Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #468142 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-21 06:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-22 09:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 907 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-21 06:51 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 07:12 -0700
somebody running Snit over in a rental pickup truck from Lowes would be viewed as solid community service Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 08:01 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-21 15:53 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 12:00 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-21 10:49 -0600
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 10:06 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 13:15 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 17:27 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 15:06 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-21 16:20 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-22 14:27 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 07:47 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-09-22 16:53 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-22 19:06 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 17:24 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-22 15:07 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 15:11 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-24 07:18 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-24 12:35 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 05:55 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-24 09:09 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-24 09:46 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-24 07:59 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-24 20:58 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 14:00 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 14:01 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-24 14:30 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-24 23:21 +0100
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-25 06:58 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-25 06:58 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 05:19 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-25 16:27 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 07:28 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 13:00 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 08:28 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 09:06 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 18:00 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 11:31 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 11:28 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-25 07:19 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-25 16:22 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-25 17:19 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-25 15:33 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 15:40 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 19:33 -0400
All educated people agree that Snit is the very definition of insanity Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 05:34 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 23:46 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 07:00 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 12:53 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 08:35 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 18:02 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 10:12 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 18:17 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-09-27 05:14 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-26 16:28 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-26 09:20 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 17:55 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-26 13:52 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-09-27 05:17 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-27 00:23 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-09-27 06:17 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 22:06 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-27 10:08 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-27 10:31 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-27 15:46 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-27 10:48 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-27 12:37 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-25 07:52 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-25 11:21 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-25 10:32 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 14:24 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-26 15:19 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 13:20 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 04:39 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 07:50 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-27 15:56 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 12:55 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-27 13:14 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 12:31 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 19:39 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-27 19:52 -0500
Inflation is immoral. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-28 02:52 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-25 16:33 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-25 13:12 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 13:37 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 08:17 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 17:49 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-26 13:44 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 13:51 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-26 13:59 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-26 22:36 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-26 16:23 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 22:15 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 07:38 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-01 20:22 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 07:15 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-02 15:10 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-02 23:00 +0100
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-03 07:10 -0500
Re: Today, the Democrats believe that people can commit crimes as long as they vote for them SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-03 13:21 +0000
Re: Today, the Democrats believe that people can commit crimes as long as they vote for them Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:42 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:05 -0600
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-03 15:23 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:00 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-04 08:14 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-04 12:57 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 22:04 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-24 07:57 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 08:17 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-24 10:52 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-24 09:43 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-24 13:37 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 12:10 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-24 12:26 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 12:57 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-24 17:05 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-24 17:03 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-24 20:10 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 13:19 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-24 10:43 -0500
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 08:48 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 05:39 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:50 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 02:22 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 21:54 -0700
I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-27 03:56 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-09-27 15:34 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-27 15:58 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-09-27 17:00 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-27 21:47 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:05 -0700
Re: β Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake β I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. β Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake ββ Snowflake β Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-27 20:31 -0500
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-28 08:52 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 07:59 -0500
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:04 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-28 12:12 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 12:45 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-28 12:55 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 13:27 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-28 16:27 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 12:43 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-28 18:39 +0100
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:10 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-28 23:29 -0500
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Catalina" <Catalina@beach.sun> - 2018-09-30 02:39 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 01:25 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-09-28 02:02 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 06:47 -0500
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-28 18:18 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-28 16:31 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-09-28 18:56 +0100
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-28 18:57 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-09-28 20:30 +0100
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:37 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-28 21:51 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 12:40 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:08 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-28 22:34 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-29 14:23 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-29 10:52 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-29 18:55 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-29 12:41 -0700
Being _ relatively poor isn't a real problem. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-29 15:25 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 18:29 -0600
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 21:48 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-29 20:18 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 23:16 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 18:27 -0600
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-29 20:18 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-29 12:43 -0400
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 17:33 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 01:17 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 20:08 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 03:26 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 20:36 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 03:42 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 22:13 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 05:33 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-30 12:50 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:18 +0000
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:22 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:38 -0700
Re: I avoid women, children, and thieving junkies; not men per se. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 18:26 -0700
We need to eat more. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-27 09:38 -0700
Re: We need to eat more. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-09-27 17:06 +0000
"Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-27 10:09 -0700
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-09-27 17:10 +0000
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-27 13:16 -0400
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-09-27 17:19 +0000
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 12:58 -0500
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-27 13:16 -0500
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 17:04 -0700
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 17:06 -0700
If you're fucking, you're stupid. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-27 17:14 -0700
Re: If you're fucking, you're stupid. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 17:39 -0700
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:01 -0700
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 12:47 -0400
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-28 12:59 -0400
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 11:37 -0700
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-28 19:00 +0000
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:12 -0400
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-27 21:44 -0700
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 22:01 -0700
Artificial penises and testosterone implants. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-28 05:01 -0700
Re: Artificial penises and testosterone implants. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-28 15:17 -0700
Re: Artificial penises and testosterone implants. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 23:42 -0400
Re: Artificial penises and testosterone implants. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 20:56 -0700
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-28 16:26 +0000
Re: "Children" are everywhere, "adults" are hard to find. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-28 12:30 -0400
I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-28 09:38 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-28 12:41 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-28 19:09 +0100
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:04 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-28 21:47 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 21:52 +0000
If I were super attractive... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-28 15:04 -0700
Re: If I were super attractive... "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-28 18:08 -0400
Re: If I were super attractive... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-28 22:08 +0000
Re: If I were super attractive... Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 22:10 +0000
Re: If I were super attractive... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 15:52 -0700
Re: If I were super attractive... Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 22:55 +0000
Re: If I were super attractive... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:00 -0700
Re: If I were super attractive... Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 23:05 +0000
Re: If I were super attractive... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:15 -0700
Re: If I were super attractive... Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 23:22 +0000
Re: If I were super attractive... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:24 -0700
Re: If I were super attractive... Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 23:28 +0000
Re: If I were super attractive... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:31 -0700
Re: If I were super attractive... Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 23:37 +0000
The list of ancestors 1, 2, 3, or 4. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-28 15:15 -0700
Re: The list of ancestors 1, 2, 3, or 4. Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 22:18 +0000
