Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 13 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. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 08:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 11:59 -0700
Re: â Snowflake â Slaughtering concert goers. â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:07 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:13 -0600
Re: â Snowflake â ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:21 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:55 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:56 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-01 23:35 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-01 23:57 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 00:07 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-01 20:29 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 08:32 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 08:32 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:51 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 18:09 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-01 17:10 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 00:13 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:20 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:03 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:26 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:54 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:58 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:57 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:04 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: â Snowflake â ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 04:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:12 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 00:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:14 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:19 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <petbgs$ah9$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170091 |
In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? <root@127.0.0.1> typed: > if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170278 |
On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, > Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? <root@127.0.0.1> typed: > >> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. > > Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that statement. Odd if you do. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <petd7r$ikh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170288 |
In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? > I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that > statement. Odd if you do. Odd that you don't. No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must not be real men, according to YFNPWHE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170299 |
On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: > >>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. > >>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? > >> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >> statement. Odd if you do. > > Odd that you don't. Would require ignoring basic context of our society. Maybe if one was not from America? > No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must not be real > men, according to YFNPWHE. What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. -- 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 | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <petf6j$s0f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170301 |
In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>> statement. Odd if you do. >> Odd that you don't. > Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. > ... Maybe if one was not from America? I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. > What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. Nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170305 |
On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: > >>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. > >>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? > >>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>> statement. Odd if you do. > >>> Odd that you don't. > >> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... > > Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. All we have to go on are the > words s/he wrote. Of course the context of a society requires information not present in every sentence uttered. Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to completely twist meanings. >> ... Maybe if one was not from America? > > I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. > >> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. > > Nope. I do hope you are just trolling. -- 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 | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <peunqr$gka$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170308 |
In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >>>> Odd that you don't. >>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. > Of course the context of a society requires information not present in > every sentence uttered.... The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. > ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, I assume, taking things FAR > too literally and doing so in a way to completely twist meanings. I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to carry a weapon in a military capacity." >>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. > I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep and bear arms. >>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >> Nope. > I do hope you are just trolling. My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170478 |
On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: > >>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. > >>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? > >>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. > >>>>> Odd that you don't. > >>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... > >>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. > >> Of course the context of a society requires information not present in >> every sentence uttered.... > > The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you were a real man you wouldn't > need a gun" is foolish. We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to ignore context of US society (and many others). You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. >> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, I assume, taking things FAR >> too literally and doing so in a way to completely twist meanings. > > I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word partially explains how you can > argue that "bear arms" does not mean "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of > "to carry a weapon in a military capacity." I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. But see how you seek to twist even that. >>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? > >>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. > >> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. > > Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep and bear arms. Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. > >>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. > >>> Nope. > >> I do hope you are just trolling. > > My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. -- 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 | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <pev2m3$mdg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170489 |
