Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:43 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:21 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 05:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 07:04 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-10 04:35 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 01:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Corwin Esterness <woolcross@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 12:00 -0600
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:56 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Bill (not Jillians) DOW #3" <noemail@none.not> - 2018-06-09 20:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-12 00:11 +0100
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lo9ehd5p4sq15qo21mv56fc8i0u8p3mh4g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171592 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Also gave you a link from Politifact. > >The NRA should lose its non-profit status. > ><https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >OR <https://goo.gl/EYqxxo> > >They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >impact is the same. Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be an open record... as above. In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much chump change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a senator like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, please.) Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check to a candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt status. But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that it's likely much more than $834K. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnot2cFbpqgU37@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171743 |
On 6/5/18 6:34 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Also gave you a link from Politifact. >> >> The NRA should lose its non-profit status. >> >> <https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >> OR <https://goo.gl/EYqxxo> >> >> They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >> impact is the same. > > Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The > NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* > vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document > exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the > NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be an > open record... as above. > > In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much chump > change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a senator > like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, please.) > Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: "The > organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from > the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or > owners, and those individuals' immediate families." I saw this and referenced it with the bypassing of the laws. > Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check to a > candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt status. They SHOULD lose it. They are clearly VERY politically active. > But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that > it's likely much more than $834K. Fair enough. > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <L4IRC.144502$mD.80401@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #171750 |
On 6/5/2018 9:52 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/5/18 6:34 PM, !Jones wrote: >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> Also gave you a link from Politifact. >>> >>> The NRA should lose its non-profit status. >>> >>> <https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >>> >>> OR <https://goo.gl/EYqxxo> >>> >>> They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >>> impact is the same. >> >> Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The >> NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* >> vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document >> exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the >> NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be an >> open record... as above. >> >> In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much chump >> change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a senator >> like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, please.) >> Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: "The >> organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from >> the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or >> owners, and those individuals' immediate families." > > I saw this and referenced it with the bypassing of the laws. > >> Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check to a >> candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt status. > > They SHOULD lose it. They are clearly VERY politically active. Then YOU should should be banned from having political opinions too. YOu libs always hate free speech except for you own opinions. >> But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that >> it's likely much more than $834K. > > Fair enough. > >> Jones >> >> -- >> Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnp3r4FbpqgU42@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171763 |
On 6/5/18 7:57 PM, benj wrote: > On 6/5/2018 9:52 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/5/18 6:34 PM, !Jones wrote: >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Also gave you a link from Politifact. >>>> >>>> The NRA should lose its non-profit status. >>>> >>>> <https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >>>> >>>> OR <https://goo.gl/EYqxxo> >>>> >>>> They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >>>> impact is the same. >>> >>> Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The >>> NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* >>> vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document >>> exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the >>> NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be an >>> open record... as above. >>> >>> In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much chump >>> change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a senator >>> like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, please.) >>> Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: "The >>> organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from >>> the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or >>> owners, and those individuals' immediate families." >> >> I saw this and referenced it with the bypassing of the laws. >> >>> Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check to a >>> candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt status. >> >> They SHOULD lose it. They are clearly VERY politically active. > > Then YOU should should be banned from having political opinions too. I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied they should not have opinions. See how you twist words. > YOu libs always hate free speech except for you own opinions. This is a direct misrepresentation of my views. >>> But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that >>> it's likely much more than $834K. >> >> Fair enough. >> >>> Jones >>> >>> -- >>> Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. >>> >> >> > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pfcafb$ojf$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171750 |
