Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #474813 > unrolled thread
| Started by | maureenshoopie@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-02 06:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-11-03 10:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 166 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus maureenshoopie@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 06:20 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-02 11:42 -0400
Andy Rubin’s ex-wife, Rie Rubin. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-02 09:26 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin’s ex-wife, Rie Rubin. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 16:21 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin’s ex-wife, Rie Rubin. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 20:16 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-02 11:45 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 21:17 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 10:08 +0100
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-03 14:42 -0400
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-03 12:36 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-03 12:22 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 12:52 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-03 03:30 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-03 14:46 -0400
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-03 13:50 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:11 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-03 17:30 -0400
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-03 15:49 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-03 18:15 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 18:36 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:11 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 00:19 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-04 11:30 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 20:17 +0100
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-04 12:28 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 11:50 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 11:34 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-04 15:03 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-04 20:16 +0000
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 21:33 +0000
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-04 19:18 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 23:46 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 21:33 +0000
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:42 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-04 16:08 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 15:28 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 00:17 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 07:26 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-04 19:08 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 07:22 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:06 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 10:08 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:14 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 10:34 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 10:37 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-05 11:11 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 10:49 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:08 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 10:20 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:27 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 12:14 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-05 17:32 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 15:41 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 07:03 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 05:20 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 08:06 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:11 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 10:22 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:53 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 13:22 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 14:23 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-05 16:07 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-05 17:38 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-05 21:01 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-05 18:37 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-05 21:56 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 20:04 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 19:23 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 08:03 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-06 06:30 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:53 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 08:08 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 08:19 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 09:45 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 12:46 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 10:51 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 12:36 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 10:55 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 12:23 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 10:11 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 11:15 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 11:59 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 05:53 +0000
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 04:47 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 08:53 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-07 06:17 -0800
How many "friends" can you afford ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-07 06:29 -0800
Re: How many "friends" can you afford ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 06:51 -0800
Re: How many "friends" can you afford ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 11:46 -0500
I work a bit, take a rest, then continue. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-09 10:35 -0800
Re: I work a bit, take a rest, then continue. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 22:07 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 11:35 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 10:47 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 11:03 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 12:22 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 18:05 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-11-08 09:02 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 11:36 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 12:36 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-06 11:59 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 12:27 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 14:13 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 16:19 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 14:41 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 12:55 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 13:41 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-06 14:31 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 15:00 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 15:18 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 16:25 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-06 19:31 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 20:38 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 20:59 -0800
Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-06 21:13 -0800