Re: If I were super attractive... Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 22:09 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-28 17:29 -0500
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-09-28 22:34 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 16:23 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 16:28 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 18:49 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 01:55 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 19:19 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-09-30 02:48 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 03:28 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 20:45 -0700
Was she looking for love ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-29 20:55 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 20:59 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:11 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 05:35 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-29 22:42 -0700
Dr Ford was just stupid, not immoral ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 05:22 -0700
Dr Ford was just stupid, not immoral ? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-09-30 07:13 -0700
I'd shut down the "party" so fast, your head would spin. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 07:34 -0700
Re: I'd shut down the "party" so fast, your head would spin. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:18 -0400
I'd shut down the "party" so fast, your head would spin. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-09-30 20:14 -0700
Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 20:37 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 20:58 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 04:21 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 22:25 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 06:40 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:15 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 02:08 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 20:19 -0600
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 20:54 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 20:26 -0700
Did Diogenes ever find his honest man ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 20:34 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:09 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 04:14 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 07:28 -0500
Mr. ChrisV, my publicist. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 07:27 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 18:13 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-01 18:40 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 12:06 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:08 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:15 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:20 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:50 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:59 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 16:10 -0400
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:22 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 23:05 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 22:58 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 07:34 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:02 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-02 14:42 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 23:02 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:00 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:17 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:23 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:52 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:04 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 20:28 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 13:54 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 16:55 -0400
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 23:12 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 00:45 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 18:12 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 07:26 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 05:31 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-02 14:13 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 07:23 -0500
Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 12:59 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:13 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 17:18 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-01 16:22 -0500
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:37 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 22:30 +0100
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:34 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:40 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:42 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:49 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:53 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:54 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:02 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:06 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:18 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:21 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:26 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:29 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:33 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:36 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:38 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:41 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:46 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:57 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:00 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:29 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 21:27 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. John of Patmos <jpatmos1318@gmXil.com> - 2018-10-02 07:59 +0000
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 01:19 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-02 13:46 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:49 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-02 14:10 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:36 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:13 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:28 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:32 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:40 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:45 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:54 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:59 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:29 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:46 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 21:35 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:03 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford has made 700,000$, so far, with her GoFundMe account. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:55 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 12:07 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:13 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:35 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:38 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 12:55 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:58 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 15:07 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 20:15 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 07:44 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:20 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 16:15 -0400
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 15:51 -0400
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 22:57 +0000
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 07:28 -0500
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-02 14:41 +0000
Everyone on the left is jealous, seething with intent. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 06:57 -0700
Re: Everyone on the left is jealous, seething with intent. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 07:42 -0700
Re: Everyone on the left is jealous, seething with intent. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 07:52 -0700
Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 10:01 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-01 13:56 -0500
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 15:00 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 12:02 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 12:57 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 23:09 +0000
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:30 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-01 21:15 -0500
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:36 -0700
I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 20:43 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-02 15:34 -0500
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 09:02 +0100
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 01:30 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 06:45 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-03 08:50 -0500
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-03 14:15 +0000
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 08:23 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-03 10:22 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 16:28 +0100
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 09:30 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 19:18 +0100
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 12:08 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 13:40 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-03 14:22 -0500
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 13:39 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 21:58 +0100
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:05 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 22:31 +0100
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:37 -0700
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-04 20:55 -0500
Re: I'm too Ugly to fuck (U), so it's LGBTQAXYZRNEHPU. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:44 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 12:00 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 15:52 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 13:28 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 16:39 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:23 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 16:47 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 14:37 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 17:46 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 16:05 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 21:41 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:56 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-02 06:30 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:48 -0700
Depending on how you define the word "is"... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-02 06:58 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 08:49 -0500
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 13:47 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 16:53 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:10 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:07 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 23:10 +0000
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 00:29 +0000
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 18:33 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 21:43 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:04 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-02 13:40 +0000
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-01 17:41 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 18:02 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 21:43 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:40 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-10-01 16:02 -0500
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-01 17:04 -0400
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:26 -0700
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 23:08 +0000
Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-01 21:15 -0700
Re: Were Dr. Ford the sweet, innocent, righteous woman you imagine... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 10:03 -0500
Re: Dr Ford was just stupid, not immoral ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:13 -0400
Re: Dr Ford was just stupid, not immoral ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 07:33 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 11:29 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:19 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 12:26 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 19:59 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:40 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Bricked <bricked@barkingspiders.com> - 2018-09-30 17:52 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-30 13:11 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 16:22 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:25 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:38 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:01 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:04 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 16:39 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-30 17:08 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:03 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-01 23:22 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 10:09 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 14:16 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:25 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 14:35 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:02 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:18 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:22 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 20:04 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 20:18 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 20:34 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-03 13:09 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:26 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 11:34 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? SWD <swd@whitehouse.gov> - 2018-10-03 18:15 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:19 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 16:38 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:50 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:59 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 17:17 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:47 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:58 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 20:12 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-04 06:51 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 00:21 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:46 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 09:07 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 06:47 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:13 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 11:37 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 16:52 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 12:08 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 09:38 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 19:26 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 14:32 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 13:42 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 16:47 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 22:05 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:08 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 22:42 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 15:33 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:04 