In news:fnot2cFbpqgU37@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/5/18 6:34 PM, !Jones wrote: >> x-no-idiots: yes >> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> Also gave you a link from Politifact. >>> The NRA should lose its non-profit status. Because you don't like it. >>> <https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >>> OR https://goo.gl/EYqxxo >>> They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >>> impact is the same. >> Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The >> NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* >> vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document >> exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the >> NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be >> an open record... as above. >> In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much chump >> change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a senator >> like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, please.) >> Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: "The >> organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from >> the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or >> owners, and those individuals' immediate families." > I saw this and referenced it with the bypassing of the laws. >> Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check to a >> candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt >> status. > They SHOULD lose it. They are clearly VERY politically active. >> But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that >> it's likely much more than $834K. > Fair enough. Check your source for this year. NRA-ILA has spent $177,679 so far, which is 'way less than Everytown for Gun Safety's $832,037, or Planned Parenthood's $1,063,911.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fntup0Fp19uU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172254 |
On 6/7/18 3:09 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fnot2cFbpqgU37@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/5/18 6:34 PM, !Jones wrote: >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> Also gave you a link from Politifact. > >>>> The NRA should lose its non-profit status. > > Because you don't like it. > >>>> <https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >>>> OR https://goo.gl/EYqxxo > >>>> They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >>>> impact is the same. > >>> Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The >>> NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* >>> vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document >>> exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the >>> NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be >>> an open record... as above. > >>> In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much chump >>> change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a senator >>> like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, please.) >>> Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: "The >>> organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from >>> the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or >>> owners, and those individuals' immediate families." > >> I saw this and referenced it with the bypassing of the laws. > >>> Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check to a >>> candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt >>> status. > >> They SHOULD lose it. They are clearly VERY politically active. > >>> But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that >>> it's likely much more than $834K. > >> Fair enough. > > Check your source for this year. NRA-ILA has spent $177,679 so far, which is 'way less than > Everytown for Gun Safety's $832,037, or Planned Parenthood's $1,063,911. > > What gun laws does Planned Parenthood try to push? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pfd4pn$kef$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172271 |
In news:fntup0Fp19uU4@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/7/18 3:09 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnot2cFbpqgU37@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/5/18 6:34 PM, !Jones wrote: >>>> x-no-idiots: yes >>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> Also gave you a link from Politifact. >>>>> The NRA should lose its non-profit status. >> Because you don't like it. >>>>> <https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >>>>> OR https://goo.gl/EYqxxo >>>>> They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >>>>> impact is the same. >>>> Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The >>>> NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* >>>> vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document >>>> exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the >>>> NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be >>>> an open record... as above. >>>> In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much >>>> chump change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a >>>> senator like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, >>>> please.) Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: >>>> "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money >>>> came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or >>>> employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." >>> I saw this and referenced it with the bypassing of the laws. >>>> Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check >>>> to a candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt >>>> status. >>> They SHOULD lose it. They are clearly VERY politically active. >>>> But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that >>>> it's likely much more than $834K. >>> Fair enough. >> Check your source for this year. NRA-ILA has spent $177,679 so far, >> which is 'way less than Everytown for Gun Safety's $832,037, or >> Planned Parenthood's $1,063,911. > What gun laws does Planned Parenthood try to push? Planned Parenthood has killed more Americans than all the guns ever made. But I include it since you've mentioned it several times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnump2Fu72oU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172306 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:fntup0Fp19uU4@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/7/18 3:09 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnot2cFbpqgU37@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/5/18 6:34 PM, !Jones wrote: >>>>> x-no-idiots: yes >>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:55:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Also gave you a link from Politifact. > >>>>>> The NRA should lose its non-profit