie.

So all you armchair gumshoes are just making yourselves look like jackasses. That is all.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I appreciate this.
 
Dixie said:
"3 can't be divided into 1 equally?" Sure it can, it's 3, isn't it? Do you mean "1 can't be divided into 3 equally?" Because, that IS the case, unless you have new information. What is "narrow-minded" is insisting "1/3" is a value, when it's not, it is fractional representation of value. The point of the Great 1/3 Debate was to show what extremes liberals will go to, in order to argue with Dixie. Math is not debatable, we don't have differing opinions on math, it is always consistent and never changes, and it is not dependent on perspective. When you divide 1 into 3 parts, a remainder is produced. That is a fact of mathematics, regardless of what extremes you go to in order to deny the fact. Liberals literally attempted to argue that "math is flawed" to avoid admitting I was right. Truly an amazing moment in political forum history!
Click to expand...

If I cut a cake up into 3 equal parts, where is the remainder?
 
Dixie said:
Maybe if you give us the value of each third, we could determine where the remainder is?
Click to expand...
Let's see. It was an exactly three pound cake, each piece after it was divided was exactly 1 pound. Then we ate them. Where is the remainder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top