Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 21 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: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:43 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:21 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 05:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 07:04 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-10 04:35 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 01:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Corwin Esterness <woolcross@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 12:00 -0600
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:56 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Bill (not Jillians) DOW #3" <noemail@none.not> - 2018-06-09 20:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-12 00:11 +0100
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo36jkFpoq2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172777 |
On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>> Committee? >>>> >>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >> >> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. > > Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. The idea that I have a lack of a sense of humor is, well, rather silly. > To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean > what you seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's > opinion in Heller was not a case of judicial activism. Do you want to rehash this again? If so I am open to it. Not sure the value. -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D9TSC.137721$RI2.89866@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #172600 |
On 6/9/2018 11:28 AM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. > >>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > >>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! > >>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>>> time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... > >>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! > >>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>> specific keywords. > >>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. > >>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. > >>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... > >>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. > >>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by >>> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. > >>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > >> Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? > > Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the Heller > decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary > Committee? > > That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts or truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo2dpjFcgkoU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172614 |
On 6/9/18 9:22 AM, benj wrote: ... >>> Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? Of note: Max did not answer this question and tried to put me on the defensive instead. This is a common tactic of those who troll. >> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the >> Miller decision and the Heller >> decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution >> to the Senate Judiciary >> Committee? >> >> > That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts > or truth. What do you think my "agenda" is? Be clear... this should be fun! -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo2fpkFliftU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172614 |
On 6/9/18 9:22 AM, benj wrote: ... > That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts > or truth. My agenda: to have evidence-based policy. Seems there should be agreement on this "agenda", but there is not. -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <13o206in7n6wf.1g37khcpkrffx$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #172629 |
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 10:07:00 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 9:22 AM, benj wrote: > ... >> That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts >> or truth. > > My agenda: to have evidence-based policy. So then where is the evidence of the claim you keep making that Steve Carroll was asked by the police to stop harrassing you via usenet? You have made this claim multiple times but yet have provided no evidence to substantiate the claim. So much for your agenda to have evidence-based policy, snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Corwin Esterness <woolcross@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <603b007f-af3a-4e41-8ed3-4014d95b3615@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172629 |
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 11:07:02 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 9:22 AM, benj wrote: > ... > > That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts > > or truth. > > My agenda: to have evidence-based policy. > > Seems there should be agreement on this "agenda", but there is not. > > > > -- > Personal attacks from those who troll should keep AC Conduit 4 el My agenda: to have gawping faces included in media feedback by policy. Seems there was some agreement on gingerbread men last month so meh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1rod4wktc975f$.1afebrpcf6w93.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #172614 |
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:22:59 -0400, benj wrote: > On 6/9/2018 11:28 AM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >> >>>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> >>>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >> >>>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>>>> time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >> >>>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >> >>>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>>> specific keywords. >> >>>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >> >>>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >> >>>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >> >>>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >> >>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by >>>> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >> >>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >> >>> Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? >> >> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the Heller >> decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >> Committee? >> >> > That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts > or truth. Exactly. Snit has been working this circus routine of his for over a decade. He was ostracized from comp.sys.mac.advocacy years ago when he turned that group into a troll fest infested with his various sock puppets replying to each other. Here is a description of how a typical discussion with snit proceeds: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/ic1PGw-5sXA/P1Pj9rEVEQAJ Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red? Snit: Define red. Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine. Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow. Person: Ok, red like blood. Snit: Blood isn't really red. Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose. Snit: What kind of rose? Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose. Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me? Person: Because you are an idiot. Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say. Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You don't listen. Snit: Define something. Person: Are you some kind of asshole? Snit: Why are you attacking me. Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game. Snit: You ran away. I won. Person: dead silence. And this is how snit keeps his circus alive. Additionally here is a compilation of people who have attempted at various times to engage snit and their comments. Much of this should sound very familiar to those of you who have just has the displeasure of meeting snit. http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html Here is a list of methods that snit uses to lie: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html So while it's fun to screw with snit's head, the consequences can be a trashed forum or newsgroup. Have fun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo2hf6Flu7sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172635 |
