Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #73228 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-01-09 10:11 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-01-10 10:58 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 391 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 10:11 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Dieter Britz <dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> - 2021-01-09 13:01 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-09 08:16 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-09 09:34 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-09 12:35 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-09 11:09 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 20:49 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 20:34 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-09 12:41 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 17:47 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:29 +0100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-09 12:56 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-09 21:29 +0100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 21:03 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 20:24 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2021-01-09 08:58 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 20:27 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-09 12:38 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-09 09:12 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-09 18:03 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-09 12:16 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 20:53 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-01-10 11:45 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-10 14:03 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 09:54 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-10 17:02 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 10:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 12:26 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 12:20 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 15:20 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-10 23:29 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 10:38 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 17:40 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 12:52 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 20:08 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 14:22 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 13:51 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 05:45 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 09:38 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 03:26 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 19:56 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 07:15 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-14 10:15 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-01-14 18:42 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 16:39 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-11 09:58 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-11 10:27 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 22:44 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 19:00 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-11 10:27 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-11 17:51 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 13:33 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 08:40 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-10 20:22 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 10:53 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 18:01 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 12:59 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 20:08 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 14:11 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-10 20:19 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 15:01 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-12 22:51 +0100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-13 16:19 +0100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 10:56 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-01-11 16:34 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-11 10:35 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-01-11 19:24 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-12 04:39 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 20:39 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-09 20:29 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Dieter Britz <dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 10:38 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 10:58 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-10 08:55 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-10 15:41 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 21:48 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-10 19:47 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-11 15:22 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-12 13:35 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-12 10:05 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-01-11 16:20 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-11 13:05 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-11 18:15 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 21:48 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-12 10:13 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-12 15:23 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 15:47 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-01-12 13:11 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-12 15:02 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-12 15:17 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-12 10:19 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-12 08:14 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-12 13:41 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 05:51 +0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people KenW <ken1943@invalid.net> - 2021-01-12 15:58 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-12 18:15 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 07:46 +0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 21:24 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-12 14:31 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-12 14:47 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-12 15:26 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-12 19:46 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-13 08:07 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 08:37 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-13 12:31 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 10:49 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-13 11:32 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-13 16:07 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 15:51 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:57 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 21:39 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 22:24 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 06:02 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 21:32 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-18 09:10 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-18 08:22 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 09:06 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-18 12:51 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 09:58 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-18 18:24 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Anonymous Reactionary <anonymous@internet.everywhere> - 2021-01-20 00:18 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-18 18:23 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-18 14:14 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 07:49 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 13:21 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 08:42 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-18 16:16 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 09:22 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 14:23 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 14:21 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 10:01 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 15:27 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 13:13 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 18:27 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 13:46 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 18:52 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-18 13:05 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 08:30 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-18 15:46 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 09:19 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 12:14 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-20 13:03 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 08:25 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 13:38 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-20 21:44 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:44 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-21 19:19 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 11:39 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:52 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-22 03:55 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-22 03:48 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 22:11 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:50 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-22 03:58 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-20 15:30 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-20 21:46 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:48 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-21 19:20 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 08:01 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-22 03:59 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 15:19 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-22 16:35 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:40 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 14:14 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-18 16:17 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 14:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-18 17:46 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 10:23 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 07:42 +0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 14:20 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-18 17:46 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 10:22 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 15:28 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 13:15 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 18:28 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 13:47 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 18:52 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Leo <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2021-01-18 20:33 