rec.sport.football.college

On Aug 8, 3:40 am, Gilchrist wrote:
> On Aug 7, 10:29 pm, Jay Furr wrote:
>
> > A few years ago, a friend of mine hemorrhaged at home after giving birth to
> > her second child and wound up receiving more blood in terms of transfusions
> > than her body actual holds -- it was like they were pouring it in as fast
> > as she bled it out. If her little local western Massachusetts hospital had
> > been short of blood due to conditions like we're currently in, she'd have
> > died.
>
> FAIL
>
> say her little local western Massachusetts hospital was
> run by a madman, who demanded that the blood bank
> have 80 billion gallons of blood at all time.
>
> Next say the blood bank were short by 5 gallons. It
> has 79 billion 999 million 999 thousand 995 gallons. It's
> short, so according to you she should die, but it isn't
> so. They are able to give her the ten gallons she needs
> and still have more than 79 billion gallons in store.
>
> Since you lied here, your whole argument is in contempt,
> and should be shunned.
>
> --

shunned? WITSL?