Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172652
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Bilk spews more nonsense and shows he is a hypocrite. |
| Date | 2013-04-09 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CD89C1F6.18CD7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | <c59ad337-2ef9-46ef-b9ef-c3fd27fb69b2@k6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com> |
On 4/9/13 9:16 AM, in article
c59ad337-2ef9-46ef-b9ef-c3fd27fb69b2@k6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com, "Mark S
Bilk" <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:02 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> * Bilk claims that there was a video showing explosives
>> being added to rebar by some secret government conspiracy
>
> No, Snit is lying.
Mark S. Bilk
-----
Typical psychopath personal attacks.
-----
You are proving yourself a hypocrite.
> The video showed rebars arriving at the WTC construction site already coated
> with a very flammable material, and special welders with security clearances
> were brought in to weld each new layer of rebars to the ends of the last layer
> (that were sticking up out of the concrete).
So the rebar was already coated - so how did the people making this
magically disappearing video know it was an explosive and not some other
form of coating? Any why was the rebar only welded at the ends?
Your story is not rational.
>> but it was held for 21
>> years, then shown on a government owned TV station only to be
>
> It was shown on PBS, a _network_ of federally supported
> TV stations.
>
>> magically taken from *all* stations
>
> Snit is lying. Stations don't keep copies of all the shows
> they broadcast. Videotapes take up too much space.
>
>> and libraries
>
> Yes, apparently some kind of agents walked in and took them,
> or borrowed them and never returned them. That video was
> one of a numbered series, and the rest of them are still
> in libraries.
>
>> and even people's homes.
>
> Snit is lying. Probably very few people recorded it when
> it was shown in 1990. At least nobody who recorded it
> responded to Chris Brown's requests on forums when he asked.
>
> The idea that anyone took them from people's homes is one of
> the tens of thousands of lies told by the evil Snit.
Ah, thanks for the clarifications on your rather bizarre story. The bullet
point has been updated:
* Bilk claims that there was a video showing rebar coated with something
which is assumed to be explosives (but Bilk does not say how anyone
knows this). The only "evidence" he offers is the welders had to have
some sort of special security clearance - but how would even this be
seen on a video? He never explains that either. Anyway, the video was
held for 21 years, then shown on a government owned TV network only to
magically disappear from *all* stations and secret government agents
visit all libraries and remove them from there while, coincidently,
not a single known person happened to record the show on their VCR.
[1] [2] [12]
If you have any questions or concerns with that I am happy to address them!
>> * Bilk claims secret government agencies managed the welding
>
> No, Snit is lying. I said the video showed welders with
> security clearances being brought in. Snit fabricated
> the "secret government agencies".
Oh, so they these security clearances were offered by a known government
agency? Which one?
>> of highly flammable explosives.
>
> No, Snit is lying. I said the video showed the rebars,
> not the explosives, being welded.
You said the explosives were on the rebar!
>> He knows this is absurd
>
> I know that Snit's lie is absurd
>
>> that when questioned he invented, on the fly, stories about
>> copper clamps or wet cloths (yes, really, wet cloths!) [3]
>
> That's how you solder or weld something when you don't want
> the heat to travel down it and damage something connected
> to it. It's called "heat-sinking". I guess Snit never
> built any electronics.
Heat sinks do not stop sparks! Really!
>> that were just desperate attempts to save his irrational
>> nonsense. Why not just invent a story about how the
>> explosives [2] (that never exploded)
>
> Snit is lying. Of course they exploded when they were
> detonated, and blew up the towers.
>
>> were added *after* the rebar was all welded together. That
>> would make a lot more sense than his fairy tales!
>
> The rebars were over 1300 feet tall, and embedded in concrete,
> after they were welded together, so that would have been
> impossible.
How do you coat rebar already embedded in concrete? Your stories make less
and less sense as you tell them and change them! But we shall update this
bullet point to include your new stories:
* Bilk claims people with special security clearances managed the
welding of rebar which was coated with highly flammable explosives.
[2] When questioned about why the sparks would not ignite the highly
flammable explosives coating the rebar, Bulk invented, on the fly,
stories about copper clamps or wet cloths (yes, really, wet cloths!)
[3]. He later said these things were merely "heat-sinking" and failed
to explain how flying sparks managed to not hit any of these highly
flamable explosives. [12]
Bilk could have just invented a story about how the explosives [2]
were added *after* the rebar was all welded together (and before
concrete was added). That would make a lot more sense than his fairy
tales!
>> * Bilk claims other were saying it was compressed air that
>> ejected tons of steel from the Twin Towers, a completely
>> bogus story Bilk fabricated. At first he denied he even made
>> this claim until I showed him the many posts where he did -
>> and quoted his own words back to him.
>
> I said that in the pancake theory, the force from the air
> compressed between the floors was not enough to account
> for the massive girders being blown sideways at 70mph.
You may have said that, but what I am in reference to is our repeated
silliness about "compressed air".
> "-hh" (Hugh Huntzinger) for example, had posted in the 911
> thread about a military compressed-air gun that shoots slugs
> many times faster than rifle bullets. I noted that this
> wouldn't exert nearly enough force on the girders without
> a gun barrel to keep the air from dissipating. I also
> mentioned that F=ma is quantitative, so to get much
> acceleration of tons of mass, you need an enormous force,
> much more than the compressed air would exert.
Your claim is demonstrably incorrect. You spoke of "compressed air" in
response to my showing you this:
<http://bit.ly/Z70nWB>
-----
... all that air along with the concrete and other debris pulverized
by the force of the collapse was ejected with enormous energy.
-----
Your direct response:
b2e65490-015f-469b-b872-2dbde837d565@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
-----
Compressed air can't shoot clouds of girders sideways.
------
You clearly had no understanding of what you were reading. And I quoted you
making the same claims over and over and over, even as I spoke of the
pancaking which is what *really* lead to the materials being ejected from
the sides of the building.
>> His comments show he does not understand even the basics
>> of what knowledgeable people say actually happened to the
>> Towers.
>
> By "knowledgeable", Snit means people who agree with the
> government's pancake lie.
This bullet point stays as is - your attempt at a refutation is simply
false:
* Bilk claims other were saying it was compressed air that ejected tons
of steel from the Twin Towers, a completely bogus story Bilk
fabricated. At first he denied he even made this claim until I showed
him the many posts where he did - and quoted his own words back to
him. [4] His comments show he does not understand even the basics of
what knowledgeable people say actually happened to the Towers.
>> * Bilk has no evidence of some unknown force which would
>> have prevented steel from being ejected from the pancaking
>> towers without the added force of explosives. Nor can he
>> explain how explosives would break this unknown force where
>> tons upon tons of falling building would not. No such force
>> has ever been described by physics.
>
> Snit is lying. I never mentioned any such "unknown force".
Right: you refuse to name it - so it stays "unknown". You refuse to even
talk about this unknown force which would prevent the forces of a pancaking
Tower eject materials.
That is the point... and you just *verified* I am correct... as you call me
a liar.
> It's a complete fabrication by the dishonest Snit. I said
> the pancake theory could not account for the large numbers
> of girders blasted sideways, shown in David Chandler's video,
> because the debris falling from above would have to hit the
> girders just right to snap them off _and_ propel them outward.
> Yet a substantial fraction of them _were_ propelled outward,
> at high speed.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc
>> Yet Bilk continues to insist only explosives could explain
>> the forces needed to eject the material seen in videos. [5]
>
> Yes, and I just explained it again.
What force would prevent the force of the pancaking from ejecting materials
from the sides of the building? You have yet to say. The bullet point
stands... and will until Bilk names this unnamed force.
* Bilk has no evidence of some unknown force which would have prevented
steel from being ejected from the pancaking towers without the added
force of explosives. Nor can he explain how explosives would break
this unknown force where tons upon tons of falling building would not.
No such force has ever been described by physics. Yet Bilk continues
to insist only explosives could explain the forces needed to eject the
material seen in videos. [5]
>> * Bilk showed a massive lack of understanding of basic physics
>> when he claimed ejected material would not be seen falling at
>> the same rate as other materials. Gravity makes things fall:
>> its the law! [6]
>
> Snit is lying. I never said any such thing. Snit's sentence
> doesn't even make any sense. What "other materials" than
> "ejected materials" would be falling as the towers collapsed?
So now you include *everything* that was being pushed out by the pancaking
and not just the heavy steel girders! Wow! That unnamed force that held
everything in keeps getting stronger and stronger in your stories!
> Chandler noted that the wave of explosions traveled down the
> towers at the same speed as the falling debris nearby. This
> was because the explosives were detonated at that speed. It
> has nothing to do with gravity. The detonators could have
> been fired faster or slower than the speed of a free-falling
> object. Presumably they were fired at the same speed to make
> the collapse appear to be due to "pancaking".
So you acknowledge that the speed was the same as it would be for simple
pancaking. Still, re-watching the video I can see where he is speaking of
the speed of the pancaking... as if one would expect the speed to be
significantly different than it was. Even you admit the timing makes it
appear as if it was simple pancaking! So the idea that this speed indicates
it was something other than pancaking has been refuted - by you!
Well done job of refuting your own claims, Bilk!
>> * Bilk has not refuted the alternate and equally reasonable
>> idea that the buildings were brought down by Underground
>> Marshmallow People. He responds to this claim worse than
>> others respond to his claims - yet whines others are not being
>> respectful to his claims. He proves he is a hypocrite. [7]
>
> Since Snit's "Underground Marshmallow People" are an absurd
> lying fabrication, I have refused to get pulled into arguing
> about it. I have good evidence for my assertions, which
> I have presented.
Mark S. Bilk
-----
More nay-saying without proof. Vacuous to anyone who actually
thinks.
-----
This is *exactly* what you are doing: "nay-saying without proof". Based on
your own claims your own comments are "Vacuous to anyone who actually
thinks."
Thank you for admitting to your own failings. This bullet points stands
exactly as it is... with the added humor of your own comments shooting down
your own claims *again*.
You argue with yourself a lot, Bilk.
The bullet point stands, unchanged.
>> * Bilk claims that to merely quote Stallman is to "attack"
>> him make no sense. [8] Stallman's comments are an attack on
>> decency and against children.
>
> When Snit quotes Stallman, he often characterizes him with
> terms like "repulsive", and "an attack on decency and against
> children" as he does here. Snit also usually omits the
> qualifications with which Stallman limits the application of
> his remarks. Incidentally, when I asked Snit how watching
> movies of people having sex would injure children, considering
> that in many parts of the world, children could see their
> parents and others having sex, he responded with references
> to 1. a Catholic anti-sexual organization 2. "Morality in
> Media", a Conservative anti-sexual organization, and
> 3. the "net-nanny" website that sells software that parents
> can use to keep their children from seeing sex on the Net.
Oh, so many things wrong with this:
1) You deemed simple quoting to be an "attack". That is what is being
referenced. Not anything else. Bilk moved goal posts.
2) If you think Stallman has included "qualifications" then quote them. I
have been very clear with the quotes from Stallman. He makes it very, very
clear that while he is against raping children, he considers the censorship
of such material to be more repulsive than the material itself. He also says
that to block teens access to porn in schools is harmful to them. His
comments *are* an attack against decency and against children.
3) Bilk again moves goal posts from porn (a form of fantasy) to children
seeing actual sex acts - something I would still not encourage or even allow
in a *public* school.
Bilk moves goal posts repeatedly and refuses to talk about the actual topic.
The bullet point stands, unchanged.
>> * Bilk claims that to quote him is to lie about him [9] -
>> a claim that is clearly dishonest. He cannot explain why
>> that would be so, but he hates how his own words have shown
>> his ignorance
>
> Snit is lying. He constantly _misquotes_ and intentionally
> _misinterprets_ what I write. He says that doing that is fun.
>
>> so he just lashes out with some of the most
>> vile attacks to ever be posted to COLA.
>
> I called Snit an evil lying psychopath, which is exactly
> what he is.
Mark S. Bilk
-----
Typical psychopath personal attacks.
-----
Lots of rhetoric and personal attacks ...
-----
I *quoted* you talking about air pressure and you claimed it was a lie. This
is simply a fact. If you were to acknowledge this and admit to an error on
your part the bullet point would be removed... but as it is the points
stands - it is 100% correct.
>> * Bilk claims that I and others are paid to post to COLA [10]
>> - a claim that is utter nonsense...
>
> No, I said that the anonymous anti-Linux propagandists in COLA
> often post for many years, sending tens of thousands of message
> full of lies about Linux and personal attacks on Linux creators
> and users. And they all use the same hate-words:
>
> "lienux", "shitware", "open sores", "crapware", "hobbyware",
> "junkware", "slopware", "slopcode", "lintard", "linturd",
> "freetard", "freeturd", "turd", "wacko", "kook", "nutty",
> "creepy", "vermin", "herd", "cult", "crappy", "distro shuffle",
> "boogieman", "nutjobs", "whiny", "paranoid", "scumbags",
> "slurping", "sphincter", "repulsive", etc.
>
> I said that even hard-core psychopaths, that constantly lie
> and attack people, would not do it for spans of many years
> and 30,000 posts without being paid to do it, and that only
> Microsoft has spent more than $100,000,000 trying to destroy
> Linux in dozens of different ways:
>
> http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html
>
> Taken together, this is good evidence that Microsoft pays
> the psychopaths that infest COLA.
>
>> and even Bilk admitted he would need financial records to
>> actually support his fairy tails... and admits he has none.
>
> No, I said I'd need financial records to make an absolute
> case.
As opposed to your completely absurd fiction which is all you have now, just
like with your 9-11 BS!
>> He "evidence" is that people disagree with him and the
>> "advocates" and find amusement in watching them try to back
>> their cult-like BS and other nonsense.
>
> That is a total lie by Snit. My evidence is as I stated above.
If you had other evidence you would have provided it long ago. You do not.
Still, slight wording change of the point to fit your complaints:
* Bilk claims that I and others are paid to post to COLA [10] - a claim
that is utter nonsense... and even Bilk admitted he would need
financial records to fully support his fairy tails... and admits he
has no such records. He "evidence" is that people disagree with him
and the "advocates" and find amusement in watching them try to back
their cult-like BS and other nonsense.
>> * Bilk changes his story *in the same post* and claims that
>> the flammable material on the rebar exploded on 9-11 but also
>> says he does not recall if he was told it did or did not.[11]
>> Bilk is clearly just making things up as he goes!
>
> Snit is absolutely lying! When he asked me, "On 9-11, did the
> material on the _underground_ rebar burn or explode?" I said,
> "I don't remember Chris Brown mentioning the _underground_
> rebar." Of course the explosive on the _above-ground_ rebar
> did explode.
Both of these quotes are from the same post and were in reference to the
same rebar. The point stands.
* Bilk changes his story *in the same post* and claims that the
flammable material on the rebar exploded on 9-11 but also says he does
not recall if he was told it did or did not.[11] Bilk is clearly just
making things up as he goes!
I will post the updated list that is modified to account for your responses.
>> The following is in no way a complete list... just examples
>> of the things I note, above.
>
> I tried a few of these links. They didn't work,
What links? Really? I have no idea what links you mean.
>> And, remember, Bilk has not refuted a single one of the above
>> bulleted points:
>
> I have refuted every single one of them, above and previously.
Mark S. Bilk
-----
Three times repetition of bald assertion, with no proof.
