Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #82464 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-20 09:15 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-20 19:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 510 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-20 09:15 -0700
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Bill (not Jillians) Royal Order of the DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2017-03-20 12:23 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-20 16:23 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-03-20 17:28 +0100
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-20 09:38 -0700
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-03-20 17:43 +0100
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-20 09:35 -0700
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-20 12:01 -0500
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.invalid> - 2017-03-20 18:31 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-20 19:57 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-20 18:17 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-20 22:37 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-20 18:54 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-20 23:13 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-20 19:36 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 01:10 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 15:09 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 19:21 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Trump Team <TeamTrump@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 00:54 +0100
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-22 02:11 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-21 19:22 -0700
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Trump Team <TeamTrump@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 03:12 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-22 15:28 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-20 18:50 -0700
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-20 18:49 -0700
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-20 17:25 -0600
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-20 19:43 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-20 20:02 -0400
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 01:12 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-20 18:56 -0700
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-20 22:18 -0600
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-21 16:55 +0000
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 12:17 -0500
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:04 -0600
Kaczynski found his communist wonderland, prison. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-20 17:54 -0700
Re: Kaczynski found his communist wonderland, prison. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 09:14 -0500
Re: Kaczynski found his communist wonderland, prison. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 15:14 -0400
Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-21 12:20 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 15:35 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-21 13:07 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 16:16 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 16:42 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 20:57 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:21 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:19 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-22 15:07 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-22 14:11 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-22 16:07 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Trump Team <TeamTrump@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 01:27 +0100
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:17 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 20:26 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 16:46 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 16:00 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:23 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-21 16:25 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 20:02 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-21 16:32 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:42 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-22 15:09 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:22 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-21 16:37 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 16:51 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 15:58 -0500
Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-21 13:59 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 16:02 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:30 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 23:38 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:47 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-22 02:15 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-21 19:25 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-22 00:30 -0600
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-22 01:45 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-22 00:06 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Emmett BADASS Gulley <emmettgulley71@qmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:12 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Rick Mathers <halfdick@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-22 15:19 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Albätross <mäil.tö.älbätross@gmäil.cöm> - 2017-03-26 18:44 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 20:05 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Albätross <mäil.tö.älbätross@gmäil.cöm> - 2017-03-26 20:17 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 20:42 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 21:02 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 16:39 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:30 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-24 05:48 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-21 18:40 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Anglo Saxon <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-22 05:43 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-22 00:51 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-22 15:17 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-22 12:34 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-22 17:15 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-22 16:17 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-23 07:14 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 08:42 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-23 07:59 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 09:23 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-23 08:37 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-23 14:18 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-23 14:28 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 16:35 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-24 06:44 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 09:03 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 13:08 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 12:43 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 14:04 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:10 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 14:17 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:25 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ ❄ Snowflake ❄ Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 14:39 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:42 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ❄ Snowflake ❄ Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 14:44 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not e ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:46 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not e ❄ Snowflake ❄ Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 15:00 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 17:04 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ❄ Snowflake ❄ Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 15:06 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ ❄ Snowflake ❄ Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 21:00 -0400
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 22:49 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ ❄ Snowflake ❄ Trump Team <TeamTrump@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 05:51 +0100
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-24 10:42 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly ❄ Snowflake ❄ Trump Team <TeamTrump@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 01:52 +0100
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-24 12:49 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 17:24 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ? Snowflake ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:46 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 16:27 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 18:30 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 17:40 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-24 14:37 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-24 13:49 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Trump Team <TeamTrump@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 01:31 +0100
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-24 17:59 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-24 18:05 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-24 18:35 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-24 18:56 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 12:19 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 12:19 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 14:15 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-23 18:08 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 14:17 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-23 19:28 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 16:38 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-25 16:22 +0000
He thought, " Parliament made my wife too free and independent ". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-25 11:42 -0700
Re: He thought, " Parliament made my wife too free and independent ". Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 18:10 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-25 14:14 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-03-25 19:52 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 18:02 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-25 22:03 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-25 22:14 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:15 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-25 23:07 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-03-26 00:01 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-25 21:00 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Ms Kitty, DoW #6" <Ms.Kitty@dow.six> - 2017-03-26 00:03 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-26 13:04 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 11:13 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-27 04:09 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-03-26 17:55 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 15:32 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-28 02:56 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 15:27 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-28 04:34 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 12:42 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 16:39 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 13:52 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 17:35 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 14:50 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 21:35 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-27 14:40 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 22:11 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-27 21:33 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 17:47 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-28 06:22 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 19:48 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:19 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 20:23 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 21:09 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 18:26 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:28 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:47 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 16:26 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 13:34 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 17:15 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 14:25 -0700
No doubt about it now vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-27 20:44 +0000
Re: No doubt about it now Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 17:25 -0400
Re: No doubt about it now Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 21:41 +0000
Re: No doubt about it now Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-28 06:20 +0800
Re: No doubt about it now Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 22:29 +0000
Re: No doubt about it now Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-28 06:41 +0800
Re: No doubt about it now Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 19:47 -0400
Re: No doubt about it now Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:22 -0700