Re: Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. proletariat <myemailisaol@defunct.org> - 2018-11-07 01:13 -0500
Re: Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 23:20 -0800
Re: Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 12:06 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-07 04:45 -0800
We hate the sin not the sinner. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-07 06:18 -0800
Re: We hate the sin not the sinner. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 06:36 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:38 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 11:34 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-07 14:47 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 16:19 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 19:08 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 05:29 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 16:50 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 19:07 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-08 03:32 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 03:55 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 07:36 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 08:55 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 08:37 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 09:08 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 11:10 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 17:33 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 11:38 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 07:02 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:54 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 11:32 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 04:46 +0000
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 21:05 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 10:46 -0600
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-06 10:04 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 20:00 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 19:07 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 20:05 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-05 10:36 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 12:10 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 12:52 -0800
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-04 17:53 -0500
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-04 16:10 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-04 19:23 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-03 12:20 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 12:36 -0700
Don't work for Google. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-02 08:43 -0700
Re: Don't work for Google. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-02 11:48 -0400
Re: Don't work for Google. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-02 11:00 -0500
Re: Don't work for Google. Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 10:07 +0100
Re: Don't work for Google. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 02:29 -0700
Re: Don't work for Google. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 09:16 -0700
Re: Don't work for Google. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Failing Google pays sexual assaulter $90M bonus Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 10:07 +0100
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 13:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02728022-1926-42d8-8fd5-fd7dc5f8621c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475468 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 1:53:11 PM UTC-7, chrisv wrote: > chrisv wrote: > > >I'm sure that my "snipped, unread" can be annoying, but it's dishonest > >to call it "censorship". > > > >I do it to avoid going around and around with someone, after I have > >made my point. It's very fair - they get the last word, and I don't > >have to read it. > > Oh, and I am aware that shitty lying bastards, fsckwits trying to save > face, take great pleasure in claiming that I "lie" and really read the > messages. > > That's trolling 101, and there's nothing that I can do, about that. > > -- > "Oh, they read all the posts. They are just too lame to conjure up a > response." - some piece of shit that calls itself "GreyCloud" Klaus Schadenfreude is a false advocate's biggest fear. I could post to Peter Köhlmann at once but he is a dunce who twists what you say to achieve his desire to call everyone a liar. It was Peter Köhlmann who flooded Klaus Schadenfreude's site millions of times and pretended he did not do it. I remain uncertain that these flooding posts are scripted. Sheer hokum by an ignorant, tall-tale telling, deceitful, co-trolling court jester who could not be sincere even if you paid him to. It's like a front page hog. Peter Köhlmann has already decided what he is going to say before he calls. What you say is beside the point. What Klaus Schadenfreude says doesn't matter. -- Get Rich Slow http://prescottcomputerguy.com/screenflow https://youtu.be/HHT9SJgYsH4 http://www.5z8.info/peepshow_z9s9ht_dogporn Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4bqmvF1uoqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475468 |
On 11/5/18 1:53 PM, chrisv wrote: > chrisv wrote: > >> I'm sure that my "snipped, unread" can be annoying, but it's dishonest >> to call it "censorship". >> >> I do it to avoid going around and around with someone, after I have >> made my point. It's very fair - they get the last word, and I don't >> have to read it. > > Oh, and I am aware that shitty lying bastards, fsckwits trying to save > face, take great pleasure in claiming that I "lie" and really read the > messages. > > That's trolling 101, and there's nothing that I can do, about that. > When they engage in mindless insults and name calling AS they provide no support for their claims, and even make stupid comments such as there is nobody to support it to (what?) you know even they have figured out they are in the wrong. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 16:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2144dd02-e749-4fb2-b82a-edf9294de34a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475390 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:49:12 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > SilverSlimer wrote: > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > >> Where did he claim that? > > > >Actually, a second person came forward and admitted that they lied about > >Kavanaugh and a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who > >had the encounter with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh. > > > >Of course, all of these facts are unfortunate to the leftist media who > >has done well, so far, to ignore them entirely. > > And we're supposed to take the word of you, or of "infowars", for > this? I'll believe law enforcement, because if someone did actually confess, they have to now be in jail for the crime, since the statue of limitations isn't up. So then, "Police Blotter citation, please!". FYI, note that this also means that Ford wasn't lying about being accosted, so all of those statements - including Slimer's "Pig Ford" written above - is just malicious slander from YA example of those lying male myscognists. Thus, another Catch-22 conundrum loss for Slimer, and his cause. Sad! -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 19:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Hl5ED.116919$Ol2.95952@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #475503 |