In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >>>>>> Odd that you don't. >>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present in >>> every sentence uttered.... >> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you were a real man you >> wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. > We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look > into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to > suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to > ignore context of US society (and many others). How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the context. > You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change the fact you twisted his > words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you want. >>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>> completely twist meanings. >> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >> carry a weapon in a military capacity." > I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of the > words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. > But see how you seek to twist even that. >>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >> and bear arms. > Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. No word play involved on my part. >>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >>>> Nope. >>> I do hope you are just trolling. >> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV > You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. You invent context to satisfy your desires.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <PpGQC.344740$nq5.83150@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #170519 |
On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: > >>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. > >>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? > >>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. > >>>>>>> Odd that you don't. > >>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... > >>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. > >>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present in >>>> every sentence uttered.... > >>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you were a real man you >>> wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. > >> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look >> into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to >> suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to >> ignore context of US society (and many others). > > How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the context. > >> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change the fact you twisted his >> words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. > > I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you want. > >>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>>> completely twist meanings. > >>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >>> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >>> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >>> carry a weapon in a military capacity." > >> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of the >> words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. > > Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. > >> But see how you seek to twist even that. > >>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? > >>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. > >>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. > >>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >>> and bear arms. > >> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. > > No word play involved on my part. > >>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. > >>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. > >>>>> Nope. > >>>> I do hope you are just trolling. > >>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV > >> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. > > You invent context to satisfy your desires. And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen used the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not traveling in the army) I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary that the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 definition is to serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can easily look it up. Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more credible than THE accepted world reference for the English language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <pevc4a$62p$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170549 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: > On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >> >>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >> >>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >> >>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >> >>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >> >>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >> >>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >> >>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present >>>>> in every sentence uttered.... >> >>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you >>>> were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >> >>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look >>> into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to >>> suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to >>> ignore context of US society (and many others). >> >> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the >> context. >> >>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change >>> the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. >> >> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you >> want. >> >>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>>>> completely twist meanings. >> >>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >>>> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >>>> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >>>> carry a weapon in a military capacity." >> >>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of >>> the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >> >> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >> >>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >> >>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >> >>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >> >>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >> >>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >>>> and bear arms. >> >>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >> >> No word play involved on my part. >> >>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >> >>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >> >>>>>> Nope. >> >>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >> >>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >> >>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >> >> You invent context to satisfy your desires. > > And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen used > the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not traveling in > the army) > > I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary that > the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 definition is to > serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can easily look it up. > > Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more credible > than THE accepted world reference for the English language. A little bit about snit the troll: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <pevc58$62p$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170549 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: > On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >> >>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >> >>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >> >>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >> >>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >> >>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >> >>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >> >>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present >>>>> in every sentence uttered.... >> >>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you >>>> were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >> >>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look >>> into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to >>> suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to >>> ignore context of US society (and many others). >> >> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the >> context. >> >>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change >>> the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. >> >> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you >> want. >> >>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>>>> completely twist meanings. >> >>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >>>> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >>>> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >>>> carry a weapon in a military capacity." >> >>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of >>> the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >> >> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >> >>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >> >>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >> >>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >> >>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >> >>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >>>> and bear arms. >> >>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >> >> No word play involved on my part. >> >>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >> >>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >> >>>>>> Nope. >> >>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >> >>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >> >>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >> >> You invent context to satisfy your desires. > > And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen used > the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not traveling in > the army) > > I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary that > the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 definition is to > serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can easily look it up. > > Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more credible > than THE accepted world reference for the English language. A little bit about snit the troll: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fngs48Fb1d7U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170553 |
simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>> >>>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >>> >>>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >>> >>>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >>> >>>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >>> >>>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present >>>>>> in every sentence uttered.... >>> >>>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you >>>>> were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >>> >>>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look >>>> into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to >>>> suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to >>>> ignore context of US society (and many others). >>> >>> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the >>> context. >>> >>>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change >>>> the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. >>> >>> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you >>> want. >>> >>>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>>>>> completely twist meanings. >>> >>>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >>>>> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >>>>> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >>>>> carry a weapon in a military capacity." >>> >>>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of >>>> the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >>> >>> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >>> >>>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >>> >>>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >>> >>>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >>> >>>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >>> >>>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >>>>> and bear arms. >>> >>>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >>> >>> No word play involved on my part. >>> >>>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>> >>>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>> >>>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >>> >>>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >>> >>>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >>> >>> You invent context to satisfy your desires. >> >> And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen used >> the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not traveling in >> the army) >> >> I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary that >> the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 definition is to >> serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can easily look it up. >> >> Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more credible >> than THE accepted world reference for the English language. > > A little bit about snit the troll: > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html > Those are not about me in any way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <1mgmzmahlxhs0.7gdmirdgt2aw$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #170566 |
On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:04 GMT, Snit wrote: > simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >>>> >>>>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >>>> >>>>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present >>>>>>> in every sentence uttered.... >>>> >>>>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you >>>>>> were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >>>> >>>>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look >>>>> into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to >>>>> suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to >>>>> ignore context of US society (and many others). >>>> >>>> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the >>>> context. >>>> >>>>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change >>>>> the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. >>>> >>>> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you >>>> want. >>>> >>>>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>>>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>>>>>> completely twist meanings. >>>> >>>>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >>>>>> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >>>>>> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >>>>>> carry a weapon in a military capacity." >>>> >>>>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of >>>>> the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >>>> >>>> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >>>> >>>>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >>>> >>>>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >>>> >>>>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >>>> >>>>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >>>> >>>>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >>>>>> and bear arms. >>>> >>>>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >>>> >>>> No word play involved on my part. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>>> >>>>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. >>>> >>>>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >>>> >>>>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >>>> >>>>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >>>> >>>> You invent context to satisfy your desires. >>> >>> And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen used >>> the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not traveling in >>> the army) >>> >>> I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary that >>> the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 definition is to >>> serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can easily look it up. >>> >>> Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more credible >>> than THE accepted world reference for the English language. >> >> A little bit about snit the troll: >> >> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >> >> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >> >> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >> > > Those are not about me in any way. Oh yes they are snit and nothing you can do or say can change your past transgressions. I defy you to find another troll who is despised as much as you are. I would say Tholen but he disappeared many years ago. You OTOH continue to thrive, much like a cockroach after a nuclear blast. Sandman's site has some very accurate information regarding you and your sock puppets. http://usenet.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit And for those who have not made the connection yet, snit = Michael Glasser of Prescott AZ. He lives in a double wide trailer with his wife and several home schooled children. He has no gainful employment but his wife runs a daycare center out of the trailer. Michael Glasser collects a monthly disability check because he convinced some doctor pill that he suffers from a variety of anxiety type illnesses. What is of note is how this supposed sick person can troll the Internet every day of the year including Christmas, New Years and other holidays and not for a couple of hours per day but literally 24x7. For those of you in the USA, it's a prime example of your tax dollars hard at work. And for those keeping track, this is yet another example of sin't dishonesty so next time he drops the I'm honorable line on you remember this post. Not that it's difficult to locate posts where snit is lying. It's actually trivial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fnh0iuFbk5tU15@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170578 |
On 6/2/18 6:20 PM, Horace wrote: > On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:04 GMT, Snit wrote: > >> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>>>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present >>>>>>>> in every sentence uttered.... >>>>> >>>>>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you >>>>>>> were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >>>>> >>>>>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look >>>>>> into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to >>>>>> suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to >>>>>> ignore context of US society (and many others). >>>>> >>>>> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the >>>>> context. >>>>> >>>>>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change >>>>>> the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you >>>>> want. >>>>> >>>>>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>>>>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>>>>>>> completely twist meanings. >>>>> >>>>>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >>>>>>> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >>>>>>> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >>>>>>> carry a weapon in a military capacity." >>>>> >>>>>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of >>>>>> the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >>>>> >>>>>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >>>>> >>>>>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >>>>>>> and bear arms. >>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >>>>> >>>>> No word play involved on my part. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>>>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >>>>> >>>>>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >>>>> >>>>>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >>>>> >>>>> You invent context to satisfy your desires. >>>> >>>> And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen used >>>> the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not traveling in >>>> the army) >>>> >>>> I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary that >>>> the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 definition is to >>>> serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can easily look it up. >>>> >>>> Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more credible >>>> than THE accepted world reference for the English language. >>> >>> A little bit about snit the troll: >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>> >> >> Those are not about me in any way. > > Oh yes they are snit and nothing you can do or say can change your past > transgressions. > I defy you to find another troll who is despised as much as you are. I > would say Tholen but he disappeared many years ago. You OTOH continue to > thrive, much like a cockroach after a nuclear blast. > Sandman's site has some very accurate information regarding you and your > sock puppets. > > http://usenet.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit > > And for those who have not made the connection yet, snit = Michael Glasser > of Prescott AZ. He lives in a double wide trailer with his wife and several > home schooled children. He has no gainful employment but his wife runs a > daycare center out of the trailer. Michael Glasser collects a monthly > disability check because he convinced some doctor pill that he suffers from > a variety of anxiety type illnesses. What is of note is how this supposed > sick person can troll the Internet every day of the year including > Christmas, New Years and other holidays and not for a couple of hours per > day but literally 24x7. > > For those of you in the USA, it's a prime example of your tax dollars hard > at work. > > And for those keeping track, this is yet another example of sin't > dishonesty so next time he drops the I'm honorable line on you remember > this post. > Not that it's difficult to locate posts where snit is lying. > It's actually trivial. > What a bizarre tantrum you are throwing. -- 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 | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 02:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <pevjkt$8me$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170594 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:03:10 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 6:20 PM, Horace wrote: >> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:04 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from >>>>>>>>>>>>> that statement. Odd if you do. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not >>>>>>>>>> presented. >>>>>>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not >>>>>>>>> present in every sentence uttered.... >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if >>>>>>>> you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to >>>>>>> look into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted >>>>>>> that to suggest he was saying police are not real men, which >>>>>>> required you to ignore context of US society (and many others). >>>>>> >>>>>> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the >>>>>> context. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not >>>>>>> change the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic >>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you >>>>>> want. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, >>>>>>>>> actively, >>>>>>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way >>>>>>>>> to completely twist meanings. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written >>>>>>>> word partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does >>>>>>>> not mean "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited >>>>>>>> interpretation of "to carry a weapon in a military capacity." >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning >>>>>>> of the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >>>>>> >>>>>>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to >>>>>>>> keep and bear arms. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >>>>>> >>>>>> No word play involved on my part. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they >>>>>>>>>>>> must not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >>>>>> >>>>>>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >>>>>> >>>>>> You invent context to satisfy your desires. >>>>> >>>>> And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen >>>>> used the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not >>>>> traveling in the army) >>>>> >>>>> I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary >>>>> that the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 >>>>> definition is to serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can >>>>> easily look it up. >>>>> >>>>> Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more >>>>> credible than THE accepted world reference for the English language. >>>> >>>> A little bit about snit the troll: >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>>> >>>> >>> Those are not about me in any way. >> >> Oh yes they are snit and nothing you can do or say can change your past >> transgressions. >> I defy you to find another troll who is despised as much as you are. I >> would say Tholen but he disappeared many years ago. You OTOH continue >> to thrive, much like a cockroach after a nuclear blast. >> Sandman's site has some very accurate information regarding you and >> your sock puppets. >> >> http://usenet.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit >> >> And for those who have not made the connection yet, snit = Michael >> Glasser of Prescott AZ. He lives in a double wide trailer with his wife >> and several home schooled children. He has no gainful employment but >> his wife runs a daycare center out of the trailer. Michael Glasser >> collects a monthly disability check because he convinced some doctor >> pill that he suffers from a variety of anxiety type illnesses. What is >> of note is how this supposed sick person can troll the Internet every >> day of the year including Christmas, New Years and other holidays and >> not for a couple of hours per day but literally 24x7. >> >> For those of you in the USA, it's a prime example of your tax dollars >> hard at work. >> >> And for those keeping track, this is yet another example of sin't >> dishonesty so next time he drops the I'm honorable line on you remember >> this post. >> Not that it's difficult to locate posts where snit is lying. >> It's actually trivial. >> >> > What a bizarre tantrum you are throwing. Tantrum? You seem to be the one who is trying in vain to defend yourself. I'm laughing my ass off watching you make a fool of yourself. I'm pointing to facts that other people have written about you. Hundreds of people in fact. Are you claiming that these hundreds of people are wrong about you? They all seem to be saying the same or similar things about you snit. So are all of these people wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fnh31dFc4krU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170601 |
On 6/2/18 7:26 PM, simon singh wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:03:10 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 6:20 PM, Horace wrote: >>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:04 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that statement. Odd if you do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not >>>>>>>>>>> presented. >>>>>>>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not >>>>>>>>>> present in every sentence uttered.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if >>>>>>>>> you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to >>>>>>>> look into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted >>>>>>>> that to suggest he was saying police are not real men, which >>>>>>>> required you to ignore context of US society (and many others). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the >>>>>>> context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not >>>>>>>> change the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic >>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you >>>>>>> want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, >>>>>>>>>> actively, >>>>>>>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way >>>>>>>>>> to completely twist meanings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written >>>>>>>>> word partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does >>>>>>>>> not mean "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited >>>>>>>>> interpretation of "to carry a weapon in a military capacity." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning >>>>>>>> of the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to >>>>>>>>> keep and bear arms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No word play involved on my part. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they >>>>>>>>>>>>> must not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You invent context to satisfy your desires. >>>>>> >>>>>> And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen >>>>>> used the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not >>>>>> traveling in the army) >>>>>> >>>>>> I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary >>>>>> that the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 >>>>>> definition is to serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can >>>>>> easily look it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more >>>>>> credible than THE accepted world reference for the English language. >>>>> >>>>> A little bit about snit the troll: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>>>> >>>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>>>> >>>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Those are not about me in any way. >>> >>> Oh yes they are snit and nothing you can do or say can change your past >>> transgressions. >>> I defy you to find another troll who is despised as much as you are. I >>> would say Tholen but he disappeared many years ago. You OTOH continue >>> to thrive, much like a cockroach after a nuclear blast. >>> Sandman's site has some very accurate information regarding you and >>> your sock puppets. >>> >>> http://usenet.