Re: No doubt about it now chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-28 06:59 -0500
Re: No doubt about it now Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-28 08:58 -0400
Re: No doubt about it now Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-28 14:10 -0700
Re: No doubt about it now Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:27 -0700
Re: No doubt about it now vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-27 22:11 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 21:25 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-28 06:08 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Ms Kitty, DoW #6" <Ms.Kitty@dow.six> - 2017-03-27 23:00 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-28 08:45 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-28 07:55 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-28 14:11 -0700
String Theory is Ptolemaic astronomy, repackaged. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-27 21:39 -0700
String Theory is Ptolemaic astronomy, repackaged. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-27 21:48 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 18:56 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 22:57 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 16:28 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 16:08 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-03-26 20:41 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-26 21:19 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 14:23 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-03-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:24 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:33 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 09:52 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-25 23:30 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Bite My Shiny Metal Ass - 2017-03-27 04:13 +0800
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-25 15:13 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-25 17:16 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:13 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:29 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:34 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 21:41 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 18:58 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 09:08 -0400
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-26 08:33 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 11:09 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-25 21:00 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-25 22:17 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 15:36 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:16 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 18:41 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-25 22:54 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 19:10 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-25 16:51 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:26 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:27 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-03-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 10:50 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-03-27 18:41 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 11:54 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-25 23:32 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 00:02 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:17 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:20 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Tampon <letsplayfindthestring@bloody.net> - 2017-03-26 00:45 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:59 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 18:13 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 21:43 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:18 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:25 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:40 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:57 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-25 20:07 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 21:19 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 21:24 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 18:44 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 22:25 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 19:33 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 04:17 +0000
Everyone chooses the LeastWorst option and hopes for the best; Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-26 18:00 -0700
Re: Everyone chooses the LeastWorst option and hopes for the best; "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 21:05 -0400
Everyone chooses the LeastWorst option and hopes for the best; Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-26 18:17 -0700
Re: Everyone chooses the LeastWorst option and hopes for the best; "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 21:33 -0400
Now I see the light, it's raining cats and dogs. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-26 19:53 -0700
Re: Now I see the light, it's raining cats and dogs. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 23:02 -0400
Re: Everyone chooses the LeastWorst option and hopes for the best; Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 21:10 -0400
Hippie Jesus. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-25 19:01 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 18:43 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 21:49 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 19:10 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 09:17 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 11:10 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 22:31 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 19:41 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 09:39 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 09:22 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 21:45 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 19:00 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 04:22 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 23:49 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 04:10 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 21:44 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 18:48 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 09:05 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 11:07 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 04:07 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:23 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 20:30 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:42 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 21:09 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 18:32 -0700
NOMINATION Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 04:32 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:26 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 20:25 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 17:45 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-25 21:12 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 18:34 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 19:27 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Kachina Dancer <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-25 23:45 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 23:52 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 09:43 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 18:52 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? rachel <rachbl71@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 15:58 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? rachel <rachbl71@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 16:04 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? rachel <rachbl71@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 16:46 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 20:09 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? rachel <rachbl71@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 18:15 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 21:28 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 16:12 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-26 22:50 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 08:22 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-03-26 03:36 +0200
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 21:47 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-25 19:02 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 09:12 -0400
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-26 08:35 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 11:04 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 18:53 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 22:56 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 16:07 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 16:13 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Tampon <letsplayfindthestring@bloody.net> - 2017-03-26 23:17 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 20:02 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 20:44 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 20:56 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-26 21:10 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:44 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 01:54 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 22:04 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 02:04 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:50 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:47 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 22:58 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 20:19 -0700
Kids today make Jesus look like Trump. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-26 20:21 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 08:17 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 10:36 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 22:08 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom, WoD #1) - 2017-03-27 10:07 +0100
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-27 02:13 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:43 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:38 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 22:47 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:55 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 23:09 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 20:19 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 20:23 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 20:43 -0700
Both Michael Glasser and CaptainPissBucket have OCD, bad. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-26 20:28 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 20:22 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 15:02 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 12:45 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 16:00 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 13:21 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 16:42 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 14:17 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-03-28 00:31 +0200
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 22:31 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-27 15:35 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 19:50 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:12 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 02:54 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 20:19 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 14:58 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 12:43 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 15:58 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 13:24 -0700
Men were _not created equally. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-27 20:51 -0700
Re: Men were _not created equally. Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-28 08:44 -0400
Re: Men were _not created equally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-28 14:12 -0700
Re: Men were _not created equally. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-28 22:14 -0500
Re: Men were _not created equally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-28 20:15 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 16:27 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 21:07 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 20:39 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:53 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 21:05 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 21:15 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 21:27 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 18:30 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 18:28 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 21:37 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 19:42 -0700
