Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170020 > unrolled thread
| Started by | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 274 — 17 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 08:08 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:35 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:35 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 17:16 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:10 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:39 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:30 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 21:34 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:47 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:28 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:27 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:38 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:53 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 21:33 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 05:06 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:54 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:11 -0700
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:51 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 11:59 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:25 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:28 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:08 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 23:24 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:12 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:48 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:32 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 21:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:49 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:49 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:45 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:47 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 05:40 +0000
Permission to breath ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:13 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:03 -0600
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 23:33 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:42 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 21:36 -0600
Clarity. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-03 08:52 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:46 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:53 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 22:59 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 23:19 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 09:10 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:31 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:12 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:26 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:10 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:54 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 22:19 -0500
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 20:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 00:24 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 05:43 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-07 05:45 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 07:17 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 00:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 16:07 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:30 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:34 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:50 -0700
"Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 19:02 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 02:18 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:25 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:16 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-02 01:20 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 19:05 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:34 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:02 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-03 15:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-03 18:51 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-03 20:11 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 00:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:37 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:30 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 17:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 15:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-04 23:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:51 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 09:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:02 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 05:15 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:07 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qco6hdd9hncj2p8udi73su6650dkkpf81b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170636 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 20:12:16 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >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. You got your ass kicked by a libby?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mjl6hdt4osu50fob6g9qjv5i9baue5vlv3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170597 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:05:28 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 7:04 PM, Horace wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:52:02 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:39 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include >>>>>>>>>>>> self defense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry >>>>>>>>>>> for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly >>>>>>>>>>> carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted >>>>>>>>>>> and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than >>>>>>>>>>> to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with >>>>>>>>>>> greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant >>>>>>>>>> to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>>>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>>>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>>>> >>>>>> What a shock! >>>>> >>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >>>>> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >>>>> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way >>>>> out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as >>>>> being truthful. >>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>>>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>>>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>>> >>>> I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie himself >>>> into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should have seen >>>> him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and his anxiety >>>> medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox puppets in >>>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each other. >>>> It was better than a Marx Brothers movie. >>>> >>> >>> Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! >> >> So you deny Simon's claims of you using sock puppets? >> Be careful snit, Google is very powerful. >> I don't think you want to go there, meat. >> And watching you squirm trying to cover your lies *IS* entertaining in a >> dark sort of way. >> >I am using you, someone's sock, for my own entertainment. Why don't you just admit you wandered into usenet a few weeks ago with you pants down and clueless. Now you are owned by everyone here and that upsets you. <kiss it up buttercup>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fngvsoFbk5tU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170575 |
