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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4gpm5F59mlU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475870 |
On 11/6/18 10:53 PM, RonB wrote: > On 2018-11-06, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: >> >> In the same way that Snit believes that everyone is as stupid as he >> needs them to be, hh- believes that he's a lot more interesting than he >> actually is. His posts are routinely similar to the ramblings of an >> elderly man and very rarely worth more than a glance. Under such >> conditions, he shouldn't be surprised that I didn't bother to read much >> of his posts and paid even less attention to what I did. > > Or, to put it succinctly, he's a bitter old biddy. President emeritus of the > Bitter Old Biddy Committee. Killfiling works really well for him. > Gee, I have been noting specific example of you being "bitter", using this text: --------- ----- Bitter: angry, hurt, or resentful because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment. ----- You are the most bitter person I have ever seen. --------- And now you insist it is me who is bitter, even though you show ZERO examples. -- 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 | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 12:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <gnn3ud1eirtbpkujceb957o8ciu44qfka1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #475649 |
SilverSlimer wrote: > (snipped, unread) The same with a bunch of other "Slimer" and "Steve Carroll" posts, made today in this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 11:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f74e4119-ae29-41fc-adcf-3eaa8b340654@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475622 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:08:46 AM UTC-5, 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. Yes, "Finally", because Slimer was told upfront what would constitute adequate proof and his first response attempt was to try to change the subject. Then when he was called on that, he provided a relevant link, but that was precisely of the inadequate type that he had been previously warned about to not bother with. All Slimer did was to paint himself into a corner ... which is why he tried to cut his losses with his "snip-n-plonk" bit. > > 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"? Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > 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). No. I'm talking about the subject which Slimer startdd with, which was that a man had reportedly confessed to assaulting Ford. The accusers that you're referring to is a different news report. Stop trying to change the subject. > ... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be > <eyeroll>. Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject. How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant? Who is this, and why isn't he in jail already? > > 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. Except that we also know that it is real damn easy for there to be insufficient evidence when you don't conduct an investigation. > > 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. Oh, look: its YA distraction attempt away from what Slimer had claimed, which was that a man had confessed to being Ford's assailant. So why hasn't this guy who has reportedly confessed to the crime of having been Ford's assaulter not in jail...? No more BS distractions - just answer that simple question. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c249841-53e6-418d-aaea-6e222d781191@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475701 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:59:31 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: (snip) > Yes, "Finally", because Slimer was told upfront what would constitute > adequate proof Reality is "adequate proof" and here's the reality... there is no evidence that Kavanaugh did what his accusers claimed and anyone trying to claim otherwise is either ignorant, lying or both. > > > 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"? > > Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. Correction: It may be an example of that... and, as I pointed out, even that may be for the purpose of saving the hide of a women who may have lied (Dr. Ford). > > 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). > > No. I'm talking about the subject which Slimer startdd with, which > was that a man had reportedly confessed to assaulting Ford. AGAIN: The story was widely reported. > The accusers that you're referring to is a different news report. > Stop trying to change the subject. It's all the same subject because... wait for it... there *no* evidence showing Kavanaugh did what these people accused him of. > > ... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be > > <eyeroll>. > > Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject. Nah... I'm just not falling for the BS that tries to claim 'there is evidence'. > How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was > that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant? That I've read, at least two men have done that, which is one of the things I've talked about. > Who is this, and why isn't he in jail already? Already addressed. > > > 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. > > Except that we also know that it is real damn easy for there to be > insufficient evidence when you don't conduct an investigation. You're confused, an investigation was conducted. > > > 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. > > Oh, look: its YA distraction attempt Nah, it's just doing what you're doing... playing 'make believe'. Did you fool yourself into believing only you can play?