Re: RE: Re: You
 

But if he said "good game", then he won't be shocked WHEN they win.

I said he woudln't be shocked.....and he won't. Nobody said HE was guaranteeing victory.

I'm beginning to think you ARE that other idiot, under a seperate name. Your arguments are just as illogical and stupid as his are.

TheGambler: "You sure managed to go from "civil to douchebag" in a heartbeat"

Civility? At least I didn't resort to name calling. What makes you so sure the signature was about you?

Because you DIRECT QUOTED ME YOU IDIOT, followed by your "signature" right underneath it.

Hey, if the shoe fits.....

Again, I'm not resorting to name calling.

Does this NOT look familiar to you??


Direct quoting me, following by the term "fool", but in your mind, you aren't namecalling.....


Are you really that stupid? Or for that matter, do you think people are blind?

I don't care how certain that you are that you are the fool in the quote, it is not directed toward you.

So you just happened to include a quote from me, followed by your statement?

But, UNDER NO CIRCUSTANCES DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE GAMBLER, AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HE'D TAKE OFFENSE TO SUCH A THING BECAUSE I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

OJ would be in jail if he had your defense...

Civil: In your last 5 post you have called me stupid twice, idiot twice, and a douchebag once. People with superior intellect can rely on vocabulary and reason rather than resort to name calling when in an arguement. I'm sorry that you cannot do so.

Why waste such superior intellect on such an inferior life form?

Particularly on those who can say (or type, in this case) with a straight face that they didn't intend a message to be directed towards someone that they direct-quoted.