Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #459675 > unrolled thread

Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-26 20:25 +0000
    Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:20 +0000
      Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:35 -0500
        Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:42 +0000
          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:55 -0500
            Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 14:07 -0700
              Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:35 -0700
                Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 20:28 -0700
              Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 04:09 +0000
                Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 21:30 -0700
                Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-07-28 04:49 +0000
                  Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:17 -0700
                  Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-28 10:15 -0400
                    Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 08:27 -0700
                      Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 09:02 -0700
                  Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 09:00 -0700
                    Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 09:32 -0700
                      Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 12:45 -0700
                        Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 13:34 -0700
                          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-28 20:48 +0000
                            Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 17:24 -0700
                          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 17:16 -0700
                            Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 10:27 -0700
                              Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 10:57 -0700
                              Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 12:32 -0700
                                Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-29 19:44 +0000
                                  Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 13:02 -0700
                                Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-29 15:43 -0400
                                Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 13:04 -0700
                                  Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 13:34 -0700
                                  Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:23 -0700
                                    Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 16:56 -0700
                                    Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 17:08 -0700
                                      Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 17:27 -0700
                                      Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 18:31 -0700
                                        Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:43 -0700
                                          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 19:45 -0700
                  Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 17:56 +0000
                    Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 13:10 -0700
              Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 08:12 -0700
            Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:32 +0000
              Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 15:49 -0700
              Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 08:52 -0700
            Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-30 07:22 -0500
          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 13:11 -0700
            Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 13:28 -0700
          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 13:12 -0700
          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 19:10 -0700
            Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:42 -0700
        Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 20:49 +0000
          Re: Member of the "moral" left draws Baron Trump naked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 13:57 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#460093

On 7/28/18 1:48 PM, SilverSlimer wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 13:34:16 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture
>>>>>>>>>> of a 12-year old naked, please?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a
>>>>>>>>> single example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods,
>>>>>>>>> famines, mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc,
>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making:
>>>>>>>> 'Why all the fuss over everything Trump when all this other stuff
>>>>>>>> is much more important?'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that
>>>>>>>> won't be addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to
>>>>>>>> rampant partisanship.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and
>>>>>>> corrupt president unimportant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the
>>>>> short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long
>>>>> term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the
>>>>> Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal"
>>>>> corruption of the government.
>>>>
>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
>>>
>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance
>>
>> LOL! Only *one* of these two was *going* to win... so go lock it now ;)
> 
> We all should have been given the option of voting for the Prescott
> Parasite!
> 
> I blame the racist whites for not giving it to us!
> 

You two cannot help but prove me right about you. Amazing.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460090

On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
>>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
>>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
>>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
>>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
>>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>>>>>> president unimportant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
>>>
>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
>>
>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise? 

You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point. Wow. You are on a 
roll with your tantrum!
> 
> LOL! Only *one* of these two was *going* to win... so go lock it now ;)
> 


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460179

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
> >>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
> >>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
> >>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
> >>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
> >>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
> >>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> >>>>>> president unimportant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
> >>>
> >>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
> >>
> >> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise? 
> 
> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.

As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460181

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:27:12 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > >> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
> > >>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
> > >>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
> > >>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
> > >>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
> > >>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> > >>>>>> president unimportant.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
> > >>>
> > >>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
> > >>
> > >> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise? 
> > 
> > You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
> 
> As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

One thing that I have never seen spoofed is the Google acct. number so perhaps you can use it as a filtering criteria, too. Here's mine:

posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 

My gmail posts go back to 2009 (that I've seen, crackhead's forgeries using gmail only go back to 2012). Notice the posting acct. number on this response matches this post from 2009:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C9FwjiytRoA/ftc2GG7-37AJ>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX5+9UAAoJELnOYK54exUCqOMP/AiBMj7DVoep+aTZfsYEwg7h
tTwqKInwpmHwUjkZYu2m+kBBuXOZR47OwKWZpUCfnloN4pfL2cgTqmAHeDilVI+L
9sUw15rPd95n/5BDXezZnxzoL6n/8/GzHYmFqUJoKScaOxab4Odf97PDqVfEqiml
G86egbR85z7deWiUNcl8Bq1zLtP17eSGy0sUmPMMDrbw/7lbGQ4ayA/ZqjfzXadx
qmf3+WYUEvquDgXN4b6x9Ig+EzlIME0Ylp3I6COEFJ69Ozu3ZjwWDp1RWI0Eq4XP
vV2I1GFq19AO02hAvJ/qZcWAHgYwhhlFmVWzoqbA1dSnDsCjLr0+xGaAUVcLuwjd
qNdLSd1wrunCfUuotc6kUGyvj2Vy3zA5oWmLpHA4utjOrm5RlSyTaJHESOV08CAS
X0YO+7LjGBxZ87U//Jfo0vB5u+ij91l7Zdsphf+eSNWvJ+DoUtimlvcP5o4Te1D9
rKNmZ1QUMkl/Kjl9x70Q58XH8etkp9d2NHE1vVth5c9vsfAaNkJVHn7TIC79h4NE
Kny8Zp0r+QCsKnqs+NYd9GPyhvGsGmoBzEneAOgs7l509EoCOB3+Lfam3D7OmdvD
97FL/nbKbmDE8n9H8gs1sAua3Yfwz8S7IpHN19GTh9GNCKU8F+orXTSzAPUaKNyp
mMihyxG5fd2CFFGEQV8a
=sC4v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Best CMS Solution of 2017!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/screenflow
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460200

On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
>>>>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
>>>>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
>>>>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
>>>>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
>>>>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>>>>>>>> president unimportant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
>>>>
>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
>>
>> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
> 
> As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.
> 

My point:
-----
They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the 
time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider 
otherwise?
----

You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody 
else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable 
chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have 
been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean 
  once we got to the primary)

You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It 
is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic 
game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460201

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:32:13 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a 12-year old naked, please?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that
>>>>>>>>>>> a single example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods,
>>>>>>>>>>> famines, mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc,
>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making:
>>>>>>>>>> 'Why all the fuss over everything Trump when all this other
>>>>>>>>>> stuff is much more important?'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that
>>>>>>>>>> won't be addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to
>>>>>>>>>> rampant partisanship.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and
>>>>>>>>> corrupt president unimportant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the
>>>>>>> short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The
>>>>>>> long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the
>>>>>>> Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal"
>>>>>>> corruption of the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by
>>>>> the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even
>>>>> consider otherwise?
>>>
>>> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
>> 
>> As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point,
>> fraud.
>> 
>> 
> My point:
is that I have no point.



-- 
Read about snit here:   http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460206

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 12:44:02 PM UTC-7, Kompyler wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:32:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
> > On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of a 12-year old naked, please?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that
> >>>>>>>>>>> a single example of such a thing proves anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods,
> >>>>>>>>>>> famines, mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc,
> >>>>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making:
> >>>>>>>>>> 'Why all the fuss over everything Trump when all this other
> >>>>>>>>>> stuff is much more important?'
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that
> >>>>>>>>>> won't be addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to
> >>>>>>>>>> rampant partisanship.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and
> >>>>>>>>> corrupt president unimportant.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the
> >>>>>>> short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The
> >>>>>>> long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the
> >>>>>>> Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal"
> >>>>>>> corruption of the government.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by
> >>>>> the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even
> >>>>> consider otherwise?
> >>>
> >>> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
> >> 
> >> As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point,
> >> fraud.
> >> 
> >> 
> > My point:
> is that I have no point.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Read about snit here:   http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html



Ending support for command line holdovers is obvious. 

Enjoy the silence in the teeming sewer of my rubbish bin. 

You installed and read multiple reviews and your "diagnostic abilities" lead you to that verdict, so what? You likely think Ubuntu handles the desktop well. Nope. Not compared to the competition. 

For most I'd merely say it is worth looking into. However, given that it's Klaus Schadenfreude I would ignore that step and go straight to 'lie' because that's most of what Klaus Schadenfreude does. IOW, there is no reason to respect presumption of innocence. 