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fc51a994-c18c-40c6-b472-15b75e03313b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475704 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:27:54 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:59:31 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > (snip) > > > Yes, "Finally", because Slimer was told upfront what would constitute > > adequate proof > > Reality is "adequate proof" and here's the reality... there is no evidence > that Kavanaugh did what his accusers claimed and anyone trying to claim > otherwise is either ignorant, lying or both. > > > > > 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"? > > > > Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > > assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > Correction: It may be an example of that... and, as I pointed out, even that > may be for the purpose of saving the hide of a women who may have lied > (Dr. Ford). > > > > 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). > > > > No. I'm talking about the subject which Slimer startdd with, which > > was that a man had reportedly confessed to assaulting Ford. > > AGAIN: The story was widely reported. > > > The accusers that you're referring to is a different news report. > > Stop trying to change the subject. > > It's all the same subject because... wait for it... there *no* evidence > showing Kavanaugh did what these people accused him of. > > > > ... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be > > > <eyeroll>. > > > > Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject. > > Nah... I'm just not falling for the BS that tries to claim 'there is evidence'. > > > How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was > > that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant? > > That I've read, at least two men have done that, which is one of the things > I've talked about. > > > Who is this, and why isn't he in jail already? > > Already addressed. > > > > > 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. > > > > Except that we also know that it is real damn easy for there to be > > insufficient evidence when you don't conduct an investigation. > > You're confused, an investigation was conducted. > > > > > 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. > > > > Oh, look: its YA distraction attempt > > Nah, it's just doing what you're doing... playing 'make believe'. Did you fool > yourself into believing only you can play? Snit deceived Flooder Steve Carroll as much as he deserves, big f*cking deal. Why be a blubbering bastard about it? Besides Flooder Steve Carroll, who can not figure out what Snit is doing? Flooder Steve Carroll calls it "trolling" him, even though he continues to give rise to that precise response. Snit's computer has more hard drives than Flooder Steve Carroll's. Snit wins. Flooder Steve Carroll loses. Which gives Snit better productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction. Why would you want to restrict any applications on open source tools to what can be done on Windows? BTW, I've already told him that his use of "herd" to describe knowledgable posters is rude, since he's likening them to hungry goats. Flooder Steve Carroll proved himself to be a backslider by pretending to not argue with Snit by vehemently screaming PLONK and then abusing him via a 3rd party. -- Eight things to never feed your dog! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AglvCo3dJ38&feature=youtu.be Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4elskFlfl2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475704 |
On 11/6/18 1:27 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:59:31 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > (snip) > >> Yes, "Finally", because Slimer was told upfront what would constitute >> adequate proof > > Reality is "adequate proof" and here's the reality... there is no evidence > that Kavanaugh did what his accusers claimed and anyone trying to claim > otherwise is either ignorant, lying or both. There is, of course, evidence he lied. And remember, that is what you keep trying to avoid talking about: 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. >>>> 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"? >> >> Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the >> assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > Correction: It may be an example of that... and, as I pointed out, even that > may be for the purpose of saving the hide of a women who may have lied > (Dr. Ford). If OTHERS lied it really is not relevant to his appointment. What matters is if HE lied, and there is evidence he did: <https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying> >>> 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). >> >> No. I'm talking about the subject which Slimer startdd with, which >> was that a man had reportedly confessed to assaulting Ford. > > AGAIN: The story was widely reported. As was the evidence of him lying. And his biases. And his poor decisions. >> The accusers that you're referring to is a different news report. >> Stop trying to change the subject. > > It's all the same subject because... wait for it... there *no* evidence > showing Kavanaugh did what these people accused him of. Your claim is blatantly false: <https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying> >>> ... but we're all just as stupid as they need us to be >>> <eyeroll>. >> >> Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject. > > Nah... I'm just not falling for the BS that tries to claim 'there is evidence'. You are refusing to discuss the evidence and then insisting it does not exist: <https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying> >> How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was >> that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant? > > That I've read, at least two men have done that, which is one of the things > I've talked about. > >> Who is this, and why isn't he in jail already? > > Already addressed. > >>>> 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. >> >> Except that we also know that it is real damn easy for there to be >> insufficient evidence when you don't conduct an investigation. > > You're confused, an investigation was conducted. An investigation