Trump is more "golden calf" than Christian. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-27 21:12 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-28 08:37 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-28 13:47 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-28 01:56 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-27 03:49 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 20:59 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 06:17 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 14:52 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-27 15:34 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 12:47 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-27 19:39 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 12:48 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Tampon <letsplayfindthestring@bloody.net> - 2017-03-27 20:38 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 16:37 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 13:58 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-27 21:21 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 17:46 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 16:55 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 14:35 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 22:01 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-27 16:16 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 17:49 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 16:20 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 13:22 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-27 16:50 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-27 14:15 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2017-03-29 10:10 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Tampon <letsplayfindthestring@bloody.net> - 2017-03-27 01:11 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Tampon <letsplayfindthestring@bloody.net> - 2017-03-27 01:13 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 21:25 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:45 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 01:56 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 22:17 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? pandora <pandora@peak.orq> - 2017-03-26 22:26 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 22:28 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@qmail.invalid> - 2017-03-26 22:32 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-26 22:37 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-27 02:26 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-03-27 02:48 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:53 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-27 07:22 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-03-26 19:37 -0700
Do you invite murders and rapists to your parties ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Do you invite murders and rapists to your parties ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:13 -0700
Re: Do you invite murders and rapists to your parties ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-23 19:20 +0000
Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-03-23 13:40 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.invalid> - 2017-03-23 18:09 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 14:20 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 12:23 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.invalid> - 2017-03-23 19:08 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 16:33 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:01 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 17:10 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:12 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 17:24 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:26 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:54 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 21:04 -0400
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 22:57 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 23:02 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:31 -0500
Re:Snowflake Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:49 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:53 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 17:18 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 17:29 -0400
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:32 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-23 21:34 +0000
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:40 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-23 14:42 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not ex actly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ ❄ Snowflake ❄ Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-23 16:44 -0500
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Trump Team <TeamTrump@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 04:02 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? ? Snowflake ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 17:24 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-23 21:30 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:55 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 17:22 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:02 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 18:13 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:43 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-24 02:05 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 17:12 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 21:12 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 18:19 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-24 08:24 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-24 17:55 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-25 10:43 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 17:14 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 17:20 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:52 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:50 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2017-03-23 19:44 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 17:51 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2017-03-24 10:04 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 08:52 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-24 17:57 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-24 02:05 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2017-03-24 10:08 -0500
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 12:20 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 15:57 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-23 17:51 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-24 00:19 +0000
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-23 17:36 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-22 16:09 -0600
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-22 18:49 -0700
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-03-23 08:59 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-23 12:58 -0400
Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-23 14:21 -0400
NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 01:04 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-20 18:58 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-21 15:17 -0400
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-03-21 19:25 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Bill (not Jillians) Royal Order of the DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2017-03-21 17:26 -0400
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-21 16:30 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2017-03-21 15:59 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:59 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-21 16:03 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-21 17:11 -0600
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish Skeeter <skeet@skeet.invalid> - 2017-03-20 17:14 -0600
Re: In Gratitude to Carroll and the Fish "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> - 2017-03-20 19:39 -0400
Page 18 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 26 Next page →
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 22:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <pkvgdc5phblmqmrtbgjr1m2n8ri9htn2lb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #83525 |
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:47:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 3/26/17, 7:04 PM, in article thsgdc9rfrcps0108lv7a64nhq524r0kso@4ax.com, >"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:56:03 -0400, Sir Glug-glug the Wonder Puddle wrote: >>> >>>> bunch of ancillary crap >>>> mishmash of ancillary subsets. >>>> ancillary talk of *injustices* >>> >>> "Ancillary". Was that what came up in your word-a-day calendar today, "Mr. >>> Erudite"? >>> >>> <snicker> >> >> I see both you and Snit, being card-carrying liberals, >> use the same tactic of failing to address the core issue >> of a debate by sidestepping via the use of minutia that >> derails the debate. >> >> Shame on you! Your Snit reach around is laughably >> short-armed. > >I am happy to address the core issue: the issue here is you and some other >Christians want to push the unsupportable claim that the Bible is less >supportive of violence than is the Quran. This is, of course, not true... >but even if it was it would not be a good reason to accept the demands of >some Christians for special entitlements for people of their own religion >and bigotry against others. > > <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788> > ----- > "Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were > actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," > Jenkins says. > ... > Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense > against attack. > > "By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the > laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably > humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find > something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a > specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only > call genocide." > ... > In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early > Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether > they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether. > ----- You apparently chose to ignore my post which reproduced the many Quran verses which call for murder and mayhem to further Jihad. While I took the time to post the over 500 Quran lines that call for murder and mayhem, you have yet to post even ONE of what you call *injustices* in the Bible. The bottom line still remains that the core teachings of Islam call for murder and mayhem in the name of Jihad and a total intolerance for any other religion while all you manage to come up with is an unsubstantiated number of Biblical *injustices*. You lost the debate. Get over it and stop it with your lies. -- "Being both astute and erudite, I say a man not mince words in order to spare the sensibilities of the thin-skinned and the ignorant." --Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 20:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FDD2BB.97726%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83533 |
On 3/26/17, 7:58 PM, in article pkvgdc5phblmqmrtbgjr1m2n8ri9htn2lb@4ax.com,
"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:47:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/17, 7:04 PM, in article thsgdc9rfrcps0108lv7a64nhq524r0kso@4ax.com,
>> "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:56:03 -0400, Sir Glug-glug the Wonder Puddle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bunch of ancillary crap
>>>>> mishmash of ancillary subsets.
>>>>> ancillary talk of *injustices*
>>>>
>>>> "Ancillary". Was that what came up in your word-a-day calendar today, "Mr.
>>>> Erudite"?
>>>>
>>>> <snicker>
>>>
>>> I see both you and Snit, being card-carrying liberals,
>>> use the same tactic of failing to address the core issue
>>> of a debate by sidestepping via the use of minutia that
>>> derails the debate.
>>>
>>> Shame on you! Your Snit reach around is laughably
>>> short-armed.
>>
>> I am happy to address the core issue: the issue here is you and some other
>> Christians want to push the unsupportable claim that the Bible is less
>> supportive of violence than is the Quran. This is, of course, not true...
>> but even if it was it would not be a good reason to accept the demands of
>> some Christians for special entitlements for people of their own religion
>> and bigotry against others.
>>
>> <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788>
>> -----
>> "Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were
>> actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,"
>> Jenkins says.
>> ...
>> Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense
>> against attack.
>>
>> "By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the
>> laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably
>> humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find
>> something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a
>> specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only
>> call genocide."
>> ...
>> In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early
>> Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether
>> they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether.
>> -----
>
> You apparently chose to ignore my post which reproduced
> the many Quran verses which call for murder and mayhem
> to further Jihad.
Nope... but what I will not do is pretend that this shows the bible as being
any less violent or, really, that what you say of the Quran should be
accepted as absolute truth. From the same link, above:
-----
'Out Of Context'
That may be the popular notion of jihad, says Waleed El-Ansary, but
it's the wrong one. El-Ansary, who teaches Islamic studies at the
University of South Carolina, says the Quran explicitly condemns
religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the
distinction between jihad ‹ legal warfare with the proper rules of
engagement ‹ and irjaf, or terrorism.
"All of those types of incidences ‹ [Sept. 11], Maj. Nidal Hasan and
so forth ‹ those are all examples of irjaf, not jihad," he says.
According to the Quran, he says, those who practice irjaf "are going
to hell."
