Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

So you responded to a post with a link without reading

Posted on: May 30, 2021 at 10:52:12 CT
hokie VT
Posts:
68139
Member For:
9.66 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
the link.

You were able to comment on the substance of the post and the crackpots in the party and their impact on the policies, without ever viewing the link.

Ever wonder why you have no credibility?

And you did the weasel word thing trying to twist the subject without drastically changing the subject. Your deceitful post saying, "It is possible to read without believing" is worthy of asstray and swamprat.

Yeah, we all thought you read it.

Responding with general (dare i say, vague) crap to a specific subject. So lame.

You are dishonest.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

For those of you unfamiliar with cloward piven, take a - hokie VT - 5/30 10:20:04
     looks like many of the same positions you take here - pickle MU - 5/30 12:19:29
     Yes, the left also has crackpots, but they aren't in charge - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 10:24:43
          What world are you living in? (nm) - Outsider MU - 5/30 10:56:11
               The real world, not the one sponsored by Q nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 11:01:38
                    When did Coach Q become this influential? (nm) - Outsider MU - 5/30 11:02:45
                         You tell me. Doesn't make any sense to me either, although - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 11:05:02
          utter horseshyte. - RHAYWORTH MU - 5/30 10:42:45
               Yes, the article is utter horseshyte and partisan hackery nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 10:50:20
                    The left isn't in charge? Bullshyte. - RHAYWORTH MU - 5/30 10:55:59
                    How and when did you determine the value of the article? nm - hokie VT - 5/30 10:53:05
                         Early on, although admittedly the article got even less - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 11:00:21
          You didn't read the article. If you had read it you see - hokie VT - 5/30 10:29:46
               I didn't accept the article's premise. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 10:37:56
                    So without reading it you knew the premise and commented - hokie VT - 5/30 10:39:08
                         I read it. I didn't accept the article's premise. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 10:49:28
                              Sorry, don't believe you read it. Maybe skimmed it, or - hokie VT - 5/30 10:54:14
                                   Your beliefs are well noted, and typically full of crap. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 5/30 10:59:03
                         It is possible to read without believing.(nm) - Toger STL - 5/30 10:40:51
                              True. Did you read before responding? No. nm - hokie VT - 5/30 10:41:50
                                   I usually only read your subject lines. - Toger STL - 5/30 10:44:54
                                        So you responded to a post with a link without reading - hokie VT - 5/30 10:52:12
                                             You like to write. Write something worth reading.(nm) - Toger STL - 5/30 10:55:53
                                             lol cookie (nm) - SwampTiger MU - 5/30 10:53:35




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard