Davin News Server

On 10/2/25 14:20, AlleyCat wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 09:25:07 -0400, -hh says...
> 
>>> Do that, and I'll retract and beg news servers across the globe to
>>> delete every article I ever wrote.
> 
> <crickets.wav>
>   
>> LOL, you'll never do any such thing: you'll keep on doing what you
>> always do:
> 
> Yes, I will, and faggot... you can do NOTHING about it, but continue to whine and cry and not REFUTE what was posted.
> 
> All you faggots, like Rudy and Alan, ever do, is whine and cry about the minutiae of a post and not the gist of it, pointing out
> stupid shit, like the author(s) not meeting YOUR criteria for being "experts" in the filed of the topic.
> 
> In this case, you, again, are not refuting what was posted, because you can't. You're whining about presentation.
> 
> Well... fuck that.
> 
> You have a problem with the way "we" here present topics and articles, too fucking bad... do not bother to reply. You low self-
> esteemed nerds NEED to do this shit, for ONE reason only... you need to make you feel better about your lot in life.
> 
> Alan "Rich Kid Ski Bunny" Baker is a prime example, and you're doing a fine job following in his footsteps. I'm not as familiar
> with you, as I am with him, so I don't know... have you always been a whiner/cryer and not a refuter?
> 
>  From what I remember in the short term, yu USED to at least try to refute the article, but I'm afraid you've taken up Ski Bunny
> Baker's bad habit(s) (among many) of needing to try and make him feel better by TRYING to show his undeserved intellectual
> superiority, by trashing WHO wrote WHAT article and whether they're an "expert" or not.
> 
> You have a much better mind, than to be wasting it on "protocol". Again, if you don't like what I write for subject lines, and the
> subsequent article, whether it 'matches" to your satisfaction or not, filter me out.
> 
> I REALLY won't mind. It's not like I sit here and say to myself; "I can't wait for hh to reply to me!"
> 
>> deleting points
> 
> How can I delete points? Only others than myself can do that. The "points" are all available in the thread. THAT'S permanent. If
> you delete parts of the thread or all of the thread... that's on you.
> 
> I "snip" for brevity. If ANYONE needs to be reminded of how the discussion is going, they can EASILY look back in the thread.
> 
> That's another stupid habit you've picked up from rich kid. Who the fuck wants or NEEDS to see the discussion (in its entirety)
> when they can just pick it up as it is?"
> 
> If they (you) can't look back and see how the discussion is going or what it constitutes, that's YOUR problem.
> 
>> and moving the goalposts to never have to publicly admit that you're wrong.
> 
> I don't move the goalposts. I'm either explaining what YOU didn't catch, or expressing myself FURTHER and more concisely. I spend
> as little time posting here, so yes, I will probably NEVER express myself perfectly, but then again, I am NOT a poet or
> professional writer, in regards to NEEDING to be perfect. This is USENET fer Chrise sake.
> 
> If YOU expect perfection from others, you are sadly in the wrong place for that.
>   
>>
>>> The article was NOT only about the mRNA vaccine, but it IS included. I made
>>> the title to reflect MODERN vaccinations INCLUDING mRNA, but not exclusively,
>>> dumb ass.
> 
>> So are you admitting that you made a mistake in misidentifying the topic
>> in the subject line?
> 
> Oh, fuck, no.
> 
> There was NO mistake.
> 
> My title did EXACTLY what I wanted it to do... lure in a bunch of pedantic faggots, to do... lure in a bunch of pedantic children
> to argue over semantics.
> 
> The discussion would be secondary, mainly because the stats and figures are 100% correct.
> 
> At NO point in time was mRNA the SOLE component of the studies. Hell, it wasn't even IN the snippet I posted, but it WAS in the
> whole article, so kiss my ass.
> 
> Please filter or killfile me, if you're going to be yet ANOTHER pedantic pussy troll, like Rudy and Ski Bunny Baker.
> 
Yawn...

Anyone care to translate & condense this blather into its salient 
points?  Or aren't there any points which are actually salient?


-hh