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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 04:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <674ed644-f25a-40a8-a019-d485a1738006@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475853 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:39:00 PM UTC-5, 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. Because once again, the MEN of the Senate chose not to look for any more evidence of a crime that was alleged - - under oath - - to have happened. > This *necessarily* means that what you’re labeling as an “untruth” is merely > an *alleged* untruth. Contrast that with admitited lying. Incorrect: the 'untruth' being referred to here was the woman who has admitted to having falsely accused Kavanaugh. Try reading my sentence in context without how you've snipped it: hh> Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that hh> untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him hh> to try to make an effective claim of defamation. Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned, which was that the Senate committee had reportedly received sworn testimony from a man who had confessed to having been Ford's assailant. > > 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. Grassley's never had her stand up in front of his committee to testify, so just what business was it of his to take the action that he did? Be specific. > > 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. Grassley's role is the committee business. That committee reportedly had a man testify and confess to committing an assault crime. Grassley did nothing. > > 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. Ad Hominem attempt. > 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. Incorrect: not explicitly mention something preemptively isn't proof of ignorance. Plus it strategically works out better for me for you to make the protest for needing a filed complaint, because you now have to try to explain why Grassley didn't need one. Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 06:18 -0800 |
| Subject | We hate the sin not the sinner. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.7--6.18am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #475907 |
> Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S We hate the sin not the sinner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 06:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: We hate the sin not the sinner. |
| Message-ID | <4400a37b-6f2a-47a4-8008-d9ba44a72975@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475924 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7:18:25 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S > > We hate the sin not the sinner. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, Snit! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYY/GZAAoJELnOYK54exUCoY8P/A2to3G0OJrV4rFZqrfos0G+ Hlz52idYDsiO9KbYI9E2AaEhX5Jado6kJgDD31LTOnYSHrIuTi/LeywcjOL/FCy7 bEojPW3xtu/XWHHSKU1Grce80Q2PHuR+878JDbCjXgrFplNEVk8+kiv2+5RlYegG 7xEgm+/J8zvxVlPfyoHOO65AygYy/ykShdza+MAW6OFWaXFNOxExjRx3mCmWcu3b eyf0bxgzL4zAFCuPBAOXQ56vxO8AOuwk8F7mXLV2Vn2Q2OTcqrEYMjwQZ2q7wFSg khU6VkEs7aFJ6keLSCoZlFmnoymptflJw3h0O6bb9GK67JBV6Moh5rev6aJfqGuZ fo38FgD/eRVroAYSm3FSCcknNbUhdNLUO/JmCRtx62YQvZoyUqUL64YRGlJ+moAV ZnU6NfI4WeeQ5nuagTS+kKjj1qGxsUkXEUTFRJpv4zQcHnTKTyUl+38t3+Jke7ua NRtkWtIvgg9+JCsA1qHjDDP29hdR5v7KFFnRKBaVgV+/nrALANWybFJKYsqxpP95 LMd0pxvEy2ZlX9n3nkmMIn4iRX3dY795NgOzHGd1ZWtMS3BPu4QWFA/YS7Adb30Z yHClb/JJWGtTPvgVtPzHyNbPhF6+kgJ/KQ6YrqiX71ZNLZNqCze7z3nw6xjcWr9V soXbWlBBa6AX7lnolpK8 =hcV2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- My Snoring Solution! http://www.5z8.info/michaelangelo-virus_t6v2vq_molotovcocktail Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 08:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01cf912b-afe1-4a5e-8c90-71a8ef9972bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475907 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:45:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:39:00 PM UTC-5, 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. > > Because once again, the MEN of the Senate chose not to look for any more evidence > of a crime that was alleged - - under oath - - to have happened. The *only* person that benefits from his telling the truth is Dr. Ford and she's not pressing charges. The woman who was so interested in justice doesn't give a flying f*ck about it now and we hear not a peep out of you. What's wrong with this picture?! Gee, it can't be because you're politicizing this, can it? You seem to believe that if it's shown the guy isn't telling the truth it'd mean Kavanaugh *must* be guilty, a ridiculous position to take because, once AGAIN... there is *no* evidence. In fact, it's worse than that because parts of the evidence as stated by Dr. Ford do not jibe with her tale, *her* evidence doesn't jibe with *her* story! Even worse, two of the main alternates, in what's looking like a conspiracy, have admitted to bearing false witness to some serious charges. Notably, it's not because the Senate Judiciary Committee is comprised of 'misogynist MEN' or is Republican dominant that they were referred to the FBI for investigation, it's because they bore false witness on those very serious charges. We should *all* hope, right down to the very last and hardest core feminist, that their prosecution is pending. > > This *necessarily* means that what you’re labeling as an “untruth” is merely > > an *alleged* untruth. Contrast that with admitited lying. > > Incorrect: the 'untruth' being referred to here was the woman who has admitted > to having falsely accused Kavanaugh. Try reading my sentence in context without > how you've snipped it: > > hh> Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that > hh> untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him > hh> to try to make an effective claim of defamation. I don't see the word "woman" in the above text, yet, I'm supposed to have deduced she was your context? I'm sorry, I don't read all of your politically driven drivel, there's just too much of it, but I'm positive that it doesn't make one bit of a difference in this situation because... AGAIN... there is *no* evidence to indicate what you so fervently wish was the case. > Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports instead of staying > focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the end result is the same. >, which was that the > Senate committee had reportedly received sworn testimony from a man who > had confessed to having been Ford's assailant. And until it has been shown that he 'backtracked' he won't be referred for investigation like the others were. Unless it's *obvious* BS, in which case he would probably be referred to a mental health clinic for having 'admitted' to a crime he didn't commit, it's not possible to determine if he is lying. From what I heard, he even claims to have more detail than Ford... but guess what? Even *that* would only be... wait for it... a claim. Yes, *another* unsubstantiated claims in a case full of them. Claims are not good evidence... no matter how much you wish it were so. > > > 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. > > Grassley's never had her stand up in front of his committee to testify, As both of these women either swore affidavits or lied to investigators he doesn't need testimony in front of the committee. It's not like the referrals aren't publicly available, ya know. Maybe you