So what's going on here? After all, we all have images of Muslim
radicals flying planes into buildings, shooting up soldiers at Fort
Hood, trying to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day. How
to reconcile a peaceful Quran with these violent acts?
El-Ansary says that in the past 30 years, there's been a perfect
storm that has created a violent strain of Islam. The first is
political: frustration at Western intervention in the Muslim world.
The second is intellectual: the rise of Wahhabi Islam, a more
fundamentalist interpretation of Islam subscribed to by Osama bin
Laden. El-Ansary says fundamentalists have distorted Islam for
political purposes.
"Basically what they do is they take verses out of context and then
use that to justify these egregious actions," he says.
-----
And there is this, about the Bible:
-----
It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the
Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the
Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not
spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man
and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and
donkey."
When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin
by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through
Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American
stories of the confrontation with Indians ‹ not just is it
legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you
do not."
Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem.
During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared
the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th,
17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the
other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.
-----
You have shown something that is not in question: there are passages in the
Quran which can easily be seen as calls for violence (and with many of those
it is hard to see how they can be anything else but that). Sure. That is
true.
But you have not shown where it has more such calls than the Bible. And
given how the Bible is so much larger you are not likely to. Maybe we can
look at percentages? But even so people pick and choose the passages they
want AND choose how they wish to interpret them.
> While I took the time to post the over 500 Quran lines
> that call for murder and mayhem, you have yet to post
> even ONE of what you call *injustices* in the Bible.
I have posted links to far, far more verses in the Bible that call for
violence and the like, and pointed you to evidence, such as the above, which
shows the Bible to also be filled with calls for violence (it even claims
the Bible is MORE so).
But I am not going to say which has more evil in it. Who cares. Both have a
lot of calls for violence and a lot of calls for peace. That is simply a
fact.
When I do not accept your unsupported claim that is contrary to these facts
you complain you are not being listened to. Not true: I listen and I note
the objective facts which do not support your opinion.
Look below for a very specific example of you doing EXACTLY as I describe --
trying to pretend with NO evidence that the Bible is somehow less supportive
of violence than the Quran and then insisting I have "lost" even though I
have backed my claims well and you have offered NO support that the Bible is
one iota less violent than the Quran.
> The bottom line still remains that the core teachings of Islam call for murder
> and mayhem in the name of Jihad and a total intolerance for any other religion
> while all you manage to come up with is an unsubstantiated number of Biblical
> *injustices*.
>
> You lost the debate. Get over it and stop it with your lies.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 20:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Kids today make Jesus look like Trump. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.26--8.21P.Seattle.2017> |
| In reply to | #83533 |
The Quran is more namby pamby than the Torah because it's newer. Hippie Jesus was a lefty; he said: " Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. " " The love of money is the root of all evil. " Kids today make Jesus look like Trump. In the recent London attacks, which saw 4 people killed, including a policeman, the attacker was _too religious; i.e. he couldn't handle losing his wife and kids to divorce. He thought, " Parliament made my wife too free and independent "; then, being the LifeLong criminal that he was, he attacked them. ISIS thinks the same way, I'm sure. Chooses the LeastWorst option and hope for the best.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 08:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <hp7CA.187778$qD6.89105@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #83533 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 26/03/17 10:58 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:47:31 -0700, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 3/26/17, 7:04 PM, in article >> thsgdc9rfrcps0108lv7a64nhq524r0kso@4ax.com, "Sir Gregory Hall, >> Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:56:03 -0400, Sir Glug-glug the Wonder >>>> Puddle wrote: >>>> >>>>> bunch of ancillary crap mishmash of ancillary subsets. >>>>> ancillary talk of *injustices* >>>> >>>> "Ancillary". Was that what came up in your word-a-day >>>> calendar today, "Mr. Erudite"? >>>> >>>> <snicker> >>> >>> I see both you and Snit, being card-carrying liberals, use the >>> same tactic of failing to address the core issue of a debate by >>> sidestepping via the use of minutia that derails the debate. >>> >>> Shame on you! Your Snit reach around is laughably >>> short-armed. >> >> I am happy to address the core issue: the issue here is you and >> some other Christians want to push the unsupportable claim that >> the Bible is less supportive of violence than is the Quran. This >> is, of course, not true... but even if it was it would not be a >> good reason to accept the demands of some Christians for special >> entitlements for people of their own religion and bigotry against >> others. >> >> <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788> >> ----- "Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran >> were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the >> Bible," Jenkins says. ... Violence in the Quran, he and others >> say, is largely a defense against attack. >> >> "By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., >> the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually >> reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we >> actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. >> There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which >> we can only call genocide." ... In the end, the scholars can >> agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and >> Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether they can evolve out of >> it is another thing altogether. ----- > > You apparently chose to ignore my post which reproduced the many > Quran verses which call for murder and mayhem to further Jihad. > > While I took the time to post the over 500 Quran lines that call > for murder and mayhem, you have yet to post even ONE of