On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:46:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Sir Arthur CB
Wholeflaffers ASA <science@zzz.com>:

On Jul 6, 2:18 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:22:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Sir Arthur CB
Wholeflaffers ASA <scie...@zzz.com>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 04:52:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

Inability to understand the post to which you thought you
were responding, noted.

To Casanobrain:

Inability to debunk any facts

Confirmation of inability to understand English noted.

... a
pathetic debunker, but so aren't they all?

Even further confirmation of inability to understand English
noted.

For the comprehension-challenged (again, that's you), this
means that my post didn't attempt to "debunk any facts";
your snippage of it doesn't make it go away. That's twice
I've had to tell you this; maybe if you learned English
you'd be able to understand it and stop tilting at
windmills.

<snip even more conspiracy-theory idiocy>
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless