sms wrote:

>> Ofcourse, at that time I simply could not comprehend that people like
>> nospam, joerg and similar could really exist. No person cold be *that*
>> much of an asshat, right ? It turned out I was wrong and they /do/ exist.
>
> You're well aware of the MAGA people that traffic in the same sort of
> misinformation, but in the political realm. They definitely do exist and
> are heavily invested in their beliefs.

I read the body without looking at _who_ said what, and when I saw the
political part, I knew instantly it was Steve since he's a political
animal.

The problem is Steve is just as politically wacko as the MAGA folks.
Just on the other fringe.

In fact _every_ political argument from Steve _requires_ you to be afraid.
He deals _only_ in ignorance & fear.

Which is why he brings up MAGA every chance Steve gets to bring it up.

Political animals like Steve expect the reader to be stupid & emotional.
a. The far right is ignorant, and emotional - not logical.
b. The far left is ignorant, and emotional - not logical.

Steve is far left to the point of deep wacko.
However, he lives in the Silicon Valley so "his" wacko is kind of normal.

nospam,

> that is a lie,

Fourty-six

> plus your counting needs work.

Fourty-seven.

> you also snipped to alter context.

Fourty-eight.

> nevertheless, should you think the referenced claim (which you
> snipped) is true,

Fourty-nine.

Your "go hunt" attempt is to blatant. If you want to have something refuted
than you're invited to quote what it is (you never will ofcourse).

> by all means post evidence that supports your position.

Suggesting that I do what you refuse to do yourself. Thats Hypocricy number
... four I believe.

> i see you chose the latter, exactly as expected.

i see you chose the latter, exactly as expected.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 13/08/2022 18:18, nospam wrote:

> you claim to want proof, yet when proof is provided, you ignore it.

What proof did you provide that he ignored?

In article <td8qbr$1g4s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> If you want to have something refuted
> than you're invited to quote what it is (you never will ofcourse).

you're lying. you snipped it because you know you're well over your
head and just want to argue.

> > by all means post evidence that supports your position.
>
> Suggesting that I do what you refuse to do yourself.

you're lying again. i did post evidence, which you also snipped.

you might consider not digging yourself a deeper hole than you already
have.