On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: > On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: > >> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>>>>>> defense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>>>>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>>>>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>>>>>> defend others? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>>>>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>>>>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>>>>>> confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>> >>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >>>>>> the question about the phrase! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>> >>>>> I've shown that. >>>> >>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>> >>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve >>> Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone >>> else isn't backing up their claims? >>> Hilarious snit. >>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>> >> >> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >> >> What a shock! > > No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing > over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are > cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way out > other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as being > truthful. > Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is > laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. > All in a day's work, right snit? > If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. But you will not. This is 100% predictable. -- 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 | 2018-06-02 22:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1e1ee7bj9z4zo$.7ktjqnj16tai$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #170588 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>>>>>>> defense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>>>>>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>>>>>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>>>>>>> defend others? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>>>>>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>>>>>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>>>>>>> confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >>>>>>> the question about the phrase! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>> >>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>> >>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve >>>> Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone >>>> else isn't backing up their claims? >>>> Hilarious snit. >>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>> >>> >>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>> >>> What a shock! >> >> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way out >> other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as being >> truthful. >> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >> All in a day's work, right snit? >> > > If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. > > But you will not. > > This is 100% predictable. Boring. Surely you can do better snit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnh0kkFbk5tU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170593 |
On 6/2/18 7:01 PM, Horace wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>>>>>>>> defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>>>>>>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>>>>>>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>>>>>>>> defend others? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>>>>>>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>>>>>>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>>>>>>>> confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >>>>>>>> the question about the phrase! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>> >>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve >>>>> Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone >>>>> else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>> >>>> What a shock! >>> >>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >>> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >>> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way out >>> other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as being >>> truthful. >>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>> >> >> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. >> >> But you will not. >> >> This is 100% predictable. > > Boring. > Surely you can do better snit? > I have no concern if my response to your trolling bores you. -- 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 02:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pevjov$8me$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170593 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:01:03 -0400, Horace wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined >>>>>>>>> to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the >>>>>>>>> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to >>>>>>>>> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be >>>>>>>>> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>> >>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>> >>>> What a shock! >>> >>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when >>> you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with >>> no way out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to >>> prove as being truthful. >>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>> >>> >> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. >> >> But you will not. >> >> This is 100% predictable. > > Boring. > Surely you can do better snit? He can't. Snit is cornered so he is relying on his usual tactics of transferring his problems to the other person. It doesn't work and when it's pointed out snit starts going off his rocker. Get ready for it. The meds should be kicking in any hour now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 02:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pevjmf$8me$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170588 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry >>>>>>>> for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly >>>>>>>> carry to defend others? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with >>>>>>>> them when they were needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted >>>>>>>> and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage >>>>>>>> than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked >>>>>>>> with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>> >>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>> >>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>> Hilarious snit. >>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>> >>>> >>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>> >>> What a shock! >> >> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way >> out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as >> being truthful. >> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >> All in a day's work, right snit? >> >> > If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. > > But you will not. You are a sick person snit. Get help. Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. > This is 100% predictable. Yes you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bas9gb.fp2.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170602 |
On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry >>>>>>>>> for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly >>>>>>>>> carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with >>>>>>>>> them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted >>>>>>>>> and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage >>>>>>>>> than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked >>>>>>>>> with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>> >>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>> >>>> What a shock! >>> >>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >>> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >>> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way >>> out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as >>> being truthful. >>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>> >>> >> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. >> >> But you will not. > > You are a sick person snit. > Get help. > Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. > >> This is 100% predictable. > > Yes you are. > this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pevkac$8me$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170605 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:32:09 -0700, % wrote: > On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined >>>>>>>>>> to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the >>>>>>>>>> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to >>>>>>>>>> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be >>>>>>>>>> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>>> >>>>> What a shock! >>>> >>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>>> >>>> >>> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. >>> >>> But you will not. >> >> You are a sick person snit. >> Get help. >> Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. >> >>> This is 100% predictable. >> >> Yes you are. >> > this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he You might want to read this: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <basa4i.fp2.17.8@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170606 |
