Proof There Is A 'Larnrod' -which-simply-proves-nothing-
On May 13, 8:14*pm, Iarnrod wrote:
On May 13, 6:32*pm, Harold Burton wrote:
In article
,
blathered:
On May 12, 8:12*pm, Harold Burton wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
On May 11, 8:10*pm, Harold Burton wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
On May 8, 9:40*pm, Harold Burton wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
On May 8, 2:44*pm, * US * wrote:
The bushkultie has no facts.
That is correct. YOU, the bushkultie, have no facts. Bush is not
getting his money's worth paying for your counter-disinfo
shilling.
You simply have not presented anything even remotely physically
possible.
You're arguing with a fellow leftard (*US*),
Hey fuzznuts, * Hates US * is, like you, a rightard.
Nope, try again.
Yep.
Nah, keep trying.
- - - No need since I have already prevailed, Hairy Butt. FACT.
- - When you have to announce that you "prevailed", you haven't.
- That's what all you losers say, Hairy Butt.
-
- Hint: I prevailed. Proven FACT.
Larnrod,
The Only Proven Fact is That You 'Larnrod' Have
Proven Beyond-a-Reasonable-Doubt That You
Truly Are In-Fact A "Larnrod"
-which-simply-proves-nothing-nothing-nothing-
|