Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 443 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye brexit insanity <aslsfijasslkjfhwe22jads@oasdfasfs.org> - 2016-04-19 22:22 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 17:47 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:51 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-20 15:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 15:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-21 12:13 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 20:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 13:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 00:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 14:22 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-22 07:35 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 23:21 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:03 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:23 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 01:00 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:07 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:56 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:29 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:46 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:55 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 12:32 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 12:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:23 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 10:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 10:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 11:34 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 12:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 16:01 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-24 13:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 16:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:05 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:31 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 20:00 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 23:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 15:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 18:52 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:00 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 19:31 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 21:12 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 22:14 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 15:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 16:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:46 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:35 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 20:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:41 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:09 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:39 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 06:06 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 08:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 16:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:38 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:29 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:18 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:06 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 04:15 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-28 15:32 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:25 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:37 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:58 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-24 15:11 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 13:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 18:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-25 15:20 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 14:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-26 15:48 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:59 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:57 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:15 -0400
Re: Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:02 -0400
Keep talking Chris Ahlstrom Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:19 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 17:46 -0400
Re: Plonk Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:32 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:30 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 04:55 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-27 04:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 05:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 06:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 07:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 08:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 08:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 12:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 14:19 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 16:38 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:36 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:20 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 20:44 -0400
"Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:00 -0400
Ask Chris Ahlstrom about.... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:22 -0400
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:48 -0500
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-25 14:07 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 23:24 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:35 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:33 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:14 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:01 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:10 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:31 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:29 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 09:28 -0400
Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:45 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom Makes an ASS of himself again Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:11 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:30 +0100
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:42 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom... Asshole of the year. Just ask Jayne Ahlstrom, his wife. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 18:29 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:32 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:40 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 05:15 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 20:31 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 07:28 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 13:43 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:56 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:27 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:46 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:49 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-24 18:35 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:26 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:42 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 16:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:59 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:04 -0700
