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 đ¶çŹ <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 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aRgRC.346338$1e7.197543@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #170900 |
On 6/4/2018 12:53 AM, Snit wrote: > On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. > ... >> 2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely >>     control our gun laws. > > This one is pretty easy. Here: > > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/14/how-the-nra-has-shaped-the-worlds-gun-laws> > OR <https://goo.gl/R6EyV2> > ----- > The NRA ran an aggressive international lobbying effort to try to get > all references to firearms dropped. The World Forum on Shooting > Activities, an international coalition of gun manufacturers and > gun-rights activists founded by the NRA in 1997, also spoke against the > treaty. When that did not work, the group began lobbying congressional > leaders, urging them not to ratify the measure. Ultimately, the treaty > was signed by the Obama administration but never ratified by Congress. Translation: Congress, not the NRA, controls U.S. participation in international firearms treaties. > ... > The NRA's obsession with fighting gun control might be > ideological. Or it might have something to do with > protecting the global market of gun buyers. After all, > the group represents many of the world's top weapons > manufacturers. Protecting the right to bear arms also > protects their right to sell to anyone, anywhere. True or false, none of that is evidence that the NRA controls gun laws. And much of it is false, or at least is unsupported. For example, the NRA does not represent weapons manufacturers. That the views of NRA's members mesh with the views of firearms makers does not make the NRA the latter's representatives. That would be the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). > A lot more at that link. Well worth reading in full. Then there is this: > <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394> An anti-gun op-ed piece is not evidence. You claim that lobbying Congress = control of U.S. gun laws. I do not accept that as a true statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnllc2F8gsuU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171113 |
On 6/4/18 12:57 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/4/2018 12:53 AM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >> ... >>> 2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely >>>     control our gun laws. >> >> This one is pretty easy. Here: >> >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/14/how-the-nra-has-shaped-the-worlds-gun-laws> >> OR <https://goo.gl/R6EyV2> >> ----- >> The NRA ran an aggressive international lobbying effort to try to get >> all references to firearms dropped. The World Forum on Shooting >> Activities, an international coalition of gun manufacturers and >> gun-rights activists founded by the NRA in 1997, also spoke against >> the treaty. When that did not work, the group began lobbying >> congressional leaders, urging them not to ratify the measure. >> Ultimately, the treaty was signed by the Obama administration but >> never ratified by Congress. > > Translation: Congress, not the NRA, controls U.S. participation in > international firearms treaties. No translation is needed, and your doing so is merely twisting what you are reading. This is a demonstration of you understanding you have no honest rebuttal. It is emotional for you. Fair enough. >> ... >> The NRA's obsession with fighting gun control might be ideological. Or >> it might have something to do with protecting the global market of gun >> buyers. After all, the group represents many of the world's top >> weapons > manufacturers. Protecting the right to bear arms also >> protects their right to sell to anyone, anywhere. > > True or false, none of that is evidence that the NRA > controls gun laws. And much of it is false, or at least > is unsupported. For example, the NRA does not represent > weapons manufacturers. That the views of NRA's members > mesh with the views of firearms makers does not make the > NRA the latter's representatives. That would be the > National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). They are closely tied and it is a FACT that the NRA has massive control of our gun laws, as I showed. Again, not sure what the value of your denial is other than an emotional one. I am speaking of evidence. >> A lot more at that link. Well worth reading in full. Then there is this: >> <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394> > > An anti-gun op-ed piece is not evidence. > You claim that lobbying Congress = control of U.S. gun laws. > I do not accept that as a true statement. Your failure to accept evidence is not really of value. What you challenged me to do was back my views. I did. I gave strong support and you have nothing but empty denial as a response. Fair enough. I held up my burden of proof. That was what was asked of me and I did so. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnk83pFu7pbU1@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. ... > 3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass >    shootings. Another easy one. Here are just some examples: <https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/us/nra-donations-spike-parkland-shooting-trnd/index.html> OR <https://goo.gl/W8j7KQ> ----- Donations to the NRA tripled after the Parkland shooting In the days and weeks following the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the National Rifle Association saw a significant spike in donations. In fact, reports from the Federal Election Commission show donations to the NRA's Political Victory Fund tripled from January to February. In January, the NRA collected almost $248,000 in individual contributions. In February, they collected more than $779,000. It's no secret that interest in guns and gun sales -- as evidenced by anecdotes and manufacturing numbers -- have until recently gotten boosts from mass shootings. So it would stand to reason that donations to the NRA would get a bump as well. Since the Parkland shooting happened in the middle of the month, one could argue the relationship between it and the spike in donations is hard to prove. However, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending, tracked itemized contributions (donations of $200 or more by an individual) in the days before and after the shooting. According to their data, in the two weeks after the shooting, itemized contributions to the NRA doubled from the previous two weeks. They also found the number of people contributing in the seven days after the shooting increased almost 500% from the week before. The Center for Responsive Politics says it's unclear what caused the spike, whether it was NRA outreach or President Trump's comments after the shooting suggesting he might support tougher regulations on guns. ----- And this: <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-soars-as-deaths-from-gun-massacres-mount-2015-10-02> OR <https://goo.gl/dvzGF6> ----- The NRAâs profit soars as deaths from gun massacres mount The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut almost three years ago did nothing to restrict access to guns, as the students of Umpqua Community College in Oregon learned to their cost yesterday. But it did a huge amount for the National Rifle Association. As the rest of America mourns yet another murderous gun spree on campus, a review of financial filings shows just how far the mammoth gun organization has been able to cash in, big time, on the fallout that followed Sandy Hook in December 2012. Membership dues jumped as supporters rallied to the cause. So did profits. And executive pay ran into the millions. Not bad for a charity that is exempt from taxes. ... NRA membership dues skyrocketed by a staggering 62% in the year after Sandy Hook, from $108 million to $176 million. Total revenue in 2013 hit a third of a billion dollars. As a result, the massive organization saw profits â excuse me, âsurplusesâ â rocket 2,750% to $57 million. Of course, thatâs before taxes. But, then, it didnât pay any taxes, for it is a nonprofit charity. ----- Not even the NRA denies these numbers and these trends as far as I know. Hard to see why you even needed this one to be defended... I would assume it is just common knowledge to anyone who knows about the NRA. -- 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 | Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus đ¶çŹ <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6JidnfzkWZwlc4nGnZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #170902 |
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 00:30:00 -0700, LO AND BEHOLD; "Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>" determined that the following was of great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in <fnk83pFu7pbU1@mid.individual.net>: >On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: ... > >>You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >... >>3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass    >>shootings. > >Another easy one. Here are just some examples: > ><https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/us/nra-donations-spike-parkland-shooting >-trnd/index.html> OR <https://goo.gl/W8j7KQ> ----- Donations to the NRA >tripled after the Parkland shooting > >In the days and weeks following the February 14 shooting at Marjory >Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the National Rifle >Association saw a significant spike in donations. > >In fact, reports from the Federal Election Commission show donations to >the NRA's Political Victory Fund tripled from January to February. In >January, the NRA collected almost $248,000 in individual contributions. >In February, they collected more than $779,000. > >It's no secret that interest in guns and gun sales -- as evidenced by >anecdotes and manufacturing numbers -- have until recently gotten >boosts from mass shootings. So it would stand to reason that donations >to the NRA would get a bump as well. > >Since the Parkland shooting happened in the middle of the month, one >could argue the relationship between it and the spike in donations is >hard to prove. > >However, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks >political spending, tracked itemized contributions (donations of $200 >or more by an individual) in the days before and after the shooting. >According to their data, in the two weeks after the shooting, itemized >contributions to the NRA doubled from the previous two weeks. > >They also found the number of people contributing in the seven days >after the shooting increased almost 500% from the week before. The >Center for Responsive Politics says it's unclear what caused the spike, >whether it