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-04 06:18 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 13:41 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 22:10 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 15:32 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-04 06:17 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 17:36 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-04 10:53 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 19:10 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-04 12:41 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 20:51 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-04 15:56 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-10-04 22:13 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:41 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:57 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-05 03:55 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-05 10:08 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-05 02:24 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 02:55 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-05 06:57 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-05 12:48 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-05 09:04 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-05 14:19 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:31 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-05 07:01 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:19 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> - 2018-10-05 10:36 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:05 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-05 17:45 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-05 10:43 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-05 17:49 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 13:06 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:28 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-03 16:42 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 22:49 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-03 17:16 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:30 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:02 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-03 19:21 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 17:24 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 20:21 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 13:05 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:15 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:41 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 17:58 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 18:01 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:27 -0600
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:24 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 14:04 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 14:14 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-04 21:04 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 18:17 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-04 21:27 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 18:34 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-04 21:45 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:19 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 22:21 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 18:33 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 17:49 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-04 06:58 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 08:45 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 01:07 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 13:05 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-04 02:12 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 04:15 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-04 05:15 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-04 13:41 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:19 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-04 07:56 -0600
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-05 03:58 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-05 03:24 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 01:51 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-05 06:58 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-03 16:24 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 17:32 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:47 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-03 17:14 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 18:32 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:35 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Checkmate" <ricksabian1@qmail.com> - 2018-10-03 18:39 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:42 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-03 17:12 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-03 18:17 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-30 17:07 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 17:51 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-30 13:49 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 16:53 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-30 14:12 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 14:21 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-30 14:31 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:55 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-30 14:21 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 11:26 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-30 16:05 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:18 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 12:23 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-30 23:07 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 19:11 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 16:15 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:19 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 19:22 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 16:40 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 20:43 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 20:42 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 10:32 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 13:44 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-30 13:57 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 14:05 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-30 14:20 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 11:51 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-30 15:13 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:06 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 16:15 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:20 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 16:34 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-30 21:49 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-30 14:00 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-30 22:13 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 14:22 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-30 22:27 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 14:38 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-30 22:44 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 14:52 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-30 23:00 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 15:06 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-01 01:54 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 10:14 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-01 02:52 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 02:55 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 04:13 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 03:10 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 12:56 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 05:31 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 06:18 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-01 05:46 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 13:58 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-01 06:42 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 17:11 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-01 10:35 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 18:42 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 13:44 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 19:03 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 14:09 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-01 11:07 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 14:12 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 12:34 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-10-01 13:56 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 19:07 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-10-02 00:47 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 02:49 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 22:59 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 20:23 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 20:35 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 20:33 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 20:38 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-10-02 00:28 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-02 07:42 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:31 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 16:40 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 17:47 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 20:32 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-02 09:59 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-02 14:15 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:10 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:57 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:09 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-01 01:54 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 10:14 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:01 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 02:50 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:35 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:12 +0000
Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 19:48 -0700
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 04:22 +0000
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:31 -0700
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 06:43 +0000
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:12 -0700
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 05:27 -0600
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 04:45 -0700
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-01 11:11 -0500
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 09:27 -0700
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 13:09 -0400
The Sex, Drugs, and Alcohol Party ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 06:06 -0700
Re: The Sex, Drugs, and Alcohol Party ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 06:34 -0700
Re: Were Kavanaugh such an incel, he would've have been locked away, long ago. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 05:25 -0600
Nadegda is the only one who knows the true story, not the FBI. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 05:14 -0700
Re: Nadegda is the only one who knows the true story, not the FBI. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus πΆη¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-10-01 08:50 -0500
Re: Nadegda is the only one who knows the true story, not the FBI. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 07:21 -0700
Re: Nadegda is the only one who knows the true story, not the FBI. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:09 -0700
Re: Nadegda is the only one who knows the true story, not the FBI. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:10 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:56 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 05:37 -0600
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 05:00 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 13:44 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 13:57 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:27 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 16:37 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 16:38 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 17:00 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 18:48 -0700
Were you ever kidnapped anonymously ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 14:02 -0700
Re: Were you ever kidnapped anonymously ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 14:06 -0700
Re: Were you ever kidnapped anonymously ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:14 +0000
Why did this "incel bullshit" happen to Dr Ford, and not Nadegda ?! Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 19:31 -0700
Why did this "incel bullshit" happen to Dr. Ford, and not Nadegda ?! Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 19:32 -0700
Re: Why did this "incel bullshit" happen to Dr. Ford, and not Nadegda ?! Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 04:24 +0000
Re: Why did this "incel bullshit" happen to Dr. Ford, and not Nadegda ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 21:44 -0700
Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 05:37 -0700
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 06:03 -0700
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 11:47 -0400
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-01 11:15 -0500
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 09:42 -0700
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:00 +0000
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:26 -0400
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:53 -0700
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 18:15 -0400
Re: Nadegda got kidnapped, pushed into a room, at a high class party ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:16 -0700
Re: Why did this "incel bullshit" happen to Dr. Ford, and not Nadegda ?! SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 13:31 +0000
Re: Were you ever kidnapped anonymously ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:42 -0700
Re: Were you ever kidnapped anonymously ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:49 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-30 19:48 -0600
Re: Was she looking for love ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-09-30 11:15 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 14:19 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-30 14:23 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:44 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 06:46 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:06 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 05:55 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:40 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:02 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 10:49 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:04 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 16:31 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 17:02 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 17:32 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:06 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:09 -0600
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:03 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:34 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 16:42 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:54 -0700
Greg, the incel. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 14:23 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 14:27 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-01 20:27 -0500
Re: Greg, the incel. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 21:49 -0400
Re: Greg, the incel. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:25 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 04:10 +0000
Re: Greg, the incel. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 10:14 -0400
Re: Greg, the incel. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:07 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 21:53 +0000
Re: Greg, the incel. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:57 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:22 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-02 15:36 -0500
Re: Greg, the incel. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:39 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:19 -0700
Re: Greg, the incel. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:30 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:16 +0000
If a woman doesn't have a high net worth, you shouldn't touch her. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 13:49 -0700
Re: If a woman doesn't have a high net worth, you shouldn't touch her. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:17 +0000
If a woman doesn't have a high net worth, you shouldn't touch her. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 19:41 -0700
Re: If a woman doesn't have a high net worth, you shouldn't touch her. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 04:26 +0000
Everything Stacy wants costs Chad money, and lots of it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 05:54 -0700
Re: Everything Stacy wants costs Chad money, and lots of it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 11:49 -0400
Re: Everything Stacy wants costs Chad money, and lots of it. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:09 +0000
Re: If a woman doesn't have a high net worth, you shouldn't touch her. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-01 08:05 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-01 02:15 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 19:57 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:54 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:05 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-01 13:36 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:42 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 12:18 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 16:29 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:17 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:21 -0600
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 20:57 -0700
Trump is a salesman. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 21:37 -0700
Re: Trump is a salesman. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 22:06 -0700
Re: Trump is a salesman. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 22:27 -0700
Re: Trump is a salesman. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 06:44 +0000
Re: Trump is a salesman. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 00:01 -0700
Re: Trump is a salesman. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 01:49 -0700
Re: Trump is a salesman. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:29 -0400
Trump could sell accusations to a Dr. Ford. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-02 12:53 -0700
Re: Trump is a salesman. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-02 15:08 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 10:17 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 21:56 +0000
Take your kids and friends with you, please. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-01 21:45 -0700
Re: Take your kids and friends with you, please. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:30 -0400
Re: Take your kids and friends with you, please. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 15:35 -0400
Re: Take your kids and friends with you, please. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:16 -0700
China's Slave Trade. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-02 13:01 -0700
Re: China's Slave Trade. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:10 -0700
Re: Take your kids and friends with you, please. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:15 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 10:16 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-02 14:44 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-10-02 11:11 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 08:22 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 08:38 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:14 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Ser Gregor Clegane <sergregor@lannistermail.raven> - 2018-10-02 14:23 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:31 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 16:46 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:54 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 22:22 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:24 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 18:28 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 20:18 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-03 00:53 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 18:14 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-02 20:06 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-03 04:11 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:37 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-03 07:04 -0500
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:23 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 21:58 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:10 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 20:45 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:05 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-10-02 12:35 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 15:45 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:22 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:33 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 16:48 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:58 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:49 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:48 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-03 16:54 +0100
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:01 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 16:10 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:22 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:39 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:17 -0700
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:22 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-02 10:23 -0400
Re: Was she looking for love ? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 22:01 +0000
Re: Was she looking for love ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:09 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 05:34 +0000
Dr Ford was equally "guilty" for going into a drunkard's bedroom. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-30 06:25 -0700
Re: Dr Ford was equally "guilty" for going into a drunkard's bedroom. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 20:07 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-30 14:37 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 20:47 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 09:26 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:21 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-30 12:27 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 10:19 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-01 08:08 -0500
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-10-01 17:19 +0100
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:43 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-01 13:48 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:38 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 03:24 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 20:48 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-02 13:42 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:21 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 14:02 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:18 -0600
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-01 16:29 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 22:36 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-02 06:46 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 00:17 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 19:18 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-29 19:41 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 16:44 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Ser Gregor Clegane <sergregor@lannistermail.raven> - 2018-09-29 19:55 -0400
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 16:58 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-30 01:21 +0000
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 18:27 -0700
Re: I'm not half as retarded as you need me to be, Andrzej. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 18:48 -0700
More children is always better ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-27 10:23 -0700
Re: We need to eat more. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-27 11:12 -0700
Re: We need to eat more. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-27 14:27 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 17:14 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-21 21:18 +0000
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:34 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:45 -0700
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-21 16:18 -0700
The victims bear the cost, instead of the city. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-21 20:57 -0700
Re: The victims bear the cost, instead of the city. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 21:22 -0700
Re: The victims bear the cost, instead of the city. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-21 21:46 -0700
"IllGotten" gains. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-22 01:46 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 02:19 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 03:38 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 13:36 -0400
Re: "IllGotten" gains. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 10:54 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-22 13:36 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 13:41 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 16:37 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 17:55 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-22 17:02 -0700
Re: "IllGotten" gains. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 17:11 -0700
Cigarettes kill old people, heroin kills the young. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-22 02:06 -0700
Re: Cigarettes kill old people, heroin kills the young. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 02:51 -0700
Re: Cigarettes kill old people, heroin kills the young. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 13:37 -0400
Re: Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-21 16:14 -0700
The victims bear the cost, instead of the city. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-21 20:40 -0700
Democratic Socialists are Tards ... Just thought that the COLA Fruits might want to know Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 00:59 -0700
Re: Democratic Socialists are Tards ... Just thought that the COLA Fruits might want to know Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 01:17 -0700
Second verse, same as the first ... Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 02:26 -0700
Re: Second verse, same as the first ... DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-09-22 09:50 -0400
Re: Second verse, same as the first ... SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-22 14:38 +0000
Re: Second verse, same as the first ... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 08:02 -0700
Second verse, same as the first ... Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 09:20 -0700
Re: Second verse, same as the first ... Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 09:36 -0700
Page 21 of 46 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 46 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 13:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <6f98485a-87f4-428a-bd3e-a7b056245349@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469861 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > You (Hugh) replied: > >>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > >> > >> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > > > > You know the details much better than me, apparently, > > and I don't care to look into it further. > > The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > > > > I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > > The fun is just starting. > https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ Brietbart? Please. In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't yet have a car). Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive over from Bethany Beach /S Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 16:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <1wcnrj9dty7fo$.1t5hc9ftqs8sq.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #469875 |
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>> You (Hugh) replied: >>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? >>>> >>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. >>> >>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, >>> and I don't care to look into it further. >>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. >>> >>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. >> >> The fun is just starting. >> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > > Brietbart? Please. > > In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > > > For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > > Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > yet have a car). > > Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > > In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > over from Bethany Beach /S > > Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > > > -hh As usual, you fail to see the forest for the trees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <8171e0a8-5f06-4d7e-a026-33f53f96dbe6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469879 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:39:15 PM UTC-7, Sam O'Nella wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>> You (Hugh) replied: > >>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > >>>> > >>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > >>> > >>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, > >>> and I don't care to look into it further. > >>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > >>> > >>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > >> > >> The fun is just starting. > >> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > > > > > Brietbart? Please. > > > > In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > > position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > > Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > > precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > > > > > > For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > > > > Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > > pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > > problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > > times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > > someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > > for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > > yet have a car). > > > > Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > > squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > > term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > > was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > > but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > > was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > > intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > > the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > > > > In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > > things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > > similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > > book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > > testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > > flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > > over from Bethany Beach /S > > > > Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > > to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > > that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > > would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > > definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > > > > > > -hh > > As usual, you fail to see the forest for the trees. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <328ae2c8-12e1-4830-b455-53187a4bc309@googlegroups.com>, Steve Carroll wrote: > > Sandman: > > <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood> It doesn't show what > > interval the script is run at, but how he has used it, at least in > > the beginning. I stopped logging it this way back in may :) > > From what I've personally looked at, it looks like it's all over the > map. Yes, with obvious scripted sessions. Not saying some of it isn't manual. > > Sandman: > > Maybe I'll update it :) > > What would it take to do that? For "later" to occur! <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/postingtimes/Snit/Flooding> That's a running tally of Snit's non-sock posts and his flooding during the last month. It'll update automatically and always show the last two months. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZyKjaAAoJECFEwfBaA+jR4QEIAIWE3GfOGnnxynLfUhRnWv+l OkvAvQ8GofGI1JjIOn7NnlyfGRV/JPiIzJmzoCrdV6uY9E9qaYOXScF4M5Vas4bv 2WqBlNIh7se9g6Zkj330L12RkuZckS5l0nJ++OTbmztOzLtAlrWKHADTiJ9u8JnR BCjcAhMrjQ0Jwut34hJr57pzj7p88oYCPP46IcrEMbWnd03n43BGUVLGr9i9pYU+ 7F6867hOzaFJ4DdRE52zv15yIYVUIHx7HFNNtV7ZfPRBRQQuyA403S8PM1RC/nQ/ RKau+ma21bzltpxlqTO+XAXMMLLZiGXy8hbv4Ib/tPlc5cKI3P6UDZ4exbbCmnE= =1Dqa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Eight things to never feed your cat https://youtu.be/lF8yk7ul4Mw http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h http://bit.ly/2oNYRgv Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 16:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <if4a09vz85c8.1v1sz59004dyu$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #469875 |