what you > call *injustices* in the Bible. > > The bottom line still remains that the core teachings of Islam call > for murder and mayhem in the name of Jihad and a total intolerance > for any other religion while all you manage to come up with is an > unsubstantiated number of Biblical *injustices*. > > You lost the debate. Get over it and stop it with your lies. Stopping and getting over something are not two of Snit's greatest qualities. Until _you_ give up, he won't stop. He will spend the next few days or weeks pushing "proof" which has nothing to do with what's being discussed and treat it as ultimate evidence that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He also ignores that the way in which the Qu'ran is written, what's at the beginning is completely decimated by what's written in the end. Muhammad (steaming excrement be upon him) and his disciples always said that the later chapters are more important than anything at the beginning (which is generally peaceful and borrowed from the Bible and the Torah) and that is where all the violence is advocated. - -- Silver Tongued-Heel Korora Linux Sponsor EFF & OpenMedia Member Gab.ai: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJY2QLNAAoJEECBkWZkIkW3NfgP/2m9fX7Mc9sa0Q0M27cVprHT v2M8m4157w8dMoRC3H1iPlxp7cw0Lr9fP9LQ+Y80oivl2Q00PZVIGga68CVoUHDn ujJ2tgKK9/ftQW+DSX/K2lb8IoaIepeZf1HY60nL/WkoEUa/DRpXBUgRiyrm43V1 wS4SbGHyvfehSnvJBfTy4yH9mfPjL2/WeBeETMJlzhArwZ5GzXxyQMKxcpcQXDAU dEg4mHb7J/kc2yBhGmnAuEhrkOWSqhFP6MkK9m+9sLC1kkrryOaJTT2e+e4/cHq6 bqU1BYbHTHqYQUaodpkMRge+06RYeFboR9MWLVMusnGh/XNt1TEUE7+fHsPOLxeN uWLFWfHiLk/XL6tFxT2QtrDSQafkUg/PzTw7CI0eqYKB4eFPY3V6KbtVWATWtqwm tfnJjYVRDMJKHvR5uIgsq5zFemB/A5bpz6Gou5Q4N91BN8NaswFY08lEGqsY8L9r Z2RGBiC/gPIZZI+suHCT48z/JZE29fgK6fmjgbgOacqPrKOmNlh7QJ8zvAQvlzVa g3nONHCKQZ1BOc4HCefcAU2tqdsVtDEwygG/cCXaZh7GO1YVf8QtXUEqKbR19FJ4 HbBRqj7H8qfv7z11zIMlZAlAOeT8FrGAIvf/fwRmPwVAApMbXWITHpCRF9sH3wjn OfjtWvOsXzuMwLaSyTsC =JCYl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 10:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FE9BBD.984F9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83551 |
On 3/27/17, 5:17 AM, in article hp7CA.187778$qD6.89105@fx34.iad,
"Silver-Tongued Heel" <sl@im.er> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 26/03/17 10:58 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:47:31 -0700, Snit
>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/26/17, 7:04 PM, in article
>>> thsgdc9rfrcps0108lv7a64nhq524r0kso@4ax.com, "Sir Gregory Hall,
>>> Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:56:03 -0400, Sir Glug-glug the Wonder
>>>>> Puddle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bunch of ancillary crap mishmash of ancillary subsets.
>>>>>> ancillary talk of *injustices*
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ancillary". Was that what came up in your word-a-day
>>>>> calendar today, "Mr. Erudite"?
>>>>>
>>>>> <snicker>
>>>>
>>>> I see both you and Snit, being card-carrying liberals, use the
>>>> same tactic of failing to address the core issue of a debate by
>>>> sidestepping via the use of minutia that derails the debate.
>>>>
>>>> Shame on you! Your Snit reach around is laughably
>>>> short-armed.
>>>
>>> I am happy to address the core issue: the issue here is you and
>>> some other Christians want to push the unsupportable claim that
>>> the Bible is less supportive of violence than is the Quran. This
>>> is, of course, not true... but even if it was it would not be a
>>> good reason to accept the demands of some Christians for special
>>> entitlements for people of their own religion and bigotry against
>>> others.
>>>
>>> <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788>
>>> ----- "Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran
>>> were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the
>>> Bible," Jenkins says. ... Violence in the Quran, he and others
>>> say, is largely a defense against attack.
>>>
>>> "By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D.,
>>> the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually
>>> reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we
>>> actually find something that is for many people a real surprise.
>>> There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which
>>> we can only call genocide." ... In the end, the scholars can
>>> agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and
>>> Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether they can evolve out of
>>> it is another thing altogether. -----
>>
>> You apparently chose to ignore my post which reproduced the many
>> Quran verses which call for murder and mayhem to further Jihad.
>>
>> While I took the time to post the over 500 Quran lines that call
>> for murder and mayhem, you have yet to post even ONE of what you
>> call *injustices* in the Bible.
>>
>> The bottom line still remains that the core teachings of Islam call
>> for murder and mayhem in the name of Jihad and a total intolerance
>> for any other religion while all you manage to come up with is an
>> unsubstantiated number of Biblical *injustices*.
>>
>> You lost the debate. Get over it and stop it with your lies.
>
> Stopping and getting over something are not two of Snit's greatest
> qualities. Until _you_ give up, he won't stop.
>
> He will spend the next few days or weeks pushing "proof" which has
> nothing to do with what's being discussed and treat it as ultimate
> evidence that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
>
> He also ignores that the way in which the Qu'ran is written, what's at
> the beginning is completely decimated by what's written in the end.
> Muhammad (steaming excrement be upon him) and his disciples always
> said that the later chapters are more important than anything at the
> beginning (which is generally peaceful and borrowed from the Bible and
> the Torah) and that is where all the violence is advocated.
Comes down to this: neither of us is ever going to accept the other's view
on this. You will ALWAYS insist that:
* one should focus on "good" passages of the Bible
* one should focus on the "bad" passages of the Quran
* everyone in these religions matches your biases
You will do this so that you can push your view that Christians are precious
little snow flakes who deserve special entitlements that Muslims should not
get. You will continue this self-serving bias and insist anyone who does not
is somehow against Christians and Christianity.
You will also continue to speak for what Muslims believe even as you make
comments about Christianity like this:
Slimer:
-----
Second, you're not an expert on Christianity and most likely weren't
raised as a member of the faith. For you to comment on what it says
and how it works is just insulting.
-----
It is completely and utterly hypocritical of you to whine about others
quoting the Bible as you pretend to be able to speak for Muslims.
And, of course, when faced with these facts you will play victim and insist
you are not being heard or respected or whatever. You will attack and insult
and engage in name calling all because others support the idea of equal
rights for people regardless of their religion, color, sexual orientation,
nationality, etc.
