On 30-Aug-2006, Pumba wrote:
> ur_droll wrote:
> > flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
> >> On 29-Aug-2006, "Ed" wrote:
> >>> "Keith E." wrote in message
> >>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:42:40 GMT, flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
> >>>>> On 28-Aug-2006, "Ed" wrote:
> >>>>>> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> More like, none, because no records show that he had any Jewish
> >>>>>>> antecedents.
> >>>>>>> Susan
> >>>>>> I was going by the "rumor" that one of his great-great parents was
> >>>>>> Jewish.
> >>>>> Ah, okay.
> >>>> Okay? O.INGKAY?!? He doesn't have to prove his statements?
> >>> Hey, genius, I said it was a RUMOR. Do I need to prove rumors?
> >> And to clarfiy for Mr. Hissy Fit - when you admit something is a rumor,
> >> you are already saying that you can;t vreify it and you don't expect
> >> your statement to have the same consideration a proven fact has.
> > much like the rumor that during the times of the rumored holocaust a
> > prisoner spot check revealed that a jew was found to have balls......
Isn;t it nice when they admit, right up front, that they have no actual
refutation, just projectionary filth?
> > These sorts of fictitious claims are obviously hogwash and simply don't
> > warrant a serious effort to attempt verification.....
Translation: facts bother bigots.
> > quite obviously
> > the balls in question belonged to a german soldier and were found in
> > the jews mouth.
>
> ooh, Colin, you're trying waaaaay too hard to offend.
But you see what I mean about projectionism?
It's all too obvious where he fantasizes the balls were:
http://www.brucemulkey.com/archives/2006/05/antigay_zeal_gr.html
>
> you need to dial it back a bit if you really want to get people riled up.
>
> you should know - a small prick is often all that is needed.
>
Or, rather, will have to do when it's all he has.
Susan
> :-D
>
> --
> I am Pumba, hear me ro-aaa-r!
> This is what I look like:
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211364968&size=o |