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>> You (Hugh) replied: >>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? >>>> >>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. >>> >>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, >>> and I don't care to look into it further. >>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. >>> >>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. >> >> The fun is just starting. >> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > > Brietbart? Please. > > In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > > > For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > > Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > yet have a car). > > Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > > In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > over from Bethany Beach /S > > Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > > > -hh BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. You're the type of over analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person shooting a gun at another person because you would claim something like the gun weighs 2.6lbs, the shooter is a female, her arms are not muscular, the kick back recoil would have caused the subsequent shots to miss because she would not be able to control the gun etc. All despite a video and still pictures showing the murder. I'll bet when you order a 12 oz, medium well done, NY steak at your favorite restaurant you probably pull out a scale and weigh it along with a thermometer to make sure the interior temperature indicates it's medium well done. IOW, an over analyzing idiot who can find 15 reasons why something is or is not true yet avoiding the most basic evidence in the process. P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because your posts sure seem to indicate you might be a bot and not a human. So IOW the posts don't sound human.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <dfa353a3-f62b-4a2b-95c2-f1496033549c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469880 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:47:21 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>> You (Hugh) replied: > >>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > >>>> > >>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > >>> > >>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, > >>> and I don't care to look into it further. > >>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > >>> > >>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > >> > >> The fun is just starting. > >> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > > > > > Brietbart? Please. > > > > In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > > position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > > Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > > precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > > > > > > For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > > > > Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > > pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > > problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > > times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > > someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > > for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > > yet have a car). > > > > Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > > squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > > term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > > was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > > but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > > was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > > intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > > the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > > > > In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > > things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > > similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > > book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > > testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > > flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > > over from Bethany Beach /S > > > > Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > > to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > > that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > > would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > > definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > > > > > > -hh > > BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. Thanks! FYI, a longtime friend who's a lawyer had said to me years ago that he's happy that I'm not a lawyer because he'd really hate to have to face off against me in court. > You're the type of over > analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person > shooting a gun at another person because you would claim something like the > gun weighs 2.6lbs, the shooter is a female, her arms are not muscular, the > kick back recoil would have caused the subsequent shots to miss because she > would not be able to control the gun etc. All hyperbola aside, what you're really saying is that I'll look for the facts and not be conned by a bogus story that cherry-picks through only some of them. Thanks for the compliment on attention to detail ... even though I know that that's not what you intend. > ... > P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because your posts sure > seem to indicate you might be a bot and not a human. So IOW the posts don't > sound human. Translation: you don't regularly converse at higher complexity & educational reading levels, so my prose makes you uncomfortable. My suggestion is for you to try to hang out with smarter friends. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 17:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <1uwnw4jq2rh6$.gkbllwybsxv6.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #469900 |
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:47:21 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: >> >>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>>>> You (Hugh) replied: >>>>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. >>>>> >>>>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, >>>>> and I don't care to look into it further. >>>>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. >>>> >>>> The fun is just starting. >>>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ >>> >>> >>> Brietbart? Please. >>> >>> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their >>> position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the >>> Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is >>> precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. >>> >>> >>> For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. >>> >>> Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow >>> pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real >>> problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what >>> times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking >>> someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) >>> for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't >>> yet have a car). >>> >>> Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to >>> squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the >>> term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it >>> was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica >>> but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or >>> was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the >>> intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with >>> the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. >>> >>> In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad >>> things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly >>> similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's >>> book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also >>> testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a >>> flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive >>> over from Bethany Beach /S >>> >>> Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been >>> to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" >>> that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial >>> would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most >>> definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. >>> >>> >>> -hh >> >> BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. > > Thanks! FYI, a longtime friend who's a lawyer had said to me > years ago that he's happy that I'm not a lawyer because he'd > really hate to have to face off against me in court. No. You would be the one to ignore the obvious in favor of some convoluted theory. >> You're the type of over >> analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person >> shooting a gun at another person because you would claim something like the >> gun weighs 2.6lbs, the shooter is a female, her arms are not muscular, the >> kick back recoil would have caused the subsequent shots to miss because she >> would not be able to control the gun etc. > > All hyperbola aside, what you're really saying is that I'll look > for the facts and not be conned by a bogus story that cherry-picks > through only some of them. Thanks for the compliment on attention > to detail ... even though I know that that's not what you intend. So you complained about Brietbart, an excuse on your part, here is Axios with the same report. Axios is a liberal house organ. https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html And of course since you are interested in minutia, you could have compared the line items in that report with the testimony, but you didn't. Instead you jumped on the Breitbart crutch which I knew you would and as such I used that as my first link to suck you in and that it did. Like I said, you can't see the forest for the trees. >> ... > >> P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because your posts sure >> seem to indicate you might be a bot and not a human. So IOW the posts don't >> sound human. > > Translation: you don't regularly converse at higher complexity & > educational reading levels, so my prose makes you uncomfortable. > > My suggestion is for you to try to hang out with smarter friends. My suggestion to you is to lose the narcissistic, academia act because you aren't very good at it. You bore the heck out of people. Again, here is your argument shot down again. https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 16:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <73e7e6b3-ff37-4130-9a96-cec60267b9e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469904 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:46:44 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:47:21 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > >> > >>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>>>> You (Hugh) replied: > >>>>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > >>>>> > >>>>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, > >>>>> and I don't care to look into it further. > >>>>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > >>>>> > >>>>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > >>>> > >>>> The fun is just starting. > >>>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > >>> > >>> > >>> Brietbart? Please. > >>> > >>> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > >>> position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > >>> Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > >>> precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > >>> > >>> > >>> For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > >>> > >>> Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > >>> pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > >>> problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > >>> times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > >>> someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > >>> for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > >>> yet have a car). > >>> > >>> Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > >>> squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > >>> term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > >>> was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > >>> but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > >>> was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > >>> intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > >>> the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > >>> > >>> In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > >>> things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > >>> similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > >>> book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > >>> testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > >>> flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > >>> over from Bethany Beach /S > >>> > >>> Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > >>> to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > >>> that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > >>> would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > >>> definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > >>> > >>> > >>> -hh > >> > >> BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. > > > > Thanks! FYI, a longtime friend who's a lawyer had said to me > > years ago that he's happy that I'm not a lawyer because he'd > > really hate to have to face off against me in court. > > No. > You would be the one to ignore the obvious in favor of some convoluted > theory. Merely your unsubstantiated claim, lacking any evidence. Ironic, considering how many times I've mentioned Occam's Razor to the COLA fanboys. > >> You're the type of over > >> analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person > >> shooting a gun at another person because you would claim something like the > >> gun weighs 2.6lbs, the shooter is a female, her arms are not muscular, the > >> kick back recoil would have caused the subsequent shots to miss because she > >> would not be able to control the gun etc. > > > > All hyperbola aside, what you're really saying is that I'll look > > for the facts and not be conned by a bogus story that cherry-picks > > through only some of them. Thanks for the compliment on attention > > to detail ... even though I know that that's not what you intend. > > So you complained about Brietbart, an excuse on your part, here is Axios > with the same report. > Axios is a liberal house organ. > > https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html And now everyone can read both and note how Axios presents both sides, while Brietbart did not. > And of course since you are interested in minutia, you could have compared > the line items in that report with the testimony, but you didn't. > Instead you jumped on the Breitbart crutch which I knew you would and as > such I used that as my first link to suck you in and that it did. On the contrary, I used the provided cite and focused on what Mitchell said. And it doesn't matter that I didn't address every shortcoming she made when you've not been able to materially dispute *ANY* of them. > Like I said, you can't see the forest for the trees. Not one of those "trees" have you been able to dispute...and my point has been that taken together, they do convey a "evil forest" around this guy. > >> ... > > > >> P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because your posts sure > >> seem to indicate you might be a bot and not a human. So IOW the posts don't > >> sound human. > > > > Translation: you don't regularly converse at higher complexity & > > educational reading levels, so my prose makes you uncomfortable. > > > > My suggestion is for you to try to hang out with smarter friends. > > My suggestion to you is to lose the narcissistic, academia act because you > aren't very good at it. You bore the heck out of people. Last week, while giving testimony, Kavanaugh violated at least two rules of the American Bar Association (ABA) code of judicial conduct, namely: Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid mpropriety and the appearance of impropriety. <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/mcjc_canon_1/ruke1_2promotingconfidenceinthejudiciary.html> Rule 2.11: Disqualification (A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judgeβs impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a partyβs lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding. <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_11disqualification.html> This alone is disqualifying for him to serve. > Again, here is your argument shot down again. > > https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html No, trying to repeat your lie doesn't make it true: Axios presented both sides while Brietbart did not. And its right there on Axios in the first two sentences: "In a memo sent to all GOP senators, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell β who was hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask questions of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford during last week's hearing β said she did not believe "a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee," per NBC News. The other side: Democrats condemned Republicans' choice of Mitchell, arguing that it created a judicial setting for the hearing β when neither Ford nor Kavanaugh was on trial." -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 21:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <slh2lsxw5py2$.e6nbqon35s5c.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #469939 |
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:05:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:46:44 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: >> >>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:47:21 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>>>>>> You (Hugh) replied: >>>>>>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, >>>>>>> and I don't care to look into it further. >>>>>>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fun is just starting. >>>>>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brietbart? Please. >>>>> >>>>> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their >>>>> position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the >>>>> Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is >>>>> precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow >>>>> pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real >>>>> problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what >>>>> times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking >>>>> someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) >>>>> for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't >>>>> yet have a car). >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to >>>>> squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the >>>>> term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it >>>>> was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica >>>>> but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or >>>>> was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the >>>>> intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with >>>>> the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad >>>>> things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly >>>>> similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's >>>>> book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also >>>>> testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a >>>>> flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive >>>>> over from Bethany Beach /S >>>>> >>>>> Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been >>>>> to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" >>>>> that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial >>>>> would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most >>>>> definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -hh >>>> >>>> BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. >>> >>> Thanks! FYI, a longtime friend who's a lawyer had said to me >>> years ago that he's happy that I'm not a lawyer because he'd >>> really hate to have to face off against me in court. >> >> No. >> You would be the one to ignore the obvious in favor of some convoluted >> theory. > > Merely your unsubstantiated claim, lacking any evidence. > Ironic, considering how many times I've mentioned Occam's Razor > to the COLA fanboys. Yawn. Reading your posting history can easily explain your idiocy. > >>>> You're the type of over >>>> analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person >>>> shooting a gun at another person because you would claim something like the >>>> gun weighs 2.6lbs, the shooter is a female, her arms are not muscular, the >>>> kick back recoil would have caused the subsequent shots to miss because she >>>> would not be able to control the gun etc. >>> >>> All hyperbola aside, what you're really saying is that I'll look >>> for the facts and not be conned by a bogus story that cherry-picks >>> through only some of them. Thanks for the compliment on attention >>> to detail ... even though I know that that's not what you intend. >> >> So you complained about Brietbart, an excuse on your part, here is Axios >> with the same report. >> Axios is a liberal house organ. >> >> https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html > > And now everyone can read both and note how Axios presents both sides, > while Brietbart did not. Nice try. Both sites presented the exact same transcript. The op ed section is irrelevant. After all, you like the facts and they are the same on both sites. You lose. > >> And of course since you are interested in minutia, you could have compared >> the line items in that report with the testimony, but you didn't. >> Instead you jumped on the Breitbart crutch which I knew you would and as >> such I used that as my first link to suck you in and that it did. > > On the contrary, I used the provided cite and focused on what Mitchell said. > > And it doesn't matter that I didn't address every shortcoming she made when > you've not been able to materially dispute *ANY* of them. You got sucked in and now you are scrambling trying to recover. Won't work. > >> Like I said, you can't see the forest for the trees. > > Not one of those "trees" have you been able to dispute...and my point > has been that taken together, they do convey a "evil forest" around this guy. Already done. You haven't said much of anything other than hot air in 5 million words. > >>>> ... >>> >>>> P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because your posts sure >>>> seem to indicate you might be a bot and not a human. So IOW the posts don't >>>> sound human. >>> >>> Translation: you don't regularly converse at higher complexity & >>> educational reading levels, so my prose makes you uncomfortable. >>> >>> My suggestion is for you to try to hang out with smarter friends. >> >> My suggestion to you is to lose the narcissistic, academia act because you >> aren't very good at it. You bore the heck out of people. > > Last week, while giving testimony, Kavanaugh violated at least two rules > of the American Bar Association (ABA) code of judicial conduct, namely: We are talking about Ford, not Kavanaugh. See the subject line? If you want to talk about Kavanaugh start a new thread. Nice try though. Snip*** the rest of your trying to recover after being made an ass of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 21:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <14388522-f816-42af-a3f9-eb61c8801ac9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469983 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:41:22 PM UTC-7, Sam O'Nella wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:05:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:46:44 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > >> > >>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:47:21 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>>>>>> You (Hugh) replied: > >>>>>>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, > >>>>>>> and I don't care to look into it further. > >>>>>>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The fun is just starting. > >>>>>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Brietbart? Please. > >>>>> > >>>>> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > >>>>> position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > >>>>> Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > >>>>> precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > >>>>> > >>>>> Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > >>>>> pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > >>>>> problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > >>>>> times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > >>>>> someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > >>>>> for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > >>>>> yet have a car). > >>>>> > >>>>> Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > >>>>> squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > >>>>> term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > >>>>> was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > >>>>> but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > >>>>> was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > >>>>> intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > >>>>> the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > >>>>> things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > >>>>> similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > >>>>> book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > >>>>> testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > >>>>> flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > >>>>> over from Bethany Beach /S > >>>>> > >>>>> Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > >>>>> to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > >>>>> that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > >>>>> would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > >>>>> definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -hh > >>>> > >>>> BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. > >>> > >>> Thanks! FYI, a longtime friend who's a lawyer had said to me > >>> years ago that he's happy that I'm not a lawyer because he'd > >>> really hate to have to face off against me in court. > >> > >> No. > >> You would be the one to ignore the obvious in favor of some convoluted > >> theory. > > > > Merely your unsubstantiated claim, lacking any evidence. > > Ironic, considering how many times I've mentioned Occam's Razor > > to the COLA fanboys. > > > Yawn. > Reading your posting history can easily explain your idiocy. > > > > >>>> You're the type of over > >>>> analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person > >>>> shooting a gun at another person because you would claim something like the > >>>> gun weighs 2.6lbs, the shooter is a female, her arms are not muscular, the > >>>> kick back recoil would have caused the subsequent shots to miss because she > >>>> would not be able to control the gun etc. > >>> > >>> All hyperbola aside, what you're really saying is that I'll look > >>> for the facts and not be conned by a bogus story that cherry-picks > >>> through only some of them. Thanks for the compliment on attention > >>> to detail ... even though I know that that's not what you intend. > >> > >> So you complained about Brietbart, an excuse on your part, here is Axios > >> with the same report. > >> Axios is a liberal house organ. > >> > >> https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html > > > > And now everyone can read both and note how Axios presents both sides, > > while Brietbart did not. > > Nice try. > Both sites presented the exact same transcript. > The op ed section is irrelevant. > After all, you like the facts and they are the same on both sites. > You lose. > > > > >> And of course since you are interested in minutia, you could have compared > >> the line items in that report with the testimony, but you didn't. > >> Instead you jumped on the Breitbart crutch which I knew you would and as > >> such I used that as my first link to suck you in and that it did. > > > > On the contrary, I used the provided cite and focused on what Mitchell said. > > > > And it doesn't matter that I didn't address every shortcoming she made when > > you've not been able to materially dispute *ANY* of them. > > You got sucked in and now you are scrambling trying to recover. > Won't work. > > > > >> Like I said, you can't see the forest for the trees. > > > > Not one of those "trees" have you been able to dispute...and my point > > has been that taken together, they do convey a "evil forest" around this guy. > > Already done. > You haven't said much of anything other than hot air in 5 million words. > > > > >>>> ... > >>> > >>>> P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because your posts sure > >>>> seem to indicate you might be a bot and not a human. So IOW the posts don't > >>>> sound human. > >>> > >>> Translation: you don't regularly converse at higher complexity & > ... This is what results when seriously bad self esteem takes over Steven Petruzzellis's mind. What Debian looks like is irrelevant and then it is not like Debian, especially if it's support is good. For the record, taking time getting informed is never a waste. Thinking you know all and attempting to convince others that it's true, as Steven Petruzzellis tries to do? *That* is a waste. -- Curious how these posts are made? Email: mr@sandman.