On 2018-06-02 7:38 PM, simon singh wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:32:09 -0700, % wrote: > >> On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined >>>>>>>>>>> to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the >>>>>>>>>>> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to >>>>>>>>>>> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be >>>>>>>>>>> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>>>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>>>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>>>> >>>>>> What a shock! >>>>> >>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>>>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>>>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about me. >>>> >>>> But you will not. >>> >>> You are a sick person snit. >>> Get help. >>> Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. >>> >>>> This is 100% predictable. >>> >>> Yes you are. >>> >> this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he > > You might want to read this: > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html > > http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html > no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , watch him run you around like he's doing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 02:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pevl79$8me$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170610 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:42:55 -0700, % wrote: > On 2018-06-02 7:38 PM, simon singh wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:32:09 -0700, % wrote: >> >>> On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor >>>>>>>>>>>> determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse >>>>>>>>>>>> for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve >>>>>>>>>>>> rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>>>>>>>>>>> man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed >>>>>>>>>>>> man." >>>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>>> me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a shock! >>>>>> >>>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group >>>>>> is laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own >>>>>> hide. All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about >>>>> me. >>>>> >>>>> But you will not. >>>> >>>> You are a sick person snit. >>>> Get help. >>>> Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. >>>> >>>>> This is 100% predictable. >>>> >>>> Yes you are. >>>> >>> this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he >> >> You might want to read this: >> >> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >> >> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >> >> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >> > no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , > watch him run you around like he's doing I'm laughing my ass off. You know why? Six months from now when he starts trolling in another group claiming he is honest and honorable, this thread and the others will be right there in Google to show he is a troll and not a very good one. Again, if you really want entertainment, read the links. You'll be laughing too instead of being one of the 0.005 percent of usenet posters who have support snit. BTW, you'll have a real hard time finding them or anyone who has supported snit for more than a couple of days. Shall I add you to the list?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <basb0l.bn6.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170616 |
On 2018-06-02 7:53 PM, simon singh wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:42:55 -0700, % wrote: > >> On 2018-06-02 7:38 PM, simon singh wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:32:09 -0700, % wrote: >>> >>>> On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>>>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor >>>>>>>>>>>>> determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>>>>>>>>>>>> man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed >>>>>>>>>>>>> man." >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a shock! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group >>>>>>> is laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own >>>>>>> hide. All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about >>>>>> me. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you will not. >>>>> >>>>> You are a sick person snit. >>>>> Get help. >>>>> Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. >>>>> >>>>>> This is 100% predictable. >>>>> >>>>> Yes you are. >>>>> >>>> this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he >>> >>> You might want to read this: >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>> >> no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , >> watch him run you around like he's doing > > I'm laughing my ass off. > You know why? > Six months from now when he starts trolling in another group claiming he > is honest and honorable, this thread and the others will be right there > in Google to show he is a troll and not a very good one. > > Again, if you really want entertainment, read the links. You'll be > laughing too instead of being one of the 0.005 percent of usenet posters > who have support snit. > BTW, you'll have a real hard time finding them or anyone who has > supported snit for more than a couple of days. > Shall I add you to the list? > your list is a series of fake people , they're even listed in alphabetical order , i don't give a shit who you add to where , i just thought i'd point out that , he really knows how to make you go mental
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnh4hoFcb78U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170616 |
On 6/2/18 7:53 PM, simon singh wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:42:55 -0700, % wrote: > >> On 2018-06-02 7:38 PM, simon singh wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:32:09 -0700, % wrote: >>> >>>> On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>>>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor >>>>>>>>>>>>> determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>>>>>>>>>>>> man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed >>>>>>>>>>>>> man." >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a shock! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group >>>>>>> is laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own >>>>>>> hide. All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about >>>>>> me. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you will not. >>>>> >>>>> You are a sick person snit. >>>>> Get help. >>>>> Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. >>>>> >>>>>> This is 100% predictable. >>>>> >>>>> Yes you are. >>>>> >>>> this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he >>> >>> You might want to read this: >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>> >>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>> >> no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , >> watch him run you around like he's doing > > I'm laughing my ass off. > You know why? > Six months from now when he starts trolling in another group claiming he > is honest and honorable, this thread and the others will be right there > in Google to show he is a troll and not a very good one. > > Again, if you really want entertainment, read the links. You'll be > laughing too instead of being one of the 0.005 percent of usenet posters > who have support snit. > BTW, you'll have a real hard time finding them or anyone who has > supported snit for more than a couple of days. > Shall I add you to the list? > I would be a horrid troll... no practice nor desire to do so. What I am good at, though, is being honest. This is why it is predictable you will fail to quote me lying as often in a year as I can show you lying in a day. -- 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 | 2018-06-02 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bascqb.u9i.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170635 |