Not only did Jonas Eklundh's question not refer to the "DE", it has not a thing to do with the desktop. Klaus Schadenfreude should stop mixing red and blue pills. 



--
Curious how these posts are made? https://vid.me/TuHWn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460202

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:32:13 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
>>>>>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
>>>>>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
>>>>>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
>>>>>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
>>>>>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>>>>>>>>> president unimportant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
>>>
>>> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
>> 
>> As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.
>> 
> 
> My point:
is that I have no point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460207

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:32:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
> >>>>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
> >>>>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
> >>>>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
> >>>>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
> >>>>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> >>>>>>>> president unimportant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
> >>
> >> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
> > 
> > As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.
> > 
> 
> My point:
> -----
> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance

How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?

"You do realize those were the choices, right?"

> ----
> 
> You disagree because... ??? 

You're high as kite, aren't you?


"Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt 
president unimportant." - Snit

By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought 
that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460210

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:04:44 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:32:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > >> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
> > >>>>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
> > >>>>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
> > >>>>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
> > >>>>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
> > >>>>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> > >>>>>>>> president unimportant.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
> > >>
> > >> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
> > > 
> > > As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.
> > > 
> > 
> > My point:
> > -----
> > They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance
> 
> How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?
> 
> "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
> 
> > ----
> > 
> > You disagree because... ??? 
> 
> You're high as kite, aren't you?
> 
> 
> "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt 
> president unimportant." - Snit
> 
> By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought 
> that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.



Nobody gets it, I barely understand it. 

You saying something is so does not make it true. 

I have known fish who argue better than you do. 

--
Do not click this link!
https://youtu.be/E3m_i-x92D0
https://youtu.be/OffkiSAsYo8
http://www.5z8.info/how-to-build-a-bomb_h2o1be_peepshow
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460236

On 7/29/18 1:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:32:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
>>>>>>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
>>>>>>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
>>>>>>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
>>>>>>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>>>>>>>>>> president unimportant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
>>>>
>>>> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
>>>
>>> As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.
>>>
>>

>> My point:
>> -----
>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
>> ----
>> 
>> You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean  once we got to the primary)
>> 
>> You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.

> How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?

What are you even arguing? Some meta-debate about who said what and why 
as you leave behind your "correction" reply of mine where you pretty 
much agreed with me. More of your meta-debate games.

> "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
> 
>> ----
>>
>> You disagree because... ???
> 
> You're high as kite, aren't you?

You then run to insults to try to hide your games. OK.

> "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> president unimportant." - Snit
> 
> By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought
> that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.

And then you bring up a different debate -- but do so only with one 
sentence out of context and pretend the person you are debating did 
something wrong. Your hope is to change the topic from your initial 
"correction" which was posted just to argue.

You never had a point here other than that you want to argue to argue.



-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460241

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 4:23:24 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 7/29/18 1:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:32:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 7/29/18 10:27 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/28/18 9:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/27/18 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> RonB wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> old naked, please?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
> >>>>>>>>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
> >>>>>>>>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
> >>>>>>>>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> >>>>>>>>>> president unimportant.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Both would be HORRIBLE presidents. I think Trump is worse in the short run, but in the long run that may have been reversed. The long term harm Trump will do is largely to the environment and the Supreme Court... Clinton's would be to normalize the "normal" corruption of the government.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You do realize those were the choices, right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
> >>>>
> >>>> You again cut a sentence in half to make a non-point.
> >>>
> >>> As only one of those two was going to win, you don't have a point, fraud.
> >>>
> >>
> 
> >> My point:
> >> -----
> >> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
> >> ----
> >> 
> >> You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean  once we got to the primary)
> >> 
> >> You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.
> 
> > How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?
> 
> What are you even arguing? Some meta-debate about who said what and why 
> as you leave behind your "correction" reply of mine where you pretty 
> much agreed with me. More of your meta-debate games.
> 
> > "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
> > 
> >> ----
> >>
> >> You disagree because... ???
> > 
> > You're high as kite, aren't you?
> 
> You then run to insults to try to hide your games. OK.
> 
> > "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> > president unimportant." - Snit
> > 
> > By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought
> > that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.
> 
> And then you bring up a different debate -- but do so only with one 
> sentence out of context and pretend the person you are debating did 
> something wrong. Your hope is to change the topic from your initial 
> "correction" which was posted just to argue.
> 
> You never had a point here other than that you want to argue to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
> cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
> somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
> 
> They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
> 
> <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>



Klaus Schadenfreude was once again a sophist by claiming he would not rebut Steve Carroll by loudly broadcasting *plonk* and then bombarding him again via piggybacking. 