A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:55 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:01 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom's Obsession With People He Claims to Have Filtered. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:18 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:52 -0500
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:11 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:02 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:14 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 22:16 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 20:23 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 19:44 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 23:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:10 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 10:58 +0100
The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 05:40 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:02 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:44 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 00:31 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:25 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 15:09 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:31 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 22:57 +0200
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:58 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:53 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-25 11:11 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:18 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:40 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:52 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:02 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:03 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom a Pansy... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:15 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:55 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:39 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:34 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 02:51 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-23 10:04 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 19:40 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:10 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 12:07 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-20 16:42 +0100
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:16 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:42 +0100
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Drummer"<drummer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 05:17 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 06:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 08:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 -0700
His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-26 20:41 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 14:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 14:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:27 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 15:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:55 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 16:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 16:55 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:36 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:07 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:38 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 06:25 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:33 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:52 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 17:35 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 15:57 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 10:07 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:19 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 20:59 +0200
Thing Digest chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:33 -0500
Re: Thing Digest vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:05 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:42 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:51 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 20:32 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:59 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:40 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:18 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:57 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:37 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 13:07 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 16:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 11:18 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 12:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:15 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:33 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:31 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:51 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 20:34 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:29 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:48 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:01 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:27 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:06 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 01:33 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:50 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 02:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 05:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 23:44 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 07:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 00:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 08:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-28 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 23:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 17:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 06:34 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 20:49 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 13:51 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:04 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:13 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:32 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:45 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:58 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:04 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:08 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:29 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:41 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:43 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 10:12 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 07:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:31 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:21 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:54 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:53 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:11 -0600
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:17 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:21 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:37 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 10:49 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:01 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:26 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 09:48 -0500
A Big anti-Linux K00k Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400