which was rushed and heavily limited. An investigation in name, but hardly in actual effect. It was a sham meant to fool the ignorant, of which you know claim to be. >>>> 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. >> >> Oh, look: its YA distraction attempt > > Nah, it's just doing what you're doing... playing 'make believe'. Did you fool > yourself into believing only you can play? Ah, so you do not even deny your actions you just blame OTHERS for YOUR actions. But let us not forget how this started: 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. And I predicted: ----- This is simple... but Slimer and Carroll will forever pretend to not get the point. Maybe they really will not. ----- And I was right. -- 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 | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ntu3ud1aga9tdtgamu2ch3rdfdrhetifun@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #475701 |
-hh wrote: >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > >Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the >assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime decades ago", -highhorse. Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would still need a case, beyond a public "confession". -- "Time costs money - lots of money. Linux lusers don't understand this." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 12:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da9f6c16-0054-4c9f-ad6b-f6b9c018f940@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475705 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:42:01 PM UTC-7, chrisv wrote: > -hh wrote: > > >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > > > >Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > >assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime decades > ago", -highhorse. > > Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would still > need a case, beyond a public "confession". They would also need Dr. Ford to file a complaint, a thing that, as far as I'm aware, has not yet been done. So, while his question is a good one, it's really one for him to answer as Dr. Ford not filing a charge is evidence that what I've suggested may have occurred. Gee, think of how "handy" all of this is for all those involved in what *may* have been a conspiracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 13:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <435595e5-b8fb-433c-be07-864ac77b5014@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475707 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:55:34 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:42:01 PM UTC-7, chrisv wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > > > >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > > > > > >Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > > >assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > > > They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime decades > > ago", -highhorse. > > > > Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would still > > need a case, beyond a public "confession". > > They would also need Dr. Ford to file a complaint, a thing that, as far as > I'm aware, has not yet been done. So, while his question is a good one, > it's really one for him to answer as Dr. Ford not filing a charge is evidence > that what I've suggested may have occurred. Gee, think of how "handy" > all of this is for all those involved in what *may* have been a conspiracy. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Gee, no on saw more forgeries coming. LOL! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.28 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWJpfjAAoJEC03b6bOr/+drC0P/RZBxcLK8eFZ7QUKjlqJRqfj 66udasAYnovhi+C1bpBxXZIm8Xxg2+JDdVoMfw/d+5R8+KpEXpxK+4y9GB8NuBBz 98+LuNNIus0cXJ6goCyKZj5FUajHYIhgoEAb+O8F0pYMcqv08R39IddgVEQCasDZ 9QPXlQco0QOSD49BArlDa7qgwi17Rs2zkYnw27jEIVEuYlfhqj2T7Mcirwby4JD3 +1Geq5kCdeCtMG+z6gAdth0akrSMlYLAnixbYolEFm6wtg7DW2BrwVo7NTY8Zuy1 UjRrn8JAoHrCec82HulrBBEXC/dhti2SIszDnt1GnZSTB33p1plQgklUmmqN8Qvu To/TAz07YWAeUHcYSyHzmJuVbL0r9emcQD/AfB8CxAhh+p5F5kc2hfwAOmJ4cGpV +kIqUp7N1UXqSOXnFyxYz4HJv9/c0UPNXSY2QDPmaWd7AFrB80BcOw2yVS30jQwo QhBtvoj2t/FJi/G7KnIpGYl3ZFy7QxtNL6PnPW5y46EjzDbNEnMbETTxAzI24QGw x5xgyhdiyRnpCvyHFd21d09bYOrBHH6qe3NMVTRBPjh1MUaw1E8WhQo916Zvk4jz pD23EIt9uk79a2aD+EbC/vZHLPGTqlbI1bmYV5KlzJusIO2i939Cs/AhYcdM8mEQ WqdC0S1YIC7GfYk7riFe =F3OP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- I Left My Husband & Daughter At Home And THIS happened! https://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4 http://www.5z8.info/how-to-build-a-bomb_o8n9lg_racist-raps https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfhq6/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/ Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49bfa5ae-118c-4637-ac0a-312efab6cac0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475705 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:42:01 PM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > -hh wrote: > >[..] > >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > > > >Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > >assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime > decades ago", -highhorse. Since it was reportedly sworn testimony, its damn easy to get a conviction: a complaint is filed, the whole trial & jury bit are rendered moot, so it is fasttracked to judgement & sentencing. > Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would > still need a case, beyond a public "confession". It hasn't expired, and the Government committee who was receiving the testimony need but refer that confession to Law Enforcement. So then, why hasn't Chuck Grassley referred this one too? This isn't Rocket Science. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 15:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8f74f5f-4074-4246-b4ca-553bdeaabbbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475720 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:31:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:42:01 PM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > >[..] > > >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > > > > > >Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > > >assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > > > They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime > > decades ago", -highhorse. > > Since it was reportedly sworn testimony, its damn easy to get a > conviction: a complaint is filed, the whole trial & jury bit are > rendered moot, so it is fasttracked to judgement & sentencing. > > > > Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would > > still need a case, beyond a public "confession". > > It hasn't expired, and the Government committee who was receiving > the testimony need but refer that confession to Law Enforcement. > So then, why hasn't Chuck Grassley referred this one too? > > This isn't Rocket Science. > > > -hh John Gohde wants to punish the whole group: If he can't get attention here then no one will. You likely think KDE handles the desktop well. Nope. Not compared to anything else, really. Doomsdrzej and I will destroy John Gohde with my mind. Why does John Gohde focus on Doomsdrzej's ego so much? What Doomsdrzej does is certainly more productive. -- My Snoring Solution http://www.5z8.info/trojan_p4g1zy_how-to-skin-a-gerbil http://www.5z8.info/killallimmigrants_j6f7mm_gruesome-gunshot-wounds Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 15:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cc3bbba3-7acd-414f-ae93-72f559acb031@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475720 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:31:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:42:01 PM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > >[..] > > >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > > > > > >Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > > >assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > > > They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime > > decades ago", -highhorse. > > Since it was reportedly sworn testimony, its damn easy to get a > conviction: a complaint is filed, the whole trial & jury bit are > rendered moot, so it is fasttracked to judgement & sentencing. > > > > Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would > > still need a case, beyond a public "confession". > > It hasn't expired, and the Government committee who was receiving > the testimony need but refer that confession to Law Enforcement. And then Dr Ford needs to file a complaint in the jurisdiction that the alleged incident took place in... at the very least, until that happens, no one goes to jail (at least, not in the real world). > So then, why hasn't Chuck Grassley referred this one too? Who would he 'refer' it to, the Maryland PD, with no criminal complaint filed? No one knows if the guy is telling the truth, or not; this, as opposed to the people who admitted they lied and are rightfully open to referral. > This isn't Rocket Science. I agree... so the question now goes back to you: Why hasn't Dr. Ford filed that complaint? Funny how you're asking the question of why the guy isn't in jail (putting the cart before the horse) but you're not asking about the complaint not being filed. You clearly are aware that a complaint must first be filed so you're either privy to the fact that Ford has filed one or you're doing the ol' partisan hack dance again. Which is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4em7rFlgp3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475734 |
On 11/6/18 4:18 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:31:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:42:01 PM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: >>> -hh wrote: >>>> [..] >>>>> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? >>>> >>>> Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the >>>> assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. >>> >>> They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime >>> decades ago", -highhorse. >> >> Since it was reportedly sworn testimony, its damn easy to get a >> conviction: a complaint is filed, the whole trial & jury bit are >> rendered moot, so it is fasttracked to judgement & sentencing. >> >> >>> Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would >>> still need a case, beyond a public "confession". >> >> It hasn't expired, and the Government committee who was receiving >> the testimony need but refer that confession to Law Enforcement. > > And then Dr Ford needs to file a complaint in the jurisdiction that the > alleged incident took place in... at the very least, until that happens, > no one goes to jail (at least, not in the real world). > >> So then, why hasn't Chuck Grassley referred this one too? > > Who would he 'refer' it to, the Maryland PD, with no criminal complaint > filed? No one knows if the guy is telling the truth, or not; this, as opposed > to the people who admitted they lied and are rightfully open to referral. > >> This isn't Rocket Science. > > I agree... so the question now goes back to you: > > Why hasn't Dr. Ford filed that complaint? Funny how you're asking the > question of why the guy isn't in jail (putting the cart before the horse) > but you're not asking about the complaint not being filed. You clearly > are aware that a complaint must first be filed so you're either privy to > the fact that Ford has filed one or you're doing the ol' partisan hack > dance again. Which is it? > 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]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 19:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9c51694-89d3-45d7-9867-2b9a40ebf20e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475734 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:31:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:42:01 PM UTC-5, chrisv wrote: > > > -hh wrote: > > > >[..] > > > >> How is noting the reporting of a news story "grossly inadequate"? > > > > > > > >Because the alleged "It was me" confessor isn't in jail for the > > > >assault of Ford. As such, its just another example of men lying. > > > > > > They can't put someone in jail for saying "I committed a crime > > > decades ago", -highhorse. > > > > Since it was reportedly sworn testimony, its damn easy to get a > > conviction: a complaint is filed, the whole trial & jury bit are > > rendered moot, so it is fasttracked to judgement & sentencing. > > > > > > > Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, they would > > > still need a case, beyond a public "confession". > > > > It hasn't expired, and the Government committee who was receiving > > the testimony need but refer that confession to Law Enforcement. > > And then Dr Ford needs to file a complaint in the jurisdiction that the > alleged incident took place in... at the very least, until that happens, > no one goes to jail (at least, not in the real world). > > > So then, why hasn't Chuck Grassley referred this one too? > > Who would he 'refer' it to, the Maryland PD, with no criminal complaint > filed? No one knows if the guy is telling the truth, or not; this, as opposed > to the people who admitted they lied and are rightfully open to referral. Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him to try to make an effective claim of defamation. > > This isn't Rocket Science. > > I agree... so the question now goes back to you: > > Why hasn't Dr. Ford filed that complaint? Funny how you're asking the > question of why the guy isn't in jail (putting the cart before the horse) > but you're not asking about the complaint not being filed. You clearly > are aware that a complaint must first be filed so you're either privy to > the fact that Ford has filed one or you're doing the ol' partisan hack > dance again. Which is it? You've agreed that you know that Senator Chuck Grassley filed a referral to Law Enforcement ... but just where was the criminal complaint filed for that? And yes, it is different because Grassley did this referral to someone who *didn't* testify under oath to his Committee - - while someone who did testify under oath (same committee even!), Grassley is giving them a free pass. TL;DR: a woman makes a false statement against a man --> persecution; a man confesses to violence (attempted rape) against a woman --> free pass. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 20:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9cddb443-6cfc-4cd8-a3c3-d80a60df39a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475845 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: (snip) > > > So then, why hasn't Chuck Grassley referred this one too? > > > > Who would he 'refer' it to, the Maryland PD, with no criminal complaint > > filed? No one knows if the guy is telling the truth, or not; this, as opposed > > to the people who admitted they lied and are rightfully open to referral. > > Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that > untruth, You’ve missed it... there is *no* way to discern if the guy is telling the truth. This *necessarily* means that what you’re labeling as an “untruth” is merely an *alleged* untruth. Contrast that with admitited lying. > You've agreed that you know that Senator Chuck Grassley filed a referral > to Law Enforcement ... but just where was the criminal complaint filed for that? Again, you’re confused, Grassely doesn’t do that, he merely refers things like an admission of lying, something that is very different than an alleged untruth. > And yes, it is different because Grassley did this referral to someone who *didn't* > testify under oath to his Committee - - while someone who did testify under oath > (same committee even!), Grassley is giving them a free pass. No, you’re confused with Grassely’s role. > TL;DR: > > a woman makes a false statement against a man --> persecution; > a man confesses to violence (attempted rape) against a woman --> free pass. You’re very confused, seriously... you should stop now. You weren’t even aware that Dr. Ford would’ve needed to first file a complaint until after *I* mentioned it... that’s how ignorant you are on this topic. You actually asked why isn’t someone in jail *before* a complaint was ever filed, think about how clueless a position that is for an adult, who is trying to argue about the law, to take. You’re so far out of your depth here you don’t even realize how far... so you’re arguing from sheer emotion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 20:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cd30c8a2-bd07-42e1-80bd-b62e278c052c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475853 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:39:00 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > So then, why hasn't Chuck Grassley referred this one too? > > > > > > Who would he 'refer' it to, the Maryland PD, with no criminal complaint > > > filed? No one knows if the guy is telling the truth, or not; this, as opposed > > > to the people who admitted they lied and are rightfully open to referral. > > > > Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that > > untruth, > > You’ve missed it... there is *no* way to discern if the guy is telling the truth. > This *necessarily* means that what you’re labeling as an “untruth” is merely > an *alleged* untruth. Contrast that with admitited lying. > > > You've agreed that you know that Senator Chuck Grassley filed a referral > > to Law Enforcement ... but just where was the criminal complaint filed for that? > > Again, you’re confused, Grassely doesn’t do that, he merely refers things like > an admission of lying, something that is very different than an alleged untruth. > > > And yes, it is different because Grassley did this referral to someone who *didn't* > > testify under oath to his Committee - - while someone who did testify under oath > > (same committee even!), Grassley is giving them a free pass. > > No, you’re confused with Grassely’s role. > > > TL;DR: > > > > a woman makes a false statement against a man --> persecution; > > a man confesses to violence (attempted rape) against a woman --> free pass. > > You’re very confused, seriously... you should stop now. You weren’t even > aware that Dr. Ford would’ve needed to first file a complaint until after *I* > mentioned it... that’s how ignorant you are on this topic. You actually asked > why isn’t someone in jail *before* a complaint was ever filed, think about > how clueless a position that is for an adult, who is trying to argue about the > law, to take. You’re so far out of your depth here you don’t even realize how > far... so you’re arguing from sheer emotion. It is obvious at least some of the posts are hand generated because some of them tap into what Sandman said in very specific ways which proves they are a response, not just gibberish. Meaning someone is hand writing many of these. I could counter Steven Carroll at once but he's a blockhead who takes things out of context to implement his appetite to call everyone a cheat. Sandman clearly has plenty of proficiency to share and he apparently wants to write tutorials. What he has not figured out, though, is this is perhaps the worst locale for doing that because most of the responses are wailing, misleading and other crap. - Puppy Videos! http://www.5z8.info/mercenary_w5v9dl_open.exe Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 21:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.6--9.13pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #475853 |
Speaking of Dr. Ford, Steve Carroll informed Hugh Huntzinger: > You actually asked why isn’t someone in jail *before* a complaint was ever filed; > think about how clueless a position that is for an adult, > who is trying to argue about the law, to take. > > You’re so far out of your depth here, you don’t even > realize how far... so you’re arguing from sheer emotion. I second this. He's like a used car salesman trying to explain the melted hoses. Capitalism would provide for _ everyone, including the homeless, if the government allowed for it. Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing; -- so we're forced to choose between a "fancy" apartment or nothing. They have blood on their hands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | proletariat <myemailisaol@defunct.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 01:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. |
| Message-ID | <j7cul8s4e5f5$.jyy62iqy1kmi.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #475864 |
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:13:14 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Speaking of Dr. Ford, Steve Carroll informed Hugh Huntzinger: > >> You actually asked why isn’t someone in jail *before* a complaint was ever filed; >> think about how clueless a position that is for an adult, >> who is trying to argue about the law, to take. >> >> You’re so far out of your depth here, you don’t even >> realize how far... so you’re arguing from sheer emotion. > > I second this. > He's like a used car salesman trying to explain the melted hoses. > > Capitalism would provide for _ everyone, including the homeless, > if the government allowed for it. > > Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing; > -- so we're forced to choose between a "fancy" apartment or nothing. > > They have blood on their hands. So you are gay. What else is new.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 23:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. |
| Message-ID | <0a387675-304f-475f-beee-1489300380c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475864 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10:13:16 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Speaking of Dr. Ford, Steve Carroll informed Hugh Huntzinger: > > > You actually asked why isn’t someone in jail *before* a complaint was ever filed; > > think about how clueless a position that is for an adult, > > who is trying to argue about the law, to take. > > > > You’re so far out of your depth here, you don’t even > > realize how far... so you’re arguing from sheer emotion. > > I second this. > He's like a used car salesman trying to explain the melted hoses. > > Capitalism would provide for _ everyone, including the homeless, > if the government allowed for it. > > Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing; > -- so we're forced to choose between a "fancy" apartment or nothing. > > They have blood on their hands. I think the person you are responding to is in my KF. Time to blame the lack of many eyes! Until Snit offers up his 'gold standard' GNU/Linux solution for appraisal, there is no threat, just crazed claims. Can you get over it? Snit asked to be rated according to provable trolling measurements, which I obliged him with. - Top 15 Ways Snit Trolls http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_j3m3lg_whitepower Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 12:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing. |
| Message-ID | <prv625$1uvf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475864 |
On 11/7/2018 12:13 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > Speaking of Dr. Ford, Steve Carroll informed Hugh Huntzinger: > >> You actually asked why isn’t someone in jail *before* a complaint was ever filed; >> think about how clueless a position that is for an adult, >> who is trying to argue about the law, to take. >> >> You’re so far out of your depth here, you don’t even >> realize how far... so you’re arguing from sheer emotion. > > I second this. > He's like a used car salesman trying to explain the melted hoses. > > Capitalism would provide for _ everyone, including the homeless, > if the government allowed for it. > > Hysterical Women (Democrats) ban "substandard" (affordable) housing; > -- so we're forced to choose between a "fancy" apartment or nothing. > > They have blood on their hands. > It's OK to cause disasters by your stupidity so long as you can blame all the things you caused on someone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 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