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit >>> >>> And for those who have not made the connection yet, snit = Michael >>> Glasser of Prescott AZ. He lives in a double wide trailer with his wife >>> and several home schooled children. He has no gainful employment but >>> his wife runs a daycare center out of the trailer. Michael Glasser >>> collects a monthly disability check because he convinced some doctor >>> pill that he suffers from a variety of anxiety type illnesses. What is >>> of note is how this supposed sick person can troll the Internet every >>> day of the year including Christmas, New Years and other holidays and >>> not for a couple of hours per day but literally 24x7. >>> >>> For those of you in the USA, it's a prime example of your tax dollars >>> hard at work. >>> >>> And for those keeping track, this is yet another example of sin't >>> dishonesty so next time he drops the I'm honorable line on you remember >>> this post. >>> Not that it's difficult to locate posts where snit is lying. >>> It's actually trivial. >>> >>> >> What a bizarre tantrum you are throwing. > > Tantrum? > You seem to be the one who is trying in vain to defend yourself. You are certainly working hard, and failing, to put me on the defensive. > I'm laughing my ass off watching you make a fool of yourself. I was enjoying this earlier but you have gotten to your standard insult and attack mode without even trying to be interesting or entertaining. I shall likely ignore you for a while -- in part just to see you cry. And you will. 100% predictable. > I'm pointing to facts that other people have written about you. > Hundreds of people in fact. > Are you claiming that these hundreds of people are wrong about you? > They all seem to be saying the same or similar things about you snit. > So are all of these people wrong? In other words you cannot quote me doing as you accuse. Cool! -- 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 | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 02:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <pevl9c$8me$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170611 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:45:00 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 7:26 PM, simon singh wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:03:10 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:20 PM, Horace wrote: >>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:04 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 20:14:24 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement. Odd if you do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not >>>>>>>>>>>> presented. >>>>>>>>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not >>>>>>>>>>> present in every sentence uttered.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here >>>>>>>>>> "if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to >>>>>>>>> look into the context to even try to) but the fact is you >>>>>>>>> twisted that to suggest he was saying police are not real men, >>>>>>>>> which required you to ignore context of US society (and many >>>>>>>>> others). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of >>>>>>>> the context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not >>>>>>>>> change the fact you twisted his words. You pushed a pedantic >>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way >>>>>>>> you want. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, >>>>>>>>>>> actively, >>>>>>>>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a >>>>>>>>>>> way to completely twist meanings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written >>>>>>>>>> word partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does >>>>>>>>>> not mean "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited >>>>>>>>>> interpretation of "to carry a weapon in a military capacity." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning >>>>>>>>> of the words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most >>>>>>>>>>> cultures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to >>>>>>>>>> keep and bear arms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No word play involved on my part. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they must not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You invent context to satisfy your desires. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And so does everyone else, from the days when rights of Englishmen >>>>>>> used the term to mean carrying a sword while traveling (and not >>>>>>> traveling in the army) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English >>>>>>> Dictionary that the number1 definition is to carry arms while the >>>>>>> 1.1 definition is to serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy >>>>>>> can easily look it up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more >>>>>>> credible than THE accepted world reference for the English >>>>>>> language. >>>>>> >>>>>> A little bit about snit the troll: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Those are not about me in any way. >>>> >>>> Oh yes they are snit and nothing you can do or say can change your >>>> past transgressions. >>>> I defy you to find another troll who is despised as much as you are. >>>> I would say Tholen but he disappeared many years ago. You OTOH >>>> continue to thrive, much like a cockroach after a nuclear blast. >>>> Sandman's site has some very accurate information regarding you and >>>> your sock puppets. >>>> >>>> http://usenet.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit >>>> >>>> And for those who have not made the connection yet, snit = Michael >>>> Glasser of Prescott AZ. He lives in a double wide trailer with his >>>> wife and several home schooled children. He has no gainful employment >>>> but his wife runs a daycare center out of the trailer. Michael >>>> Glasser collects a monthly disability check because he convinced some >>>> doctor pill that he suffers from a variety of anxiety type illnesses. >>>> What is of note is how this supposed sick person can troll the >>>> Internet every day of the year including Christmas, New Years and >>>> other holidays and not for a couple of hours per day but literally >>>> 24x7. >>>> >>>> For those of you in the USA, it's a prime example of your tax dollars >>>> hard at work. >>>> >>>> And for those keeping track, this is yet another example of sin't >>>> dishonesty so next time he drops the I'm honorable line on you >>>> remember this post. >>>> Not that it's difficult to locate posts where snit is lying. >>>> It's actually trivial. >>>> >>>> >>> What a bizarre tantrum you are throwing. >> >> Tantrum? >> You seem to be the one who is trying in vain to defend yourself. > > You are certainly working hard, and failing, to put me on the defensive. > >> I'm laughing my ass off watching you make a fool of yourself. > > I was enjoying this earlier but you have gotten to your standard insult > and attack mode without even trying to be interesting or entertaining. I > shall likely ignore you for a while -- in part just to see you cry. > > And you will. > > 100% predictable. > >> I'm pointing to facts that other people have written about you. >> Hundreds of people in fact. >> Are you claiming that these hundreds of people are wrong about you? >> They all seem to be saying the same or similar things about you snit. >> So are all of these people wrong? > > In other words you cannot quote me doing as you accuse. Cool! Are you retarded? Incapable of answering a simple question? I think so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:58 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <l9m6hd9i6k0otesd7suoqtfoqsk36i1vjq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170617 |
>> >> In other words you cannot quote me doing as you accuse. Cool! > >Are you retarded? >Incapable of answering a simple question? >I think so. He's a lefty...sooo...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:57 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <h7m6hd94slnng6skmg1dsdnk56sjo48078@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170611 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:45:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> I'm laughing my ass off watching you make a fool of yourself. > >I was enjoying this earlier but you have gotten to your standard insult >and attack mode without even trying to be interesting or entertaining. I >shall likely ignore you for a while -- in part just to see you cry. Translation: Now that you have sit me in my place yet *again*, I'll run away for a while and sock up. *again*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web