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 20:42 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 17:45 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 12:18 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Anonymous Reactionary <anonymous@internet.everywhere> - 2021-01-20 00:28 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-18 23:42 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 17:43 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 12:16 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-19 11:24 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 05:39 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 08:07 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 19:33 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 11:35 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-20 15:37 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 14:05 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 14:16 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 19:54 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 20:00 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 08:33 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-21 05:46 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 03:05 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 10:29 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:44 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 14:00 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:20 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 14:35 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 10:01 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 14:13 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-21 17:27 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:48 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 15:04 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 10:15 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 19:25 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 14:33 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 11:57 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 04:20 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 14:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 19:24 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 19:28 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 20:55 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 22:09 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 12:01 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 04:25 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 14:29 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 19:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 15:02 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 11:50 +0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 12:01 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 04:31 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:47 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-22 10:06 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 09:51 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 10:24 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:36 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 13:55 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:08 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 14:22 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:46 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 14:11 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 14:35 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 11:43 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 04:11 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:46 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 03:02 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 08:23 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-21 06:06 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:42 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:15 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:22 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:47 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:52 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 12:46 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:04 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 13:20 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:32 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 13:46 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:53 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 14:19 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 19:59 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 15:11 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 10:32 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:49 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-21 14:11 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:33 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-20 07:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-20 10:33 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-20 09:27 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 21:20 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-20 15:46 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-20 14:12 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:52 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:46 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:16 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:24 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:44 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:55 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 17:22 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 12:54 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:07 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 13:41 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:52 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 14:15 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 19:51 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:32 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-13 10:05 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:09 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 10:52 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-13 12:11 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-13 15:19 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 14:46 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-13 16:14 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 15:53 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-13 16:55 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-13 22:19 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 14:30 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-13 13:49 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-13 13:33 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 15:40 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 08:15 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.5-11@snafu.de> - 2021-01-13 22:09 +0100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Anonymous Reactionary <anonymous@internet.everywhere> - 2021-01-13 20:17 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bernd Froehlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> - 2021-01-14 08:02 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 09:43 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-14 07:49 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-14 14:43 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Anonymous Reactionary <anonymous@internet.everywhere> - 2021-01-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 12:15 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 14:34 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 21:28 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-14 17:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 23:02 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 19:30 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 12:17 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 07:50 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 13:17 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 08:34 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 12:10 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 08:21 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 13:37 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:41 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:16 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:23 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:43 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:51 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 16:54 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 12:50 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:05 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 13:21 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:33 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 13:49 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 18:51 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 14:13 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-20 19:50 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@removespam.me.com> - 2021-01-15 06:39 -0600
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 18:38 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-15 22:29 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 16:11 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 18:42 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-15 22:29 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 16:16 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-15 21:37 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 17:24 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-15 23:00 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 19:29 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 01:04 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 20:49 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 11:05 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 08:48 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 14:05 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 10:24 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 15:43 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 13:25 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 19:33 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 16:31 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 23:57 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 19:21 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-17 13:22 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 09:30 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-17 16:22 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 11:54 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-18 13:22 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 08:44 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-16 09:59 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 21:08 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 09:08 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-18 09:55 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2021-01-16 02:49 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 04:51 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 12:07 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 08:37 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2021-01-16 14:01 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-18 09:59 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-18 13:07 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-18 12:24 -0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 07:43 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2021-01-16 16:58 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-15 07:36 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 03:22 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-15 11:55 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 08:07 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:06 -0500