should look? > so just > what business was it of his to take the action that he did? Be specific. ??? Is that a serious question?! As chairman of the *Judiciary* Committee, who are now investigating allegations against Kavanaugh, part of his business is to make referrals to the FBI... who *also* don't bring charges, meaning: they won't throw anyone in jail the microsecond it appears they may have lied. > > > 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. > > Grassley's role is the committee business. Very good, Hugh! And the committee is "now investigating allegations against Kavanaugh". Guess what that entails? > That committee reportedly had a man > testify and confess to committing an assault crime. Grassley did nothing. Because he can't refer something that hasn't yet happened... i.e. the 'backtracking' by the guy who claims to have 'done it'. What would they investigate? Some other person who *claims* he isn't telling the truth? > > > 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. > > Ad Hominem attempt. Nah, you really are as confused as anyone I've ever seen on this topic. > > 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. > > Incorrect: not explicitly mention something preemptively isn't proof of ignorance. So you're now going to claim that you knew, yet, you *still* decided to appear *this* clueless in a public forum? Whatever, you are as I said, clueless... extremely so. > Plus it strategically works out better for me for you to make the protest for needing > a filed complaint, because you now have to try to explain why Grassley didn't need > one. Right... better for you, the guy who is whining that Grassely didn't immediately put people in jail w/o a filed complaint yet, he can’t do referrals for people who claim one thing to investigators or in a written affidavit and subsequently admit they lied... you know, part of his actual job. You're a loon's loon. > Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S Here's the edge of that razor which you're ignoring... a complaint must first be filed by Dr. Ford for *anything* to happen. So why aren't you whining about the fact that she hasn't done so? You're obviously trying to show you want justice but it's looking like you really don't when the scales tip the other direction, and it appears Dr. Ford doesn't care, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4gpiiF59mlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475944 |
On 11/7/18 9:38 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:45:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:39:00 PM UTC-5, 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. >> >> Because once again, the MEN of the Senate chose not to look for any more evidence >> of a crime that was alleged - - under oath - - to have happened. > > The *only* person that benefits from his telling the truth is Dr. Ford > and she's not pressing charges. The woman who was so interested > in justice doesn't give a flying f*ck about it now and we hear not a > peep out of you. What's wrong with this picture?! Gee, it can't be > because you're politicizing this, can it? You do not think the death threats and the like against her might play into it? > You seem to believe that if it's shown the guy isn't telling the truth > it'd mean Kavanaugh *must* be guilty, a ridiculous position to take > because, once AGAIN... there is *no* evidence. You know this to be false. Remember, at the very start of this nonsense discussion the evidence was shown and Slimer (and you) ran: 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 | 2018-11-07 14:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <468d0272-12f3-4f5c-83e0-82517add719f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475944 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:45:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:39:00 PM UTC-5, 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. > > > > Because once again, the MEN of the Senate chose not to look for any more evidence > > of a crime that was alleged - - under oath - - to have happened. > > The *only* person that benefits from his telling the truth is Dr. Ford > and she's not pressing charges..... False. > You seem to believe that if it's shown the guy isn't telling the truth > it'd mean Kavanaugh *must* be guilty, ... False. > Even worse, two of the main alternates, in what's looking like a > conspiracy, have admitted to bearing false witness to some serious > charges. Notably, it's not because the Senate Judiciary Committee > is comprised of 'misogynist MEN' or is Republican dominant that they > were referred to the FBI for investigation, it's because they bore false > witness on those very serious charges. We should *all* hope, right > down to the very last and hardest core feminist, that their prosecution > is pending. All while you practice/endorse a double standard. > > > This *necessarily* means that what you’re labeling as an “untruth” is merely > > > an *alleged* untruth. Contrast that with admitited lying. > > > > Incorrect: the 'untruth' being referred to here was the woman who has admitted > > to having falsely accused Kavanaugh. Try reading my sentence in context without > > how you've snipped it: > > > > hh> Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that > > hh> untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him > > hh> to try to make an effective claim of defamation. > > I don't see the word "woman" in the above text, yet, I'm supposed to > have deduced she was your context? Pedantic wording defense attempt & fail. The context was that the accusation would have been hard for Kavanaugh to prove defamation. So think for yourself just how it would be in any way possible for Kavanaugh to be slandered by a guy who was confessing to a crime that had been alleged to have been performed by Kavanaugh. > > Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports > > instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned > > Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the > end result is the same. Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. > >, which was that the > > Senate committee had reportedly received sworn testimony from a man who > > had confessed to having been Ford's assailant. > > And until it has been shown that he 'backtracked' he won't be referred > for investigation like the others were. What you're trying to claim is that it is a more serious crime to retract a false statement than to confess to a crime of violence. > Unless it's *obvious* BS, in which > case he would probably be referred to a mental health clinic for having > 'admitted' to a crime he didn't commit, ... So then where's the committee's referral to a mental ward? /S > it's not possible to determine if he is lying. So then instead of referring it to Law Enforcement for investigation, the criminal investigation should just be ignored? /S > From what I heard, he even claims to have more detail than > Ford... but guess what? Even *that* would only be... wait for it... a claim. > Yes, *another* unsubstantiated claims in a case full of them. Claims are > not good evidence... no matter how much you wish it were so. And the due process is to always stick our head in the ground instead of referring it to Law Enforcement for investigation! /S! > > > > 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. > > > > Grassley's never had her stand up in front of his committee to testify, > > As both of these women either swore affidavits or lied to