On 6/9/18 10:31 AM, Horace wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:22:59 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 6/9/2018 11:28 AM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>> >>>>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>> >>>>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>>>>> time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>> >>>>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>>>> specific keywords. >>> >>>>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>> >>>>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>> >>>>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >>> >>>>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >>> >>>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by >>>>> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >>> >>>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >>> >>>> Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? >>> >>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the Heller >>> decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>> Committee? >>> >>> >> That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts >> or truth. > > Exactly. > Snit has been working this circus routine of his for over a decade. He was > ostracized from comp.sys.mac.advocacy years ago when he turned that group > into a troll fest infested with his various sock puppets replying to each > other. > > Here is a description of how a typical discussion with snit proceeds: > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/ic1PGw-5sXA/P1Pj9rEVEQAJ > > > Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red? > Snit: Define red. > Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine. > Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow. > Person: Ok, red like blood. > Snit: Blood isn't really red. > Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose. > Snit: What kind of rose? > Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose. > Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me? > Person: Because you are an idiot. > Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say. > Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You > don't listen. > Snit: Define something. > Person: Are you some kind of asshole? > Snit: Why are you attacking me. > Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game. > Snit: You ran away. I won. > Person: dead silence. > > And this is how snit keeps his circus alive. > > > Additionally here is a compilation of people who have attempted at various > times to engage snit and their comments. Much of this should sound very > familiar to those of you who have just has the displeasure of meeting snit. > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html > > Here is a list of methods that snit uses to lie: > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html > > So while it's fun to screw with snit's head, the consequences can be a > trashed forum or newsgroup. > Have fun. > Hi person who is most certainly not Carroll's sock! -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 12:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qd5ohd5nui4dqtbplckdnr69q9lg0987fm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #172635 |
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 13:31:23 -0400, Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> wrote: >On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:22:59 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 6/9/2018 11:28 AM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>> >>>>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>> >>>>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>>>>> time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>> >>>>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>>>> specific keywords. >>> >>>>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>> >>>>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>> >>>>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >>> >>>>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >>> >>>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by >>>>> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >>> >>>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >>> >>>> Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? >>> >>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the Heller >>> decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>> Committee? >>> >>> >> That's an easy answer. Snit has an agenda and hence no interest in facts >> or truth. > >Exactly. >Snit has been working this circus routine of his for over a decade. He was >ostracized from comp.sys.mac.advocacy years ago when he turned that group >into a troll fest infested with his various sock puppets replying to each >other. > >Here is a description of how a typical discussion with snit proceeds: > >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/ic1PGw-5sXA/P1Pj9rEVEQAJ > > >Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red? >Snit: Define red. >Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine. >Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow. >Person: Ok, red like blood. >Snit: Blood isn't really red. >Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose. >Snit: What kind of rose? >Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose. >Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me? >Person: Because you are an idiot. >Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say. >Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You >don't listen. >Snit: Define something. >Person: Are you some kind of asshole? >Snit: Why are you attacking me. >Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game. >Snit: You ran away. I won. >Person: dead silence. > >And this is how snit keeps his circus alive. > > >Additionally here is a compilation of people who have attempted at various >times to engage snit and their comments. Much of this should sound very >familiar to those of you who have just has the displeasure of meeting snit. > >http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html > >http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html > >Here is a list of methods that snit uses to lie: > >http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html > >So while it's fun to screw with snit's head, the consequences can be a >trashed forum or newsgroup. >Have fun. Snit is a lib it would appear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Truth Avoidance. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--0.11pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #172635 |
Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; hence ego, online gaming and religion. "Snit"[sic] is just an extreme example of it ( truth avoidance ).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Truth Avoidance. |
| Message-ID | <fo2vceFognlU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172658 |
On 6/9/18 12:11 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; > we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; > hence ego, online gaming and religion. > > "Snit"[sic] is just an extreme example of it ( truth avoidance ). What truth do you think I seek to avoid? -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <A7TSC.137720$RI2.55508@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #172576 |
On 6/9/2018 9:22 AM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. > >>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > >>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! > >>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... > >>>> Yeah, that's the one! > >>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>> specific keywords. > >>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. > >>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. > >> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... > > That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. > > You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by > various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. > > Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > > No, but it happily disrupts all on-topic discussions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo2dn0Fl6msU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172613 |
On 6/9/18 9:20 AM, benj wrote: > On 6/9/2018 9:22 AM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >> >>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> >>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >> >>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >> >>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >> >>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>> specific keywords. >> >>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >> >>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >> >>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >> >> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >> >> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >> your claims, supported by >> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >> >> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >> >> > No, but it happily disrupts all on-topic discussions. I repeatedly push things back onto topic. If you do not like it that is on you. * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action"). * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo2u63FnimtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172576 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:22:56 -0700, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. > >>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > >>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! > >>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... > >>>> Yeah, that's the one! > >>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>> specific keywords. > >>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. > >>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. > >> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... > > That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. > > You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted > your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse > and repeat. > > Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? I don't think anybody takes "Snit" seriously at this point. And yes, you've got him reduced to ad nauseum fallacies, so you've definitely prevailed in the discussion. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo2v9uFognlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172741 |