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 04:16 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-12 22:27 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 11:16 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 15:13 +1100
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-12 15:19 -0800
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 07:53 +0700
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-12 13:35 +0000
Re: Washington Post claims cellphone surveillance data is being collected in the capitol to identify people Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 10:58 +0000
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 16:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73675 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:150120212229448668%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article <rttjrf$klr$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev > <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > | They might have been in car accidents or contracted COVID-19 or been >> > | shot by a jealous lover. Three people died of some sort of medical >> > | thing (heart attack? stroke?) One cop was apparently bashed to death >> > | with a fire extinguisher and one rioter was apparently shot by a cop. >> > | The suicide was individual choice. >> > | >> > | If this is what insurrection has become we're truly in deep shit. >> > >> > I don't understand this attitude, even though I know >> > it's become common. It's like teenagers who burn down their >> > school because they think it's "cool", not realizing their own >> > parents will have to pay to rebuild and that they're causing >> > a lot of suffering for a lot of people, including themselves. >> > Do you think it's OK because you believe Trump is cool and >> > his amorality is a kind of morality? >> >> What gives you the idea that I approve? I disapprove strongly. I >> disapprove of any destruction for its own sake. The cause is >> irrelevant. I think it's much worse to loot and burn the businesses of >> ordinary citizens, but that's not the same as saying that it's OK for a >> lot of stupid people to invade the Capitol. > > they did a lot more than 'invade the capitol'. > > insurrectionists There were no insurrectionists. > violently broke into the capitol Yes. > with the intent to assassinate the vice president Nope, few were even armed. > as well as most, if not all of congress, Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. > in an attempt to overthrow the government. BULLSHIT. > they also caused significant amount of damage Yes. > and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people Nope, not even one. > and injured many more. they took down > american flags and replaced them with > confederate flags and trump flags. Definitely the end of civilisation as we know it. > if you think that looting a business is somehow > worse, then your brain is wired wrong. True.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-15 21:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rttu38$36m$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73677 |
On 2021-01-15 9:16 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: > > > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:150120212229448668%nospam@nospam.invalid... >> In article <rttjrf$klr$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev >> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > | They might have been in car accidents or contracted COVID-19 or been >>> > | shot by a jealous lover. Three people died of some sort of medical >>> > | thing (heart attack? stroke?) One cop was apparently bashed to >>> death >>> > | with a fire extinguisher and one rioter was apparently shot by a >>> cop. >>> > | The suicide was individual choice. >>> > | >>> > | If this is what insurrection has become we're truly in deep shit. >>> > >>> > I don't understand this attitude, even though I know >>> > it's become common. It's like teenagers who burn down their >>> > school because they think it's "cool", not realizing their own >>> > parents will have to pay to rebuild and that they're causing >>> > a lot of suffering for a lot of people, including themselves. >>> > Do you think it's OK because you believe Trump is cool and >>> > his amorality is a kind of morality? >>> >>> What gives you the idea that I approve? I disapprove strongly. I >>> disapprove of any destruction for its own sake. The cause is >>> irrelevant. I think it's much worse to loot and burn the businesses of >>> ordinary citizens, but that's not the same as saying that it's OK for a >>> lot of stupid people to invade the Capitol. >> >> they did a lot more than 'invade the capitol'. >> >> insurrectionists > > There were no insurrectionists. > >> violently broke into the capitol > > Yes. > >> with the intent to assassinate the vice president > > Nope, few were even armed. So you admit that some were armed. Good. Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that stated an intent to assassinate Pence. Do you deny that? > >> as well as most, if not all of congress, > > Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. > >> in an attempt to overthrow the government. > > BULLSHIT. > >> they also caused significant amount of damage > > Yes. > >> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people > > Nope, not even one. Really? The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: they didn't directly kill him?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 17:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6ff5sF83u3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73678 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote >>>> > | They might have been in car accidents or contracted COVID-19 | or >>>> > been shot by a jealous lover. Three people died of some sort | of >>>> > medical thing (heart attack? stroke?) One cop was apparently | >>>> > bashed to death with a fire extinguisher and one rioter was | >>>> > apparently shot by a cop. >>>> > | The suicide was individual choice. >>>> > | If this is what insurrection has become we're truly in deep shit. >>>> > >>>> > I don't understand this attitude, even though I know >>>> > it's become common. It's like teenagers who burn down their >>>> > school because they think it's "cool", not realizing their own >>>> > parents will have to pay to rebuild and that they're causing >>>> > a lot of suffering for a lot of people, including themselves. >>>> > Do you think it's OK because you believe Trump is cool and >>>> > his amorality is a kind of morality? >>>> >>>> What gives you the idea that I approve? I disapprove strongly. I >>>> disapprove of any destruction for its own sake. The cause is >>>> irrelevant. I think it's much worse to loot and burn the businesses of >>>> ordinary citizens, but that's not the same as saying that it's OK for a >>>> lot of stupid people to invade the Capitol. >>> >>> they did a lot more than 'invade the capitol'. >>> >>> insurrectionists >> >> There were no insurrectionists. >> >>> violently broke into the capitol >> >> Yes. >> >>> with the intent to assassinate the vice president >> >> Nope, few were even armed. > > So you admit that some were armed. Fuck all of them were. > Good. > Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that stated an > intent to assassinate Pence. Only by fools. > Do you deny that? They didn’t have anything to do that with and he wasn’t even there at the time. >>> as well as most, if not all of congress, >> >> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. >> >>> in an attempt to overthrow the government. >> >> BULLSHIT. >> >>> they also caused significant amount of damage >> >> Yes. >> >>> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people >> >> Nope, not even one. > Really? Yep. One of the violent invaders got shot, the others died of medical incidents. None were killed by the violent invaders. > The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. > they didn't directly kill him? Nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-15 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rtu2uv$ojp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73679 |
On 2021-01-15 10:24 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote > >>>>> > | They might have been in car accidents or contracted COVID-19 | >>>>> or > been shot by a jealous lover. Three people died of some sort >>>>> | of > medical thing (heart attack? stroke?) One cop was >>>>> apparently | > bashed to death with a fire extinguisher and one >>>>> rioter was | > apparently shot by a cop. > >>>>> > | The suicide was individual choice. > >>>>> > | If this is what insurrection has become we're truly in deep shit. >>>>> > >>>>> > I don't understand this attitude, even though I know >>>>> > it's become common. It's like teenagers who burn down their >>>>> > school because they think it's "cool", not realizing their own >>>>> > parents will have to pay to rebuild and that they're causing >>>>> > a lot of suffering for a lot of people, including themselves. >>>>> > Do you think it's OK because you believe Trump is cool and >>>>> > his amorality is a kind of morality? >>>>> >>>>> What gives you the idea that I approve? I disapprove strongly. I >>>>> disapprove of any destruction for its own sake. The cause is >>>>> irrelevant. I think it's much worse to loot and burn the >>>>> businesses of >>>>> ordinary citizens, but that's not the same as saying that it's OK >>>>> for a >>>>> lot of stupid people to invade the Capitol. >>>> >>>> they did a lot more than 'invade the capitol'. >>>> >>>> insurrectionists >>> >>> There were no insurrectionists. >>> >>>> violently broke into the capitol >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> with the intent to assassinate the vice president >>> >>> Nope, few were even armed. >> >> So you admit that some were armed. > > Fuck all of them were. > >> Good. > >> Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that stated >> an intent to assassinate Pence. > > Only by fools. > >> Do you deny that? > > They didn’t have anything to do that with > and he wasn’t even there at the time. 1. You've just stated they were "all" armed. 