On 2018-11-05 7:07 p.m., -hh wrote: > On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:49:12 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >> SilverSlimer wrote: >> >>> Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> >>>> Where did he claim that? >>> >>> Actually, a second person came forward and admitted that they lied about >>> Kavanaugh and a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who >>> had the encounter with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh. >>> >>> Of course, all of these facts are unfortunate to the leftist media who >>> has done well, so far, to ignore them entirely. >> >> And we're supposed to take the word of you, or of "infowars", for >> this? > > I'll believe law enforcement, because if someone did actually confess, they > have to now be in jail for the crime, since the statue of limitations isn't up. > > So then, "Police Blotter citation, please!". > > FYI, note that this also means that Ford wasn't lying about being accosted, > so all of those statements - including Slimer's "Pig Ford" written above - is > just malicious slander from YA example of those lying male myscognists. > > Thus, another Catch-22 conundrum loss for Slimer, and his cause. Sad! In other words, words are enough for you to believe lies if they benefit the left but a newspaper article, even from leftist sources, are not enough to demolish the ones pushing the lies. Here's another source for the same story. Yet again, a leftist source: <https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/> And another <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/> And another <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6348439/Kavanaugh-accuser-investigated-confessing-making-rape-claims.html> And another <https://globalnews.ca/news/4629369/brett-kavanaugh-donald-trump-accuser-lie/> You are filth, Hugh Huntzinger and Pig Ford is an accurate name for the accuser. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements Fierce adversary of equal rights, improved productivity and error-reduction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 17:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eca53e1d-9b6c-447e-ba3b-f91aa127c804@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475514 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:35:53 PM UTC-5, SilverSlimer wrote: > On 2018-11-05 7:07 p.m., -hh wrote: > > On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:49:12 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > >> SilverSlimer wrote: > >> > >>> Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Where did he claim that? > >>> > >>> Actually, a second person came forward and admitted that they lied about > >>> Kavanaugh and a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who > >>> had the encounter with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh. > >>> > >>> Of course, all of these facts are unfortunate to the leftist media who > >>> has done well, so far, to ignore them entirely. > >> > >> And we're supposed to take the word of you, or of "infowars", for > >> this? > > > > I'll believe law enforcement, because if someone did actually confess, they > > have to now be in jail for the crime, since the statue of limitations isn't up. > > > > So then, "Police Blotter citation, please!". > > > > FYI, note that this also means that Ford wasn't lying about being accosted, > > so all of those statements - including Slimer's "Pig Ford" written above - is > > just malicious slander from YA example of those lying male myscognists. > > > > Thus, another Catch-22 conundrum loss for Slimer, and his cause. Sad! > > In other words, words are enough for you to believe lies if they benefit > the left but a newspaper article, even from leftist sources, are not > enough to demolish the ones pushing the lies. No, because I asked for a Police report, you're quite obviously lying. > Here's another source for the same story. Yet again, a leftist source: > <https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/> No, that's not the same story, because what you claimed was that a MAN had confessed to assaulting Ford: "a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who had the encounter with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh.". If you were hoping that you could shift goalposts to something else and hope that the readers are stupid enough to have not noticed ... ... you were pretty damn stupid to have left your claim quote in the post. > And another > <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/> Nope. Again, it does not even discuss the claim you made: "a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who had the encounter with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh." Citation Fail Repeat. > And another > <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6348439/Kavanaugh-accuser-investigated-confessing-making-rape-claims.html> Strike 3! Once again, it ain't about a man confessing to assaulting Ford. FAIL. > And another > <https://globalnews.ca/news/4629369/brett-kavanaugh-donald-trump-accuser-lie/> And your 0 for 4 attempts to substantiate your claim that a man has confessed to assaulting Ford. And yet you try to accuse me of being the liar: > You are filth, Hugh Huntzinger and Pig Ford is an accurate name for the > accuser. Sucks to be you to get called on your claim, and then TRY but FAIL to prove it. Whoops! But you are doing quote a great job ironically in proving that men lie more than women! -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 21:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XB6ED.133551$6y.92647@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #475527 |
On 2018-11-05 8:38 p.m., -hh wrote: > On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:35:53 PM UTC-5, SilverSlimer wrote: >> On 2018-11-05 7:07 p.m., -hh wrote: >>> On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:49:12 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >>>> SilverSlimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Where did he claim that? >>>>> >>>>> Actually, a second person came forward and admitted that they lied about >>>>> Kavanaugh and a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who >>>>> had the encounter with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, all of these facts are unfortunate to the leftist media who >>>>> has done well, so far, to ignore them entirely. >>>> >>>> And we're supposed to take the word of you, or of "infowars", for >>>> this? >>> >>> I'll believe law enforcement, because if someone did actually confess, they >>> have to now be in jail for the crime, since the statue of limitations isn't up. >>> >>> So then, "Police Blotter citation, please!". >>> >>> FYI, note that this also means that Ford wasn't lying about being accosted, >>> so all of those statements - including Slimer's "Pig Ford" written above - is >>> just malicious slander from YA example of those lying male myscognists. >>> >>> Thus, another Catch-22 conundrum loss for Slimer, and his cause. Sad! >> >> In other words, words are enough for you to believe lies if they benefit >> the left but a newspaper article, even from leftist sources, are not >> enough to demolish the ones pushing the lies. > > No, because I asked for a Police report, you're quite obviously lying. For anyone accusing the right, a mere suggestion is enough to destroy a life; for anyone accusing the left, there is no limit to what is required to prove your point. If you want a police report, find one. I reject your standards. >> Here's another source for the same story. Yet again, a leftist source: >> <https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/> > > No, that's not the same story, because what you claimed was that a MAN had > confessed to assaulting Ford: > > "a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who had the encounter > with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh.". > > If you were hoping that you could shift goalposts to something else and hope that > the readers are stupid enough to have not noticed ... > > ... you were pretty damn stupid to have left your claim quote in the post. If that's what you wanted, you should have said so and made it clear what you were looking for since reading your posts is a serious chore and since you are, by far, the most boring poster in the newsgroup. From earlier this year: <https://www.newsweek.com/two-men-claim-kavanaugh-did-not-assault-christine-blasey-ford-because-they-1140513> Another one came up more recently: <https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/04/senate-kavanaugh-ford-encounter-similar-claim/> _Senate_ Report. More interesting than a police report, methinks. Now piss off, twat. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements Fierce adversary of equal rights, improved productivity and error-reduction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 18:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <14b35a91-cada-4185-8cad-95409e298789@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475531 |
SilverSlimer writes: >On 2018-11-05 8:38 p.m., -hh wrote: >> On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:35:53 PM UTC-5, SilverSlimer wrote: >>> On 2018-11-05 7:07 p.m., -hh wrote: >>>> On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:49:12 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >>>>> SilverSlimer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where did he claim that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, a second person came forward and admitted that they lied about >>>>>> Kavanaugh and a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who >>>>>> had the encounter with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, all of these facts are unfortunate to the leftist media who >>>>>> has done well, so far, to ignore them entirely. >>>>> >>>>> And we're supposed to take the word of you, or of "infowars", for >>>>> this? >>>> >>>> I'll believe law enforcement, because if someone did actually confess, they >>>> have to now be in jail for the crime, since the statue of limitations isn't up. >>>> >>>> So then, "Police Blotter citation, please!". >>>> >>>> FYI, note that this also means that Ford wasn't lying about being accosted, >>>> so all of those statements - including Slimer's "Pig Ford" written above - is >>>> just malicious slander from YA example of those lying male myscognists. >>>> >>>> Thus, another Catch-22 conundrum loss for Slimer, and his cause. Sad! >>> >>> In other words, words are enough for you to believe lies if they benefit >>> the left but a newspaper article, even from leftist sources, are not >>> enough to demolish the ones pushing the lies. >> >> No, because I asked for a Police report, you're quite obviously lying. > > For anyone accusing the right, a mere suggestion is enough to destroy a > life; for anyone accusing the left, there is no limit to what is > required to prove your point. Merely YA attempt at a vague allusions and Ad Hominem...and already preempted. > If you want a police report, find one. I reject your standards. Ha! You’ve not even been able to provide a cite from Fox that supports your claim that a man has confessed to having been Ford’s assaulter. >>> Here's another source for the same story. Yet again, a leftist source: >>> <https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/> >> >> No, that's not the same story, because what you claimed was that a MAN had >> confessed to assaulting Ford: >> >> "a man has stepped forward to say that _he_ was the one who had the encounter >> with Pig Ford, not Kavanaugh.". >> >> If you were hoping that you could shift goalposts to something else and hope that >> the readers are stupid enough to have not noticed ... >> >> ... you were pretty damn stupid to have left your claim quote in the post. > > If that's what you wanted, you should have said so and made it clear I did say so...and it’s still quoted above. > ...what you were looking for since reading your posts is a serious chore >and since you are, by far, the most boring poster in the newsgroup. Sucks to be you, to be taken to task by a “boring” person! > From earlier this year: > > <https://www.newsweek.com/two-men-claim-kavanaugh-did-not-assault-christine-blasey-ford-because-they-1140513> More men lying. Film at 11. > Another one came up more recently: > <https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/04/senate-kavanaugh-ford-encounter-similar-claim/> > _Senate_ Report. More interesting than a police report, methinks. Republican majority’s men ... more lies yet again from the gender who lies more. > Now piss off, twat. Oh, dear, another frustrated, debunked Russian Troll sockpuppet...again! -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 21:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ep7ED.1287367$4S3.282008@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #475537 |
On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: (snipped, unread) *plonk* -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements Fierce adversary of equal rights, improved productivity and error-reduction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 20:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4cem2F61laU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475539 |
On 11/5/18 7:56 PM, SilverSlimer wrote: > On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: > > (snipped, unread) > > *plonk* > Once again you run away, scared. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 19:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <69f729dc-a4ac-4f82-a6cf-60ff4c0f257f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475544 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/5/18 7:56 PM, SilverSlimer wrote: > > On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: > > > > (snipped, unread) > > > > *plonk* > > > > Once again you run away, scared. > > -- > Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They > cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel > somehow superior by attacking the messenger. > > They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. > > <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308> It won't matter because the FROM line on a post is irrelevant, it's the content that counts. Klaus Schadenfreude's behavior is totally disingenuous. There's zero doubt that as soon as any released 'filtered person' does one thing to annoy the inferior daisy's feelings that they will be blocked again. Just mindless trolling. And I am rewarding that trolling. THAT is what the "Klaus Schadenfreude circus" is. That's what Klaus Schadenfreude does when he gets caught. He always creates a puppet, starts a cross posted thread so he can claim here made a mistake. Hey it was my left hand... and then he responds to himself with his right hand. -- My Snoring Solution http://www.5z8.info/myspace-of-sex_q7q7zl_instant-purchase Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 08:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <v973uddsc0tau3pja3jihfs700d2s7rd58@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #475539 |