While not all debates between progressive and conservatives comes down to
this, there seems a pretty strong pattern:
progressives: push for equal rights
conservatives: push for special entitlements for their own group
Certainly there are places this is hard to make that black and white, such
as areas where you are dealing with historic and even current inequities in
a society... but overall most debates come down to a clash between these two
conflicting ideas which cannot be reconciled.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 22:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <2rsgdc9cc3vrq168pd6jvnltu9br3frjie@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #83501 |
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >-- >Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Nadegda > >Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct >question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder Oh, one more thing. Why do you use a sig that is redundant? " . . . a direct question posed to him." Here's a clue, it wouldn't BE a direct question unless it was posed to him. Your erudition is seriously lacking, Paul, so PKB meters are melting down all over the freaking place. <guffaws> -- "Being both astute and erudite, I say a man not mince words in order to spare the sensibilities of the thin-skinned and the ignorant." --Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom, WoD #1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 10:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <1n3jiil.2dtdanmhefnpN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #83501 |
[COLA snecked from fu2] Nadegda^W Dweebleshite <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> dweebled: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:56:03 -0400, Sir Glug-glug the Wonder Puddle wrote: > > > bunch of ancillary crap > > mishmash of ancillary subsets. > > ancillary talk of *injustices* > > "Ancillary". Was that what came up in your word-a-day calendar today, "Mr. > Erudite"? > > <snickerturd> > Feh, some of us have completed our educations, Paul. You should increase your word power by reading something other than just Usenet and the Web. <snark>™ (ancillary comment to the above) -- Darth Wader, WoD #1 No Club I can't help it 'bout the shape I'm in, I can't sing, I ain't pretty and my legs are thin. Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 02:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-3FCB46.02131527032017@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #83548 |
In article <1n3jiil.2dtdanmhefnpN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom, WoD #1) wrote: > [COLA snecked from fu2] > > Nadegda^W Dweebleshite <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> dweebled: > > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:56:03 -0400, Sir Glug-glug the Wonder Puddle wrote: > > > > > bunch of ancillary crap > > > mishmash of ancillary subsets. > > > ancillary talk of *injustices* > > > > "Ancillary". Was that what came up in your word-a-day calendar today, "Mr. > > Erudite"? > > > > <snickerturd> > > > > Feh, some of us have completed our educations, Paul. > You should increase your word power by reading > something other than just Usenet and the Web. > > <snark>™ (ancillary comment to the above) In books the annex of ancillary chapters is called the appendices. -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' Free the Amos Yee one. Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 19:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FDCA74.9770B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83487 |
On 3/26/17, 5:56 PM, in article 9eogdc9si6gt9kvrm7u8786t0ppesalg1d@4ax.com,
"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:44:42 -0400, Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> wrote:
>
>
>> I've lost interest and quickly realized that the discussion was
>> already quickly turning into a circus. I'm not interested in that to
>> be honest.
>
> With the likes of Snit one must be careful to never
> allow him to sidetrack the debate. It took me all
> of about two of his replies to understand his M.O.
> which is to completely fail to address the core
> issue by presenting a bunch of ancillary crap that
> attempts to derail the debate into a mishmash of
> ancillary subsets.
>
> His attempting to derail the core teachings of
> the Bible which are peace, love and supplication
> to ancillary talk of *injustices* was the dead
> giveaway. Examining all of his replies shows that
> his wont is to derail instead of to debate.
>
> For that reason, I feel treating with him is a
> waste of time because he doesn't really want to
> debate the issues . . . he just wants to make
> noise.
I addressed the core issue strongly and directly: the claim was that the
Christian texts are focused on peace and the Muslims ones are not. I
explained why the data did not fit that view (and openly admitted to the
weaknesses of my methodology) and then welcomed you to back your claim.
You failed. The closest you are likely to get are Christian sources backing
your view... but it is just as easy to find Muslim sources backing the
opposite.
When looking at non-religion scholarly research, though, it also does not
back your view:
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788>
-----
"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were
actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,"
Jenkins says.
...
Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense
against attack.
"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the
laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably
humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find
something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a
specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only
call genocide."
...
In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early
Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether
they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether.