2. Pence was evacuated from the the Senate floor one minute ahead of the rioters. > >>>> as well as most, if not all of congress, >>> >>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. >>> >>>> in an attempt to overthrow the government. >>> >>> BULLSHIT. >>> >>>> they also caused significant amount of damage >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people >>> >>> Nope, not even one. > >> Really? > > Yep. One of the violent invaders got shot, > the others died of medical incidents. > None were killed by the violent invaders. > >> The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: > > No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was > thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later > had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. Cite, please. > >> they didn't directly kill him? > > Nope. Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? Yes or no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 19:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6fmgcF9djdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73680 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> > | They might have been in car accidents or contracted COVID-19 | >>>>>> or > been shot by a jealous lover. Three people died of some sort | >>>>>> of > medical thing (heart attack? stroke?) One cop was apparently | >>>>>> > bashed to death with a fire extinguisher and one rioter was | > >>>>>> apparently shot by a cop. >> >>>>>> > | The suicide was individual choice. >> >>>>>> > | If this is what insurrection has become we're truly in deep shit. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I don't understand this attitude, even though I know >>>>>> > it's become common. It's like teenagers who burn down their >>>>>> > school because they think it's "cool", not realizing their own >>>>>> > parents will have to pay to rebuild and that they're causing >>>>>> > a lot of suffering for a lot of people, including themselves. >>>>>> > Do you think it's OK because you believe Trump is cool and >>>>>> > his amorality is a kind of morality? >>>>>> >>>>>> What gives you the idea that I approve? I disapprove strongly. I >>>>>> disapprove of any destruction for its own sake. The cause is >>>>>> irrelevant. I think it's much worse to loot and burn the businesses >>>>>> of >>>>>> ordinary citizens, but that's not the same as saying that it's OK for >>>>>> a >>>>>> lot of stupid people to invade the Capitol. >>>>> >>>>> they did a lot more than 'invade the capitol'. >>>>> >>>>> insurrectionists >>>> >>>> There were no insurrectionists. >>>> >>>>> violently broke into the capitol >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> with the intent to assassinate the vice president >>>> >>>> Nope, few were even armed. >>> >>> So you admit that some were armed. >> >> Fuck all of them were. >> >>> Good. >> >>> Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that stated an >>> intent to assassinate Pence. >> >> Only by fools. >> >>> Do you deny that? >> >> They didn’t have anything to do that with >> and he wasn’t even there at the time. > 1. You've just stated they were "all" armed. Nope. > 2. Pence was evacuated from the the Senate floor one minute ahead of the > rioters. Wrong, as always. >>>>> as well as most, if not all of congress, >>>> >>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. >>>> >>>>> in an attempt to overthrow the government. >>>> >>>> BULLSHIT. >>>> >>>>> they also caused significant amount of damage >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people >>>> >>>> Nope, not even one. >> >>> Really? >> >> Yep. One of the violent invaders got shot, >> the others died of medical incidents. >> None were killed by the violent invaders. >> >>> The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: >> >> No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was >> thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later >> had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. > Cite, please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Deaths_and_injuries >>> they didn't directly kill him? >> Nope. > Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? > Yes or no. It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 01:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rtua72$vci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73682 |
On 2021-01-16 12:29 a.m., Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> insurrectionists >>>>> >>>>> There were no insurrectionists. >>>>> >>>>>> violently broke into the capitol >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>> with the intent to assassinate the vice president >>>>> >>>>> Nope, few were even armed. >>>> >>>> So you admit that some were armed. >>> >>> Fuck all of them were. >>> >>>> Good. >>> >>>> Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that stated >>>> an intent to assassinate Pence. >>> >>> Only by fools. >>> >>>> Do you deny that? >>> >>> They didn’t have anything to do that with >>> and he wasn’t even there at the time. > >> 1. You've just stated they were "all" armed. > > Nope. > >> 2. Pence was evacuated from the the Senate floor one minute ahead of >> the rioters. > > Wrong, as always. If I say it... ...I can back it. 'Rioters inside the Capitol nearly reached Vice President Mike Pence, who some targeted for death over false claims that he could overturn Joe Biden’s election win, The Washington Post reported Friday. After a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, Secret Service officers evacuated Pence from the Senate floor into a nearby room, along with his wife and daughter, according to the newspaper. A group storming the Capitol reached a landing about 100 feet from where the Pences hid only about a minute after the vice president left the Senate chamber, the report said.' <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html> > >>>>>> as well as most, if not all of congress, >>>>> >>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. >>>>> >>>>>> in an attempt to overthrow the government. >>>>> >>>>> BULLSHIT. >>>>> >>>>>> they also caused significant amount of damage >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people >>>>> >>>>> Nope, not even one. >>> >>>> Really? >>> >>> Yep. One of the violent invaders got shot, >>> the others died of medical incidents. >>> None were killed by the violent invaders. >>> >>>> The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: >>> >>> No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was >>> thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later >>> had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. > >> Cite, please. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Deaths_and_injuries Which says: 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained in the riot.' and: 'In a separate incident during the riots,[309] Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, 42, a 15-year veteran of the force,[310] was mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher.[6][306][309] Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,[311] and collapsed after returning to his division office. He was later placed on life support,[6] but died the following day.[23][305] Sicknick's death will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and federal authorities.[305]' Your source, sunshine. Pity you didn't read it. > > >>>> they didn't directly kill him? > >>> Nope. > >> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? > >> Yes or no. > > It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained in the riot.' Your chosen source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 20:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6fr69Fa92nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73683 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> insurrectionists >>>>>> >>>>>> There were no insurrectionists. >>>>>> >>>>>>> violently broke into the capitol >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> with the intent to assassinate the vice president >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, few were even armed. >>>>> >>>>> So you admit that some were armed. >>>> >>>> Fuck all of them were. >>>> >>>>> Good. >>>> >>>>> Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that stated >>>>> an intent to assassinate Pence. >>>> >>>> Only by fools. >>>> >>>>> Do you deny that? >>>> >>>> They didn’t have anything to do that with >>>> and he wasn’t even there at the time. >> >>> 1. You've just stated they were "all" armed. >> >> Nope. >> >>> 2. Pence was evacuated from the the Senate floor one minute ahead of the >>> rioters. >> Wrong, as always. > If I say it... ...I can back it. We'll see... > 'Rioters inside the Capitol nearly reached Vice President Mike Pence, who > some targeted for death over false claims that he could overturn Joe Biden’s > election win, The Washington Post reported Friday. Just because some journo claims something... > After a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, Secret Service > officers evacuated Pence from the Senate floor into a nearby room, along > with his wife and daughter, according to the newspaper. Just because some journo claims something... > A group storming the Capitol reached a landing about 100 feet from where > the Pences hid only about a minute after the vice president left the > Senate chamber, the report said.' Just because some journo claims something... > <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html> >>>>>>> as well as most, if not all of congress, >>>>>> >>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. >>>>>> >>>>>>> in an attempt to overthrow the government. >>>>>> >>>>>> BULLSHIT. >>>>>> >>>>>>> they also caused significant amount of damage >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, not even one. >>>> >>>>> Really? >>>> >>>> Yep. One of the violent invaders got shot, >>>> the others died of medical incidents. >>>> None were killed by the violent invaders. >>>> >>>>> The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: >>>> >>>> No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was >>>> thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later >>>> had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. >> >>> Cite, please. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Deaths_and_injuries > > Which says: > > 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained in > the riot.' But says that he died in his office after leaving the capitol. If he actually had had his head bashed in, he wouldn’t have been able to return to his office, he would have been in an ambulance or have been conveyed to an ER or would have died on the floor in the capitol. > and: > 'In a separate incident during the riots,[309] Capitol Police officer > Brian D. Sicknick, 42, a 15-year veteran of the force, > [310] was mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire > extinguisher.[6][306][309] Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered a > thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,[311] and collapsed > after returning to his division office. He wouldn’t have been able to return to his divisional office if he had had his head bashed in and it hasn’t been established that his stroke was due to the fire extinguisher. > He was later placed on life support,[6] but died the following > day.[23][305] Sicknick's death will be investigated by the Metropolitan > Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and federal > authorities.[305]' And that hasn’t happened yet, so the earlier claim is pure speculation and isnt plausible given that he was able to return to his divisional office. In spades with your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. > Your source, sunshine. Your stupidity, shitshine. > Pity you didn't read it. Pity I did and you are too stupid to comprehend that if he had had his head bashed in, he wouldn’t have been able to return to his divisional office. >>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >> >>>> Nope. >> >>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >> >>> Yes or no. >> >> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. > 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained in > the riot.' That wasn’t what an autopsy found, > Your chosen source. Which isnt the autopsy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 11:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rtvddf$h19$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73684 |