investigators > he doesn't need testimony in front of the committee. It's not like the > referrals aren't publicly available, ya know. Maybe you should look? Finish reading the question before jumping in with an interruption. > > so just > > what business was it of his to take the action that he did? Be specific. > > ??? Is that a serious question?! And you've just dodged. > As chairman of the *Judiciary* Committee, > who are now investigating allegations against Kavanaugh, part of his > business is to make referrals to the FBI... who *also* don't bring charges, > meaning: they won't throw anyone in jail the microsecond it appears they > may have lied. But where's any evidence that he lied? You've said that he had more details than Ford when he confessed to his crime and despite this apparently credible enough to mention information, you're trying to say that the committee is somehow justified in ignoring this all and taking no action to refer him to LE for investigation because there's a chance that he **might** have lied. Hint: don't assume ... that's what investigations are for! > > > > 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. > > > > Grassley's role is the committee business. > > Very good, Hugh! And the committee is "now investigating allegations > against Kavanaugh". Guess what that entails? Since it isn't looking into Kavanaugh's past or that of the man who has confessed under oath to committing a crime of violence, that's a really good question, isn't it? /S > > That committee reportedly had a man > > testify and confess to committing an assault crime. Grassley did nothing. > > Because he can't refer something that hasn't yet happened... i.e. the > 'backtracking' by the guy who claims to have 'done it'. What would they > investigate? Some other person who *claims* he isn't telling the truth? The crime of violence that he confessed to happened in the past. > > > > 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. > > > > Ad Hominem attempt. > > Nah, you really are as confused as anyone I've ever seen on this topic. You're still choosing to attack the person, so as to avoid the more difficult question of why a Senate committee has received a confession to a crime ... and chosen to take no action on it. > > > 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. > > > > Incorrect: not explicitly mention something preemptively isn't > > proof of ignorance. > > So you're now going to claim that you knew, yet, you *still* decided > to appear *this* clueless in a public forum? Whatever, you are as I > said, clueless... extremely so. Ad Hominem attempt. Plus you've still failed to prove your claim. > > Plus it strategically works out better for me for you to > > make the protest for needing a filed complaint, because you > > now have to try to explain why Grassley didn't need one. > > Right... better for you, the guy who is whining that Grassely didn't > immediately put people in jail w/o a filed complaint yet, he can’t do > referrals for people who claim one thing to investigators or in a > written affidavit and subsequently admit they lied... you know, part > of his actual job. You're a loon's loon. YA Straw Man attempt on your part. You've tried to brag about how Grassely is bravely tracking down a woman whacko who made an admittedly stupid statement ... while trying to defend Grassely for *not* acting at all on a confession of a crime of violence. > > Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S > > Here's the edge of that razor which you're ignoring... a complaint must > first be filed by Dr. Ford for *anything* to happen. Not true, as evidenced by Grassely not having a complaint before he chose to refer the woman to the FBI for investigation. Plus sexual offences often carry substantially different legal definitions where they've been defined as being against the existing law of the State, and the State attorney contests the case on behalf of the state and of the victims. The implications are that it does not matter whether the victim wants or does not want to press the charges against the assailant: the State has granted itself legal standing and as such, can bring it forward entirely on their own. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 16:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0e05dfb7-0efe-485e-9b3d-6dc679288868@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476021 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: (snip rehash) > > > Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports > > > instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned > > > > Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the > > end result is the same. > > Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. You never said anything about a woman in the paragraph you quoted so stop pretending you're not babbling. You babble, Hugh, it's what you do, which is why few bother to ever read all your crap. > So then instead of referring it to Law Enforcement for investigation, > the criminal investigation should just be ignored? /S When there is nothing to actually investigate... that's pretty obvious. > > ??? Is that a serious question?! > > And you've just dodged. Right... I "dodged" by pointing out the reality of what Grassely's role is <eyeroll>. > > As chairman of the *Judiciary* Committee, > > who are now investigating allegations against Kavanaugh, part of his > > business is to make referrals to the FBI... who *also* don't bring charges, > > meaning: they won't throw anyone in jail the microsecond it appears they > > may have lied. > > But where's any evidence that he lied? You don't suppose there could be any hidden in those referrals, do you? The bizarre part is you'd have Grassely send the FBI on a wild goose chase, yet, you ignore the publicly available evidence that was given to them by Grassely that shows how clueless you are. You're a loon's loon. > You've said that he had more details than Ford Incorrect. > > Very good, Hugh! And the committee is "now investigating allegations > > against Kavanaugh". Guess what that entails? > > Since it isn't looking into Kavanaugh's past or that of the man > who has confessed under oath to committing a crime of violence, > that's a really good question, isn't it? /S Not referring because there's nothing to refer isn't the same thing them having done nothing. > > Nah, you really are as confused as anyone I've ever seen on this topic. > > You're still choosing to attack the person, so as to avoid the > more difficult question of why a Senate committee has received > a confession to a crime ... and chosen to take no action on it. Where is your proof that "no action" was taken? I certainly am not aware of that being the case... so educate me. > > > Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S > > > > Here's the edge of that razor which you're ignoring... a complaint must > > first be filed by Dr. Ford for *anything* to happen. > > Not true, as evidenced by Grassely not having a complaint before > he chose to refer the woman to the FBI for investigation. As I've already stated, in those complaints Grassley had reason to act in the form of their contradictory statements. > Plus sexual offences often carry substantially different legal > definitions where they've been defined as being against the existing > law of the State, and the State attorney contests the case on > behalf of the state and of the victims. Not having someone to pin it on was a pretty big barrier. Even Ford herself insisted that Kavanaugh was not a case of mistaken identity. Seems to me if she's willing to change her mind on that she'd be able to convince the prosecutor in that jurisdiction of an easy win given that there's been a confession of some sort. So what's the holdup? Why aren't you asking this of the only person for whom it makes sense to file a charge? Can't be 'cuz you're a partisan hack, can it? See how this reality thing is sitting on your head? > The implications are that it does not matter whether the victim > wants or does not want to press the charges against the assailant: > the State has granted itself legal standing and as such, can bring > it forward entirely on their own. Nope... if there is a credible person claiming to have done it, all Ford needs to do is file a charge and prosecution can being. It's funny that is not happening, isn't it? Funny you're not talking about the obvious...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 19:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4hk4jFaujsU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #476039 |
On 11/7/18 5:19 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > (snip rehash) > >>>> Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports >>>> instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned >>> >>> Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the >>> end result is the same. >> >> Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. > > You never said anything about a woman in the paragraph you quoted so > stop pretending you're not babbling. You babble, Hugh, it's what you do, > which is why few bother to ever read all your crap. > >> So then instead of referring it to Law Enforcement for investigation, >> the criminal investigation should just be ignored? /S > > When there is nothing to actually investigate... that's pretty obvious. > >>> ??? Is that a serious question?! >> >> And you've just dodged. > > Right... I "dodged" by pointing out the reality of what Grassely's role is <eyeroll>. > >>> As chairman of the *Judiciary* Committee, >>> who are now investigating allegations against Kavanaugh, part of his >>> business is to make referrals to the FBI... who *also* don't bring charges, >>> meaning: they won't throw anyone in jail the microsecond it appears they >>> may have lied. >> >> But where's any evidence that he lied? > > You don't suppose there could be any hidden in those referrals, do you? > The bizarre part is you'd have Grassely send the FBI on a wild goose > chase, yet, you ignore the publicly available evidence that was given to > them by Grassely that shows how clueless you are. You're a loon's loon. > >> You've said that he had more details than Ford > > Incorrect. > >>> Very good, Hugh! And the committee is "now investigating allegations >>> against Kavanaugh". Guess what that entails? >> >> Since it isn't looking into Kavanaugh's past or that of the man >> who has confessed under oath to committing a crime of violence, >> that's a really good question, isn't it? /S > > Not referring because there's nothing to refer isn't the same thing them > having done nothing. > >>> Nah, you really are as confused as anyone I've ever seen on this topic. >> >> You're still choosing to attack the person, so as to avoid the >> more difficult question of why a Senate committee has received >> a confession to a crime ... and chosen to take no action on it. > > Where is your proof that "no action" was taken? I certainly am not > aware of that being the case... so educate me. > >>>> Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S >>> >>> Here's the edge of that razor which you're ignoring... a complaint must >>> first be filed by Dr. Ford for *anything* to happen. >> >> Not true, as evidenced by Grassely not having a complaint before >> he chose to refer the woman to the FBI for investigation. > > As I've already stated, in those complaints Grassley had reason to act > in the form of their contradictory statements. > >> Plus sexual offences often carry substantially different legal >> definitions where they've been defined as being against the existing >> law of the State, and the State attorney contests the case on >> behalf of the state and of the victims. > > Not having someone to pin it on was a pretty big barrier. Even Ford > herself insisted that Kavanaugh was not a case of mistaken identity. > Seems to me if she's willing to change her mind on that she'd be > able to convince the prosecutor in that jurisdiction of an easy win > given that there's been a confession of some sort. So what's the > holdup? Why aren't you asking this of the only person for whom it > makes sense to file a charge? Can't be 'cuz you're a partisan hack, > can it? See how this reality thing is sitting on your head? > >> The implications are that it does not matter whether the victim >> wants or does not want to press the charges against the assailant: >> the State has granted itself legal standing and as such, can bring >> it forward entirely on their own. > > Nope... if there is a credible person claiming to have done it, all Ford > needs to do is file a charge and prosecution can being. It's funny that > is not happening, isn't it? Funny you're not talking about the obvious... > 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 | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 05:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bba829ff-c34b-48b8-8a32-eae58c84a838@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476069 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7:08:22 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/7/18 5:19 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > (snip rehash) > > > >>>> Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports > >>>> instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned > >>> > >>> Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the > >>> end result is the same. > >> > >> Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. > > > > You never said anything about a woman in the paragraph you quoted so > > stop pretending you're not babbling. You babble, Hugh, it's what you do, > > which is why few bother to ever read all your crap. > > > >> So then instead of referring it to Law Enforcement for investigation, > >> the criminal investigation should just be ignored? /S > > > > When there is nothing to actually investigate... that's pretty obvious. > > > >>> ??? Is that a serious question?! > >> > >> And you've just dodged. > > > > Right... I "dodged" by pointing out the reality of what Grassely's role is <eyeroll>. > > > >>> As chairman of the *Judiciary* Committee, > >>> who are now investigating allegations against Kavanaugh, part of his > >>> business is to make referrals to the FBI... who *also* don't bring charges, > >>> meaning: they won't throw anyone in jail the microsecond it appears they > >>> may have lied. > >> > >> But where's any evidence that he lied? > > > > You don't suppose there could be any hidden in those referrals, do you? > > The bizarre part is you'd have Grassely send the FBI on a wild goose > > chase, yet, you ignore the publicly available evidence that was given to > > them by Grassely that shows how clueless you are. You're a loon's loon. > > > >> You've said that he had more details than Ford > > > > Incorrect. > > > >>> Very good, Hugh! And the committee is "now investigating allegations > >>> against Kavanaugh". Guess what that entails? > >> > >> Since it isn't looking into Kavanaugh's past or that of the man > >> who has confessed under oath to committing a crime of violence, > >> that's a really good question, isn't it? /S > > > > Not referring because there's nothing to refer isn't the same thing them > > having done nothing. > > > >>> Nah, you really are as confused as anyone I've ever seen on this topic. > >> > >> You're still choosing to attack the person, so as to avoid the > >> more difficult question of why a Senate committee has received > >> a confession to a crime ... and chosen to take no action on it. > > > > Where is your proof that "no action" was taken? I certainly am not > > aware of that being the case... so educate me. > > > >>>> Occam's Razor's points to misogyny /S > >>> > >>> Here's the edge of that razor which you're ignoring... a complaint must > >>> first be filed by Dr. Ford for *anything* to happen. > >> > >> Not true, as evidenced by Grassely not having a complaint before > >> he chose to refer the woman to the FBI for investigation. > > > > As I've already stated, in those complaints Grassley had reason to act > > in the form of their contradictory statements. > > > >> Plus sexual offences often carry substantially different legal > >> definitions where they've been defined as being against the existing > >> law of the State, and the State attorney contests the case on > >> behalf of the state and of the victims. > > > > Not having someone to pin it on was a pretty big barrier. Even Ford > > herself insisted that Kavanaugh was not a case of mistaken identity. > > Seems to me if she's willing to change her mind on that she'd be > > able to convince the prosecutor in that jurisdiction of an easy win > > given that there's been a confession of some sort. So what's the > > holdup? Why aren't you asking this of the only person for whom it > > makes sense to file a charge? Can't be 'cuz you're a partisan hack, > > can it? See how this reality thing is sitting on your head? > > > >> The implications are that it does not matter whether the victim > >> wants or does not want to press the charges against the assailant: > >> the State has granted itself legal standing and as such, can bring > >> it forward entirely on their own. > > > > Nope... if there is a credible person claiming to have done it, all Ford > > needs to do is file a charge and prosecution can being. It's funny that > > is not happening, isn't it? Funny you're not talking about the obvious... > > > 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> My stance: Even if he was just learning how to scam the government, the notion that acquiring knowledge as being one of having "not anything" to show for it doesn't make sense because you'll plainly have the understanding to show for it and wisdom is an advantage in life. Nobody who isn't just using you for nefarious advantage (isn't a sock) sees you as anything remotely close to honorable. You have nobody but yourself to credit for that. When I was being honest, I wanted to be equitable and nonjudgemental. I gave Steve Petruzzellis more than a wise person generally would. If the content is a bunch of gibbering Steve Petruzzellis-like crap. 2+2= He upsets multiple groups of people who have nothing to do with anything, but that's a stuck up jerk for you. What you and I care about isn't a factor. How is Blender on Linux doing anything above the lowest common denominator? -- Get Rich Slow! http://www.5z8.info/killallimmigrants_j6f7mm_gruesome-gunshot-wounds https://redd.it/6sfkup Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 16:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c48535d9-3ca1-4783-ac10-67de3a696fed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476021 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: (snip tons of BS) > > > Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports > > > instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned > > > > Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the > > end result is the same. > > Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. You, earlier in the thread: 1 - "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." 2 - "Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject." 3 - "How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant?" Somewhere along the way you switched the context to a "woman" and you quoted your text where I allegedly had a "comprehension failure" here: -- hh> Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that hh> untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him hh> to try to make an effective claim of defamation. -- You see the word "woman" in there? I don't... but that's exactly what you quoted to display my alleged "reading & comprehension failure". Here's a thought, when you're talking about women or a woman, use one of those terms... if it's a man or men, use one of those terms... then *my* "reading & comprehension failure" will be solved. Funny how actually writing what you mean can do that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4hk3iFaujsU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #476045 |
On 11/7/18 5:50 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > (snip tons of BS) > >>>> Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports >>>> instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned >>> >>> Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the >>> end result is the same. >> >> Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. > > You, earlier in the thread: > > 1 - "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." > > 2 - "Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject." > > 3 - "How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was > that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant?" > > Somewhere along the way you switched the context to a "woman" and you > quoted your text where I allegedly had a "comprehension failure" here: > > -- > hh> Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that > hh> untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him > hh> to try to make an effective claim of defamation. > -- > > You see the word "woman" in there? I don't... but that's exactly what you quoted > to display my alleged "reading & comprehension failure". Here's a thought, when > you're talking about women or a woman, use one of those terms... if it's a man or > men, use one of those terms... then *my* "reading & comprehension failure" will > be solved. Funny how actually writing what you mean can do that! > 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 | 2018-11-08 03:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56658342-7109-4f34-8f8d-f5e752c5a143@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476045 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7:50:53 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > (snip tons of BS) Because here comes Steve's cherrypicking to undermine context: > > > > Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports > > > > instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned > > > > > > Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the > > > end result is the same. > > > > Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. > > You, earlier in the thread: > > 1 - "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." > > 2 - "Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject." > > 3 - "How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was > that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant?" All of which had specific context which