Page 21 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 02:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <fhgkd00.ra3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #352322 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Apparently in your >> mind there is some "missing link" to Nature itself -- forget apes. > > What do you even mean by a "missing link" to Nature itself? > Man evolved from some lower form of life.. which evolved from some lower form of life... which evolved from some lower form of life.. all the way back to the first primitive organisms. Now, unless you have determined that those lower forms of life were also separate from Nature then, if man is today separate from Nature, there must have been a point in the process at which Man exited Nature into a realm of his own. That point is what I will refer to as Man's missing link to Nature. So I ask you, when did that happen? Because the alternative, that it never happened, means that Man is still today not separate from Nature. You could of course have decided that all life has always been separate from Nature, which as I said before is even more bizarre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 19:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D346C39A.712C2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352329 |
On 4/27/16, 7:11 PM, in article fhgkd00.ra3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Apparently in your >>> mind there is some "missing link" to Nature itself -- forget apes. >> >> What do you even mean by a "missing link" to Nature itself? >> > Man evolved from some lower form of life.. which evolved from some > lower form of life... which evolved from some lower form of life.. > all the way back to the first primitive organisms. Correct. > Now, unless you have determined that those lower forms of life were also > separate from Nature then, if man is today separate from Nature, there must > have been a point in the process at which Man exited Nature into a realm of > his own. If you have a black and white world view, sure. > That point is what I will refer to as Man's missing link to Nature. So you mean where the ancient ancestors of man were becoming man suddenly POOF became man in your black and white world view. OK. That explains your confusion. Thnak you. > So I ask you, when did that happen? Because the alternative, that it never > happened, means that Man is still today not separate from Nature. You could > of course have decided that all life has always been separate from Nature, > which as I said before is even more bizarre. See above: as you note, you are confused. Now we even know why and how - you have a black and white world view, at least on this. Thank you for clarifying. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 02:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <fhg889ki3.ar@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #352336 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/16, 7:11 PM, in article fhgkd00.ra3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Apparently in your >>>> mind there is some "missing link" to Nature itself -- forget apes. >>> >>> What do you even mean by a "missing link" to Nature itself? >>> >> Man evolved from some lower form of life.. which evolved from some >> lower form of life... which evolved from some lower form of life.. >> all the way back to the first primitive organisms. > > Correct. > Were these previous life forms part of Nature? >> Now, unless you have determined that those lower forms of life were also >> separate from Nature then, if man is today separate from Nature, there must >> have been a point in the process at which Man exited Nature into a realm of >> his own. > > If you have a black and white world view, sure. > >> That point is what I will refer to as Man's missing link to Nature. > > So you mean where the ancient ancestors of man were becoming man suddenly > POOF became man in your black and white world view. OK. That explains your > confusion. Thnak you. > So you think that POOF, with the emergence of Homo Sapiens, Man exited Nature? How did that come to pass? >> So I ask you, when did that happen? Because the alternative, that it never >> happened, means that Man is still today not separate from Nature. You could >> of course have decided that all life has always been separate from Nature, >> which as I said before is even more bizarre. > > See above: as you note, you are confused. Now we even know why and how - you > have a black and white world view, at least on this. Thank you for > clarifying. > My only confusion is how an atheist can think that Man is supernatural. But you refuse to answer the question of when exactly you think Man exited Nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D346CB77.712D8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352344 |
On 4/27/16, 7:58 PM, in article fhg889ki3.ar@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/27/16, 7:11 PM, in article fhgkd00.ra3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Apparently in your >>>>> mind there is some "missing link" to Nature itself -- forget apes. >>>> >>>> What do you even mean by a "missing link" to Nature itself? >>>> >>> Man evolved from some lower form of life.. which evolved from some >>> lower form of life... which evolved from some lower form of life.. >>> all the way back to the first primitive organisms. >> >> Correct. > > Were these previous life forms part of Nature? Of course. And people are to, in a sense. And in a sense they are not. We have already covered how you like to play word games with this and actively seek to confuse yourself. Not really sure why you want to re-hash it AGAIN! >>> Now, unless you have determined that those lower forms of life were also >>> separate from Nature then, if man is today separate from Nature, there must >>> have been a point in the process at which Man exited Nature into a realm of >>> his own. >> >> If you have a black and white world view, sure. >> >>> That point is what I will refer to as Man's missing link to Nature. >> >> So you mean where the ancient ancestors of man were becoming man suddenly >> POOF became man in your black and white world view. OK. That explains your >> confusion. Thnak you. > > So you think that POOF, with the emergence of Homo Sapiens, Man > exited Nature? Nope. And that is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. > How did that come to pass? How you got so confused is not of interest to me. >>> So I ask you, when did that happen? Because the alternative, that it never >>> happened, means that Man is still today not separate from Nature. You could >>> of course have decided that all life has always been separate from Nature, >>> which as I said before is even more bizarre. >> >> See above: as you note, you are confused. Now we even know why and how - you >> have a black and white world view, at least on this. Thank you for >> clarifying. > > My only confusion is how an atheist can think that Man is supernatural. Well, I do not... but there is nothing saying an atheist could not believe in the supernatural. Again, you are confused about my views and confused about what it even means to be an atheist. > But you refuse to answer the question of when exactly you think Man > exited Nature. I noted your faulty assumptions of a black and white world. This was a HUGE hint... but I will let you figure it out for now. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 03:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <8rihgnmf7265rhfjiud.koi9@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #352346 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/16, 7:58 PM, in article fhg889ki3.ar@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/27/16, 7:11 PM, in article fhgkd00.ra3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Apparently in your >>>>>> mind there is some "missing link" to Nature itself -- forget apes. >>>>> >>>>> What do you even mean by a "missing link" to Nature itself? >>>>> >>>> Man evolved from some lower form of life.. which evolved from some >>>> lower form of life... which evolved from some lower form of life.. >>>> all the way back to the first primitive organisms. >>> >>> Correct. >> >> Were these previous life forms part of Nature? > > Of course. And people are to, in a sense. And in a sense they are not. So you are confused. > We > have already covered how you like to play word games with this and actively > seek to confuse yourself. Not really sure why you want to re-hash it AGAIN! > >>>> Now, unless you have determined that those lower forms of life were also >>>> separate from Nature then, if man is today separate from Nature, there must >>>> have been a point in the process at which Man exited Nature into a realm of >>>> his own. >>> >>> If you have a black and white world view, sure. >>> >>>> That point is what I will refer to as Man's missing link to Nature. >>> >>> So you mean where the ancient ancestors of man were becoming man suddenly >>> POOF became man in your black and white world view. OK. That explains your >>> confusion. Thnak you. >> >> So you think that POOF, with the emergence of Homo Sapiens, Man >> exited Nature? > > Nope. And that is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. > >> How did that come to pass? > > How you got so confused is not of interest to me. > No explanation for your insane beliefs. Why am I not surprised. >>>> So I ask you, when did that happen? Because the alternative, that it never >>>> happened, means that Man is still today not separate from Nature. You could >>>> of course have decided that all life has always been separate from Nature, >>>> which as I said before is even more bizarre. >>> >>> See above: as you note, you are confused. Now we even know why and how - you >>> have a black and white world view, at least on this. Thank you for >>> clarifying. >> >> My only confusion is how an atheist can think that Man is supernatural. > > Well, I do not... but there is nothing saying an atheist could not believe > in the supernatural. Again, you are confused about my views and confused > about what it even means to be an atheist. > Eh? If something is "supernatural", i.e. outside of nature, where the hell *is* it? >> But you refuse to answer the question of when exactly you think Man >> exited Nature. > > I noted your faulty assumptions of a black and white world. This was a HUGE > hint... but I will let you figure it out for now. :) > Your wishy-washy, self-contradictory belief system is beyond "figuring out."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D346D326.712F2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352353 |
On 4/27/16, 8:19 PM, in article 8rihgnmf7265rhfjiud.koi9@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/27/16, 7:58 PM, in article fhg889ki3.ar@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/27/16, 7:11 PM, in article fhgkd00.ra3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently in your >>>>>>> mind there is some "missing link" to Nature itself -- forget apes. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you even mean by a "missing link" to Nature itself? >>>>>> >>>>> Man evolved from some lower form of life.. which evolved from some >>>>> lower form of life... which evolved from some lower form of life.. >>>>> all the way back to the first primitive organisms. >>>> >>>> Correct. >>> >>> Were these previous life forms part of Nature? >> >> Of course. And people are to, in a sense. And in a sense they are not. > > > So you are confused. > > >> We >> have already covered how you like to play word games with this and actively >> seek to confuse yourself. Not really sure why you want to re-hash it AGAIN! >> >>>>> Now, unless you have determined that those lower forms of life were also >>>>> separate from Nature then, if man is today separate from Nature, there >>>>> must >>>>> have been a point in the process at which Man exited Nature into a realm >>>>> of >>>>> his own. >>>> >>>> If you have a black and white world view, sure. >>>> >>>>> That point is what I will refer to as Man's missing link to Nature. >>>> >>>> So you mean where the ancient ancestors of man were becoming man suddenly >>>> POOF became man in your black and white world view. OK. That explains your >>>> confusion. Thnak you. >>> >>> So you think that POOF, with the emergence of Homo Sapiens, Man >>> exited Nature? >> >> Nope. And that is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. >> >>> How did that come to pass? >> >> How you got so confused is not of interest to me. >> > > No explanation for your insane beliefs. Why am I not surprised. > > >>>>> So I ask you, when did that happen? Because the alternative, that it >>>>> never >>>>> happened, means that Man is still today not separate from Nature. You >>>>> could >>>>> of course have decided that all life has always been separate from Nature, >>>>> which as I said before is even more bizarre. >>>> >>>> See above: as you note, you are confused. Now we even know why and how - >>>> you >>>> have a black and white world view, at least on this. Thank you for >>>> clarifying. >>> >>> My only confusion is how an atheist can think that Man is supernatural. >> >> Well, I do not... but there is nothing saying an atheist could not believe >> in the supernatural. Again, you are confused about my views and confused >> about what it even means to be an atheist. >> > > Eh? If something is "supernatural", i.e. outside of nature, where the > hell *is* it? > > >>> But you refuse to answer the question of when exactly you think Man >>> exited Nature. >> >> I noted your faulty assumptions of a black and white world. This was a HUGE >> hint... but I will let you figure it out for now. :) >> > > Your wishy-washy, self-contradictory belief system is beyond "figuring out." > > While there might be something contradictory in my views you have not pointed any such areas out. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 10:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <a2ddce65-0ee0-4285-b149-a32c90acb4aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #352357 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:03 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/27/16, 8:19 PM, in article 8rihgnmf7265rhfjiud.koi9@rooftop.invalid, > "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/27/16, 7:58 PM, in article fhg889ki3.ar@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> On 4/27/16, 7:11 PM, in article fhgkd00.ra3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Apparently in your > >>>>>>> mind there is some "missing link" to Nature itself -- forget apes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do you even mean by a "missing link" to Nature itself? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Man evolved from some lower form of life.. which evolved from some > >>>>> lower form of life... which evolved from some lower form of life.. > >>>>> all the way back to the first primitive organisms. > >>>> > >>>> Correct. > >>> > >>> Were these previous life forms part of Nature? > >> > >> Of course. And people are to, in a sense. And in a sense they are not. > > > > > > So you are confused. > > > > > >> We > >> have already covered how you like to play word games with this and actively > >> seek to confuse yourself. Not really sure why you want to re-hash it AGAIN! > >> > >>>>> Now, unless you have determined that those lower forms of life were also > >>>>> separate from Nature then, if man is today separate from Nature, there > >>>>> must > >>>>> have been a point in the process at which Man exited Nature into a realm > >>>>> of > >>>>> his own. > >>>> > >>>> If you have a black and white world view, sure. > >>>> > >>>>> That point is what I will refer to as Man's missing link to Nature. > >>>> > >>>> So you mean where the ancient ancestors of man were becoming man suddenly > >>>> POOF became man in your black and white world view. OK. That explains your > >>>> confusion. Thnak you. > >>> > >>> So you think that POOF, with the emergence of Homo Sapiens, Man > >>> exited Nature? > >> > >> Nope. And that is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. > >> > >>> How did that come to pass? > >> > >> How you got so confused is not of interest to me. > >> > > > > No explanation for your insane beliefs. Why am I not surprised. > > > > > >>>>> So I ask you, when did that happen? Because the alternative, that it > >>>>> never > >>>>> happened, means that Man is still today not separate from Nature. You > >>>>> could > >>>>> of course have decided that all life has always been separate from Nature, > >>>>> which as I said before is even more bizarre. > >>>> > >>>> See above: as you note, you are confused. Now we even know why and how - > >>>> you > >>>> have a black and white world view, at least on this. Thank you for > >>>> clarifying. > >>> > >>> My only confusion is how an atheist can think that Man is supernatural. > >> > >> Well, I do not... but there is nothing saying an atheist could not believe > >> in the supernatural. Again, you are confused about my views and confused > >> about what it even means to be an atheist. > >> > > > > Eh? If something is "supernatural", i.e. outside of nature, where the > > hell *is* it? > > > > > >>> But you refuse to answer the question of when exactly you think Man > >>> exited Nature. > >> > >> I noted your faulty assumptions of a black and white world. This was a HUGE > >> hint... but I will let you figure it out for now. :) > >> > > > > Your wishy-washy, self-contradictory belief system is beyond "figuring out." > > > > > While there might be something contradictory in my views you have not > pointed any such areas out. LOL! In these kinds of discussions you usually argue both sides of the fence anyway. Here's an example of you doing it with a topic that you just brought up again (that you dishonestly keep claiming you don't want to discuss): "There was never a war - technically. That I agree with you on" - Snit Of course, you also wrote: "He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him a war criminal". - Snit Obvious question: How can something that is, "technically", *not* a war... be "An illegal war"? And a week later... "Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal". - Snit Another week goes by... "Bush is a war criminal". - Snit And... "Perhaps I have spoken too strongly: Bush is not a war criminal." - Snit Yes, you were very confused about this topic, especially as based on context: "Ok... Morally he is a war criminal. Legally, it has not been decided". - Snit "I do not lump my argument (an argument that references the law (and is even based on the law) with an argument based on a legal system". - Snit Yes, we know, Snit, in *your* version of a "legal" argument there is no presumption of innocence. LOL! Remember when you posted that libtard lawyer's article you parroted from on this? Oh the fun we had ;) More fun... Snit: "Actually, I do not need to prove myself right". Me: "Actually, in a legal argument that purports guilt, you DO. This is the biggest problem you continually deny". Snit: "Why is that? Remember that a legal argument is one that is based on the law OR a legal system. In this case, my argument is based on a law, NOT a legal system. So, without reference to a legal system that has nothing to do with my argument, explain this to me". Hint: If you reference a federal or international "law" that has been constructed within the confines of a given "legal system" (feel free to name one that hasn't been) you are, in fact, referencing *that* system. Only a complete idiot would argue otherwise, which is why we find only *you* arguing it ;) "I seriously wanted to be carted away. I need help. I now see that." - Snit I know I'm convinced ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D346B9A0.712A2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352316 |
On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> Or do you consider all life to be separate from Nature? That would be >>> even more bizarre. Do all atheists share these strange beliefs? >> >> And you want to push your religion onto others. Not interested. >> > > You have said before that you are an Atheist. Are you no longer > an atheist? Do you no longer believe in evolution? What are you even babbling about here? I have given you no reason to think I am not an atheist. You, on the other hand, have admitted to being confused. And you clearly are. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 02:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <fhg.mkd0@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #352323 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Or do you consider all life to be separate from Nature? That would be >>>> even more bizarre. Do all atheists share these strange beliefs? >>> >>> And you want to push your religion onto others. Not interested. >>> >> >> You have said before that you are an Atheist. Are you no longer >> an atheist? Do you no longer believe in evolution? > > What are you even babbling about here? I have given you no reason to think I > am not an atheist. > Sure you have. You think that man is supernatural.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 19:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D346C3C0.712C3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352327 |
On 4/27/16, 7:04 PM, in article fhg.mkd0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> Or do you consider all life to be separate from Nature? That would be >>>>> even more bizarre. Do all atheists share these strange beliefs? >>>> >>>> And you want to push your religion onto others. Not interested. >>>> >>> >>> You have said before that you are an Atheist. Are you no longer >>> an atheist? Do you no longer believe in evolution? >> >> What are you even babbling about here? I have given you no reason to think I >> am not an atheist. >> > > Sure you have. You think that man is supernatural. > Incorrect. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 03:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <ghfjnvjdi93a30.a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #352337 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/16, 7:04 PM, in article fhg.mkd0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Or do you consider all life to be separate from Nature? That would be
>>>>>> even more bizarre. Do all atheists share these strange beliefs?
>>>>>
>>>>> And you want to push your religion onto others. Not interested.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have said before that you are an Atheist. Are you no longer
>>>> an atheist? Do you no longer believe in evolution?
>>>
>>> What are you even babbling about here? I have given you no reason to think I
>>> am not an atheist.
>>>
>>
>> Sure you have. You think that man is supernatural.
>>
> Incorrect.
>
If man is outside of Nature, then he is supernatural.