On 2021-01-16 1:49 a.m., Rod Speed wrote: > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote > >>>>>>>> insurrectionists >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There were no insurrectionists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> violently broke into the capitol >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> with the intent to assassinate the vice president >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, few were even armed. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you admit that some were armed. >>>>> >>>>> Fuck all of them were. >>>>> >>>>>> Good. >>>>> >>>>>> Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that >>>>>> stated an intent to assassinate Pence. >>>>> >>>>> Only by fools. >>>>> >>>>>> Do you deny that? >>>>> >>>>> They didn’t have anything to do that with >>>>> and he wasn’t even there at the time. >>> >>>> 1. You've just stated they were "all" armed. >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>>> 2. Pence was evacuated from the the Senate floor one minute ahead of >>>> the rioters. > >>> Wrong, as always. > >> If I say it... ...I can back it. > > We'll see... > >> 'Rioters inside the Capitol nearly reached Vice President Mike Pence, >> who some targeted for death over false claims that he could overturn >> Joe Biden’s election win, The Washington Post reported Friday. > > Just because some journo claims something... > >> After a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, Secret Service >> officers evacuated Pence from the Senate floor into a nearby room, >> along with his wife and daughter, according to the newspaper. > > Just because some journo claims something... > >> A group storming the Capitol reached a landing about 100 feet from >> where the Pences hid only about a minute after the vice president left >> the Senate chamber, the report said.' > > Just because some journo claims something... > >> <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html> Riiiiight. When you don't like what you're reading, just dismiss it as "some journo". 'according to law enforcement officials and video footage from that day.' <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html> >> > >>>>>>>> as well as most, if not all of congress, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in an attempt to overthrow the government. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BULLSHIT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> they also caused significant amount of damage >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, not even one. >>>>> >>>>>> Really? >>>>> >>>>> Yep. One of the violent invaders got shot, >>>>> the others died of medical incidents. >>>>> None were killed by the violent invaders. >>>>> >>>>>> The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: >>>>> >>>>> No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was >>>>> thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later >>>>> had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. >>> >>>> Cite, please. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Deaths_and_injuries >>> >> >> Which says: >> >> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained >> in the riot.' > > But says that he died in his office after leaving the capitol. > If he actually had had his head bashed in, he wouldn’t have > been able to return to his office, he would have been in an > ambulance or have been conveyed to an ER or would have > died on the floor in the capitol. > >> and: > >> 'In a separate incident during the riots,[309] Capitol Police officer >> Brian D. Sicknick, 42, a 15-year veteran of the force, >> [310] was mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a >> fire extinguisher.[6][306][309] Reuters reported that Sicknick >> suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,[311] >> and collapsed after returning to his division office. > > He wouldn’t have been able to return to his divisional > office if he had had his head bashed in and it hasn’t been > established that his stroke was due to the fire extinguisher. Excuse me? You think that there is no fatal injury that a human can sustain that will allow them to be ambulatory for a period of time afterward? I happen to have spent about a decade of my life as a first-aider, and one of the things I learned is that head trauma can cause injuries that create bleeding into the brain that only kill the victim hours later. I was reminded of this by an old episode of "Law & Order" where their victim died of a "subdural hematoma". You should look it up. > >> He was later placed on life support,[6] but died the following >> day.[23][305] Sicknick's death will be investigated by the >> Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and >> federal authorities.[305]' > > And that hasn’t happened yet, so the earlier claim > is pure speculation and isnt plausible given that > he was able to return to his divisional office. > > In spades with your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. "Hyperbole", sunshine. > >> Your source, sunshine. > > Your stupidity, shitshine. LOL > >> Pity you didn't read it. > > Pity I did and you are too stupid to > comprehend that if he had had his > head bashed in, he wouldn’t have been > able to return to his divisional office. Your medical degree is from where? > >>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>> >>>>> Nope. >>> >>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>> >>>> Yes or no. >>> >>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. > >> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained >> in the riot.' > > That wasn’t what an autopsy found, You don't know what an autopsy found. > >> Your chosen source. > > Which isnt the autopsy. It was still what you decided to present to support your claim that he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 08:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6h5a3Fi95eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73695 |
"Alan Baker" <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote in message news:rtvddf$h19$1@dont-email.me... > On 2021-01-16 1:49 a.m., Rod Speed wrote: >> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >> >>>>>>>>> insurrectionists >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There were no insurrectionists. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> violently broke into the capitol >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> with the intent to assassinate the vice president >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, few were even armed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you admit that some were armed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fuck all of them were. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Good. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly there were messages that have been widely seen that stated >>>>>>> an intent to assassinate Pence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only by fools. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you deny that? >>>>>> >>>>>> They didn’t have anything to do that with >>>>>> and he wasn’t even there at the time. >>>> >>>>> 1. You've just stated they were "all" armed. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>>> 2. Pence was evacuated from the the Senate floor one minute ahead of >>>>> the rioters. >> >>>> Wrong, as always. >> >>> If I say it... ...I can back it. >> >> We'll see... >> >>> 'Rioters inside the Capitol nearly reached Vice President Mike Pence, >>> who some targeted for death over false claims that he could overturn Joe >>> Biden’s election win, The Washington Post reported Friday. >> >> Just because some journo claims something... > > > >> >>> After a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, Secret Service >>> officers evacuated Pence from the Senate floor into a nearby room, along >>> with his wife and daughter, according to the newspaper. >> >> Just because some journo claims something... >> >>> A group storming the Capitol reached a landing about 100 feet from where >>> the Pences hid only about a minute after the vice president left the >>> Senate chamber, the report said.' >> >> Just because some journo claims something... >> >>> <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html> > > Riiiiight. > > When you don't like what you're reading, I couldn’t care less about those violent invaders ending up dead. Just what they deserve. just dismiss it as "some journo". > 'according to law enforcement officials and video footage from that day.' Easy to claim... We'll see what the autopsys say. > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html> Just more stupid journos hyping it up. >>>>>>>>> as well as most, if not all of congress, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in an attempt to overthrow the government. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BULLSHIT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> they also caused significant amount of damage >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, not even one. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Really? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep. One of the violent invaders got shot, >>>>>> the others died of medical incidents. >>>>>> None were killed by the violent invaders. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The police officer who died from having his head bashed in: >>>>>> >>>>>> No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was >>>>>> thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later >>>>>> had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. >>>> >>>>> Cite, please. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Deaths_and_injuries >>> >>> Which says: >>> >>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained >>> in the riot.' >> >> But says that he died in his office after leaving the capitol. >> If he actually had had his head bashed in, he wouldn’t have >> been able to return to his office, he would have been in an >> ambulance or have been conveyed to an ER or would have >> died on the floor in the capitol. >> >>> and: >> >>> 'In a separate incident during the riots,[309] Capitol Police officer >>> Brian D. Sicknick, 42, a 15-year veteran of the force, >>> [310] was mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a >>> fire extinguisher.