Steve has chosen to destroy. > Somewhere along the way you switched the context to a "woman" and you > quoted your text where I allegedly had a "comprehension failure" here: Because you and Slimer had been trying so many times to change the subject to the woman's claims, so I used what you two had provided to contrast back to the first claim of the man's confession to a crime of violence, hence: 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> Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that > hh> untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him > hh> to try to make an effective claim of defamation. > -- > > You see the word "woman" in there? I don't... Lame pedantry attempt. > ..but that's exactly what you quoted > to display my alleged "reading & comprehension failure". Now since the man's testimony's confession to an assault crime hadn't been trying to defame Kavanaugh, its obvious that it couldn't be referring to the man, So who's left? Why gosh! Only the woman you & Slimer have been harping about. > Here's a thought, when > you're talking about women or a woman, use one of those terms... if it's a man or > men, use one of those terms... then *my* "reading & comprehension failure" will > be solved. Funny how actually writing what you mean can do that! Oh, you mean like this: 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've still not adequately justified why this under-oath confession to a crime of violence has been ignored by a sanctioned government body. And don't think that your latest claim - - that this man was known before Ford testified - - makes your case any better, because there was then a post-Ford testimony supplemental FBI investigation conducted, which makes this "choose to look the other way" even more clear and even more damning. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 03:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c36b787e-6177-4906-b10f-df5d5b84e7c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476153 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:32:18 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7:50:53 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > (snip tons of BS) > > Because here comes Steve's cherrypicking to undermine context: > > > > > > Once again, you're trying to conflate two different reports > > > > > instead of staying focused just one the one that Slimer first mentioned > > > > > > > > Well, you're babbling so excuse me for not following. No matter as the > > > > end result is the same. > > > > > > Stop trying to blame others for your own reading & comprehension failure. > > > > You, earlier in the thread: > > > > 1 - "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." > > > > 2 - "Well, you *are* being suckered into changing the subject." > > > > 3 - "How about sticking with what Slimer had claimed, which was > > that a man had reportedly confessed to being Ford's assailant?" > > All of which had specific context which Steve has chosen to destroy. > > > Somewhere along the way you switched the context to a "woman" and you > > quoted your text where I allegedly had a "comprehension failure" here: > > Because you and Slimer had been trying so many times to change the subject > to the woman's claims, so I used what you two had provided to contrast back > to the first claim of the man's confession to a crime of violence, hence: > > 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> Per what you've said, they also still requires someone to file charges for that > > hh> untruth, and because Kavanaugh is a public figure, the bar is higher for him > > hh> to try to make an effective claim of defamation. > > -- > > > > You see the word "woman" in there? I don't... > > Lame pedantry attempt. > > > ..but that's exactly what you quoted > > to display my alleged "reading & comprehension failure". > > Now since the man's testimony's confession to an assault crime hadn't been > trying to defame Kavanaugh, its obvious that it couldn't be referring to the man, > So who's left? Why gosh! Only the woman you & Slimer have been harping about. > > > > Here's a thought, when > > you're talking about women or a woman, use one of those terms... if it's a man or > > men, use one of those terms... then *my* "reading & comprehension failure" will > > be solved. Funny how actually writing what you mean can do that! > > Oh, you mean like this: > > 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've still not adequately justified why this under-oath confession to a crime > of violence has been ignored by a sanctioned government body. And don't > think that your latest claim - - that this man was known before Ford testified - - > makes your case any better, because there was then a post-Ford testimony > supplemental FBI investigation conducted, which makes this "choose to look > the other way" even more clear and even more damning. > > > -hh In fact Jonas Eklundh's lies were quoted time and time again. So needless to say I regret backing the trolls with their support for Jonas Eklundh. While I am sure the trolls approved of it, being nice to him made things worse. Everyone is Jonas Eklundh -- the oldest gag in the book. Jonas Eklundh calls it "attacking" him, even though he proceeds to cause that precise standard. So, yeah, I buy into my own inner world, fully knowing Jonas Eklundh has been fooled, because it makes me reconsider my program, improving it. All that matters is that Jonas Eklundh gets to inflict his prank call and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that Troll Killer Snit is an unwitting victim on the other end of the phone is the game. -- One Smart Penny http://www.5z8.info/racist-raps_r6r3wf_best-russian-sites-for-bootleg-everything https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 07:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <72dc588d-10f0-4f82-8784-4be7bc87265c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476153 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:32:18 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > You've still not adequately justified why this under-oath confession to a crime > of violence has been ignored by a sanctioned government body. Previously, you said that government body did nothing, you wrote: "Grassley did nothing." Where's your proof this is the case? That I've read, they investigated. You're calling it a "confession to a crime of violence". How do you know what's in the guy's testimony? That I've read this "crime of violence" was a consensual act according to the (saner) guy's account. > And don't > think that your latest claim - - that this man was known before Ford testified - - > makes your case any better, because there was then a post-Ford testimony > supplemental FBI investigation conducted, which makes this "choose to look > the other way" even more clear and even more damning. WRT what we were talking about earlier and your new claim of it being "even more damning"... Fact: Any of the ‘truths’ or ‘untruths’ stated with respect to what allegedly happened to Dr. Ford decades ago are only themselves allegations. Only after you let this fact sink in can you discuss this topic in a rational, unemotional manner. You seem incapable of doing this. Here’s another fact you overlook, the women who were referred gave reason to be referred in the form of their contradictory statements. Can we say the same is true in the case of the man who gave “details”, or the second man, who's been referred to as less sane? Not