status. > >>> Because you don't like it. > >>>>>> <https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2016> >>>>>> OR https://goo.gl/EYqxxo > >>>>>> They do bypass laws to not have the donations be direct -- but the >>>>>> impact is the same. > >>>>> Yeah, OK... look, I think that we actually agree in principle. The >>>>> NRA represents a very wealthy and powerful industry and *controls* >>>>> vast resources. The holy grail of this debate would be to document >>>>> exactly who is receiving NRA related resources and how much; if the >>>>> NRA proper gave a monitary contribution to a candidate, it would be >>>>> an open record... as above. > >>>>> In that, the average donation is $5,263 and that's pretty much >>>>> chump change... I mean, yeah, I'd like it, but you don't *own* a >>>>> senator like the NRA owns 'em for $5K a pop. (I'll take a dozen, >>>>> please.) Also, did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? E.g.: >>>>> "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money >>>>> came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or >>>>> employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." > >>>> I saw this and referenced it with the bypassing of the laws. > >>>>> Me pint bein' that the NRA, itself, cannot legally write a check >>>>> to a candidate. If they do, then they should lose their tax-exempt >>>>> status. > >>>> They SHOULD lose it. They are clearly VERY politically active. > >>>>> But, yeah... lots of money flows; I think we agree on that and that >>>>> it's likely much more than $834K. > >>>> Fair enough. > >>> Check your source for this year. NRA-ILA has spent $177,679 so far, >>> which is 'way less than Everytown for Gun Safety's $832,037, or >>> Planned Parenthood's $1,063,911. > >> What gun laws does Planned Parenthood try to push? > > Planned Parenthood has killed more Americans than all the guns ever made. > > But I include it since you've mentioned it several times. > > > Oh. That old silly off topic twist. Oy. Can we find common ground on the abortion issue that we should back policies which have been shown to reduce abortions while still maintaining rights? I back that with abortion policy and arms policy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p4ukhdlcm8331otjfnades1ma71km673hq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #172271 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:52:00 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> Check your source for this year. NRA-ILA has spent $177,679 so far, which is 'way less than >> Everytown for Gun Safety's $832,037, or Planned Parenthood's $1,063,911. I don't know and I doubt that whoever wrote the above does, either. This is particularly true when one includes the ILA because it's not a 501(c)(3) and doesn't have to open its books. Thus, you have the NRA which is (essentially) only a name, an office building on "lobby row", and a celebrity spokes-person. This facet is funded by dues and I would expect them to spend all of that just keeping the lights on. The NRA is prohibited from making political contributions; contributions to the NRA are subject to open records... and the last place a gun manufacturer wants to be found is making a huge contribution to the NRA because they want to keep some distance between them. Under the NRA's banner, you find a whole network of political action committees (PAC), "political victory funds", and various lobbies. The NRA may legally sponsor these and provide office space; however, the NRA may not contribute money directly. The largest of these is the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) which (I believe) is registered as a lobby. The ILA provides political market research and "educational" advertising to candidates who support the NRA's legislative goals... and we'd *love* to take a close look at the ILA's budget! That likely won't happen because their books are not open to public perusal. OTOH, saying that their combined budget is $178K (so far this year) is ridiculous. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pfebk8$96r$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172344 |
In news:p4ukhdlcm8331otjfnades1ma71km673hq@4ax.com, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> typed: > x-big-liar: jones > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:52:00 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> Check your source for this year. NRA-ILA has spent $177,679 so far, >>> which is 'way less than Everytown for Gun Safety's $832,037, or >>> Planned Parenthood's $1,063,911. > I don't know ... That's never stopped Jones before. > ... and I doubt that whoever wrote the above does, either. > This is particularly true when one includes the ILA because it's not a > 501(c)(3) and doesn't have to open its books. The source for the numbers was mentioned in the post, which Jones conveniently snipped off. > Thus, you have the NRA which is (essentially) only a name, an office > building on "lobby row", and a celebrity spokes-person.... Once again Jones makes a bid for the Liars' Hall of Fame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dsskhdlao6037vjr1dna5ar5mko9um3bga@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171334 |
!Jones wrote: >On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:52 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit ><usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <261lhd5h7kom12q87ub4ni118rcarmi54q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #172329 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 07:16:21 -0500, in talk.politics.guns chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >!Jones wrote: > >>On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:52 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >><usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >*plonk* I guess "chrisy" told me, huh? -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pf5a0b$pin$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171311 |
In news:fnmhb7Fd8cdU3@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 00:30:00 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> Donations to the NRA tripled after the Parkland shooting >> The *NRA* proper really doesn't do much more than break even on their >> "donations" or membership fees. They make very few political >> contributions largely because they have a huge overhead. > I have already shown otherwise. They pay off politicians heavily. They'd lose their 501(c)(3) status if you could prove it. Go for it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnk8cmFu9g4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170884 |