-----
>> [1] 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9-9e6d-22135667c...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>> 94c7e1ee-41a3-4811-aea0-a14f97eaa...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [2] d8eb487c-f16c-48cf-9d5e-0d6e06ab7...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com
>> 11639315-fa13-4152-a221-001637e1a...@lg15g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
>> c2d7c52b-b7aa-4184-8d85-8da7add12...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
>> 97ca9d19-5155-44b0-80f1-8a7523444...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
>> 6e25123f-ce1f-4322-8e38-7ba88f72c...@5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com
>> fcbdeca5-a699-493a-8d9c-f373e729d...@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
>> db4cf4d4-f5b2-40bd-940f-441fd7d52...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
>> ef56ff12-06a6-4684-9506-8f153b45f...@w2g2000pbw.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [3] 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9-9e6d-22135667c...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [4] b2e65490-015f-469b-b872-2dbde837d...@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
>> 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9-9e6d-22135667c...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>> 8cd48407-4288-4f28-8394-81a8ff3c3...@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
>> 67ce8cf4-58e1-47c2-bcad-1dca81e15...@r13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>> b3d5b78c-4b57-43b4-87ee-ecd1c851f...@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [5] 7ebe3e0d-8efd-4a69-9b55-54f5ad6c1...@fw24g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>> 23195fcb-7e1c-4d66-be89-4df748eb7...@kx16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
>> 5e7a5f07-9dc9-4a95-8864-acab4c007...@h1g2000pbg.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [6] 59a8babd-0f3a-4278-875c-2f359b9a7...@hl5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>> d8eb487c-f16c-48cf-9d5e-0d6e06ab7...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com
>> 11639315-fa13-4152-a221-001637e1a...@lg15g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
>> 5e7a5f07-9dc9-4a95-8864-acab4c007...@h1g2000pbg.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [7] e15defa6-96a6-4d30-af28-a7ce5b63b...@vc1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
>> 88857097-401d-4c2d-b655-e6a5c6bbc...@h1g2000pbg.googlegroups.com
>> 23195fcb-7e1c-4d66-be89-4df748eb7...@kx16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
>> 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9-9e6d-22135667c...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>> 11678110-4597-470b-aa71-df2ba67e6...@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [8] 6a6b62ab-51bc-41cf-b41e-fe08008a4...@j1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com
>> 23195fcb-7e1c-4d66-be89-4df748eb7...@kx16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [9] 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9-9e6d-22135667c...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [10] 6a6b62ab-51bc-41cf-b41e-fe08008a4...@j1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com
>>
>> [11] 69d1db67-471f-4e5a-a422-6eb2a48f9...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
>
--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 09:16 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2013-04-09 09:56 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 11:19 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 15:46 -0400
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 12:58 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-09 16:12 -0400
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:42 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 18:29 -0400
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 16:31 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:40 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2013-04-09 13:08 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:31 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 14:07 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 14:35 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2013-04-09 14:38 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:43 -0700
I will no longer respond to -hh Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 15:11 -0700
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-10 00:14 +0200
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 15:16 -0700
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 15:26 -0700
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 16:10 -0700
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 16:41 -0700
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 20:22 -0400
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 17:25 -0700
I will pay to join a SAG Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-10 08:39 -0700
Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 18:57 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 16:28 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:38 -0700
Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:18 -0700
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:01 -0400
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-09 20:25 +0200
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 15:47 -0400
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-09 16:09 -0400
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-09 22:22 +0200
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-09 16:46 -0400
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-10 09:29 +0100
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-10 10:41 -0400
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-10 07:05 -0500
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-10 17:06 +0000
Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:49 -0700
Bilk spews more nonsense and shows he is a hypocrite. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:02 -0700
Re: Bilk spews more nonsense and shows he is a hypocrite. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 13:08 -0700
Re: Bilk spews more nonsense and shows he is a hypocrite. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:18 -0700
csiph-web