to my knowledge... if you are privy to information that shows these men have backtracked, now is the time to show it. I would also add that, potential obstruction of justice issues aside, another difference exists between the men and the women, only the latter sought to harm someone else (one of the primary reasons law exists is to right such wrongs). Despite your unwillingness to look at the reality that the Republicans had everything to gain by using the saner man’s testimony to stave off Kavanaugh being needlessly subjected to the hearing process, notably, they *didn’t* do it. This fact tells you all you really need to know. That the Republicans didn’t pursue it after the hearing would be, to my mind, for the same reason they didn’t pursue it prior... credibility or he didn't actually confess to a "crime of violence" (like you're alleging with not a shred of evidence). There's potentially another good ‘credibility’ reason for not pursuing it post hearing, an action which, I would point out, would *also* clear Kavanaugh’s name if it panned out. The reason being the saner man’s “details” weren’t corroborated by Dr. Ford's testimony, you know, the woman who would be the primary 'witness'. And you want 'the State' to bring charges with Ford as that 'witness'. Given the above along with all the things I mentioned elsewhere in another post that you've ignored... <8f71db96-fbca-4bee-97a7-4dccb2e0d899@googlegroups.com> ... how do you think it would play out in court, Perry? Who, in their right mind, would try such a case? Why do you run from answering this one? Underneath it all is the obvious question, why *wouldn’t* the Republicans jump at the chance to completely clear Kavanaugh’s name if valid potential ever existed? What you're alleging would only make sense if they acted on it (the guy's false testimony) in advance to clear Kavanaugh, but they didn't. And if his testimony wasn't false? Feel free to explain how that would that be "even more damning" to Kavanaugh. The above is what I consider reasonable speculation. Your speculation doesn’t make any sense to me, in my opinion it’s driven by emotion and draped in the non-sensical tossing of things against the wall to see what sticks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4j4irFlcd4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #476190 |
On 11/8/18 8:36 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:32:18 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > >> You've still not adequately justified why this under-oath confession to a crime >> of violence has been ignored by a sanctioned government body. > > Previously, you said that government body did nothing, you wrote: > "Grassley did nothing." > > Where's your proof this is the case? That I've read, they investigated. Wow... when Clinton made an admission but was still not found guilty you insisted the court finding did not matter -- he was guilty (though with Bush *unless* a court found him to be guilty it did not matter if he was ACTUALLY guilty). Now you are asked about how to respond to a confession and you say that is NOT enough "proof". LOL! Do you ever stop to think about how deeply inconsistent you are? How biased you are? Me: completely consistent on this -- in BOTH cases it is not enough to have any LEGAL consequences, but in both cases I would not hire the person for a position of great authority, such as the President or Supreme Court Justice. And even though it was not Bill, I find his wife to be much the same or even worse than he is, and I did NOT back her for president even though she was on "my side" and the alternative was a full grown toddler who is ranked as the worst president in history. ... -- 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 <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 08:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c57618cc-6518-42ab-877b-7dbb77abef8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476153 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:32:18 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7:50:53 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > (snip tons of BS) > > Because here comes Steve's cherrypicking to undermine context: Right... *I'm* the one doing the cherrypicking <eyeroll>. Look at a couple of things you've written to see what you're doing: "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." - hh Note that you're using the phrase: "reportedly sworn testimony". What 'report' are you referring to? I never saw you put up any such report so I'll go along with the idea that the 'reporter' is a usenet poster, which would mean that you acknowledge the fact that it's not yet been well substantiated. But you then abandon knowledge of that fact as you write... "You've still not adequately justified why this under-oath confession to a crime of violence has been ignored by a sanctioned government body." - hh No more "reportedly" for this "crime of violence", you're now asserting a request for a justification of why this 'crime has been ignored' and doing so as if the report of a "crime of violence" has been confirmed. So what am I missing, when did the confirmation take place and by whom? All I've seen thus far was reporting based on Grassely's report: -- (redacted)(Sept. 26): (redacted) stated that when he was a 19 year-old college student, he visited D.C. over spring break and kissed a girl he believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to20 minute walk from the Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke. (redacted) said that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself on her. -- That doesn't sound like a "crime of violence" to me and, being that he claims she "initiated the kissing" and that "he did not force himself on her", I'm not seeing how this "confession" is non-consensual, thus rising to the level of *any* kind of crime. So what is your source?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 09:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f1fbd70-e618-45c8-8655-0878a3c37e2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476206 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 9:37:59 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:32:18 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7:50:53 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > > > (snip tons of BS) > > > > Because here comes Steve's cherrypicking to undermine context: > > Right... *I'm* the one doing the cherrypicking <eyeroll>. > > Look at a couple of things you've written to see what you're doing: > > "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." - hh > > Note that you're using the phrase: "reportedly sworn testimony". > > What 'report' are you referring to? I never saw you put up any such > report so I'll go along with the idea that the 'reporter' is a usenet > poster, which would mean that you acknowledge the fact that it's not > yet been well substantiated. But you then abandon knowledge of that > fact as you write... > > "You've still not adequately justified why this under-oath confession > to a crime of violence has been ignored by a sanctioned government body." - hh > > No more "reportedly" for this "crime of violence", you're now asserting > a request for a justification of why this 'crime has been ignored' and > doing so as if the report of a "crime of violence" has been confirmed. > So what am I missing, when did the confirmation take place and by > whom? All I've seen thus far was reporting based on