On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: ... > You should have no trouble supporting your claims. ... > 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research > to better understand the problem. > 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research > to better understand possible solutions. Will show both of these together, and need just one link for it: <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514> ----- Funding and Publication of Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death ... This study sought to determine whether funding and publication of gun violence research are disproportionately low relative to the mortality rate from this cause. ... Compared with other leading causes of death, gun violence was associated with less funding and fewer publications than predicted based on mortality rate (Figure 1). Gun violence had 1.6% of the funding predicted ($1.4 billion predicted, $22 million observed) and had 4.5% of the volume of publications predicted (38 897 predicted, 1738 observed) from the regression analyses. Gun violence killed about as many individuals as sepsis. However, funding for gun violence research was about 0.7% of that for sepsis and publication volume about 4%. In relation to mortality rates, gun violence research was the least-researched cause of death and the second-least funded cause of death after falls (Figure 2). Discussion Between 2004 and 2015, gun violence research was substantially underfunded and understudied relative to other leading causes of death, based on mortality rates for each cause. Ladapo and colleagues5 previously found a smaller-than-expected increase in gun violence publications between 1991 and 2010. The present study incorporates mortality and funding data, and demonstrates the magnitude of the research funding disparity. ... Injury research has been generally undersupported6—a finding replicated in the present study. Gun violence had less funding and fewer publications than comparable injury-related causes of death including motor vehicle accidents and poisonings. Given that gun violence disproportionately affects the young and inflicts many more nonfatal injuries than deaths, it is likely that the true magnitude of research funding disparity, when considering years of potential life lost or lived with disability, is even greater. ----- The figures are well worth looking at, esp. the top of Figure 1. And there it is: all five of your requests fulfilled. And it was a fair request: people SHOULD back their claims, at least in any situation where they are asking others to accept their views. As I said, my views are based on the evidence. If you have contrary evidence I would like to see it and will consider it. -- 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 | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <IZgRC.141094$wG5.118779@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #170903 |
On 6/4/2018 1:34 AM, Snit wrote: > On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > ... >> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. > ... >> 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >> to better understand the problem. >> 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >> to better understand possible solutions. > > Will show both of these together, and need just one link for it: > > <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514> "This study sought to determine whether funding and publication of gun violence research are disproportionately low relative to the mortality rate from this cause." Actually it only looked at FEDERAL funding of research. There is not a single statement in the entire article that supports a claim that the USA as a country works to stop research to better understand the problem and possible solutions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnllmbF8khdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171132 |
On 6/4/18 1:07 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/4/2018 1:34 AM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> ... >>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >> ... >>> 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>> to better understand the problem. >>> 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>> to better understand possible solutions. >> >> Will show both of these together, and need just one link for it: >> >> <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514> > > "This study sought to determine whether funding and publication > of gun violence research are disproportionately low relative to > the mortality rate from this cause." Actually it only looked at > FEDERAL funding of research. There is not a single statement in > the entire article that supports a claim that the USA as a country > works to stop research to better understand the problem and > possible solutions. If you have evidence that some non-government groups, not tied to the gun industry nor benefiting from gun violence, are doing research I would love to see it. But even without that, the research shows that the US government is NOT putting research into this. We, as a country, are not researching this to better understand problems and solutions. This has been backed. You can reject the support but it does not take away from the fact I have supported the claims very well. I think there are two things here: 1) Me supporting my claims. You asked me to do this. I did. 2) You acknowledging the support. You did not ask me to get you to do this, nor could I even if I wanted to. that is on 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 | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aDjRC.346341$1e7.235095@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #171140 |
On 6/4/2018 2:27 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/4/18 1:07 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 6/4/2018 1:34 AM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> ... >>>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >>> ... >>>> 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>>> to better understand the problem. >>>> 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>>> to better understand possible solutions. >>> >>> Will show both of these together, and need just one link for it: >>> >>> <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514> >> >> "This study sought to determine whether funding and publication >> of gun violence research are disproportionately low relative to >> the mortality rate from this cause." Actually it only looked at >> FEDERAL funding of research. There is not a single statement in >> the entire article that supports a claim that the USA as a country >> works to stop research to better understand the problem and >> possible solutions. > > If you have evidence that some non-government groups, not tied to the > gun industry nor benefiting from gun violence, are doing research I > would love to see it. That's not the issue at all. It's not how much research is being done, it's whether we as a country WORK TO STOP RESEARCH. AFAIK, there is no concerted effort to prevent any private group or individual from doing the research. In fact, there's no law preventing, say, the FBI from doing the research. > But even without that, the research shows that the US government is NOT > putting research into this. We, as a country, are not researching this > to better understand problems and solutions. Again, it's not whether the research is being done, but whether the government is affirmatively preventing the research. > This has been backed. You can reject the support but it does not take > away from the fact I have supported the claims very well. You again only offer evidence of B (how much research is done) as evidence of A (we as a country work to stop research). Show me some evidence that someone tried to do the research but the federal government shut him down, and you might have something. Until then you have nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnlvmrFa43hU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171192 |