SilverSlimer wrote: >On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: > >(snipped, unread) > >*plonk* See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. -- "ABC News last night led with stories about the black morons. Now that they've dispersed, New Orleans is safe (only 1 murder in 3 months), but the cities that took their stinking, thieving, lazy, criminal asses in are experiencing crime waves. It was truly disturbing to see the fat she-beasts with 6 kids living in a nice FEMA-paid-for hotel (that they're about to be evicted from - finally!) talking about 'dey needs a place to stay wif dere chirren'" - DFS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 06:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ef87c5b-77bf-4b11-8509-e45a6a90c8ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475598 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > SilverSlimer wrote: > > >On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: > > > >(snipped, unread) > > > >*plonk* > > See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. > Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* > unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only > wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support his own claim as credible. SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting Ford), but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly and grossly inadequate. Inadequate because if the Senate Judiciary Committee did actually questioned an unnamed claimant as reported, then their failure to forward this evidence to Law Enforcement for criminal prosecution has to mean that either the claim was a lie, or this Republican- chaired Committee has conspired to cover-up evidence of a crime. Choose your poison. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55419060-34b3-4c60-ac3e-8aed33d5b38a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475604 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > > SilverSlimer wrote: > > > > >On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: > > > > > >(snipped, unread) > > > > > >*plonk* > > > > See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. > > What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. > > > Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* > > unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only > > wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. > > Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? > > Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being > a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. > > No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support > his own claim as credible. > > SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. > > He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his > claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting > Ford), but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly > and grossly inadequate. > > Inadequate because if the Senate Judiciary Committee did actually > questioned an unnamed claimant as reported, then their failure to > forward this evidence to Law Enforcement for criminal prosecution > has to mean that either the claim was a lie, or this Republican- > chaired Committee has conspired to cover-up evidence of a crime. > Choose your poison. > > > -hh You insisting a lie is real does not make it true. Fool! Troll Killer Snit obviously has a lot of expertise to contribute and he apparently wants to give back to the community. What he has not figured out, though, is this is perhaps the least appropriate place for doing that because the majority of response is whining, lying and other nonsense. Troll Killer Snit's original statement stands literal and correct. I am not going to play like Troll Killer Snit did not get me out of a tight spot on image editing and I appreciate his service. Steven Petruzzellis has my example as an example and might start to at least pretend he has a clue from this day forward ;) Having to suffer the use of GnuPG would just confuse the general user. Steven Petruzzellis-like advocates are babbling about the GnuPG "UI" as if something like that truly would be a good thing. That is the problem today and newer pupils don't have a clue; people from older generations (~60 or so) are the only ones who know better than to fall for communism. -- This Trick Gets Women Hot For You https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o http://www.5z8.info/nic_cage_naked_y8b5qk_torrentEverything http://www.5z8.info/warez_w2t4ge_girlsgonewildpart1.wmv Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 08:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c2d824f-2f65-46f5-80b8-25e03af92ad9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475604 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > > SilverSlimer wrote: > > > > >On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: > > > > > >(snipped, unread) > > > > > >*plonk* > > > > See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. > > What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. > > > Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* > > unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only > > wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. > > Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? > > Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being > a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. > > No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support > his own claim as credible. > > SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. > > He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his > claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting > Ford), Finally? This was reported approximately a week ago... and I don't get why you'd need anyone to parrot a widely covered story to you. > but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly > and grossly inadequate. How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? Are you talking about his claim of there being 3 accusers that have reportedly admitted they lied? FWIW, I'm only aware of 2 (one, tacitly). Here's one: <https://imgur.com/a/Kn1M73n> The other is what's being referred to as Swetnick's 'backtracking', (once the FBI looked into her claim) which is another name for lying in this case because the 'backtrack' was fundamentally different than the original claim. It's interesting how the mainstream media used the concept of 'backtracking' instead of calling it what it actually is, a tacit admission of lying... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be <eyeroll>. > Inadequate because if the Senate Judiciary Committee did actually > questioned an unnamed claimant as reported, then their failure to > forward this evidence to Law Enforcement for criminal prosecution Or, like Dr. Ford's claims, there just wasn't enough evidence, even for referral. That's the problem with a lack of evidence, it leaves one with no legal path... comes in handy for political BS, though. > has to mean that either the claim was a lie, or this Republican- > chaired Committee has conspired to cover-up evidence of a crime. > Choose your poison. You forgot the other obvious option... It's entirely possible that this person came forward on behalf of Dr. Ford (and may have been waiting in the wings from the start for that purpose) to give her safeguard against what's happening to Munro-Leighton in the event her 'mission' fails. Ford and her 'handlers' probably even correctly anticipated the 'piling on' effect, but there was always a high potential for failure due to the *complete* lack of evidence and this was the most logical way out. You have no more "evidence" for your options than I do for the one I just laid out. See? Anyone really can play 'make believe' ;) Face it, there is zero evidence (something that makes something 'evident') on this Kavanaugh case; there is evidence of foul play, as has already been admitted to by at least 