-----
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 19:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FDC921.97702%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83486 |
On 3/26/17, 5:44 PM, in article ob9n49$o3p$1@dont-email.me, "Silver-Tongued Heel" <sl@im.er> wrote: >>>> Agreed. But people still refer to it as the word of Christ. >>>> >>>> Christians, as with Muslims, see their religion and their holy >>>> books in different ways. You cannot honestly group people of >>>> either religion together as all being the same. >>>> >>>> Yet you do that with Muslims. Thanks for backing my point of >>>> how wrong you are to do so. >>> >>> ... and Glasser goes right back into my killfile. I didn't figure >>> that it would last but hey, I hoped. >> >> Snit might be a fool when it comes to the dangers to civilization >> represented by Islam but at least he can participate in actual >> adult Usnet discussion while way too many like PeeScent, for >> example, only are able to contribute baby talk that changes or >> avoids actually discussing anything at all. >> >> I can't see kill filing somebody just because his views are >> borderline insane. That would men I would have to killfile ALL >> liberals. > > I've lost interest and quickly realized that the discussion was > already quickly turning into a circus. I'm not interested in that to > be honest. Really we just look at the world in very different ways: I promote equal rights, you promote special entitlements. There is no real middle ground that can be found. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 22:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <o4vgdchka9p08jcv74g8nmoahtqs8hgq51@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #83521 |
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: <...> >Really we just look at the world in very different ways: I promote equal >rights, you promote special entitlements. There is no real middle ground >that can be found. And, that is a logical fallacy. Equal rights? Here's a clue. American citizens have certain Constitutional rights. Muslim refugees have no such Constitutional rights because they are not American citizens. Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just because you or some other liberal makes that absurd claim. -- "Being both astute and erudite, I say a man not mince words in order to spare the sensibilities of the thin-skinned and the ignorant." --Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 19:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FDCD24.9771B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83526 |
On 3/26/17, 7:47 PM, in article o4vgdchka9p08jcv74g8nmoahtqs8hgq51@4ax.com, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > <...> > >> Really we just look at the world in very different ways: I promote equal >> rights, you promote special entitlements. There is no real middle ground that >> can be found. >> > And, that is a logical fallacy. Equal rights? How so? Not putting you down but truly curious what you mean. > Here's a clue. American citizens have certain Constitutional rights. Correct. > Muslim refugees have no such Constitutional rights because they are not > American citizens. They are, however, not without rights and there is no reason to deny them rights any other refugees would get -- say Christian ones. > Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just because you or > some other liberal makes that absurd claim. Notice I said NOTHING of refugees having the same rights as citizens. I was in reference to the idea that Slimer and some others have pushes that Christians should have special entitlements that Muslims (and others) do not have. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 23:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <hd0hdchtvhigqm15ud89valhiuboeghrci@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #83531 |
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:55:16 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 3/26/17, 7:47 PM, in article o4vgdchka9p08jcv74g8nmoahtqs8hgq51@4ax.com, >"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: > >> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> <...> >> >>> Really we just look at the world in very different ways: I promote equal >>> rights, you promote special entitlements. There is no real middle ground that >>> can be found. >>> >> And, that is a logical fallacy. Equal rights? > >How so? Not putting you down but truly curious what you mean. > >> Here's a clue. American citizens have certain Constitutional rights. > >Correct. > >> Muslim refugees have no such Constitutional rights because they are not >> American citizens. > >They are, however, not without rights and there is no reason to deny them >rights any other refugees would get -- say Christian ones. > >> Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just because you or >> some other liberal makes that absurd claim. > >Notice I said NOTHING of refugees having the same rights as citizens. I was >in reference to the idea that Slimer and some others have pushes that >Christians should have special entitlements that Muslims (and others) do not >have. Same rights and equal rights have the same meaning so you were, indeed, saying equal rights. No, you liberals are just brainwashed and you use jargon you have heard so often that you don't stop to think what it means and how your statements when using the jargon is oftentimes nonsensical. Smackdown. -- "Being both astute and erudite, I say a man not mince words in order to spare the sensibilities of the thin-skinned and the ignorant." --Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | " %" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 20:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <a76ltr.t7k.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #83535 |
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:55:16 -0700, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 3/26/17, 7:47 PM, in article >> o4vgdchka9p08jcv74g8nmoahtqs8hgq51@4ax.com, "Sir Gregory Hall, >> Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700, Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> Really we just look at the world in very different ways: I >>>> promote >>>> equal rights, you promote special entitlements. There is no real >>>> middle ground that can be found. >>>> >>> And, that is a logical fallacy. Equal rights? >> >> How so? Not putting you down but truly curious what you mean. >> >>> Here's a clue. American citizens have certain Constitutional >>> rights. >> >> Correct. >> >>> Muslim refugees have no such Constitutional rights because they >>> are >>> not American citizens. >> >> They are, however, not without rights and there is no reason to >> deny >> them rights any other refugees would get -- say Christian ones. >> >>> Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just >>> because you or some other liberal makes that absurd claim. >> >> Notice I said NOTHING of refugees having the same rights as >> citizens. I was in reference to the idea that Slimer and some >> others >> have pushes that Christians should have special entitlements that >> Muslims (and others) do not have. > > Same rights and equal rights have the same meaning so you > were, indeed, saying equal rights. No, you liberals are > just brainwashed and you use jargon you have heard so often > that you don't stop to think what it means and how your > statements when using the jargon is oftentimes nonsensical. > > Smackdown. you're the biggest boner in usenet
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 20:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FDD3AE.9772F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83537 |
On 3/26/17, 8:19 PM, in article a76ltr.t7k.17.1@news.alt.net, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>> They are, however, not without rights and there is no reason to >>> deny >>> them rights any other refugees would get -- say Christian ones. >>> >>>> Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just >>>> because you or some other liberal makes that absurd claim. >>> >>> Notice I said NOTHING of refugees having the same rights as >>> citizens. I was in reference to the idea that Slimer and some >>> others >>> have pushes that Christians should have special entitlements that >>> Muslims (and others) do not have. >> >> Same rights and equal rights have the same meaning so you >> were, indeed, saying equal rights. No, you liberals are >> just brainwashed and you use jargon you have heard so often >> that you don't stop to think what it means and how your >> statements when using the jargon is oftentimes nonsensical. >> >> Smackdown. > > you're the biggest boner in usenet Please let us not get into such comparisons. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | " %" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 20:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <a76na5.bd0.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #83541 |
