XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.bitterness, alt.fucktard
From: weberm@polaris.net

In article <r23hgs$k0o$1@dont-email.me>, fredp151@gmail.com wrote: >fredp151@gmail.com wrote:

#Triggered

On 2/12/20 5:57 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

atropos@mac.com wrote:

In a second followup, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/20 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In a second follouwp, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/20 8:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In a second followup, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/20 8:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In a second followup, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com>wrote:

On 2/11/20 4:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

There's no point in playing your "cite" game because you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about cites. It's just a convenient way to divert >>>>>>>>>>>> attention from what you can't defend. You realized the whole >>>>>>>>>>>> "CNN tweet isn't a political ad" was a loser, so instead you >>>>>>>>>>>> started braying about 'random pictures' and demanding links >>>>>>>>>>>> for your convenience. It was just more of your
typical 'change the subject' schtick. If I'd provided the >>>>>>>>>>>> link, you'd have just ignored it like you did in the other >>>>>>>>>>>> thread, or come up with some reason why it didn't 'count', >>>>>>>>>>>> or most probably, just changed the subject something else. >>>>>>>>>>>

Sure.  Heard it all before.
Post a credible source, and I'll give it a look.

Post a link to Twitter, and I'm not wasting my time.

?!?!?!

The link you've been whining about from CNN is a Twitter link. >>>>>>>>>> So after all your bullshit, you're admitting that even I'd posted >>>>>>>>>> the link to Twitter where CNN's paid political ad appears, you >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't even have looked at it.

Game. Set. Match.

Learn how to play the game.

No, it WASN'T a Twitter link.It was your jpeg of a Twitter link. >>>>>>>>

And you were asking for the actual link to the tweet.

Which you now admit you would have ignored.

I'd have gone to CNN to see the story.

The story wasn't at issue, for god's sake. It was the fact that >>>>>>>> CNN paid to promote it. The only way to illustrate *that* would >>>>>>>> be a link to the tweet itself, which you now admit you would have >>>>>>>> ignored and by logical extension, you admit you've been full of shit >>>>>>>> this entire time.

They didn't pay to promote the story. Period.

Yes, they did. That's what the little "promoted" tag at the bottom of >>>>>> the tweet means, genius.

You didn't provide the tweet.

You would have ignored it if I had because Twitter=sewer. You said as
much.

And once again, FPP makes your point.

Followed by an attempt to chnage the subject again.

Imbecile. Stay right where you are... it's where you truly belong.

Ad hominem noted.

Sure. Now provide the link so we can see if Thanny's dropbox jpeg is
what he says it is.
Because only an imbecile would take his word for it. Like you.

Ad hominem noted.

But I'm betting you can't find it, can you?

Deflection noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

P.S.
Thanks for making BTR's point again!


--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)