Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong"
Bryan wrote:
> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis
<mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong"
> : Bryan wrote:
>
> :> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis
<mdavis19@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> :> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always
Wrong" Bryan wrote:
> :>
> :> :> Speaking of the concept that the number of posts is what
makes you a kook it
> :> :> looks like Mike Biggs and Petey aer the biggest kooks in
this thread. . .
> :>
> :> : I guess we'll have to add "can't count" to the long list
of simple
> :> : cognitive actions you are incapable of doing correctly.
> :>
> :> Oh, that's right you have posted here more than Michael
Biggs so it should
> :> be You and Petey have the most posts
>
> : Wrong again, Mr. Always Wrong. Google shows 142 posts from me in
> : the last month, 168 from Pete, and a whopping 306 from you.
>
> What is it about the term "thread" that eludes you?
The part where the word "thread" allegedly appears in:
"Oh, that's right you have posted here more than Michael Biggs so
it should be You and Petey have the most posts"
It's damn elusive all right.
What's not elusive though is your hypocrisy. It is quite plain to
see. You whine about how much Pete and I post, but you yourself
are posting as much as the both of us put together! For shame!
> You have been by far the
> most prolific posted in this thread. . .
Well Google shows you are wrong about that claim too (no surprise
there). Pete and I are tied with you and Michael Biggs not far
behind. So I guess I am not "by far the most prolific posted in
this thread" like you illiterately claim after all. Why do you
just make silly shit up like this, and then post it as if it is
true? Do you seriously expect anyone to take your "Always Wrong"
word on anything? Do you seriously believe nobody would check?
Whadda Kook!
> other than Kang who is responding
> to four kooky debunkers at a time. . .
You've got that wrong two different ways. First off, it's you,
Kang, Roberta and Otis who are the four kooks in this thread. You
three low-IQ, retards have been drawn in like flies straight to
Kang's bullshit. Secondly, there there are more than four skeptics
and debunkers shredding Kang's nonsense.
Being wrong once in a claim is enough, Garrrrrry. You don't have
to be wrong two or more times. As a kook you are quite the
over-achiever.
>
> : Do you think that someday, maybe by accident, you will actually
> : get something right?
>
> LOL!!
Yeah, that's pretty much my reaction too.
> Funny coming from the likes of you. . .
Not really, I have asked that question of you many times before.
> and exactly how would two
> independent videos of this Great Wall prove that it is manmade
and not artifical, huh, Mikey?
Um, Garrrry, man-made and artificial(note correct spelling) mean
the same thing. HTH, moron.
> Seems your standards are pretty low for the Wall. . .
They are the same standards I require of you saucer heads. The
same standards you morons have never, ever, even remotely come
close to meeting. The same standards that you clowns have been
whining for years are set too impossibly high for you. Funny how
all of a sudden you are whining that they are low. Well, maybe
that's because you never asked me to apply my standards to
anything real before now. See how that works?
>
> :> other than KK who is fighting a 4 front
> :> assault. ..
>
> : Well then he shouldn't have assaulted so many people. It is his
> : obsession and kookery that keeps him flooding the NGs with
> : bullshit, not his critics. Your attempted defense of your new
butt
> : buddy Kang is touching though, even if it is amazingly lame and
> : totally misguided.
>
> He didn't assault anyone,
Delusion noted. He came here specifically to troll skeptics. That
much
*must* be obvious even to someone as shit-stupid as you. He
came here to pick a fight but got more than he bargained for. Now
he can't keep up and is threatening to run away. Whadda shame.
Poor kook.
> kook. . .
Projection noted.
> rewriting recent history again. . .
No, I leave that sort of thing to kooks like you with your
"puddles of molten steel" lies, your "peanut butter fueled tanks"
delusions, and your "DuPont killed the hemp industry" conspiracy crap.
> he
> responded to several of the kooky debunkers assaults and
questions. . .you must
> be the swing-shift Mikey and didn't read the dayshift
debriefings again. . .
Utter stupidity noted. Beg, borrow or steal a clue, frootloop.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"I don't have to do anything except post my name and it get
ridiculed whether it has anything to do with UFO's or not." -
Notorious net kook Garrrry Bryan brags about the reputation he has
built for himself.