Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.checkmate > #210572

Re: Was she looking for love ?

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/3/2018 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <pp2k75$14lo$5@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
> @gmail.nospam.invalid says...
>>
>> On 10/3/2018 9:57 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <pp13jd$1of$17@dont-email.me>, nad318b404@gmail.invalid
>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:52:34 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <pp0p5d$1of$3@dont-email.me>, nad318b404@gmail.invalid
>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 10:09:47 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <poumfc$at2$8@dont-email.me>, nad318b404@gmail.invalid
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 05:30:53 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Are you the FBI? Do you have proof? Do you always take the word of
>>>>>>>>> a known Trump hating democrapper paid
>>>>>>>> Proof?
>>>>>>> You sa<SPANK>
>>>>>> So, no proof then. Gotcha.
>>>>> You snipped the question that scares you to answer.
>>>> You prove that Ford is being paid, *first*. *Then* we can discuss whatever
>>>> question you wanted to burble at me.
>>> Nope, I don't cave in to cheating lefty demands.
>>
>> In what way is Nadegda, in asking you to back up claims that you make,
>> "cheating", koOktArd?
> 
> I asked a question firts

No. Your question *contained* the embedded assertion that Ford is a paid 
shill. Before it can be answered you *must* substantiate that k'lame. 
Because if in fact she is *not* a paid shill the question doesn't even 
discuss this universe!

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

Back to alt.checkmate | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 02:51 +0000
  Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-02 10:09 -0600
    Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 21:49 +0000
      Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-02 16:52 -0600
        Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-03 00:47 +0000
          Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-03 07:57 -0600
            Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-10-03 10:08 -0400
              Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-03 08:33 -0600
            Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-03 10:37 -0400
              Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-03 08:46 -0600
                Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-03 10:50 -0400
                Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-03 08:55 -0600
                Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-03 10:57 -0400
                Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-03 09:01 -0600

csiph-web