for whom or what?--simply because reality does not have an inkling of care.
What evidence would work?
- Thread starter Crcata
- Start date
you have had it since the 1950s
(shrugs)
ahh, so now you also have resorted to hypocrisy and contradiction?
shrugs-- what would be THE significance?
So, why isn't it taught in school?you have had it since the 1950s
comical-- i am 100% sure that you would " lose " your measly 13$--comical
agian, according to whom--that has side-step the question?
my motive is simply to show that anyone whom is claiming otherwise is simply clueless of the matter.
(shrugs)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Hey cool. The board actually tells me when a post with no topical content is posted, yet still spares me from having to read it.
I didn't. I hit the question dead on. You just don't want to see it.
more of a manipulation spin?
and yet, you have not done so-- which is irrelevant in all matters, simply because i can still responded to your post as everyone will see.
(shrugs)
explain how i have not been attempting to do so-- simple correct?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It wasn't yours I was referring to.
That's a lie.my motive is simply to show that anyone whom is claiming otherwise is simply clueless of the matter.
Or, stop trying to insult people and explain yourself.
(shrugs)--yes-yes, please provide an explanation--simple correct?
so why did you click?
according to whom--you?--again, comedy gold.
Stop with the spam fest please.