Grassely's report: > > -- > (redacted)(Sept. 26): (redacted) stated that when he was a 19 year-old > college student, he visited D.C. over spring break and kissed a girl he > believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of > a house which was about a 15-to20 minute walk from the Van Ness Metro, > that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the > kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke. (redacted) said > that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself > on her. > -- > > That doesn't sound like a "crime of violence" to me and, being that he > claims she "initiated the kissing" and that "he did not force himself > on her", I'm not seeing how this "confession" is non-consensual, thus > rising to the level of *any* kind of crime. So what is your source? In spite of my deep dislike of Ubuntu, I still continue to install it for those who've had misadventures with Windows. Any horribly wounded insomniac could easily do the same. Honestly, those of you who troll are not able to manage yourselves anymore. Snit showed himself to be a backslider by pretending to not argue with Klaus Schadenfreude by means of emphatically proclaiming PLONK and then ambushing him repeatedly via piggybacking. You're like a fool wearing a gorilla outfit at the prom. We all see you there and thinking you are being clever. And you're so ignorant you keep denying it. -- One Smart Penny! https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM http://www.5z8.info/titstitstitstits_j7t4bl_stalin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOfBmWwCVY Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 11:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4jch6Fn4btU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #476206 |
On 11/8/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:32:18 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7:50:53 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>> >>> (snip tons of BS) >> >> Because here comes Steve's cherrypicking to undermine context: > > Right... *I'm* the one doing the cherrypicking <eyeroll>. > > Look at a couple of things you've written to see what you're doing: > > "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." - hh > > Note that you're using the phrase: "reportedly sworn testimony". > > What 'report' are you referring to? I never saw you put up any such > report so I'll go along with the idea that the 'reporter' is a usenet > poster, which would mean that you acknowledge the fact that it's not > yet been well substantiated. But you then abandon knowledge of that > fact as you write... > > "You've still not adequately justified why this under-oath confession > to a crime of violence has been ignored by a sanctioned government body." - hh > > No more "reportedly" for this "crime of violence", you're now asserting > a request for a justification of why this 'crime has been ignored' and > doing so as if the report of a "crime of violence" has been confirmed. > So what am I missing, when did the confirmation take place and by > whom? All I've seen thus far was reporting based on Grassely's report: > > -- > (redacted)(Sept. 26): (redacted) stated that when he was a 19 year-old > college student, he visited D.C. over spring break and kissed a girl he > believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of > a house which was about a 15-to20 minute walk from the Van Ness Metro, > that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the > kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke. (redacted) said > that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself > on her. > -- > > That doesn't sound like a "crime of violence" to me and, being that he > claims she "initiated the kissing" and that "he did not force himself > on her", I'm not seeing how this "confession" is non-consensual, thus > rising to the level of *any* kind of crime. So what is your source? > You cherry picked when you ran away from the evidence you could not face. <https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying> -- 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 <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 17:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8f71db96-fbca-4bee-97a7-4dccb2e0d899@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476021 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: (snip) > Plus sexual offences often carry substantially different legal > definitions where they've been defined as being against the existing > law of the State, and the State attorney contests the case on > behalf of the state and of the victims. Whatever you say, Perry (Mason)... -- Feinstein: "I want to ask you one question about the attack itself. You were very clear about the attack. Being pushed into the room, you say you don’t know quite by whom, but that it was Brett Kavanaugh that covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming, and then you escaped. How are you so sure that it was he?" Ford: "The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now. It’s — just basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, sort of, as you know, encodes — that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so, the trauma-related experience, then, is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift." Feinstein: "So what you are telling us is this could not be ?" Ford: "Absolutely not." -- Leahy: "But you — you would not mix up somebody else with Brett Kavanaugh, is that correct?" Ford: "Correct." -- Durbin: "Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?" Ford: "One hundred percent." > The implications are that it does not matter whether the victim > wants or does not want to press the charges against the assailant: > the State has granted itself legal standing and as such, can bring > it forward entirely on their own. Why would anyone have brought charges, Hugh? I'll say it again, *only* Dr. Ford *could* have filed a complaint after her insistence of '100% certainty' that this was "Absolutely not" just "a case of mistaken identity", that she "would not mix up somebody else with Brett Kavanaugh". And even if she did decide she'd been mistaken, and then decided to file a complaint on someone other than Kavanaugh, show me the prosecutor who'd want Dr. Ford as his 'witness' after such testimony as the above in a decades old case with zero physical evidence and everyone else *she* named as 'witnesses' *not* corroborating her story. But there's a capper... the two men (there were two) were known *before* she testified, so tell me why Brett Kavanaugh had the screws put to him if there was already a valid confession before Dr. Ford's above testimony ever took place? Doesn't make any sense for the Republicans to go through that if there existed what was deemed to be a *valid* confession, does it? If you can, think about what this means for what you're trying to argue, I just know it'll come to you ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4gpp6F59mhU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475853 |
On 11/6/18 9:38 PM, 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. We know there is plenty of evidence against him, AND we know you and Slimer run from that, AND we know he showed himself to be incompetent, AND we know his first SCOTUS decision showed his bias. >> 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. 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 7 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