[6][306][309] Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered >>> a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,[311] and >>> collapsed after returning to his division office. >> >> He wouldn’t have been able to return to his divisional >> office if he had had his head bashed in and it hasn’t been >> established that his stroke was due to the fire extinguisher. > Excuse me? No way, you have always been completely inexcusable. > You think that there is no fatal injury that a human can sustain that will > allow them to be ambulatory for a period of time afterward? I never said that. If he actually had has his head bashed in as was stupidly claimed, he wouldn’t have been allowed to return to his divisional office, fuckwit. > I happen to have spent about a decade of my life as a first-aider, and one > of the things I learned is that head trauma can cause injuries that create > bleeding into the brain that only kill the victim hours later. And it remains to be seen if he did have a brain bleed and even if he did, that’s nothing even remotely like head bashed in. > I was reminded of this by an old episode of "Law & Order" where their > victim died of a "subdural hematoma". > You should look it up. Don’t need to, I watch that magnificent documentary series 24 Hours in Emergency which has had a number of accidents which have produced that result. >>> He was later placed on life support,[6] but died the following >>> day.[23][305] Sicknick's death will be investigated by the Metropolitan >>> Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and federal >>> authorities.[305]' >> >> And that hasn’t happened yet, so the earlier claim >> is pure speculation and isnt plausible given that >> he was able to return to his divisional office. >> >> In spades with your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. > "Hyperbole", sunshine. Bullshit actually, shitshine. >>> Your source, sunshine. >> >> Your stupidity, shitshine. > > LOL Village eejut stuff cuts no mustard, shitshine. >>> Pity you didn't read it. >> >> Pity I did and you are too stupid to >> comprehend that if he had had his >> head bashed in, he wouldn’t have been >> able to return to his divisional office. > Your medical degree is from where? Same place as yours. >>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>> >>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>> >>>>> Yes or no. >>>> >>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >> >>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained >>> in the riot.' >> >> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, > > You don't know what an autopsy found. Precisely, shitshine. >>> Your chosen source. >> >> Which isnt the autopsy. > > It was still what you decided to present to support your claim that he > didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. I never said that, shitshine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 14:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rtvnvf$e8s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73698 |
On 2021-01-16 1:48 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: > > >>>> A group storming the Capitol reached a landing about 100 feet from >>>> where the Pences hid only about a minute after the vice president >>>> left the Senate chamber, the report said.' >>> >>> Just because some journo claims something... >>> >>>> <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html> >>>> >> >> Riiiiight. >> >> When you don't like what you're reading, > > I couldn’t care less about those violent invaders > ending up dead. Just what they deserve. > > just dismiss it as "some journo". > >> 'according to law enforcement officials and video footage from that day.' > > Easy to claim... > > We'll see what the autopsys say. You can't even follow a simple thread. We're talking about Pence. > >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html> >> > > Just more stupid journos hyping it up. Who've talked to law enforcement and seen video. >>>>>>> No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was >>>>>>> thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later >>>>>>> had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. >>>>> >>>>>> Cite, please. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Deaths_and_injuries >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which says: >>>> >>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>> sustained in the riot.' >>> >>> But says that he died in his office after leaving the capitol. >>> If he actually had had his head bashed in, he wouldn’t have >>> been able to return to his office, he would have been in an >>> ambulance or have been conveyed to an ER or would have >>> died on the floor in the capitol. >>> >>>> and: >>> >>>> 'In a separate incident during the riots,[309] Capitol Police >>>> officer Brian D. Sicknick, 42, a 15-year veteran of the force, >>>> [310] was mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with >>>> a fire extinguisher.[6][306][309] Reuters reported that Sicknick >>>> suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head >>>> injuries,[311] and collapsed after returning to his division office. >>> >>> He wouldn’t have been able to return to his divisional >>> office if he had had his head bashed in and it hasn’t been >>> established that his stroke was due to the fire extinguisher. > >> Excuse me? > > No way, you have always been completely inexcusable. > >> You think that there is no fatal injury that a human can sustain that >> will allow them to be ambulatory for a period of time afterward? > > I never said that. If he actually had has his head bashed in > as was stupidly claimed, he wouldn’t have been allowed to > return to his divisional office, fuckwit. Keep hanging it all on "bashed in", twit boy! > >> I happen to have spent about a decade of my life as a first-aider, and >> one of the things I learned is that head trauma can cause injuries >> that create bleeding into the brain that only kill the victim hours >> later. > > And it remains to be seen if he did have > a brain bleed and even if he did, that’s > nothing even remotely like head bashed in. And since the actual subject was whether he was killed by what happened at the riot, that's a straw man. > >> I was reminded of this by an old episode of "Law & Order" where their >> victim died of a "subdural hematoma". > >> You should look it up. > > Don’t need to, I watch that magnificent documentary > series 24 Hours in Emergency which has had a number > of accidents which have produced that result. And yet, you cannot learn from what you saw. > >>>> He was later placed on life support,[6] but died the following >>>> day.[23][305] Sicknick's death will be investigated by the >>>> Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and >>>> federal authorities.[305]' >>> >>> And that hasn’t happened yet, so the earlier claim >>> is pure speculation and isnt plausible given that >>> he was able to return to his divisional office. >>> >>> In spades with your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. > >> "Hyperbole", sunshine. > > Bullshit actually, shitshine. He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. Those are the facts. > >>>> Your source, sunshine. >>> >>> Your stupidity, shitshine. >> >> LOL > > Village eejut stuff cuts no mustard, shitshine. > >>>> Pity you didn't read it. >>> >>> Pity I did and you are too stupid to >>> comprehend that if he had had his >>> head bashed in, he wouldn’t have been >>> able to return to his divisional office. > >> Your medical degree is from where? > > Same place as yours. > >>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>> >>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>> >>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>> >>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>> sustained in the riot.' >>> >>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >> >> You don't know what an autopsy found. > > Precisely, shitshine. > >>>> Your chosen source. >>> >>> Which isnt the autopsy. >> >> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim that he >> didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. > > I never said that, shitshine. You did say that. Do I need to provide the quote?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 10:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6haufFjb02U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73700 |
"Alan Baker" <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote in message news:rtvnvf$e8s$1@dont-email.me... > On 2021-01-16 1:48 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >>>>> A group storming the Capitol reached a landing about 100 feet from >>>>> where the Pences hid only about a minute after the vice president left >>>>> the Senate chamber, the report said.' >>>> >>>> Just because some journo claims something... >>>> >>>>> <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html> >>> >>> Riiiiight. >>> >>> When you don't like what you're reading, >> >> I couldn’t care less about those violent invaders >> ending up dead. Just what they deserve. >> >> just dismiss it as "some journo". >> >>> 'according to law enforcement officials and video footage from that >>> day.' >> >> Easy to claim... >> >> We'll see what the autopsys say. > > You can't even follow a simple thread. > > We're talking about Pence. > >> >>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html> >> >> Just more stupid journos hyping it up. > > Who've talked to law enforcement and seen video. > >>>>>>>> No one had their head bashed in. An extinguisher was >>>>>>>> thrown at him and he was fine for hours after that and later >>>>>>>> had a medical incident outside the capitol that killed him. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Cite, please. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Deaths_and_injuries >>>>> >>>>> Which says: >>>>> >>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained >>>>> in the riot.' >>>> >>>> But says that he died in his office after leaving the capitol. >>>> If he actually had had his head bashed in, he wouldn’t have >>>> been able to return to his office, he would have been in an >>>> ambulance or have been conveyed to an ER or would have >>>> died on the floor in the capitol. >>>> >>>>> and: >>>> >>>>> 'In a separate incident during the riots,[309] Capitol Police officer >>>>> Brian D. Sicknick, 42, a 15-year veteran of the force, >>>>> [310] was mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a >>>>> fire extinguisher.[6][306][309] Reuters reported that Sicknick >>>>> suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,[311] >>>>> and collapsed after returning to his division office. >>>> >>>> He wouldn’t have been able to return to his divisional >>>> office if he had had his head bashed in and it hasn’t been >>>> established that his stroke was due to the fire extinguisher. >> >>> Excuse me? >> >> No way, you have always been completely inexcusable. >> >>> You think that there is no fatal injury that a human can sustain that >>> will allow them to be ambulatory for a period of time afterward? >> >> I never said that. If he actually had has his head bashed in >> as was stupidly claimed, he wouldn’t have been allowed to >> return to his divisional office, fuckwit. > > Keep hanging it all on "bashed in", twit boy! > >> >>> I happen to have spent about a decade of my life as a first-aider, and >>> one of the things I learned is that head trauma can cause injuries that >>> create bleeding into the brain that only kill the victim hours later. >> >> And it remains to be seen if he did have >> a brain bleed and even if he did, that’s >> nothing even remotely like head bashed in. > > And since the actual subject was whether he was killed by what happened at > the riot, that's a straw man. > >> >>> I was reminded of this by an old episode of "Law & Order" where their >>> victim died of a "subdural hematoma". >> >>> You should look it up. >> >> Don’t need to, I watch that magnificent documentary >> series 24 Hours in Emergency which has had a number >> of accidents which have produced that result. > > And yet, you cannot learn from what you saw. > >> >>>>> He was later placed on life support,[6] but died the following >>>>> day.