On 6/9/18 2:12 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:22:56 -0700, max headroom wrote: > >> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >> >>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> >>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >> >>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >> >>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >> >>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>> specific keywords. >> >>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >> >>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >> >>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >> >> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >> >> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >> your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse >> and repeat. >> >> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > > I don't think anybody takes "Snit" seriously at this point. > > And yes, you've got him reduced to ad nauseum fallacies, so you've > definitely prevailed in the discussion. You say that a lot but offer no support. Oh. I get it. Irony! Good one! -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <37skgxpqlch4$.1jkdj6l5yooy6$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #172741 |
On 9 Jun 2018 21:12:35 GMT, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:22:56 -0700, max headroom wrote: > >> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >> >>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> >>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >> >>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >> >>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >> >>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>> specific keywords. >> >>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >> >>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >> >>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >> >> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >> >> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >> your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse >> and repeat. >> >> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > > I don't think anybody takes "Snit" seriously at this point. > > And yes, you've got him reduced to ad nauseum fallacies, so you've > definitely prevailed in the discussion. At this point Michael Glasser aka snit has become a laughing stock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbeasl.vc8.19.21@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #172794 |
On 2018-06-09 3:41 PM, Horace wrote: > On 9 Jun 2018 21:12:35 GMT, vallor wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:22:56 -0700, max headroom wrote: >> >>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>> >>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>> >>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>> >>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>> >>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>> >>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>> specific keywords. >>> >>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>> >>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>> >>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >>> >>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >>> >>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >>> your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse >>> and repeat. >>> >>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >> >> I don't think anybody takes "Snit" seriously at this point. >> >> And yes, you've got him reduced to ad nauseum fallacies, so you've >> definitely prevailed in the discussion. > > At this point Michael Glasser aka snit has become a laughing stock. > well isn't that cool i just found out i'm that too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo36k7Fpoq2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172802 |
On 6/9/18 3:46 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-09 3:41 PM, Horace wrote: >> On 9 Jun 2018 21:12:35 GMT, vallor wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:22:56 -0700, max headroom wrote: >>> >>>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>>> >>>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>>> >>>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>>> >>>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>>> specific keywords. >>>> >>>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>>> >>>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>>> >>>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >>>> >>>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >>>> >>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >>>> your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. >>>> Rinse >>>> and repeat. >>>> >>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >>> >>> I don't think anybody takes "Snit" seriously at this point. >>> >>> And yes, you've got him reduced to ad nauseum fallacies, so you've >>> definitely prevailed in the discussion. >> >> At this point Michael Glasser aka snit has become a laughing stock. >> > well isn't that cool i just found out i'm that too LOL! -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbee60.vc8.19.52@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #172833 |
On 2018-06-09 4:36 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 3:46 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-09 3:41 PM, Horace wrote: >>> On 9 Jun 2018 21:12:35 GMT, vallor wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:22:56 -0700, max headroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>>>> >>>>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>>>> specific keywords. >>>>> >>>>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>>>> >>>>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>>>> >>>>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >>>>> >>>>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >>>>> >>>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >>>>> your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. >>>>> Rinse >>>>> and repeat. >>>>> >>>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >>>> >>>> I don't think anybody takes "Snit" seriously at this point. >>>> >>>> And yes, you've got him reduced to ad nauseum fallacies, so you've >>>> definitely prevailed in the discussion. >>> >>> At this point Michael Glasser aka snit has become a laughing stock. >>> >> well isn't that cool i just found out i'm that too > > LOL! > we could start an elusive club
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo371sFpoq2U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172839 |
On 6/9/18 4:42 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-09 4:36 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/9/18 3:46 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-06-09 3:41 PM, Horace wrote: >>>> On 9 Jun 2018 21:12:35 GMT, vallor wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:22:56 -0700, max headroom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>>>>> specific keywords. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>>>>> >>>>>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>>>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >>>>>> >>>>>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >>>>>> your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. >>>>>> Rinse >>>>>> and repeat. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think anybody takes "Snit" seriously at this point. >>>>> >>>>> And yes, you've got him reduced to ad nauseum fallacies, so you've >>>>> definitely prevailed in the discussion. >>>> >>>> At this point Michael Glasser aka snit has become a laughing stock. >>>> >>> well isn't that cool i just found out i'm that too >> >> LOL! >> > we could start an elusive club I am already in the chicken stock club. It is a soup-er group! -- 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. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web