Snit wrote: > On 3/26/17, 8:19 PM, in article a76ltr.t7k.17.1@news.alt.net, "%" > <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> They are, however, not without rights and there is no reason to >>>> deny >>>> them rights any other refugees would get -- say Christian ones. >>>> >>>>> Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just >>>>> because you or some other liberal makes that absurd claim. >>>> >>>> Notice I said NOTHING of refugees having the same rights as >>>> citizens. I was in reference to the idea that Slimer and some >>>> others >>>> have pushes that Christians should have special entitlements that >>>> Muslims (and others) do not have. >>> >>> Same rights and equal rights have the same meaning so you >>> were, indeed, saying equal rights. No, you liberals are >>> just brainwashed and you use jargon you have heard so often >>> that you don't stop to think what it means and how your >>> statements when using the jargon is oftentimes nonsensical. >>> >>> Smackdown. >> >> you're the biggest boner in usenet > > Please let us not get into such comparisons. :) ok , he's the biggest rear ended noodle head
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 20:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Both Michael Glasser and CaptainPissBucket have OCD, bad. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.26--8.28P.Seattle.2017> |
| In reply to | #83537 |
Both Michael Glasser and CaptainPissBucket have OCD, bad. They can't communicate. Thousands of posts, saying nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 20:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FDD375.97729%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83535 |
On 3/26/17, 8:09 PM, in article hd0hdchtvhigqm15ud89valhiuboeghrci@4ax.com, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:55:16 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 3/26/17, 7:47 PM, in article o4vgdchka9p08jcv74g8nmoahtqs8hgq51@4ax.com, >> "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> Really we just look at the world in very different ways: I promote equal >>>> rights, you promote special entitlements. There is no real middle ground >>>> that >>>> can be found. >>>> >>> And, that is a logical fallacy. Equal rights? >> >> How so? Not putting you down but truly curious what you mean. >> >>> Here's a clue. American citizens have certain Constitutional rights. >> >> Correct. >> >>> Muslim refugees have no such Constitutional rights because they are not >>> American citizens. >> >> They are, however, not without rights and there is no reason to deny them >> rights any other refugees would get -- say Christian ones. >> >>> Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just because you >>> or >>> some other liberal makes that absurd claim. >> >> Notice I said NOTHING of refugees having the same rights as citizens. I was >> in reference to the idea that Slimer and some others have pushes that >> Christians should have special entitlements that Muslims (and others) do not >> have. > > Same rights and equal rights have the same meaning so you > were, indeed, saying equal rights. No, you liberals are > just brainwashed and you use jargon you have heard so often > that you don't stop to think what it means and how your > statements when using the jargon is oftentimes nonsensical. > > Smackdown. The question is about equal rights for Muslims and Christians. You moved goal posts to a comparison of citizens and non-citizens (much as Slimer did so with citizens and illegal aliens). Comes down to you cannot defend the idea that Muslims should not have EXACTLY the same rights as Christians. Christians should not have ANY special entitlements. Equal rights. That is what I back... no matter how badly SOME Christians (and some Muslims) demand followers of their faith should get special entitlements. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 15:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <m7oidcp7te692l5gb48nde05lljkn4c886@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #83540 |
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:22:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 3/26/17, 8:09 PM, in article hd0hdchtvhigqm15ud89valhiuboeghrci@4ax.com, >"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: > >> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:55:16 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 3/26/17, 7:47 PM, in article o4vgdchka9p08jcv74g8nmoahtqs8hgq51@4ax.com, >>> "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> Really we just look at the world in very different ways: I promote equal >>>>> rights, you promote special entitlements. There is no real middle ground >>>>> that >>>>> can be found. >>>>> >>>> And, that is a logical fallacy. Equal rights? >>> >>> How so? Not putting you down but truly curious what you mean. >>> >>>> Here's a clue. American citizens have certain Constitutional rights. >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>>> Muslim refugees have no such Constitutional rights because they are not >>>> American citizens. >>> >>> They are, however, not without rights and there is no reason to deny them >>> rights any other refugees would get -- say Christian ones. >>> >>>> Ergo, Muslim refugees do not and cannot have equal rights just because you >>>> or >>>> some other liberal makes that absurd claim. >>> >>> Notice I said NOTHING of refugees having the same rights as citizens. I was >>> in reference to the idea that Slimer and some others have pushes that >>> Christians should have special entitlements that Muslims (and others) do not >>> have. >> >> Same rights and equal rights have the same meaning so you >> were, indeed, saying equal rights. No, you liberals are >> just brainwashed and you use jargon you have heard so often >> that you don't stop to think what it means and how your >> statements when using the jargon is oftentimes nonsensical. >> >> Smackdown. > >The question is about equal rights for Muslims and Christians. You moved >goal posts to a comparison of citizens and non-citizens (much as Slimer did >so with citizens and illegal aliens). > No, the question is NOT about equal right of members of religious groups as there is no such thing as equal rights between members of religious groups. Equal rights is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Last time I looked these documents only apply in the USA. Your attempt to broaden to the world's religious groups is stupid, inane, childish, and typically liberal gibberish. So take your straw man *equal rights* and shove them up your ass where they will be right at home with the other fecal matter. -- "Being both astute and erudite, I say a man not mince words in order to spare the sensibilities of the thin-skinned and the ignorant." --Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 12:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Kaczynski is not exactly a capitalist pig, right ? |
| Message-ID | <D4FEB9E6.98585%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #83562 |
On 3/27/17, 12:02 PM, in article m7oidcp7te692l5gb48nde05lljkn4c886@4ax.com, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yecht_master.fake> wrote: >>> Same rights and equal rights have the same meaning so you were, indeed, >>> saying equal rights. No, you liberals are just brainwashed and you use >>> jargon you have heard so often that you don't stop to think what it means >>> and how your statements when using the jargon is oftentimes nonsensical. >>> >>> Smackdown. >>> >> The question is about equal rights for Muslims and Christians. You moved goal >> posts to a comparison of citizens and non-citizens (much as Slimer did so >> with citizens and illegal aliens). >> > > No, the question is NOT about equal right of members of religious groups as > there is no such thing as equal rights between members of religious groups. Again: you deny the idea of equal rights of people of different religions. Fine. That is where the crux of our disagreement is. I support equal rights. You support special entitlements. There is not much of a middle ground. Below you, again, change the topic to citizenship... a straw man on your part. Not biting. > Equal rights is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the > Constitution and Bill of Rights. Last time I looked these documents only apply > in the USA. > > Your attempt to broaden to the world's religious groups is stupid, inane, > childish, and typically liberal gibberish. > > So take your straw man *equal rights* and shove them up your ass where they > will be right at home with the other fecal matter. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 26 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web