On 6/4/18 4:07 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/4/2018 2:27 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/4/18 1:07 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/4/2018 1:34 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >>>> ... >>>>> 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>>>> to better understand the problem. >>>>> 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>>>> to better understand possible solutions. >>>> >>>> Will show both of these together, and need just one link for it: >>>> >>>> <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514> >>> >>> "This study sought to determine whether funding and publication >>> of gun violence research are disproportionately low relative to >>> the mortality rate from this cause." Actually it only looked at >>> FEDERAL funding of research. There is not a single statement in >>> the entire article that supports a claim that the USA as a country >>> works to stop research to better understand the problem and >>> possible solutions. >> >> If you have evidence that some non-government groups, not tied to the >> gun industry nor benefiting from gun violence, are doing research I >> would love to see it. > > That's not the issue at all. There may be other issues (there surely are!) but the issue I was speaking of is the lack of research to understand and find solutions. And that is clear: that research is NOT happening. The NRA pushes to prevent it (making you wonder what they fear will be found!). Corporations are not doing this research either, as far as I can tell (nor does it seem like they would be likely to). My point is backed well. If you want to change the topic that is OK, but we -- as a country -- do very little research in these areas. That is simply a fact. > It's not how much research > is being done, it's whether we as a country WORK TO STOP > RESEARCH. We know the NRA does... but others push back. So not everyone in the country. Republicans tend to back the NRA position (they are paid to, after all) and thus it is fair to say we do this "as a country"). > AFAIK, there is no concerted effort to prevent > any private group or individual from doing the research. The NRA and Republicans. > In fact, there's no law preventing, say, the FBI from > doing the research. The FBI does not do such research on any health issue. It is not a part of their mandate and would likely not be appropriate for them to do. >> But even without that, the research shows that the US government is >> NOT putting research into this. We, as a country, are not researching >> this to better understand problems and solutions. > > Again, it's not whether the research is being done, but whether > the government is affirmatively preventing the research. The NRA and the politicians they pay (mostly Republicans) push against this. >> This has been backed. You can reject the support but it does not take >> away from the fact I have supported the claims very well. > > You again only offer evidence of B (how much research is done) > as evidence of A (we as a country work to stop research). > Show me some evidence that someone tried to do the research > but the federal government shut him down, and you might have > something. Until then you have nothing. I backed my position well. Remember: your acceptance of the evidence is not MY responsibility. -- 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 | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ajbhdd1h0qu7b18ue3mjs2362aqu19aqq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171192 |
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:07:50 -0600, Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> wrote: >That's not the issue at all. It's not how much research >is being done, it's whether we as a country WORK TO STOP >RESEARCH. AFAIK, there is no concerted effort to prevent >any private group or individual from doing the research. >In fact, there's no law preventing, say, the FBI from >doing the research. You are 100% correct. It's all tired bullshit. FACT: NRA is against CDC doing gun research. LEFTIST "FACT": NRA made all gun research illegal. Now we can't study "gun violence!" We need to make the NRA and illegal hate group! It's just comical how stupid they are. EVEN DUMBER DEPARTMENT: Tasking the Center for DISEASE Control with researching something for which the FBI or twenty other government organizations already sucking at the teat are far more able. "But, but... the CDC is already studying car seats and power tools and...." The stupidity is just endless. There's no use even talking to these people any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnm2ciFa43hU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171225 |
On 6/4/18 4:46 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:07:50 -0600, Just Wondering > <JustWondering@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> That's not the issue at all. It's not how much research >> is being done, it's whether we as a country WORK TO STOP >> RESEARCH. AFAIK, there is no concerted effort to prevent >> any private group or individual from doing the research. >> In fact, there's no law preventing, say, the FBI from >> doing the research. > > You are 100% correct. > > It's all tired bullshit. > > FACT: NRA is against CDC doing gun research. What research do they support? Any from ANY group that does not benefit from gun violence? > LEFTIST "FACT": NRA made all gun research illegal. Now we can't study > "gun violence!" We need to make the NRA and illegal hate group! Interesting you call them a hate group. I think they should lose their non-profit status but I would not go as far as you did there. And, yes, I know you were bringing up the idea as a straw man, but you STILL are the one who brought it up. > It's just comical how stupid they are. You are the one who said that. > EVEN DUMBER DEPARTMENT: Tasking the Center for DISEASE Control with > researching something for which the FBI or twenty other government > organizations already sucking at the teat are far more able. The FBI does not, as far as I know, do ANY research on the health impacts of guns, nor look for solution. They do CRIMINAL investigations and do research that fits their mandate. The CDC should do research that fits their mandate. Of course. > "But, but... the CDC is already studying car seats and power tools > and...." > > The stupidity is just endless. So stop. Stop pushing straw men and stupidity and try to be reasonable. Just try. > There's no use even talking to these people any more. I will give you chance after chance. Seriously, even though you just said some very foolish things I will not hold it against you. This is not personal to me. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web