was NRA outreach or President Trump's comments after the >shooting suggesting he might support tougher regulations on guns. ----- > >And this: ><https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-soars-as-deaths-from >-gun-massacres-mount-2015-10-02> OR <https://goo.gl/dvzGF6> ----- The >NRAâs profit soars as deaths from gun massacres mount > >The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut almost three >years ago did nothing to restrict access to guns, as the students of >Umpqua Community College in Oregon learned to their cost yesterday. > >But it did a huge amount for the National Rifle Association. > >As the rest of America mourns yet another murderous gun spree on campus, >a review of financial filings shows just how far the mammoth gun >organization has been able to cash in, big time, on the fallout that >followed Sandy Hook in December 2012. > >Membership dues SPNAK!ed as supporters rallied to the cause. So did >profits. And executive pay ran into the millions. Not bad for a charity >that is exempt from taxes. ... NRA membership dues skyrocketed by a >staggering 62% in the year after Sandy Hook, from $108 million to $176 >million. Total revenue in 2013 hit a third of a billion dollars. > >As a result, the massive organization saw profits â excuse me, >âsurplusesâ â rocket 2,750% to $57 million. > >Of course, thatâs before taxes. But, then, it didnât pay any taxes, >for it is a nonprofit charity. ----- > >Not even the NRA denies these numbers and these trends as far as I know. >Hard to see why you even needed this one to be defended... I would >assume it is just common knowledge to anyone who knows about the NRA. gun nuts don't understand logic. that's why so often they are killed by their own guns. -- THIS SPACE FOR RENT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA "Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer, and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate) "Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan) - "You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor - "If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode - "I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfefd18c9a698f0a8@news.altopia.com> - Golden Killfile, June 2005 KOTM, November 2006 Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006 Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006 Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007 Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006 Busted Urinal Award, April 2007 Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007 Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006 Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008 Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007 AUK Mascot, September 2007 Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnk9q3F150U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170904 |
On 6/4/18 12:48 AM, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus đ¶çŹ wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 00:30:00 -0700, LO AND BEHOLD; "Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>" determined that the following was of > great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in > <fnk83pFu7pbU1@mid.individual.net>: > >> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: ... >> >>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >> ... >>> 3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass >>> shootings. >> >> Another easy one. Here are just some examples: >> >> <https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/us/nra-donations-spike-parkland-shooting >> -trnd/index.html> OR <https://goo.gl/W8j7KQ> ----- Donations to the NRA >> tripled after the Parkland shooting >> >> In the days and weeks following the February 14 shooting at Marjory >> Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the National Rifle >> Association saw a significant spike in donations. >> >> In fact, reports from the Federal Election Commission show donations to >> the NRA's Political Victory Fund tripled from January to February. In >> January, the NRA collected almost $248,000 in individual contributions. >> In February, they collected more than $779,000. >> >> It's no secret that interest in guns and gun sales -- as evidenced by >> anecdotes and manufacturing numbers -- have until recently gotten >> boosts from mass shootings. So it would stand to reason that donations >> to the NRA would get a bump as well. >> >> Since the Parkland shooting happened in the middle of the month, one >> could argue the relationship between it and the spike in donations is >> hard to prove. >> >> However, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks >> political spending, tracked itemized contributions (donations of $200 >> or more by an individual) in the days before and after the shooting. >> According to their data, in the two weeks after the shooting, itemized >> contributions to the NRA doubled from the previous two weeks. >> >> They also found the number of people contributing in the seven days >> after the shooting increased almost 500% from the week before. The >> Center for Responsive Politics says it's unclear what caused the spike, >> whether it was NRA outreach or President Trump's comments after the >> shooting suggesting he might support tougher regulations on guns. ----- >> >> And this: >> <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-soars-as-deaths-from >> -gun-massacres-mount-2015-10-02> OR <https://goo.gl/dvzGF6> ----- The >> NRAâs profit soars as deaths from gun massacres mount >> >> The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut almost three >> years ago did nothing to restrict access to guns, as the students of >> Umpqua Community College in Oregon learned to their cost yesterday. >> >> But it did a huge amount for the National Rifle Association. >> >> As the rest of America mourns yet another murderous gun spree on campus, >> a review of financial filings shows just how far the mammoth gun >> organization has been able to cash in, big time, on the fallout that >> followed Sandy Hook in December 2012. >> >> Membership dues SPNAK!ed as supporters rallied to the cause. So did >> profits. And executive pay ran into the millions. Not bad for a charity >> that is exempt from taxes. ... NRA membership dues skyrocketed by a >> staggering 62% in the year after Sandy Hook, from $108 million to $176 >> million. Total revenue in 2013 hit a third of a billion dollars. >> >> As a result, the massive organization saw profits â excuse me, >> âsurplusesâ â rocket 2,750% to $57 million. >> >> Of course, thatâs before taxes. But, then, it didnât pay any taxes, >> for it is a nonprofit charity. ----- >> >> Not even the NRA denies these numbers and these trends as far as I know. >> Hard to see why you even needed this one to be defended... I would >> assume it is just common knowledge to anyone who knows about the NRA. > > gun nuts don't understand logic. that's why so often they are killed by their own guns. > They do tend to argue a lot from emotion... BUT the same is true of many on the "other" side. Many want to ban "assault" weapons but have no real idea what they even mean by that -- they do not even understand how common semi-automatic weapons are. With that said: I did go to a Moms Demand Action meeting not long ago just to see what it was about. Their #1 action item was to have someone from the NRA or other person who knows guns well and DISAGREES with them to come and explain what many of these terms and items are. They were clear they did not want to debate the person, they wanted to learn from them. It was great to hear. On the other side, I used to run the website for Gunsite and talked to and worked with those people. They had a focus on gun safety I respect. I wish the two "sides" would listen to each other more. I think there is a lot of overlap in their positions... both "sides" want to keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely to be dangerous, both want to have been background checks (even if they disagree on details), both want better mental health services, etc. -- 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 | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vvvbhd10aom6cb8d4oqihisjjpsag7nhvk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170904 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 02:48:08 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <root@127.0.0.1> wrote: >gun nuts don't understand logic. that's why so often they are killed by their own guns. Well, the New England Journal of Medicine showed that in a very well written study funded by the CDC in 1993 (Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home). I think that the NRA understood the risk of good research because they promptly prohibited the CDC from funding any further research on guns. BTW, if you look at the citation indexes, that study is probably the single most cited study in recent history. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pf52qb$n3l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171289 |
In news:vvvbhd10aom6cb8d4oqihisjjpsag7nhvk@4ax.com, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> typed: > x-liar: jones > On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 02:48:08 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Your > Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? > <root@127.0.0.1> wrote: >> gun nuts don't understand logic. that's why so often they are >> killed by their own guns. > Well, the New England Journal of Medicine showed that in a very well > written study funded by the CDC in 1993 (Gun Ownership as a Risk > Factor for Homicide in the Home). I think that the NRA understood the > risk of good research because they promptly prohibited the CDC from > funding any further research on guns. Liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnmhncFdb1mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171304 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:vvvbhd10aom6cb8d4oqihisjjpsag7nhvk@4ax.com, > !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> typed: > >> x-liar: jones > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 02:48:08 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Your >> Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? >> <root@127.0.0.1> wrote: > >>> gun nuts don't understand logic. that's why so often they are >>> killed by their own guns. > >> Well, the New England Journal of Medicine showed that in a very well >> written study funded by the CDC in 1993 (Gun Ownership as a Risk >> Factor for Homicide in the Home). I think that the NRA understood the >> risk of good research because they promptly prohibited the CDC from >> funding any further research on guns. > > Liar. > > > The NRA and there supporters fear evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d65chdpn3ajtt8ea666324e5aeautq7d2q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171304 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:56:59 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >Liar. Profound! I always expire my bozo-filters so they don't accumulate. I think I'm going to retire your jersey, though. I guess I thought that, given time, you might say something intelligent someday. Hugsies! -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnmhb8Fd8cdU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171289 |
!Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 02:48:08 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Your > Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? > <root@127.0.0.1> wrote: > >> gun nuts don't understand logic. that's why so often they are killed by their own guns. > > Well, the New England Journal of Medicine showed that in a very well > written study funded by the CDC in 1993 (Gun Ownership as a Risk > Factor for Homicide in the Home). I think that the NRA understood the > risk of good research because they promptly prohibited the CDC from > funding any further research on guns. > > BTW, if you look at the citation indexes, that study is probably the > single most cited study in recent history. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > The NRA and their supporters fear knowledge. They fear research. They fear evidence. Really, that right there shows they know their views are based on emotion and not reason. Heck, look at one pushing the silly idea I âlostâ, as though this is a game or a judged debate. They know they have no leg to stand on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pf5a09$pin$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171313 |
In news:fnmhb8Fd8cdU4@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > The NRA and their supporters fear knowledge. They fear research. They > fear evidence. > Really, that right there shows they know their views are based on > emotion and not reason.... Oh, the irony!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <rTgRC.346339$1e7.319002@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #170902 |
On 6/4/2018 1:30 AM, Snit wrote: > On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. > ... >> 3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass >>    shootings. > > Another easy one. Here are just some examples: > > <https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/us/nra-donations-spike-parkland-shooting-trnd/index.html> > OR <https://goo.gl/W8j7KQ> > <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-soars-as-deaths-from-gun-massacres-mount-2015-10-02> > OR <https://goo.gl/dvzGF6> The response is even easier. Correlation is not causation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ke0chd98s96a4t5v78i0bf1ncgndmkgpt4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170902 |
x-no-idiots: yes 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. The real action is over in the ILA. There, again, they almost never give money, per se, to politicians because that would have to be reported and, thus, tracked. What they do is targeted political market research. They don't give money; however, they can make their phone lists available; they can tell the aspiring senator exactly where to put the money he does have to its best political use. I really doubt that you can find out what the ILA's budget is; I'm sure it's a closely guarded secret. The NRA's budget is easily tracked and public because they're nonprofit. The ILA is a different kettle of fish; it's only reported if it's a cash contribution and the ILA doesn't do that. I would guess that, if the NRA's dues tripled, it wouldn't amount to a little wart on an elephant when you factor in the ILA. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnmhb7Fd8cdU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171296 |
!Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > 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. > The real action is over in the ILA. There, again, they almost never > give money, per se, to politicians because that would have to be > reported and, thus, tracked. What they do is targeted political > market research. They don't give money; however, they can make their > phone lists available; they can tell the aspiring senator exactly > where to put the money he does have to its best political use. > > I really doubt that you can find out what the ILA's budget is; I'm > sure it's a closely guarded secret. The NRA's budget is easily > tracked and public because they're nonprofit. The ILA is a different > kettle of fish; it's only reported if it's a cash contribution and the > ILA doesn't do that. I would guess that, if the NRA's dues tripled, > it wouldn't amount to a little wart on an elephant when you factor in > the ILA. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0h4chd9jogp3kolqs0je8h3rrosudeft0j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171311 |