<quote>
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
supernatural
adj 1: not existing in nature
</quote>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D346CCD4.712E0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352345 |
On 4/27/16, 8:00 PM, in article ghfjnvjdi93a30.a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/27/16, 7:04 PM, in article fhg.mkd0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Or do you consider all life to be separate from Nature? That would be >>>>>>> even more bizarre. Do all atheists share these strange beliefs? >>>>>> >>>>>> And you want to push your religion onto others. Not interested. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You have said before that you are an Atheist. Are you no longer >>>>> an atheist? Do you no longer believe in evolution? >>>> >>>> What are you even babbling about here? I have given you no reason to think >>>> I >>>> am not an atheist. >>>> >>> >>> Sure you have. You think that man is supernatural. >>> >> Incorrect. >> > > If man is outside of Nature, then he is supernatural. And man is not outside of nature *in that sense*. Remember, you are completely confused on this and will likely never understand. Really just comes down to you looking at two very different definitions of "natural" and not being able to understand they are not the same. You also have a black and white world view, at least on evolutionary change. So be it. > <quote> > From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]: > > supernatural > adj 1: not existing in nature > > </quote> -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 03:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <ghjdvnmck93.vk9@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #352350 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/16, 8:00 PM, in article ghfjnvjdi93a30.a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/27/16, 7:04 PM, in article fhg.mkd0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Or do you consider all life to be separate from Nature? That would be >>>>>>>> even more bizarre. Do all atheists share these strange beliefs? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you want to push your religion onto others. Not interested. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have said before that you are an Atheist. Are you no longer >>>>>> an atheist? Do you no longer believe in evolution? >>>>> >>>>> What are you even babbling about here? I have given you no reason to think >>>>> I >>>>> am not an atheist. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure you have. You think that man is supernatural. >>>> >>> Incorrect. >>> >> >> If man is outside of Nature, then he is supernatural. > > And man is not outside of nature *in that sense*. In what sense? In the sense that tree-huggers mean? I would say that Man is definitely part of that Nature. > Remember, you are > completely confused on this and will likely never understand. Being puzzled by the words and actions of a tard is not "confusion" -- it's amusement. > Really just > comes down to you looking at two very different definitions of "natural" and > not being able to understand they are not the same. You also have a black > and white world view, at least on evolutionary change. So be it. > I look at it like this: anything that Man does is "natural." Nuclear power plants are natural. The wren's nest in my old mailbox is "natural." That dude in the movie "Fargo" who went through the wood chipper is "natural" -- now more than ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D346D45F.712F7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352355 |
On 4/27/16, 8:29 PM, in article ghjdvnmck93.vk9@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> And man is not outside of nature *in that sense*. > > In what sense? In the sense that tree-huggers mean? > I would say that Man is definitely part of that Nature. > > >> Remember, you are >> completely confused on this and will likely never understand. > > Being puzzled by the words and actions of a tard is not "confusion" -- > it's amusement. > > >> Really just >> comes down to you looking at two very different definitions of "natural" and >> not being able to understand they are not the same. You also have a black >> and white world view, at least on evolutionary change. So be it. >> > > I look at it like this: anything that Man does is "natural." Nuclear > power plants are natural. The wren's nest in my old mailbox is "natural." > That dude in the movie "Fargo" who went through the wood chipper is > "natural" -- now more than ever. Without writing a long essay, the brief answer to help you pull yourself out of your confusion is this: * In the sense of natural / supernatural, I believe in only the former. * In the sense of natural / human responsibility, I believe they both exist. It may be in man's nature to kill, but people are still responsible for such an act in a way other animals are not, and certainly in ways a rock slide is not. An act of nature does not imply any responsibility from someone... it is just a part of nature. Human actions, though, are things people take responsibility for. Anything we take responsibility for (such as a bridge, a car, the impacts on the climate we are having, etc.) is not natural in that sense - it is something man-caused and for which we should see differently. Even in that there are places things are not black and white. There is no reasonable doubt man is having an impact on climate, but that does not mean we know to what extent any given weather event is tied to natural / man-made impacts. Not really that hard of a concept. I can understand where you might disagree, but no idea why you find it so confusing. I suspect you are doing so on purpose. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 09:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <c4a6314f-37fa-4aa5-a176-3304b7167589@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #352355 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:29:36 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 4/27/16, 8:00 PM, in article ghfjnvjdi93a30.a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 4/27/16, 7:04 PM, in article fhg.mkd0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 4/27/16, 6:32 PM, in article fhjvmcnjf93.kjgi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Or do you consider all life to be separate from Nature? That would be > >>>>>>>> even more bizarre. Do all atheists share these strange beliefs? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And you want to push your religion onto others. Not interested. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have said before that you are an Atheist. Are you no longer > >>>>>> an atheist? Do you no longer believe in evolution? > >>>>> > >>>>> What are you even babbling about here? I have given you no reason to think > >>>>> I > >>>>> am not an atheist. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sure you have. You think that man is supernatural. > >>>> > >>> Incorrect. > >>> > >> > >> If man is outside of Nature, then he is supernatural. > > > > And man is not outside of nature *in that sense*. > > In what sense? In the sense that tree-huggers mean? > I would say that Man is definitely part of that Nature. > > > > Remember, you are > > completely confused on this and will likely never understand. > > Being puzzled by the words and actions of a tard is not "confusion" -- > it's amusement. > > > > Really just > > comes down to you looking at two very different definitions of "natural" and > > not being able to understand they are not the same. You also have a black > > and white world view, at least on evolutionary change. So be it. > > > > I look at it like this: anything that Man does is "natural." Including homosexual activity? Careful, one of your old arguments may come back to haunt you ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <e76cd4d8-812e-46af-b18c-4c4c49f2c124@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #352304 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/27/16, 4:12 PM, in article fhjgv03.adfji9@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>> Snit is an Atheist who nevertheless believes that Man is not part of > >>>>> Nature. What Man is supposed to be a part of in his diseased mind > >>>>> anybody's guess. > >>>> > >>>> The definition of natural is "not made or caused by humankind." > >>> > >>> Nope. That is just *one* definition > >> > >> Right... but it is the relevant one when I speak of man not being a part of > >> nature. Owl likes to play word games and use other definitions. > > > > "When I speak of man not being a part of nature." What the hell is > > that supposed to mean, you lunatic? > > What part confuses you? > > > Was man not created of the same supernova debris as everything else > > you see in the world around you? > > Sure. But you love to play word games and confuse yourself... you must be > taking lessons from Carroll. Ask him what it means for someone to be > "actually guilty" of a crime... Why don't you give your answer? Or do you not yet realize that crime has to do with law? I suggest you finally look up the legal definition of the word "crime" and the legal definition of the word "guilty". Here's how it works: Unless you're sitting on the jury in question, your opinion carries no weight; only the opinion of a juror carries the weight required to "find" a person "guilty" of committing a "crime". Of course, you also said the person wasn't a war criminal... so it's obvious who was confused here ;) "Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit So which is it? While you're making up your confused mind, let's go over your lesson again... Fact: In a legal context to *be* guilty of committing a crime means that you will be responsible for having committed that crime; this is true even if you did not commit *any* crime. Fact: There is no plea of "actually" guilty in legal context. Maybe you should *finally* look up the word context, eh? > he went on for YEARS contradicting himself Incorrect... but you were regularly confusing yourself as you carelessly sloshed back and forth between moral and legal contexts as I have just proven above. Of course you'll want more "proof" of how confused you were. Who wrote this: "Legal guilt always equals moral guilt." Even if you didn't commit the crime? How does that work?! Yes, Snit, you were *that* confused about this topic... and you apparently still are. > and crying over it because I noted how Bush was "actually guilty" of a crime > he will never be convicted of. Carroll barely even focused on the crime > itself No need as the crime itself is completely irrelevant, it's the concept that is important, you know, the concept that you could not differentiate from a non-legal context. What? You somehow believe that the severity of the alleged crime means that the logic of this simple argument falls away? Sorry, Snit... "actual" reality doesn't work that way ;) > but just got himself twisted up in what it even means to be guilty. Said the guy who couldn't differentiate *himself* from his argument on this very day... AGAIN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 13:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <cqydnbkLN8MbubzKnZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #352241 |
On 2016-04-27, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: // snip > You left out the part where he goes back to the desktop, claiming > something like, "Remember desktops? This is a song about desktops." > > Only, it isn't. Never was -- its him and his ilk that constantly try to > frame Linux in terms of its desktop capabilities. > > And personally, I prefer a Linux desktop (xfce) over Windows 7, Windows > 10, or OS X. It's _fast_, and it gets the job done, allowing me to > concentrate on the real work that I do. And, it stays out of my way. > > No wonder Microsoft is trying to incorporate Ubuntu userland into Windows > 10. They know what modern developers are using. They know that they've > been losing the race. I think that's it exactly. Apple is also opening their tools and supporting Linux. So I think it is safe to say that's where a lot of developers are. Will this sway them to using Windows? I doubt it. But if they are in some situation where they must, at least they have more