Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 12:41 pm

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 12:15 pm

This is how a man does it.  Notice I did not make demands.  I just did it. 

@Blackvegetable

Vaguely describe what "manly thing" you did there.

A man wouldn't insist that I produce something he can't/won't define.

It's not about "Sheilagh will know it when she sees it"


 

 

You said you were going to do this:

I will proceed to use Argument to taint punt you into the sun.

Now go ahead and do it. 

Posting a citation and demanding answers is not doing that.  

Vaguely describe what "manly thing" you did there.

When I show I already did you go ahead and take the next three months off.  You remember last time I said I posted something?  It means I am not obligated to answer questions and demands until 06 Mar 26.  You never do well on this.  


 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 9:56 am

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 9:48 am

.

All that is needed is an explanation as to how your citation pertains to the discussion and how it kicks my ***.

so far you are losing

 

@Blackvegetable  

You were told here.  Get on with it.  Not only did I tell you how a man does it, I showed you how a man does it.

You got some talkin' to back up.  

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 12:48 pm

@Blackvegetable  

You were told here.  Get on with it.  Not only did I tell you how a man does it, I showed you how a man does it.

You got some talkin' to back up.

i asked you to describe it, because your stream of twaddle doesn't make a coherent argument.

To be clear, you are acknowledging the fact underlined.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO
 

Early development work began in 1957. A project to create a small-calibre, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62mm) design. Winchester was also invited to participate.[11][5]

Ibid.


Acknowledge the underlined facts.

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:14 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:14 pm

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 12:48 pm

@Blackvegetable  

You were told here.  Get on with it.  Not only did I tell you how a man does it, I showed you how a man does it.

You got some talkin' to back up.

i asked you to describe it, because your stream of twaddle doesn't make a coherent argument.

To be clear, you are acknowledging the fact underlined.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

Yes, that is a factual cut and paste.  

All that is needed is an explanation as to how your citation pertains to the discussion and how it kicks my ***, without questions.  As a man would do it.

 
Just **** get on with it, Drama Queen. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:18 pm

Yes, that is a factual cut and paste.  

All that is needed is an explanation as to how your citation pertains to the discussion and how it kicks my ***, without questions.  As a man would do it.

Just **** get on with it, Drama Queen.

This is the part where we agree to objective facts.

Unless you are now going to define Argument, this is how it goes.

Now stop **** yapping
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:21 pm

This is the part where we agree to objective facts.

Unless you are now going to define Argument, this is how it goes.

Now stop **** yapping

Make your case, ******.  You ain’t done ****

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:27 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:27 pm

Make your case, ******.  You ain’t done ****

I am currently trying to get you to stipulate to facts.

Stop yapping and do so..

I'm strappin' on the boot.
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:29 pm

I am currently trying to get you to stipulate to facts.

Stop yapping and do so..

I'm strappin' on the boot.

Repost:

Yes, that is a factual cut and paste.  

All that is needed is an explanation as to how your citation pertains to the discussion and how it kicks my ***, without questions.  As a man would do it.

 
Just **** get on with it, Drama Queen. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:30 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:30 pm

Repost:

Yes, that is a factual cut and paste.  

All that is needed is an explanation as to how your citation pertains to the discussion and how it kicks my ***, without questions.  As a man would do it.

 
Just **** get on with it, Drama Queen. 

 

Acknowledge the second set of facts and stop **** yapping.

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm

Acknowledge the second set of facts and stop **** yapping.

this is the part where you explain how that kicks my ***.  You can’t do it so you are stalking.

 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:39 pm

this is the part where you explain how that kicks my ***.  You can’t do it so you are stalking.

No...but the next one is.

Now acknowledge and stop queefing like a rutting bitch.
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:40 pm

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:39 pm

this is the part where you explain how that kicks my ***.  You can’t do it so you are stalking.

No...but the next one is.

Now acknowledge and stop queefing like a rutting bitch.
 

 

I already said your cut and paste was factual.  ****, I'm the one who told about Fairchild industries.  

Now **** or get off the pot.  You are talking a lot but proving nothing.  

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:42 pm

I already said your cut and paste was factual.  ****, I'm the one who told about Fairchild industries.  

Now **** or get off the pot.  You are talking a lot but proving nothing.

****, I'm the one who told about Fairchild industries. 

In Swedish, I bet.

Cretin.

To be clear, you acknowledge the facts in BOTH excerpts. 

Correct?

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:47 pm

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:42 pm

I already said your cut and paste was factual.  ****, I'm the one who told about Fairchild industries.  

Now **** or get off the pot.  You are talking a lot but proving nothing.

****, I'm the one who told about Fairchild industries. 

In Swedish, I bet.

Cretin.

To be clear, you acknowledge the facts in BOTH excerpts. 

Correct?

 

Which other one?  You reposted only one.  

PS.  I am not obligated to answer your ****. I am waiting for your case that kick's my ***.  To this point you have not been man enough to do so.

@Blackvegetable  

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:18 pm

Early development work began in 1957. A project to create a small-calibre, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62mm) design. Winchester was also invited to participate.[11][5]

Ibid.


Acknowledge the underlined facts.

 

That is a factual cut and paste.

Ball is your court.  No more demands, no more questions.  No more ****.  Just your narrative explaining how this kicks my ***.  

PS.  Keep in mind that is 1957.  The muzzle velocity you are talking about isn't even in the top 10 AND it is only 10 FPS fastser than what was commercially available.  ANd don't forget the 3,700 fps .22 of the 30s. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:50 pm

Which other one?  You reposted only one.

You should pay attention instead of autoqueefung..

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:59 pm

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:50 pm

Which other one?  You reposted only one.

You should pay attention instead of autoqueefung..

 

You missed a notification.  Right after that one.  Now get on with this amazing case of yours explaining how that kick me ***, Drama Queen.

Right now you have done nothing.  And make sure when you make this amazing case you use my linked quotes.  You have a reputation of reframing on these long, drawn out productions of yours. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:54 pm

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 1:18 pm

Early development work began in 1957. A project to create a small-calibre, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62mm) design. Winchester was also invited to participate.[11][5]

Ibid.


Acknowledge the underlined facts.


 

That is a factual cut and paste.

Ball is your court.  No more demands, no more questions.  No more ****.  Just your narrative explaining how this kicks my ***.  

PS.  Keep in mind that is 1957.  The muzzle velocity you are talking about isn't even in the top 10 AND it is only 10 FPS fastser than what was commercially available.  ANd don't forget the 3,700 fps .22 of the 30s. 

 

@Blackvegetable    got on with it for god's sake. 

Now get on with this amazing case of yours explaining how that kick me ***, Drama Queen.

Right now you have done nothing.  And make sure when you make this amazing case you use my linked quotes.  You have a reputation of reframing on these long, drawn out productions of yours.