2 and as seen by Ford's 'less than credible' tale. The bottom line is #BelieveWomen, #BelieveSurvivors and #IBelieveHer causes were all hurt by the Dems, who were happy to use *anything*, even if they suspected it wasn't credible (and some of them surely had to) in order to achieve their political goals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3403d447-1ed0-4e3e-bb45-a9b1c451e701@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475622 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:08:46 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > > > SilverSlimer wrote: > > > > > > >On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: > > > > > > > >(snipped, unread) > > > > > > > >*plonk* > > > > > > See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. > > > > What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. > > > > > Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* > > > unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only > > > wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. > > > > Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? > > > > Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being > > a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. > > > > No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support > > his own claim as credible. > > > > SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. > > > > He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his > > claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting > > Ford), > > Finally? This was reported approximately a week ago... and I don't > get why you'd need anyone to parrot a widely covered story to you. > > > but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly > > and grossly inadequate. > > How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > Are you talking about his claim of there being 3 accusers that have > reportedly admitted they lied? FWIW, I'm only aware of 2 (one, tacitly). > > Here's one: > <https://imgur.com/a/Kn1M73n> > > The other is what's being referred to as Swetnick's 'backtracking', > (once the FBI looked into her claim) which is another name for lying > in this case because the 'backtrack' was fundamentally different than > the original claim. It's interesting how the mainstream media used the > concept of 'backtracking' instead of calling it what it actually is, a tacit > admission of lying... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be > <eyeroll>. UPDATE: Like you, I'm not keeping up on all the details, either... apparently Grassely already referred Swetnick and Avenatti for "Criminal Investigation". "Grassley Refers Avenatti and a Kavanaugh Accuser for Criminal Investigation WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday referred a woman who accused Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct for criminal investigation, questioning whether she and her high-profile lawyer, Michael Avenatti, knowingly provided the committee with false information." <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/us/politics/grassley-avenatti-brett-kavanaugh.html> <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-25%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Swetnick%20and%20Avenatti%20Referral)_Redacted.pdf> > > Inadequate because if the Senate Judiciary Committee did actually > > questioned an unnamed claimant as reported, then their failure to > > forward this evidence to Law Enforcement for criminal prosecution > > Or, like Dr. Ford's claims, there just wasn't enough evidence, even for > referral. That's the problem with a lack of evidence, it leaves one with > no legal path... comes in handy for political BS, though. > > > has to mean that either the claim was a lie, or this Republican- > > chaired Committee has conspired to cover-up evidence of a crime. > > Choose your poison. > > You forgot the other obvious option... > > It's entirely possible that this person came forward on behalf of Dr. Ford > (and may have been waiting in the wings from the start for that purpose) > to give her safeguard against what's happening to Munro-Leighton in the > event her 'mission' fails. Ford and her 'handlers' probably even correctly > anticipated the 'piling on' effect, but there was always a high potential for > failure due to the *complete* lack of evidence and this was the most > logical way out. > > You have no more "evidence" for your options than I do for the one I just > laid out. See? Anyone really can play 'make believe' ;) > > Face it, there is zero evidence (something that makes something 'evident') > on this Kavanaugh case; there is evidence of foul play, as has already been > admitted to by at least 2 and as seen by Ford's 'less than credible' tale. > > The bottom line is #BelieveWomen, #BelieveSurvivors and #IBelieveHer > causes were all hurt by the Dems, who were happy to use *anything*, even > if they suspected it wasn't credible (and some of them surely had to) in order > to achieve their political goals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4dupoFgbe9U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475625 |
On 11/6/18 9:19 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:08:46 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >>>> SilverSlimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> (snipped, unread) >>>>> >>>>> *plonk* >>>> >>>> See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. >>> >>> What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. >>> >>>> Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* >>>> unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only >>>> wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. >>> >>> Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? >>> >>> Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being >>> a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. >>> >>> No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support >>> his own claim as credible. >>> >>> SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. >>> >>> He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his >>> claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting >>> Ford), >> >> Finally? This was reported approximately a week ago... and I don't >> get why you'd need anyone to parrot a widely covered story to you. >> >>> but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly >>> and grossly inadequate. >> >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? >> Are you talking about his claim of there being 3 accusers that have >> reportedly admitted they lied? FWIW, I'm only aware of 2 (one, tacitly). >> >> Here's one: >> <https://imgur.com/a/Kn1M73n> >> >> The other is what's being referred to as Swetnick's 'backtracking', >> (once the FBI looked into her claim) which is another name for lying >> in this case because the 'backtrack' was fundamentally different than >> the original claim. It's interesting how the mainstream media used the >> concept of 'backtracking' instead of calling it what it actually is, a tacit >> admission of lying... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be >> <eyeroll>. > > UPDATE: Like you, I'm not keeping up on all the details, either... apparently > Grassely already referred Swetnick and Avenatti for "Criminal Investigation". > > "Grassley Refers Avenatti and a Kavanaugh Accuser for Criminal Investigation > > WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday > referred a woman who accused Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct for criminal investigation, questioning whether she and her high-profile lawyer, Michael Avenatti, knowingly provided the committee with false information." > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/us/politics/grassley-avenatti-brett-kavanaugh.html> > > <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-25%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Swetnick%20and%20Avenatti%20Referral)_Redacted.pdf> > >>> Inadequate because if the Senate Judiciary Committee did actually >>> questioned an unnamed claimant as reported, then their failure to >>> forward this evidence to Law Enforcement for criminal prosecution >> >> Or, like Dr. Ford's claims, there just wasn't enough evidence, even for >> referral. That's the problem with a lack of evidence, it leaves one with >> no legal path... comes in handy for political BS, though. >> >>> has to mean that either the claim was a lie, or this Republican- >>> chaired Committee has conspired to cover-up evidence of a crime. >>> Choose your poison. >> >> You forgot the other obvious option... >> >> It's entirely possible that this person came forward on behalf of Dr. Ford >> (and may have been waiting in the wings from the start for that purpose) >> to give her safeguard against what's happening to Munro-Leighton in the >> event her 'mission' fails. Ford and her 'handlers' probably even correctly >> anticipated the 'piling on' effect, but there was always a high potential for >> failure due to the *complete* lack of evidence and this was the most >> logical way out. >> >> You have no more "evidence" for your options than I do for the one I just >> laid out. See? Anyone really can play 'make believe' ;) >> >> Face it, there is zero evidence (something that makes something 'evident') >> on this Kavanaugh case; there is evidence of foul play, as has already been >> admitted to by at least 2 and as seen by Ford's 'less than credible' tale.. >> >> The bottom line is #BelieveWomen, #BelieveSurvivors and #IBelieveHer >> causes were all hurt by the Dems, who were happy to use *anything*, even >> if they suspected it wasn't credible (and some of them surely had to) in order >> to achieve their political goals. > You do realize that all of this is a side issue from the topic of if Kavanaugh lied -- and the evidence suggests he did. And even if he did not, he showed himself to be completely unfit for the job. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 12:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jskED.534646$MK2.143387@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #475625 |
On 2018-11-06 11:19 a.m., Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:08:46 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >>>> SilverSlimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> (snipped, unread) >>>>> >>>>> *plonk* >>>> >>>> See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. >>> >>> What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. >>> >>>> Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* >>>> unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only >>>> wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. >>> >>> Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? >>> >>> Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being >>> a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. >>> >>> No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support >>> his own claim as credible. >>> >>> SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. >>> >>> He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his >>> claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting >>> Ford), >> >> Finally? This was reported approximately a week ago... and I don't >> get why you'd need anyone to parrot a widely covered story to you. >> >>> but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly >>> and grossly inadequate. >> >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? >> Are you talking about his claim of there being 3 accusers that have >> reportedly admitted they lied? FWIW, I'm only aware of 2 (one, tacitly). >> >> Here's one: >> <https://imgur.com/a/Kn1M73n> >> >> The other is what's being referred to as Swetnick's 'backtracking', >> (once the FBI looked into her claim) which is another name for lying >> in this case because the 'backtrack' was fundamentally different than >> the original claim. It's interesting how the mainstream media used the >> concept of 'backtracking' instead of calling it what it actually is, a tacit >> admission of lying... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be >> <eyeroll>. > > UPDATE: Like you, I'm not keeping up on all the details, either... apparently > Grassely already referred Swetnick and Avenatti for "Criminal Investigation". > > "Grassley Refers Avenatti and a Kavanaugh Accuser for Criminal Investigation > > WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday > referred a woman who accused Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct for criminal investigation, questioning whether she and her high-profile lawyer, Michael Avenatti, knowingly provided the committee with false information." > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/us/politics/grassley-avenatti-brett-kavanaugh.html> > > <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-25%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Swetnick%20and%20Avenatti%20Referral)_Redacted.pdf> It makes the left look bad though so all of the above - from a leftist source and a government one - are all racist, sexist, misogynist, fascist, Nazi fake news. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements Fierce adversary of equal rights, improved productivity and error-reduction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4e2lmFh75pU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475656 |
On 11/6/18 10:46 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: > On 2018-11-06 11:19 a.m., Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:08:46 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >>>>> SilverSlimer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> (snipped, unread) >>>>>> >>>>>> *plonk* >>>>> >>>>> See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. >>>> >>>> What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. >>>> >>>>> Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* >>>>> unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only >>>>> wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. >>>> >>>> Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? >>>> >>>> Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being >>>> a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. >>>> >>>> No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support >>>> his own claim as credible. >>>> >>>> SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. >>>> >>>> He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his >>>> claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting >>>> Ford), >>> >>> Finally? This was reported approximately a week ago... and I don't >>> get why you'd need anyone to parrot a widely covered story to you. >>> >>>> but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly >>>> and grossly inadequate. >>> >>> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? >>> Are you talking about his claim of there being 3 accusers that have >>> reportedly admitted they lied? FWIW, I'm only aware of 2 (one, tacitly). >>> >>> Here's one: >>> <https://imgur.com/a/Kn1M73n> >>> >>> The other is what's being referred to as Swetnick's 'backtracking', >>> (once the FBI looked into her claim) which is another name for lying >>> in this case because the 'backtrack' was fundamentally different than >>> the original claim. It's interesting how the mainstream media used the >>> concept of 'backtracking' instead of calling it what it actually is, >>> a tacit >>> admission of lying... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be >>> <eyeroll>. >> >> UPDATE: Like you, I'm not keeping up on all the details, either... >> apparently >> Grassely already referred Swetnick and Avenatti for "Criminal >> Investigation". >> >> "Grassley Refers Avenatti and a Kavanaugh Accuser for Criminal >> Investigation >> >> WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday >> referred a woman who accused Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual >> misconduct for criminal investigation, questioning whether she and her >> high-profile lawyer, Michael Avenatti, knowingly provided the >> committee with false information." >> >> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/us/politics/grassley-avenatti-brett-kavanaugh.html> >> >> >> <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-25%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Swetnick%20and%20Avenatti%20Referral)_Redacted.pdf> >> > > It makes the left look bad though so all of the above - from a leftist > source and a government one - are all racist, sexist, misogynist, > fascist, Nazi fake news. > STOP. PLAYING. VICTIM. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 12:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FikED.324508$9O2.52220@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #475622 |
On 2018-11-06 11:08 a.m., Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >>> SilverSlimer wrote: >>> >>>> On 2018-11-05 9:37 p.m., -hh wrote: >>>> >>>> (snipped, unread) >>>> >>>> *plonk* >>> >>> See? This is why I snip, unread, and end things early. >> >> What you missed was a liar being called out for lying. >> >>> Otherwise, you can end-up in long arguements with a *completely* >>> unreasonable bastard, like "-hh" or "Steve Carroll", who only >>> wants to attack you, using idiocy and lies to do so. >> >> Because it is 'completely unreasonable' to call out liars? >> >> Try to remember that the next time you accuse someone of being >> a "fsking liar", because otherwise you're being a hypocrite. >> >> No, the irony is that SS cut & ran because he couldn't support >> his own claim as credible. >> >> SS first tried to change the subject, but got caught. >> >> He did finally come up with a cite that appeared to support his >> claim (namely that a man had supposedly confessed to assaulting >> Ford), > > Finally? This was reported approximately a week ago... and I don't > get why you'd need anyone to parrot a widely covered story to you. I didn't get "caught;" I had no idea that hh- was looking for a specific kind of information and to this day have no idea why I need to give him whatever information he requests. From what I recall, he's not an authority here or in my life and he could easily have looked for the information on his own. >> but even though he was warned in advance, it was clearly >> and grossly inadequate. > > How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > Are you talking about his claim of there being 3 accusers that have > reportedly admitted they lied? FWIW, I'm only aware of 2 (one, tacitly). > > Here's one: > <https://imgur.com/a/Kn1M73n> > > The other is what's being referred to as Swetnick's 'backtracking', > (once the FBI looked into her claim) which is another name for lying > in this case because the 'backtrack' was fundamentally different than > the original claim. It's interesting how the mainstream media used the > concept of 'backtracking' instead of calling it what it actually is, a tacit > admission of lying... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be > <eyeroll>. Again, I wonder how hh- is the moral or ethical authority here. In fact, if he's an authority of any kind, I wonder how I can keep his boring ass in my killfile as long as I can without any repercussions. Pretty useless authority if you ask me. >> Inadequate because if the Senate Judiciary Committee did actually >> questioned an unnamed claimant as reported, then their failure to >> forward this evidence to Law Enforcement for criminal prosecution > > Or, like Dr. Ford's claims, there just wasn't enough evidence, even for > referral. That's the problem with a lack of evidence, it leaves one with > no legal path... comes in handy for political BS, though. > >> has to mean that either the claim was a lie, or this Republican- >> chaired Committee has conspired to cover-up evidence of a crime. >> Choose your poison. > > You forgot the other obvious option... > > It's entirely possible that this person came forward on behalf of Dr. Ford > (and may have been waiting in the wings from the start for that purpose) > to give her safeguard against what's happening to Munro-Leighton in the > event her 'mission' fails. Ford and her 'handlers' probably even correctly > anticipated the 'piling on' effect, but there was always a high potential for > failure due to the *complete* lack of evidence and this was the most > logical way out. > > You have no more "evidence" for your options than I do for the one I just > laid out. See? Anyone really can play 'make believe' ;) > > Face it, there is zero evidence (something that makes something 'evident') > on this Kavanaugh case; there is evidence of foul play, as has already been > admitted to by at least 2 and as seen by Ford's 'less than credible' tale. > > The bottom line is #BelieveWomen, #BelieveSurvivors and #IBelieveHer > causes were all hurt by the Dems, who were happy to use *anything*, even > if they suspected it wasn't credible (and some of them surely had to) in order > to achieve their political goals. A very reasonable assessment from Steve Carroll. Much appreciated. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements Fierce adversary of equal rights, improved productivity and error-reduction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4e2rvFh75pU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475649 |
On 11/6/18 10:36 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: >> >> You forgot the other obvious option... >> >> It's entirely possible that this person came forward on behalf of Dr. >> Ford >> (and may have been waiting in the wings from the start for that purpose) >> to give her safeguard against what's happening to Munro-Leighton in the >> event her 'mission' fails. Ford and her 'handlers' probably even >> correctly >> anticipated the 'piling on' effect, but there was always a high >> potential for >> failure due to the *complete* lack of evidence and this was the most >> logical way out. >> >> You have no more "evidence" for your options than I do for the one I just >> laid out. See? Anyone really can play 'make believe' ;) >> >> Face it, there is zero evidence (something that makes something >> 'evident') >> on this Kavanaugh case; there is evidence of foul play, as has already >> been >> admitted to by at least 2 and as seen by Ford's 'less than credible' >> tale. >> >> The bottom line is #BelieveWomen, #BelieveSurvivors and #IBelieveHer >> causes were all hurt by the Dems, who were happy to use *anything*, even >> if they suspected it wasn't credible (and some of them surely had to) >> in order >> to achieve their political goals. > > A very reasonable assessment from Steve Carroll. Much appreciated. 1) Snit noted evidence Kavanaugh lied. <https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying> 2) Slimer *ignored* that evidence and noted SOMEONE else lied... someone who is not mentioned in that evidence. 3) If other irrelevant people also lied it does not imply Kavanaugh did not. This is simple... but Slimer and Carroll will forever pretend to not get the point. Maybe they really will not. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web