[23][305] Sicknick's death will be investigated by the >>>>> Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and >>>>> federal authorities.[305]' >>>> >>>> And that hasn’t happened yet, so the earlier claim >>>> is pure speculation and isnt plausible given that >>>> he was able to return to his divisional office. >>>> >>>> In spades with your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. >> >>> "Hyperbole", sunshine. >> >> Bullshit actually, shitshine. > > He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. > > A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. > > Those are the facts. > >> >>>>> Your source, sunshine. >>>> >>>> Your stupidity, shitshine. >>> >>> LOL >> >> Village eejut stuff cuts no mustard, shitshine. >> >>>>> Pity you didn't read it. >>>> >>>> Pity I did and you are too stupid to >>>> comprehend that if he had had his >>>> head bashed in, he wouldn’t have been >>>> able to return to his divisional office. >> >>> Your medical degree is from where? >> >> Same place as yours. >> >>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>> >>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>> >>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries sustained >>>>> in the riot.' >>>> >>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>> >>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >> >> Precisely, shitshine. >> >>>>> Your chosen source. >>>> >>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>> >>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim that he >>> didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >> >> I never said that, shitshine. > > > You did say that. Nope. dope. > Do I need to provide the quote? You wont be able to do that, shitshine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 15:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rtvtms$lr4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73701 |
On 2021-01-16 3:24 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: > > > "Alan Baker" <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote in message > news:rtvnvf$e8s$1@dont-email.me... >> On 2021-01-16 1:48 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> A group storming the Capitol reached a landing about 100 feet from >>>>>> where the Pences hid only about a minute after the vice president >>>>>> left the Senate chamber, the report said.' >>>>> >>>>> Just because some journo claims something... >>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Riiiiight. >>>> >>>> When you don't like what you're reading, >>> >>> I couldn’t care less about those violent invaders >>> ending up dead. Just what they deserve. >>> >>> just dismiss it as "some journo". >>> >>>> 'according to law enforcement officials and video footage from that >>>> day.' >>> >>> Easy to claim... >>> >>> We'll see what the autopsys say. >> >> You can't even follow a simple thread. >> >> We're talking about Pence. No clever rebuttal, sunshine? Aw. >>>>>> He was later placed on life support,[6] but died the following >>>>>> day.[23][305] Sicknick's death will be investigated by the >>>>>> Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and >>>>>> federal authorities.[305]' >>>>> >>>>> And that hasn’t happened yet, so the earlier claim >>>>> is pure speculation and isnt plausible given that >>>>> he was able to return to his divisional office. >>>>> >>>>> In spades with your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. >>> >>>> "Hyperbole", sunshine. >>> >>> Bullshit actually, shitshine. >> >> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >> >> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >> >> Those are the facts. And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. >>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>> >>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>> >>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>> >>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>> >>> Precisely, shitshine. >>> >>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>> >>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>> >>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim that >>>> he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>> >>> I never said that, shitshine. >> >> >> You did say that. > > Nope. dope. > >> Do I need to provide the quote? > > You wont be able to do that, shitshine. Previous poster: 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' You: 'Nope, not even one.' Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' You: 'Nope.' Message-ID: <i6ff5sF83u3U1@mid.individual.net> That last one is still quoted in this message, sunshine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 13:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6hlg9Fl70oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73702 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >>> >>> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >>> >>> Those are the facts. > > And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. Wrong, as always, shit shine. >>>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>>> >>>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>>> >>>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>>> >>>> Precisely, shitshine. >>>> >>>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>>> >>>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim that he >>>>> didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>>> >>>> I never said that, shitshine. >>> >>> You did say that. >> >> Nope. dope. >> >>> Do I need to provide the quote? >> >> You wont be able to do that, shitshine. > > Previous poster: > > 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' > > You: 'Nope, not even one.' Because we don’t yet know what killed that cop. > Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> > > Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' > > You: 'Nope.' Because we don’t know what killed him YET.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 19:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru0b5d$fhj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73705 |
On 2021-01-16 6:25 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: > > > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > >>>> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >>>> >>>> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >>>> >>>> Those are the facts. >> >> And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. > > Wrong, as always, shit shine. I presented the facts: you didn't dispute them > >>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>>>> >>>>> Precisely, shitshine. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim >>>>>> that he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>>>> >>>>> I never said that, shitshine. >>>> >>>> You did say that. >>> >>> Nope. dope. >>> >>>> Do I need to provide the quote? >>> >>> You wont be able to do that, shitshine. >> >> Previous poster: >> >> 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' >> >> You: 'Nope, not even one.' > > Because we don’t yet know what killed that cop. > >> Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> >> >> Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' >> >> You: 'Nope.' > > Because we don’t know what killed him YET. Regardless, your latest claim was that you didn't SAY those things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 16:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6i0dnFn45kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73706 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>>>> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >>>>> >>>>> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >>>>> >>>>> Those are the facts. >>> >>> And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. >> >> Wrong, as always, shit shine. > I presented the facts: Nope, your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. > you didn't dispute them More of your lies. I rubbed your stupid lying nose in the fact that he couldn’t have had his head bashed in and that we don’t yet know what killed him, repeatedly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>>>>> >>>>>> Precisely, shitshine. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim that >>>>>>> he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>>>>> >>>>>> I never said that, shitshine. >>>>> >>>>> You did say that. >>>> >>>> Nope. dope. >>>> >>>>> Do I need to provide the quote? >>>> >>>> You wont be able to do that, shitshine. >>> >>> Previous poster: >>> >>> 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' >>> >>> You: 'Nope, not even one.' >> >> Because we don’t yet know what killed that cop. >> >>> Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> >>> >>> Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' >>> >>> You: 'Nope.' >> >> Because we don’t know what killed him YET. > > Regardless, your latest claim was that you didn't SAY those things. I actually said that we don’t know what killed the cop and what you selectively quoted was a tiny subset of what I actually said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 23:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru0qli$pka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73707 |