Linux offers the least to the least. 

Ending support for command line holdovers is needed for progress. 

Thanks to Klaus Schadenfreude and his 'buddies' you now need a go / no-go list. Take a look, by and large I cold turkey stopped giving him what he earned. If others start attacking him again I will slip in my resolve... as if for not other reason than to get revenge. I am referring to advocates here, not trolls, who never do as we want anyway. He's clearly lying, he got called out on it and he's doing the expected face saving BS taught in https://goo.gl/cc6Noz as he aims to retain what Steve Carroll already has... but it won't work. In fact Klaus Schadenfreude's lies became more vile. So as might be expected I regret backing the trolls with their support for Klaus Schadenfreude. While I am sure his wife approved of it, he has taught me to never try to appease a troll. I thought showing him I know where he lives might help the situation. It did not. 

--
This broke the Internet
http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex
https://youtu.be/iztSc_msHuo
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460245

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> -----
> >> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
> >> ----
> >> 
> >> You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean  once we got to the primary)
> >> 
> >> You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.
> 
> > How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?
> 
> What are you even arguing? 

Said Snit as he looked in the mirror.

> > "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
> > 
> >> ----
> >>
> >> You disagree because... ???
> > 
> > You're high as kite, aren't you?
> 
> You then

... asked an obvious question to which we all know the answer.
 
> > "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> > president unimportant." - Snit
> > 
> > By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought
> > that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.
> 
> And then you bring up a different debate

And that’s why ithe answer to question above is obvious... you can’t even fools what *you* write.

Sober up already. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460248

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:08:37 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> > >> -----
> > >> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
> > >> ----
> > >> 
> > >> You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean  once we got to the primary)
> > >> 
> > >> You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.
> > 
> > > How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?
> > 
> > What are you even arguing? 
> 
> Said Snit as he looked in the mirror.
> 
> > > "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
> > > 
> > >> ----
> > >>
> > >> You disagree because... ???
> > > 
> > > You're high as kite, aren't you?
> > 
> > You then
> 
> ... asked an obvious question to which we all know the answer.
>  
> > > "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> > > president unimportant." - Snit
> > > 
> > > By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought
> > > that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.
> > 
> > And then you bring up a different debate
> 
> And that’s why ithe answer to question above is obvious... you can’t even fools what *you* write.
> 
> Sober up already.



Klaus Schadenfreude's posts are nothing but an inconsequential prattle. You are as dumb as a shoe. It is easy to cherrypick by bragging about hardly any isolated examples differing from what is mainstream. What is more honest from an advocacy vantage point are the ordinary values. 

Despite Klaus Schadenfreude's claim that he has "no enthusiasm in making automated posts" (a lie as illustrated by the fact that he posts over 1000 times a month) he was seen asking programmers how they would install a virus remotely. 

Too much glue for you, gluey. Can you stop seeking for my attention? 

--
Live on Kickstarter
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/screenflow
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460255

On 7/29/18 5:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> -----
>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean  once we got to the primary)
>>>>
>>>> You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.
>>
>>> How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?
>>
>> What are you even arguing?
> 
> Said Snit as he looked in the mirror.
> 
>>> "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> You disagree because... ???
>>>
>>> You're high as kite, aren't you?
>>
>> You then
> 
> ... asked an obvious question to which we all know the answer.
>   
>>> "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>>> president unimportant." - Snit
>>>
>>> By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought
>>> that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.
>>
>> And then you bring up a different debate
> 
> And that’s why ithe answer to question above is obvious... you can’t even fools what *you* write.
> 
> Sober up already.
> 

More of your snipping and other BS. Seriously, at this point I do not 
even think YOU know what point you are trying to make... you are just 
using bot-like responses and insults.