On 2018-06-02 8:10 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 7:53 PM, simon singh wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:42:55 -0700, % wrote: >> >>> On 2018-06-02 7:38 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:32:09 -0700, % wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> man." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What a shock! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group >>>>>>>> is laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own >>>>>>>> hide. All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about >>>>>>> me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you will not. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a sick person snit. >>>>>> Get help. >>>>>> Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. >>>>>>> This is 100% predictable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes you are. >>>>>> >>>>> this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he >>>> >>>> You might want to read this: >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>>> >>> no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , >>> watch him run you around like he's doing >> >> I'm laughing my ass off. >> You know why? >> Six months from now when he starts trolling in another group claiming he >> is honest and honorable, this thread and the others will be right there >> in Google to show he is a troll and not a very good one. >> >> Again, if you really want entertainment, read the links. You'll be >> laughing too instead of being one of the 0.005 percent of usenet posters >> who have support snit. >> BTW, you'll have a real hard time finding them or anyone who has >> supported snit for more than a couple of days. >> Shall I add you to the list? >> > I would be a horrid troll... no practice nor desire to do so. > > What I am good at, though, is being honest. This is why it is > predictable you will fail to quote me lying as often in a year as I can > show you lying in a day. > i think he ran off when no one took his side
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnh9l5Fd558U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170637 |
On 6/2/18 8:28 PM, % wrote: >>>>> >>>> no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , >>>> watch him run you around like he's doing >>> >>> I'm laughing my ass off. >>> You know why? >>> Six months from now when he starts trolling in another group claiming he >>> is honest and honorable, this thread and the others will be right there >>> in Google to show he is a troll and not a very good one. >>> >>> Again, if you really want entertainment, read the links. You'll be >>> laughing too instead of being one of the 0.005 percent of usenet posters >>> who have support snit. >>> BTW, you'll have a real hard time finding them or anyone who has >>> supported snit for more than a couple of days. >>> Shall I add you to the list? >>> >> I would be a horrid troll... no practice nor desire to do so. >> >> What I am good at, though, is being honest. This is why it is >> predictable you will fail to quote me lying as often in a year as I >> can show you lying in a day. >> > i think he ran off when no one took his side Bullies do not handle not having people backing them well. -- 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 | 2018-06-02 22:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <17s6hd9th38tacgghb4rdupsev65s8b026@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170669 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:37:57 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 8:28 PM, % wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , >>>>> watch him run you around like he's doing >>>> >>>> I'm laughing my ass off. >>>> You know why? >>>> Six months from now when he starts trolling in another group claiming he >>>> is honest and honorable, this thread and the others will be right there >>>> in Google to show he is a troll and not a very good one. >>>> >>>> Again, if you really want entertainment, read the links. You'll be >>>> laughing too instead of being one of the 0.005 percent of usenet posters >>>> who have support snit. >>>> BTW, you'll have a real hard time finding them or anyone who has >>>> supported snit for more than a couple of days. >>>> Shall I add you to the list? >>>> >>> I would be a horrid troll... no practice nor desire to do so. >>> >>> What I am good at, though, is being honest. This is why it is >>> predictable you will fail to quote me lying as often in a year as I >>> can show you lying in a day. >>> >> i think he ran off when no one took his side > >Bullies do not handle not having people backing them well. Is that why you ran....oh wait, you can't be a bully, bullys have balls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <hbo6hd54gmqor3e9nh4k1ee9prj16i1ioe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170635 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 20:10:48 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 7:53 PM, simon singh wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:42:55 -0700, % wrote: >> >>> On 2018-06-02 7:38 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:32:09 -0700, % wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2018-06-02 7:27 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:10 PM, Horace wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> man." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What a shock! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group >>>>>>>> is laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own >>>>>>>> hide. All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are not obsessing over me stop posting your fantasies about >>>>>>> me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you will not. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a sick person snit. >>>>>> Get help. >>>>>> Better yet, get a job. Your family will thank you for it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is 100% predictable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes you are. >>>>>> >>>>> this snit guy sure has your number doesn't he >>>> >>>> You might want to read this: >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html >>>> >>>> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html >>>> >>> no , i don't want to read that i just wanna , >>> watch him run you around like he's doing >> >> I'm laughing my ass off. >> You know why? >> Six months from now when he starts trolling in another group claiming he >> is honest and honorable, this thread and the others will be right there >> in Google to show he is a troll and not a very good one. >> >> Again, if you really want entertainment, read the links. You'll be >> laughing too instead of being one of the 0.005 percent of usenet posters >> who have support snit. >> BTW, you'll have a real hard time finding them or anyone who has >> supported snit for more than a couple of days. >> Shall I add you to the list? >> >I would be a horrid troll... no practice nor desire to do so. > >What I am good at, though, is being honest. This is why it is >predictable you will fail to quote me lying as often in a year as I can >show you lying in a day. You just lied. I win.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <73tkhdl8ir0gn2cifjo8ib9vvdjd6i4u4h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170575 |
Horace wrote: >On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <avskhdlgn0usmi758av396dvva7psptbiu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170524 |
simon singh wrote: >On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnem8cFsksjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170249 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:53:44 -0400, Scout wrote: > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net... > >> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >> context. > > Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. > > Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the *PEOPLE* to *KEEP* and *BEAR* Arms, shall not be infringed. [emph. added] *PEOPLE* Now get back in your clown car, Snit. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web