On 2021-01-16 9:31 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > >>>>>> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >>>>>> >>>>>> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those are the facts. >>>> >>>> And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. >>> >>> Wrong, as always, shit shine. > >> I presented the facts: > > Nope, your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. Nope. I used hyperbolic language (have you looked up "hyperbole" yet?), but the fact remains, he was attacked and died as a result. > >> you didn't dispute them > > More of your lies. I rubbed your stupid lying nose in > the fact that he couldn’t have had his head bashed in > and that we don’t yet know what killed him, repeatedly. If he hadn't been attacked, he'd be alive right now. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Precisely, shitshine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim >>>>>>>> that he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never said that, shitshine. >>>>>> >>>>>> You did say that. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. dope. >>>>> >>>>>> Do I need to provide the quote? >>>>> >>>>> You wont be able to do that, shitshine. >>>> >>>> Previous poster: >>>> >>>> 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' >>>> >>>> You: 'Nope, not even one.' >>> >>> Because we don’t yet know what killed that cop. >>> >>>> Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> >>>> >>>> Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' >>>> >>>> You: 'Nope.' >>> >>> Because we don’t know what killed him YET. >> >> Regardless, your latest claim was that you didn't SAY those things. > > I actually said that we don’t know what killed the cop and what > you selectively quoted was a tiny subset of what I actually said. You said unequivocally (you probably need to look that up to) that he didn't die as a result of being attacked during the riot. Then you lied about saying it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 19:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6iabqFot4cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73709 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>>>>>> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those are the facts. >>>>> >>>>> And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. >>>> >>>> Wrong, as always, shit shine. >> >>> I presented the facts: >> >> Nope, your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. > Nope. Yep. > I used hyperbolic language In fact your lied and that’s nothing even remotely like a fact. > (have you looked up "hyperbole" yet?), Don’t need to. > but the fact remains, he was attacked Yes. > and died as a result. You don’t know that yet. >>> you didn't dispute them >> >> More of your lies. I rubbed your stupid lying nose in >> the fact that he couldn’t have had his head bashed in >> and that we don’t yet know what killed him, repeatedly. > If he hadn't been attacked, he'd be alive right now. We don’t know that yet, so its not a fact, just your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>>>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Precisely, shitshine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim >>>>>>>>> that he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I never said that, shitshine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You did say that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. dope. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do I need to provide the quote? >>>>>> >>>>>> You wont be able to do that, shitshine. >>>>> >>>>> Previous poster: >>>>> >>>>> 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' >>>>> >>>>> You: 'Nope, not even one.' >>>> >>>> Because we don’t yet know what killed that cop. >>>> >>>>> Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> >>>>> >>>>> Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' >>>>> >>>>> You: 'Nope.' >>>> >>>> Because we don’t know what killed him YET. >>> >>> Regardless, your latest claim was that you didn't SAY those things. >> >> I actually said that we don’t know what killed the cop and what >> you selectively quoted was a tiny subset of what I actually said. > You said unequivocally More of your bare faced lies. <reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs> > that he didn't die as a result of being attacked during the riot. More of your bare faced lies. > Then you lied about saying it. More of your bare faced lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 13:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru29qu$ilq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73710 |
On 2021-01-17 12:21 a.m., Rod Speed wrote: > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote > >>>>>>>> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those are the facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong, as always, shit shine. >>> >>>> I presented the facts: >>> >>> Nope, your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. > >> Nope. > > Yep. > >> I used hyperbolic language > > In fact your lied and that’s nothing even remotely like a fact. > >> (have you looked up "hyperbole" yet?), > > Don’t need to. > >> but the fact remains, he was attacked > > Yes. > >> and died as a result. > > You don’t know that yet. Yet you declared absolutely that he didn't die as a result. > >>>> you didn't dispute them >>> >>> More of your lies. I rubbed your stupid lying nose in >>> the fact that he couldn’t have had his head bashed in >>> and that we don’t yet know what killed him, repeatedly. > >> If he hadn't been attacked, he'd be alive right now. > > We don’t know that yet, so its not a fact, just your claim. Reasonable people know it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>>>>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Precisely, shitshine. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim >>>>>>>>>> that he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said that, shitshine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You did say that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. dope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do I need to provide the quote? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You wont be able to do that, shitshine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Previous poster: >>>>>> >>>>>> 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' >>>>>> >>>>>> You: 'Nope, not even one.' >>>>> >>>>> Because we don’t yet know what killed that cop. >>>>> >>>>>> Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> >>>>>> >>>>>> Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' >>>>>> >>>>>> You: 'Nope.' >>>>> >>>>> Because we don’t know what killed him YET. >>>> >>>> Regardless, your latest claim was that you didn't SAY those things. >>> >>> I actually said that we don’t know what killed the cop and what >>> you selectively quoted was a tiny subset of what I actually said. > >> You said unequivocally > > More of your bare faced lies. > > <reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs> > >> that he didn't die as a result of being attacked during the riot. > > More of your bare faced lies. > >> Then you lied about saying it. > > More of your bare faced lies. I asked, "they didn't directly kill him?, and you answered, "Nope".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-18 09:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i6js3uF3sn6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73714 |
"Alan Baker" <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote in message news:ru29qu$ilq$1@dont-email.me... > On 2021-01-17 12:21 a.m., Rod Speed wrote: >> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote >> >>>>>>>>> He was attacked and struck with a fire extinguisher. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A day later, he succumbed to the injuries he sustained. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those are the facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And now they are undisputed by you, sunshine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong, as always, shit shine. >>>> >>>>> I presented the facts: >>>> >>>> Nope, your stupid claim that he had his head bashed in. >> >>> Nope. >> >> Yep. >> >>> I used hyperbolic language >> >> In fact your lied and that’s nothing even remotely like a fact. >> >>> (have you looked up "hyperbole" yet?), >> >> Don’t need to. >> >>> but the fact remains, he was attacked >> >> Yes. >> >>> and died as a result. >> >> You don’t know that yet. > > Yet you declared absolutely that he didn't die as a result. I did no such thing you silly little pathological liar. >>>>> you didn't dispute them >>>> >>>> More of your lies. I rubbed your stupid lying nose in >>>> the fact that he couldn’t have had his head bashed in >>>> and that we don’t yet know what killed him, repeatedly. >> >>> If he hadn't been attacked, he'd be alive right now. >> >> We don’t know that yet, so its not a fact, just your claim. > Reasonable people know it. Doesn’t make it a fact, fuckwit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't directly kill him? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would he be dead if there had not been a riot? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It remains to be seen what the autopsy finds on that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick died from injuries >>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained in the riot.' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That wasn’t what an autopsy found, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't know what an autopsy found. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Precisely, shitshine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your chosen source. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which isnt the autopsy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It was still what you decided to present to support your claim >>>>>>>>>>> that he didn't die from the injuries he sustained, sunshine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I never said that, shitshine. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You did say that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. dope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do I need to provide the quote? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You wont be able to do that, shitshine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Previous poster: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'and so far, directly or indirectly killed six people' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You: 'Nope, not even one.' >>>>>> >>>>>> Because we don’t yet know what killed that cop. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Message-ID: <i6fb65F7baeU1@mid.individual.net> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Me: 'they didn't directly kill him?' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You: 'Nope.' >>>>>> >>>>>> Because we don’t know what killed him YET. >>>>> >>>>> Regardless, your latest claim was that you didn't SAY those things. >>>> >>>> I actually said that we don’t know what killed the cop and what >>>> you selectively quoted was a tiny subset of what I actually said. >> >>> You said unequivocally >> >> More of your bare faced lies. >> >> <reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs> >> >>> that he didn't die as a result of being attacked during the riot. >> >> More of your bare faced lies. >> >>> Then you lied about saying it. >> >> More of your bare faced lies. > > I asked, "they didn't directly kill him?, and you answered, "Nope". I said a hell of a lot more than that, fuckwit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 16:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru2kcg$r5a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73715 |
On 2021-01-17 2:30 p.m., Rod Speed wrote: > > >>>>> I actually said that we don’t know what killed the cop and what >>>>> you selectively quoted was a tiny subset of what I actually said. >>> >>>> You said unequivocally >>> >>> More of your bare faced lies. >>> >>> <reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs> >>> >>>> that he didn't die as a result of being attacked during the riot. >>> >>> More of your bare faced lies. >>> >>>> Then you lied about saying it. >>> >>> More of your bare faced lies. >> >> I asked, "they didn't directly kill him?, and you answered, "Nope". > > I said a hell of a lot more than that, fuckwit. I never said you didn't. But when asked directly if they'd killed him, you answered just as directly, "Nope". I look forward to you next excuse when the autopsy's findings are released.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web