common tools that they are used to. I like Bash, and I like Vim. Windows not having BASH is actually one of the complaints I have with windows. So that's something. > OS X has an advantage in that regard, but its userland tools are outdated > and clunky...quite long in the tooth, actually. (I think most people > using Macs for development would tend to use macports to keep themselves > up-to-date, but that may be anecdotal experience.) I agree here too. One of the reasons I would choose a Mac over a PC is that the Mac has a native bash shell. But yeah it is dated. It's over 7 years old. If Apple seriously just got off HFS and used ZFS and provided modern tools, keeping them up to date I'd me more likely to think more of them. This to me is a major issue. But a far bigger issue I have is the lack of hardware and the OS itself is just no good. Would I want to run a NAS, Firewall or other services on the Mac. Not really. I don't see the benefit at all. Say I build a pfSense Firewall with 4x 1GiB ports and it flakes out and dies. I can replace the motherboard easily. I can fix it myself, build it quiet myself, etc. It can be small and lower powered or large and fast. It can be rack mounted or not. It's totally up to me. I pick the type of ethernet I want. I know Intel plays well with pfSense so I'd go that route. I can add wireless to it and use it as my WiFi access point. I can add pretty much whatever functions I want. With Apple, you'd be waiting for them to make the product for you, and charging you a 40% GM on it. And I am sure they'd take care of you if something went wrong, but you're at their mercy. If I build I am at no one's mercy. So the argument is always to sweep under the carpet all the things Linux, FreeBSD or open source does well and then find some app we don't have like Adobe Photoshop and then harp on that all day, every day for ever. As if that one little niche is the whole world. It's bullshit. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 10:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <nft5iq$h4h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352248 |
On 4/27/2016 4:43 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > So the argument is always to sweep under the carpet all the things > Linux, FreeBSD or open source does well and then find some app we don't > have like Adobe Photoshop and then harp on that all day, every day for > ever. As if that one little niche is the whole world. It's bullshit. It's a big issue for some people. Not sure how many would move to Linux if Photoshop were available, but it could be a few (there are 7 million paid CC subscribers) http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html But if their alternative is Gimp I'd say it's a lost cause. And until Linux has a decent size user base, Adobe won't port Photoshop to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 07:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <D3476B31.713B4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352440 |
On 4/28/16, 7:12 AM, in article nft5iq$h4h$1@dont-email.me, "DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 4/27/2016 4:43 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> So the argument is always to sweep under the carpet all the things >> Linux, FreeBSD or open source does well and then find some app we don't >> have like Adobe Photoshop and then harp on that all day, every day for >> ever. As if that one little niche is the whole world. It's bullshit. > > It's a big issue for some people. Not sure how many would move to Linux > if Photoshop were available, but it could be a few (there are 7 million > paid CC subscribers) > > http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html > > But if their alternative is Gimp I'd say it's a lost cause. > > And until Linux has a decent size user base, Adobe won't port Photoshop > to it. All true... and keep in mind his argument is a straw man. Nobody was harping on Photoshop. What has been noted is there are MANY different programs from MANY different developers working to serve MANY desktop computing areas where desktop Linux fails to keep up with the competition in terms of offering tools to promote productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction. And this has been backed with examples of such features of the OS / system and with the showing of specific tasks. I also have welcomed Linux "advocates" to offer up their own examples and show them. The spend a LOT more time making excuses and moving goal posts than doing this. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 10:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked |
| Message-ID | <4a042f8d-5a5e-4e2a-9014-a00a711dc7c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #352440 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:12:59 AM UTC-6, DFS wrote: > On 4/27/2016 4:43 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > > > > So the argument is always to sweep under the carpet all the things > > Linux, FreeBSD or open source does well and then find some app we don't > > have like Adobe Photoshop and then harp on that all day, every day for > > ever. As if that one little niche is the whole world. It's bullshit. > > > It's a big issue for some people. Not sure how many would move to Linux > if Photoshop were available, but it could be a few (there are 7 million > paid CC subscribers) And probably a big chunk of them use PS. Your article also states: "Prior to the launch of CC, Adobe had an installed base of 12.8 million customers using different versions of the older CS tools, which had been built up over a decade... " A lot of people didn't like the subscription model but it's possible that Photoshop, sorta losing it's place as pretty much the main darling of the web community, may be having some impact on the adoption rate. One Mac alternative that is starting to build up steam is: <http://www.sketchapp.com> > http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html > > > But if their alternative is Gimp I'd say it's a lost cause. > > And until Linux has a decent size user base, Adobe won't port Photoshop > to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web