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 06:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <c823eb30-4fc5-4706-9422-f2c576a0cf91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469983 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:41:22 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:05:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:46:44 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > >> > >>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:47:21 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>>>>>> You (Hugh) replied: > >>>>>>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, > >>>>>>> and I don't care to look into it further. > >>>>>>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The fun is just starting. > >>>>>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Brietbart? Please. > >>>>> > >>>>> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > >>>>> position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > >>>>> Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > >>>>> precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > >>>>> > >>>>> Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > >>>>> pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > >>>>> problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > >>>>> times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > >>>>> someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > >>>>> for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > >>>>> yet have a car). > >>>>> > >>>>> Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > >>>>> squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > >>>>> term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > >>>>> was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > >>>>> but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > >>>>> was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > >>>>> intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > >>>>> the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > >>>>> things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > >>>>> similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > >>>>> book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > >>>>> testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > >>>>> flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > >>>>> over from Bethany Beach /S > >>>>> > >>>>> Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > >>>>> to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > >>>>> that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > >>>>> would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > >>>>> definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -hh > >>>> > >>>> BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. > >>> > >>> Thanks! FYI, a longtime friend who's a lawyer had said to me > >>> years ago that he's happy that I'm not a lawyer because he'd > >>> really hate to have to face off against me in court. > >> > >> No. > >> You would be the one to ignore the obvious in favor of some > >> convoluted theory. > > > > Merely your unsubstantiated claim, lacking any evidence. > > Ironic, considering how many times I've mentioned Occam's Razor > > to the COLA fanboys. > > Yawn. > Reading your posting history can easily explain your idiocy. Thanks for your snarky reply, for you no longer have the excuse of ignorance from not having read my response. Too bad you failed to actually disprove anything I wrote. > >>>> You're the type of over > >>>> analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person > >>>> shooting a gun at another person... > >>> > >>> All hyperbola aside, what you're really saying is that I'll look > >>> for the facts and not be conned by a bogus story that cherry-picks > >>> through only some of them. Thanks for the compliment on attention > >>> to detail ... even though I know that that's not what you intend. > >> > >> So you complained about Brietbart, an excuse on your part, here > >> is Axio with the same report. > >> Axios is a liberal house organ. > >> > >> https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html > > > > And now everyone can read both and note how Axios presents both sides, > > while Brietbart did not. > > Nice try. > Both sites presented the exact same transcript. True, but that's deliberately misleading statement: Brietbart was not balanced at all in its reporting, whie Axios was. > The op ed section is irrelevant. For definitions of "irrelevant" where independence is not desired. > After all, you like the facts and they are the same on both sites. No, they're not the same as you just admitted: the Op Eds are different. > You lose. And you too, because 99% of the US population is losing. Specifically, the median personal retirement savings portfolio for most of America is alarmingly bad: for a breadwinner in their 50's, they should already have saved 4x-5x their income, but the median today is barely 2x. The ramifications to this are that most of "middle class white Christian America" won't be able to afford to retire at age 65, and they believe that it is "the brown/non-Christian/gay/etc" peoples' fault, even though their corporate employers who have cut wages & benefits aren't run by said "brown/non-Christian/gay/etc" CEOs. > >> And of course since you are interested in minutia, you could have compared > >> the line items in that report with the testimony, but you didn't. > >> Instead you jumped on the Breitbart crutch which I knew you would and as > >> such I used that as my first link to suck you in and that it did. > > > > On the contrary, I used the provided cite and focused on what Mitchell said. > > > > And it doesn't matter that I didn't address every shortcoming she made when > > you've not been able to materially dispute *ANY* of them. > > You got sucked in and now you are scrambling trying to recover. > Won't work. Despite your brave face, you've still not materially disputed even one of my short list items. That's not a failure on my part, but an implicit success. > >> Like I said, you can't see the forest for the trees. > > > > Not one of those "trees" have you been able to dispute...and > > my point has been that taken together, they do convey a "evil > > forest" around this guy. > > Already done. Cite. > You haven't said much of anything other than hot air in 5 million words. Still more than what you've accomplished. >>>>> P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because >>>>> your posts sure seem to indicate you might be a bot and >>>>> not a human. So IOW the posts don't sound human. >>>> >>>> Translation: you don't regularly converse at higher complexity & >>>> educational reading levels, so my prose makes you uncomfortable. >>>> >>>> My suggestion is for you to try to hang out with smarter friends. >>> >>> My suggestion to you is to lose the narcissistic, academia act because >>> you aren't very good at it. You bore the heck out of people. >> >> Last week, while giving testimony, Kavanaugh violated at least two rules >> of the American Bar Association (ABA) code of judicial conduct, namely: > > We are talking about Ford, not Kavanaugh. No, *you're* trying to only talk about Ford, even though the only possible context for that is relevant to Kavanaugh. > See the subject line? I'm still on-topic to the original subject line of: "Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free." That someone changed it is merely a goalpost move attempt. > If you want to talk about Kavanaugh start a new thread. > Nice try though. Nope, for I've never not been talking about Kavanaugh in this thread, which is 100% on-topic to its OP subject: "Today, the conservative stance is to let criminals run free.". > Snip*** the rest of your trying to recover after being made an ass of. What was snipped, clearly because sockpuppet "Sam" can't dispute ... ... is how Kavanaugh violated at least two rules of the American Bar Association (ABA) code of judicial conduct while giving testimony last week. These violations didn't occur 30+ years ago ... they were last week. And they are on their own disqualifying for him to serve on **ANY** court. Yes, this means even his current appointment in addition to the SCOTUS. If the Republican majority had any shred of professional integrity, this guy would be done right now (& fired). But time will tell... -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 06:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <6a3f2cfc-3f8f-4524-822a-87073ac230d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470088 |
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 6:30:13 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:41:22 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:05:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:46:44 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > > >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:47:21 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > > >>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > > >>>>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > >>>>>>> You (Hugh) replied: > > >>>>>>>>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> You know the details much better than me, apparently, > > >>>>>>> and I don't care to look into it further. > > >>>>>>> The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The fun is just starting. > > >>>>>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Brietbart? Please. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > > >>>>> position is automatically suspect. Politically, her job for the > > >>>>> Republicans is to _appear_ independent and to sow doubt, which is > > >>>>> precisely what this Brietbart article aids & abets in. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For example, the article tries to use the "absence of evidence" fallacy. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Similarly, she has a "before cell phones" Trojan. As a fellow > > >>>>> pre-cellphone era teen who also didn't have a car, I had no real > > >>>>> problems bumming rides to go places. And no, I can't tell you what > > >>>>> times I used a house's POTS phone to call someone versus just asking > > >>>>> someone else who was around (even if I didn't know them all that well) > > >>>>> for a lift. Or just humping it. Ditto in college (where I also didn't > > >>>>> yet have a car). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Similarly, the deal with the fear-of-flying stuff was trying to > > >>>>> squander finite hearing time and imply a bias. For example, the > > >>>>> term of "fairly frequently" wasn't defined, was it? Similarly, it > > >>>>> was noted that she's been to Hawaii, French Polynesia, & Costa Rica > > >>>>> but not within what context? Was this in the past three months, or > > >>>>> was it "one visit each over the past 30 years"? Why? Because the > > >>>>> intended narrative here is to imply that she was playing games with > > >>>>> the Senate over her reluctance to fly east in September. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In the meantime, where's any balance in the article by noting bad > > >>>>> things about Kavanaugh? Such as how his behavior was strikingly > > >>>>> similar to the patterns of convicted abusers. Such as how Mark Judge's > > >>>>> book is quite damming, and his convenient non-availability to also > > >>>>> testify...he probably will be excused for not being able to find a > > >>>>> flight from Delaware to DC, even though its only a ~3 hour drive > > >>>>> over from Bethany Beach /S > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Probably the best missed question for Brett Kavnaugh would have been > > >>>>> to ask him if he ever met or knew anyone of the name "Bart OβKavanaugh" > > >>>>> that one of his best friends apparently knew very well. His denial > > >>>>> would go a long ways to making it quite clear that Judge was most > > >>>>> definitely talking about Brett under this pseudonym. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -hh > > >>>> > > >>>> BTW I would hate to have you on any jury. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! FYI, a longtime friend who's a lawyer had said to me > > >>> years ago that he's happy that I'm not a lawyer because he'd > > >>> really hate to have to face off against me in court. > > >> > > >> No. > > >> You would be the one to ignore the obvious in favor of some > > >> convoluted theory. > > > > > > Merely your unsubstantiated claim, lacking any evidence. > > > Ironic, considering how many times I've mentioned Occam's Razor > > > to the COLA fanboys. > > > > Yawn. > > Reading your posting history can easily explain your idiocy. > > Thanks for your snarky reply, for you no longer have the excuse > of ignorance from not having read my response. Too bad you failed > to actually disprove anything I wrote. > > > > >>>> You're the type of over > > >>>> analytical person would dismiss a video and 3 photographs of a person > > >>>> shooting a gun at another person... > > >>> > > >>> All hyperbola aside, what you're really saying is that I'll look > > >>> for the facts and not be conned by a bogus story that cherry-picks > > >>> through only some of them. Thanks for the compliment on attention > > >>> to detail ... even though I know that that's not what you intend. > > >> > > >> So you complained about Brietbart, an excuse on your part, here > > >> is Axio with the same report. > > >> Axios is a liberal house organ. > > >> > > >> https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html > > > > > > And now everyone can read both and note how Axios presents both sides, > > > while Brietbart did not. > > > > Nice try. > > Both sites presented the exact same transcript. > > True, but that's deliberately misleading statement: Brietbart > was not balanced at all in its reporting, whie Axios was. > > > The op ed section is irrelevant. > > For definitions of "irrelevant" where independence is not desired. > > > After all, you like the facts and they are the same on both sites. > > No, they're not the same as you just admitted: the Op Eds are different. > > > You lose. > > And you too, because 99% of the US population is losing. > > Specifically, the median personal retirement savings portfolio > for most of America is alarmingly bad: for a breadwinner in > their 50's, they should already have saved 4x-5x their income, > but the median today is barely 2x. The ramifications to this > are that most of "middle class white Christian America" won't > be able to afford to retire at age 65, and they believe that > it is "the brown/non-Christian/gay/etc" peoples' fault, even > though their corporate employers who have cut wages & benefits > aren't run by said "brown/non-Christian/gay/etc" CEOs. > > > > >> And of course since you are interested in minutia, you could have compared > > >> the line items in that report with the testimony, but you didn't. > > >> Instead you jumped on the Breitbart crutch which I knew you would and as > > >> such I used that as my first link to suck you in and that it did. > > > > > > On the contrary, I used the provided cite and focused on what Mitchell said. > > > > > > And it doesn't matter that I didn't address every shortcoming she made when > > > you've not been able to materially dispute *ANY* of them. > > > > You got sucked in and now you are scrambling trying to recover. > > Won't work. > > Despite your brave face, you've still not materially disputed even > one of my short list items. That's not a failure on my part, but > an implicit success. > > > > >> Like I said, you can't see the forest for the trees. > > > > > > Not one of those "trees" have you been able to dispute...and > > > my point has been that taken together, they do convey a "evil > > > forest" around this guy. > > > > Already done. > > Cite. > > > You haven't said much of anything other than hot air in 5 million words. > > Still more than what you've accomplished. > > > >>>>> P.S that's assuming you are not another flood bot because > >>>>> your posts sure seem to indicate you might be a bot and > >>>>> not a human. So IOW the posts don't sound human. > >>>> > >>>> Translation: you don't regularly converse at higher complexity & > >>>> educational reading levels, so my prose makes you uncomfortable. > >>>> > >>>> My suggestion is for you to try to hang out with smarter friends. > >>> > >>> My suggestion to you is to lose the narcissistic, academia act because > >>> you aren't very good at it. You bore the heck out of people. > >> > >> Last week, while giving testimony, Kavanaugh violated at least two rules > >> of the American Bar Association (ABA) co... LOL! Right, Klaus Schadenfreude is wanting to produce a WordPress variable, which anyone can get from torrent sites, that anyone can learn from a video. If he wasn't so dumb he'd understand how stupid he proves himself to be ;) ChromeOS is based on Linux. No debate. The cult-like herd's done a pretty good job with (it appears) the BaumβWelch method to automate posts which are in the form of ones from my posts. Your system will crawl while finding a way to stop Klaus Schadenfreude. And it takes a long time. So, yeah, I buy into my own fiction, fully knowing Klaus Schadenfreude has been fooled, because it makes me reconsider my program, improving it. Clearly, the top undertaking that concerns Klaus Schadenfreude is thinking he is "the winner", and if he can't have that he will do more research to effectively slap truly honest people down, which only serves to push the group off topic. After blocking all the nyms, it's essentially just Klaus Schadenfreude mass producing the vast majority of the disruption. Yes. And both utterly screwballs. Promotion is a wonderful thing and consumer cluelessness is even better. -- "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steven Petruzzellis, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 06:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Depending on how you define the word "is"... |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.2--6.58am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #470088 |