x-no-idiots: yes On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:52 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >I have already shown otherwise. They pay off politicians heavily. Dunno; I've been on the road for a few days, so I'm a bit under the power curve. I turned on the group and there's over 2,500 new messages most of which make no sense at all. The NRA has to be pretty transparant with their "donations" because of what they are... and that's not really my field. Pint bein' that you can get their budget through open records. Point 2: While I certainly believe that the NRA would behave in an unethical manner, in an immoral manner, and downright disgustingly... I doubt that they'd do anything blatantly illegal; brown bags of money changing hands in DC hotel rooms likely happens, but it probably can't be traced to the NRA. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnmns3Fecg6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171334 |
!Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:52 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> I have already shown otherwise. They pay off politicians heavily. > > Dunno; I've been on the road for a few days, so I'm a bit under the > power curve. I turned on the group and there's over 2,500 new > messages most of which make no sense at all. > > The NRA has to be pretty transparant with their "donations" because of > what they are... and that's not really my field. Pint bein' that you > can get their budget through open records. > > Point 2: While I certainly believe that the NRA would behave in an > unethical manner, in an immoral manner, and downright disgustingly... > I doubt that they'd do anything blatantly illegal; brown bags of money > changing hands in DC hotel rooms likely happens, but it probably can't > be traced to the NRA. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > I am talking about legal payments. They fund politicians heavily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sf1dhdpgrcjfcrqlttek3d63kichdkgugq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171348 |
x-no-idiots: yes On 5 Jun 2018 06:11:15 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >I am talking about legal payments. They fund politicians heavily. OK. Is there a source? I was under the impression that it was the ILA that mainly influenced politicians and that they did so by rendering services. The NRA would *prefer* not to be tied to political contributions. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnngmoFbpqgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171424 |
On 6/5/18 5:48 AM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On 5 Jun 2018 06:11:15 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> I am talking about legal payments. They fund politicians heavily. > > OK. Is there a source? I was under the impression that it was the > ILA that mainly influenced politicians and that they did so by > rendering services. The NRA would *prefer* not to be tied to > political contributions. They are HEAVILY tied to political contributions and lobbying and other influence: <http://www.newsweek.com/nra-gun-control-parkland-florida-school-shooting-campaign-donations-813940> OR <https://goo.gl/ejWGkg> ----- The National Rifle Association spends more money to influence politics than nearly every nonprofit group in the United Statesâbut thatâs only one-half of its arsenal, gun violence experts told Newsweek in separate interviews. The NRAâs extravagance has earned it a reputation as one of the most powerful political organizations in the county. When it comes to muzzling politicians on gun control and stymying regulations in Congress, the public often credits the group with near-omnipotence. Itâs an easy argument to make when lawmakers offer âthoughts and prayersâ in the wake of gun violence but shy away from legislative action. They also tend to have a pecuniary interest in protecting the NRAâs aims. ... âWhatâs special about the NRA is that it has two sources of its influence,â Maguire said. âThe first is its very deep pockets. The second is its almost unparalleled grass roots support.â ... The NRA significantly boosted its spending that year, dropping more money to get President Donald Trump elected than it did in all federal elections in the 2012 cycle combined, the group reported. Trump was the beneficiary of over $30 million in NRA spendingâ$11,438,118 for him and $19,756,081 against Hillary Clintonâin the 2016 election. The NRAâs return-on-investment is formidable. The group had a 73.3 percent success rate by candidate in 2016âmeaning nearly three-quarters of the time the NRA spent money for or against a candidate, it got its desired outcome. Itâs also getting more efficientâits success rate when spending money on candidates has trended up since 2008 when it was only 43.6 percent. In 2012, gun rights groups outspent gun control groups in federal lobbying efforts $6,129,911 to just $250,000, according to data provided to Newsweek by the Center for Responsive Politics. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children and six adults with an AR-15-style rifle. The next year, pro-gun groups more than doubled their collective lobbying efforts, spending $15,292,052 compared to gun control groupsâ $2,217,765. Lobbying by both gun rights and gun control groups has declined slightly since, but the pro-gun efforts have never dipped below seven figures. ----- As a side note, why do they call it "gun control groups"? Do they call groups calling for better safety features in cars or better made roads "car control groups"? The term is absurd and biased. <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/> OR <https://goo.gl/AupU1b> ----- If you add together all of the NRAâs contributions to candidates, parties and leadership political action committees between 1998 and 2016, it comes to more than $13 million, according