> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>> Dan Drake
dandrake.com> wrote>>>>>> It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.
> There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.
Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?
>>>> Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
>>>> itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
>>>> Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
>>>> or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.
>>> I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;
>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> You truly do suffer from a lack of imagination and skill at insults.
Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?
>>> You questioned what he thought about perjury.
>> You're lying, as always.
> Apparently you have no memory and can't read.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>> I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
>> getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.
> Is that what you think happened? You really do need to have your meds checked.
Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.
>>> You asked for a dictionary definition.
>> You're lying, as always.
> Have you tried hooked on phonics?
Have you tried remedial english ? Obviously not.
> It seemed to help my grandchildren with reading.
Wont be long before they have give you the bums rush into the nursing home.
>>> He provided one example of a legal definition.
>> Which has no relevance what so ever to the individual being discussed, Galileo.
> There is no evidence you are capable of a discussion.
> What you do isn't "discussion" by any definition.
Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?
>>> You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with
>>> an attempt to sidestep the issue by acting stupid.
>> You're lying, as always.
> Unfortunately, most people have less trouble with reading
> and comprehension. You might get it, keep trying.
Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.
>>> Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To
>>> deliberately testify falsely under oath"
>> You need a better dictionary.
> I'm sorry
Liar.
> I can't find a dictionary with pictures to describe "perjury."
Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.
> Just for the fun of it, what do you think the definition of perjury is?
Try a decent dictionary.
>>> Also of note, your statement above could be taken
>>> as saying you believe he was burnt at the stake.
>> Only by fools that dont have a fucking clue. You qualify.
>>> I'll grant even you with the knowledge that he wasn't
>> It is clear from what else I have said in this thread that I know he wasnt, fuckwit.
> Yet again you miss the point.
Wota stunningly original line...
> I admitted you knew better in the statement above, but now I'm
> starting to get the feeling that maybe you really don't get it at all.
Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.
>>> and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.
>> And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.
> Actually it takes so little to hurt your feelings
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> and force you into a juvenile and mindless response
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> that I wonder if I couldn't simply simulate you with an AI program
Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.
> like zippy the pinhead. Actually zippy is much more imaginative and interesting.
Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.