Depending on how you define the word "is", President Clinton stuck a cigar up an intern's pussy, in the Oval Office. If we locked up all the liars, there'd be no one left guard the prison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 08:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <a9t6rd16f25dvn461ia3aamg4s4i4k5sto@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #469939 |
-hh wrote: > This alone is disqualifying for him to serve. Nonsense, -highhorse. Anyone would be angry, going through what he is. Having some disrespectful politician asking you if you've ever drank so much that you "blacked out"? Really? He's a Supreme Court nominee, for Pete's sake. Even if he did do something that would fit the definition of "sexual assault", I have no doubt the his remembrances what exactly happened, and of how bad it was, are quite different from hers. That's just human nature. -- "Ah, in your mind OS X and Windows use Wayland. Amazing." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 09:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <hg17rdltn302vf89gb6g789i3pb0gumca2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #470093 |
chrisv wrote: >Even if he did do something that would fit the definition of "sexual >assault", I have no doubt the his remembrances what exactly happened, >and of how bad it was, are quite different from hers. That's just >human nature. Oh, and he probably can't remember how he got home that night, either. :-D -- "Are you stupid or merely sick?" - "Hadron", nym-shifted to "Steve Townsend"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 13:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <71764436-92f9-41de-a7d5-5cc2d2fbb707@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469875 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > You (Hugh) replied: > > >>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > > >> > > >> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > > > > > > You know the details much better than me, apparently, > > > and I don't care to look into it further. > > > The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > > > > > > I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > > > > The fun is just starting. > > https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > > Brietbart? Please. > > In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > position is automatically suspect. Who cares? Everyone can judge this material for themselves, and they will. Providing the following statement is true, it's one that immediately stood out in my mind (not that others didn't): "Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared" We may never know who's telling the truth, or not, but this doesn't square with my experience. Two ~15 year old girls go to a gathering with four boys, two of whom are allegedly stinking drunk, and one of the girls, Dr. C Ford, disappears completely (for the rest of the evening) from the viewpoint of the other, her life long friend, and there is no followup the next day, or ever? This is *so* far out of my realm of experience with girls of that age (who are friends) as to be unbelievable. Your posts make you seem pretty partisan so I doubt you'd agree with me on this one but I think even you know this just doesn't seem plausible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam O'Nella <poison@donteatit.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 16:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <1hmgw7ibmq95a.bmnxzj2cgh1m$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #469881 |
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>> > You (Hugh) replied: >>> >>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? >>> >> >>> >> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. >>> > >>> > You know the details much better than me, apparently, >>> > and I don't care to look into it further. >>> > The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. >>> > >>> > I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. >>> >>> The fun is just starting. >>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ >> >> >> Brietbart? Please. >> >> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their >> position is automatically suspect. > > Who cares? Everyone can judge this material for themselves, and they will. > Providing the following statement is true, it's one that immediately stood > out in my mind (not that others didn't): > > "Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other > girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she > had suddenly disappeared" > > We may never know who's telling the truth, or not, but this doesn't square with > my experience. Two ~15 year old girls go to a gathering with four boys, two of > whom are allegedly stinking drunk, and one of the girls, Dr. C Ford, disappears > completely (for the rest of the evening) from the viewpoint of the other, her life > long friend, and there is no followup the next day, or ever? This is *so* far out > of my realm of experience with girls of that age (who are friends) as to be > unbelievable. Your posts make you seem pretty partisan so I doubt you'd agree > with me on this one but I think even you know this just doesn't seem plausible. Like I said he misses the forest for the trees. All he has to do is take the points in that report one by one and compare them to Ford's testimony, use a little common sense, which he seems to lack, and decide for himself. He's too busy burying himself deep in the weeds to actually see what is being said and by whom. As for Mitchell, most agree her questioning of Ford bordered on softball questions and the talking heads on the MSM were glowing with pride prior to Kavanaugh testifying because they figured he was going perform like he did on the Fox interview which was tepid at best. They were wrong and their glows were quickly extinguished within 30 seconds of Kavanaugh beginning his testimony. I can hear the collective "oh shit, we are dead" mumblings from the MSM control rooms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <0e85789d-1776-41e1-9299-eda541124e0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469883 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:53:18 PM UTC-6, Sam O'Nella wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > >>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>> > You (Hugh) replied: > >>> >>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > >>> >> > >>> >> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > >>> > > >>> > You know the details much better than me, apparently, > >>> > and I don't care to look into it further. > >>> > The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > >>> > > >>> > I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > >>> > >>> The fun is just starting. > >>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > >> > >> > >> Brietbart? Please. > >> > >> In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > >> position is automatically suspect. > > > > Who cares? Everyone can judge this material for themselves, and they will. > > Providing the following statement is true, it's one that immediately stood > > out in my mind (not that others didn't): > > > > "Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other > > girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she > > had suddenly disappeared" > > > > We may never know who's telling the truth, or not, but this doesn't square with > > my experience. Two ~15 year old girls go to a gathering with four boys, two of > > whom are allegedly stinking drunk, and one of the girls, Dr. C Ford, disappears > > completely (for the rest of the evening) from the viewpoint of the other, her life > > long friend, and there is no followup the next day, or ever? This is *so* far out > > of my realm of experience with girls of that age (who are friends) as to be > > unbelievable. Your posts make you seem pretty partisan so I doubt you'd agree > > with me on this one but I think even you know this just doesn't seem plausible. > > Like I said he misses the forest for the trees. > All he has to do is take the points in that report one by one and compare > them to Ford's testimony, use a little common sense, which he seems to > lack, and decide for himself. > > He's too busy burying himself deep in the weeds to actually see what is > being said and by whom. > > As for Mitchell, most agree her questioning of Ford bordered on softball > questions and the talking heads on the MSM were glowing with pride prior to > Kavanaugh testifying because they figured he was going perform like he did > on the Fox interview which was tepid at best. > > They were wrong and their glows were quickly extinguished within 30 seconds > of Kavanaugh beginning his testimony. > I can hear the collective "oh shit, we are dead" mumblings from the MSM > control rooms. I guess I shoulda watched more of these hearings. Notably, I just typed in: "How to contact the Senate?" and this came right up: <https://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_correspond_senators.htm> Why am I pointing this out? From the Mitchell report: -- She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she βdid not know how to do that.β -- Ford's wikipedia page says she is "a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine" A professional researcher who can't do a simple internet search to find out how to contact the Senate? Don't you have to turn in your lib card if you can't do that ? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <4728f9d2-689e-4114-b4c8-42c4b86e2390@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469881 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:47:25 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: > > > On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > You (Hugh) replied: > > > >>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? > > > >> > > > >> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. > > > > > > > > You know the details much better than me, apparently, > > > > and I don't care to look into it further. > > > > The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. > > > > > > > > I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. > > > > > > The fun is just starting. > > > https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > > > > > Brietbart? Please. > > > > In any event, Mitchell is not an independent third party, so their > > position is automatically suspect. > > Who cares? Everyone can judge this material for themselves, and they will. > Providing the following statement is true, it's one that immediately stood > out in my mind (not that others didn't): > > "Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other > girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she > had suddenly disappeared" > > We may never know who's telling the truth, or not, but this doesn't square with > my experience. Two ~15 year old girls go to a gathering with four boys, two of > whom are allegedly stinking drunk, and one of the girls, Dr. C Ford, disappears > completely (for the rest of the evening) from the viewpoint of the other, her life > long friend, and there is no followup the next day, or ever? This is *so* far out > of my realm of experience with girls of that age (who are friends) as to be > unbelievable. Your posts make you seem pretty partisan so I doubt you'd agree > with me on this one but I think even you know this just doesn't seem plausible. My point of view: Even if somebody was merely learning by copying websites, the notion that gaining understanding as being one of having "the big duck egg" to show for it does not make any sense because you'll by definition have the know-how to show for it and expertise is beyond Prescott Computer Guy. Now Sandman on the other end of the game doesn't matter. All that matters is Prescott Computer Guy gets to deliver the payload. So how to respond? Don't do anything but ignore the moron. Reason isn't part of entertainment and never was planned to be. Only what Prescott Computer Guy wants matters to Prescott Computer Guy. There is nothing you or I can do to change that. It's a trolling addiction and it is what it is. Gee, imagine Prescott Computer Guy trying to pin his crap on me or others, no one has ever seen that before. The one thing Prescott Computer Guy learned well is to attempt to guilt Sandman into false confession and if that does not work, flood the thread or completely change the target. Any heinously butthurt druggie could easily do the same. Xfce is probably my second favorite DE and the only one I advocate to Mac morons. Primary interface is Enlightenment, though. A modern look is all you need after you install it. -- Best CMS Solution of 2017 https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfhq6/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/ Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 23:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <5QxsD.136924$MK2.86140@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #469875 |
On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700, -hh wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> > You (Hugh) replied: >> >>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? >> >> >> >> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. >> > >> > You know the details much better than me, apparently, >> > and I don't care to look into it further. >> > The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. >> > >> > I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. >> >> The fun is just starting. >> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey- ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ > > > Brietbart? Please. A _prosecutor's report_ is not credible to hh because Breitbart linked to it. You can't get any dumber than that. *plonk* -- SilverSlimer FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate Absolute centrist, proud Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 00:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Dr. Ford will leave the country ? |
| Message-ID | <poue60$ntk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #469943 |
On 2018-10-01, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:28:14 -0700, -hh wrote: > >> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-4, Sam O'Nella wrote: >>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:01:16 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>> > You (Hugh) replied: >>> >>> How many jobs does Kavanaugh have ? >>> >> >>> >> Just one, plus some minor income from speaking fees which add 10%. >>> > >>> > You know the details much better than me, apparently, >>> > and I don't care to look into it further. >>> > The latest FBI report should be here in less than a week. >>> > >>> > I wonder if Dr. Ford will leave the country, as she said she would. >>> >>> The fun is just starting. >>> https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey- > ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/ >> >> >> Brietbart? Please. Brietbart is just releasing the Mitchell's report. Funny that CNN didn't realease it. > A _prosecutor's report_ is not credible to hh because Breitbart linked to > it. You can't get any dumber than that. > > *plonk* > -- The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 46 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 46 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web