to calculations from the Center for Responsive Politicsâ database. Thatâs more than three and a half times larger than their direct contributions to current members of Congress. But thereâs more. NRA spends millions more intervening in campaigns and lobbying The NRAâs biggest chunk of spending on politics came from "outside spending," consisting largely of "independent expenditures" â efforts "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Often these take the form of campaign ads, but they are carried out without coordinating with the candidates they are supporting. This type of spending vastly outpaces what the NRA spent on giving to candidates directly. The NRA spent $144.3 million on outside spending, such as independent expenditures, during that period. In addition, the NRA since 1998 has reported spending a cumulative $45.9 million on federal lobbying, both for its in-house operations and the outside consultants it has retained. If you add it all up -- candidate and party contributions, independent expenditures, and lobbying -- the NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998. ----- -- 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 | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c5qdhd9pvv4cu1bpcoefg2me11ohbraqqr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171427 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:15:04 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >They are HEAVILY tied to political contributions and lobbying and other >influence: > ><http://www.newsweek.com/nra-gun-control-parkland-florida-school-shooting-campaign-donations-813940> >OR <https://goo.gl/ejWGkg> I'm a little cautious about citing the news media as reliable sources of information unless they're willing to include a bibliography and cite their sources. Now, Newsweek has a pretty good reputation for vetting the stories; however, all I have is Newsweek's reputation. I suppose it's better than citing: http://www.nraila.org as many here will do. OTOH, if I were a reviewer and found "Newsweek" in the bibliography, I would challenge the authority of the source unless the purpose were to establish Newsweek's editorial position on some matter. ********************* The NRA proper is listed as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. If you look up that designation and the restrictions thereon, you will note that these cannot make political contributions or perform campaign activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization Limitations on political activity Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, as a result of the Johnson Amendment enacted in 1954.[29] Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits on lobbying, having a choice between two sets of rules establishing an upper bound for their lobbying activities. Section 501(c)(3) organizations risk loss of their tax-exempt status if these rules are violated.[30][31] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot subsequently qualify for 501(c)(4) status.[32] That said, there are many groups under the penumbra of the NRA that are *not* 501(c)(3)... the ILA, for example (et. al.) Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnof6pFp0prU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171554 |
On 6/5/18 1:20 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:15:04 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> They are HEAVILY tied to political contributions and lobbying and other >> influence: >> >> <http://www.newsweek.com/nra-gun-control-parkland-florida-school-shooting-campaign-donations-813940> >> OR <https://goo.gl/ejWGkg> > > I'm a little cautious about citing the news media as reliable sources > of information unless they're willing to include a bibliography and > cite their sources. Now, Newsweek has a pretty good reputation for > vetting the stories; however, all I have is Newsweek's reputation. > > I suppose it's better than citing: http://www.nraila.org as many here > will do. OTOH, if I were a reviewer and found "Newsweek" in the > bibliography, I would challenge the authority of the source unless the > purpose were to establish Newsweek's editorial position on some > matter. > > ********************* > > The NRA proper is listed as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. If > you look up that designation and the restrictions thereon, you will > note that these cannot make political contributions or perform > campaign activities. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization > Limitations on political activity > Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting > political candidates, as a result of the Johnson Amendment enacted in > 1954.[29] Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits on > lobbying, having a choice between two sets of rules establishing an > upper bound for their lobbying activities. Section 501(c)(3) > organizations risk loss of their tax-exempt status if these rules are > violated.[30][31] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due > to being engaged in political activities cannot subsequently qualify > for 501(c)(4) status.[32] > > That said, there are many groups under the penumbra of the NRA that > are *not* 501(c)(3)... the ILA, for example (et. al.) > > Jones 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. -- 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 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web