To get back to the topic: I noted the obvious, that once we got to the 
primaries only Clinton and Trump had any real chance (no third party was 
going to win without some very, very bizarre fluke). You jumped in to 
agree, but presented it as disagreement, and then have been arguing to 
argue ever since.

You do that a lot. You never had ANY point to make other than how much 
you NEED to argue to try to feel better about yourself.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460257

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 7/29/18 5:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>> -----
> >>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
> >>>> ----
> >>>>
> >>>> You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean  once we got to the primary)
> >>>>
> >>>> You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.
> >>
> >>> How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?
> >>
> >> What are you even arguing?
> > 
> > Said Snit as he looked in the mirror.
> > 
> >>> "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
> >>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>>
> >>>> You disagree because... ???
> >>>
> >>> You're high as kite, aren't you?
> >>
> >> You then
> > 
> > ... asked an obvious question to which we all know the answer.
> >   
> >>> "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
> >>> president unimportant." - Snit
> >>>
> >>> By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought
> >>> that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.
> >>
> >> And then you bring up a different debate
> > 
> > And that’s why ithe answer to question above is obvious... you can’t even fools what *you* write.
> > 
> > Sober up already.
> > 
> 
> More of your snipping 

Everyone, should they bother to reply to you at all, should snip your BS.
What about it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460265

On 7/29/18 6:43 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/29/18 5:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> They were the only two choices with a reasonable chance, at least by the time the primary came along. Sure. What would make you even consider otherwise?
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You disagree because... ??? Your point seems to be that you agree nobody else really had a chance... they were the only two with a reasonable chance. One of the two almost surely was going to win (it would have been completely bizarre if anyone else had, all of this assuming we mean  once we got to the primary)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do not even seem to disagree with me but feel the need to argue. It is weird. Maybe you are trying to split some hair or play some semantic game. Whatever. You argue to argue... it is bizarre to watch.
>>>>
>>>>> How does *your* point <eyeroll> fundamentally differ from *my* question, parrot?
>>>>
>>>> What are you even arguing?
>>>
>>> Said Snit as he looked in the mirror.
>>>
>>>>> "You do realize those were the choices, right?"
>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You disagree because... ???
>>>>>
>>>>> You're high as kite, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>> You then
>>>
>>> ... asked an obvious question to which we all know the answer.
>>>    
>>>>> "Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>>>>> president unimportant." - Snit
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, no one ever said any such thing, you know, before you brought
>>>>> that *totally* irrelevant idea into the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> And then you bring up a different debate
>>>
>>> And that’s why ithe answer to question above is obvious... you can’t even fools what *you* write.
>>>
>>> Sober up already.
>>>
>>
>> More of your snipping and other BS. Seriously, at this point I do not 
>> even think YOU know what point you are trying to make... you are just 
>> using bot-like responses and insults.
>> 
>> To get back to the topic: I noted the obvious, that once we got to the 
>> primaries only Clinton and Trump had any real chance (no third party was 
>> going to win without some very, very bizarre fluke). You jumped in to 
>> agree, but presented it as disagreement, and then have been arguing to 
>> argue ever since.
>> 
>> You do that a lot. You never had ANY point to make other than how much 
>> you NEED to argue to try to feel better about yourself.
> 
> Everyone, should they bother to reply to you at all, should snip your BS.
> What about it?

Ah, all MY fault you play your games. LOL! You are so very, very 
predictable.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460031

On 2018-07-28, Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year 
>>>>> old naked, please?
>>>> 
>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>> 
>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
>>> 
>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss 
>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
>>> 
>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>> president unimportant. 
>>
> Still Trump is better then Hilary.

This is how far the United States has sunk. 

https://imgur.com/gallery/KBhK2

-- 
The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460060

On 7/28/18 10:56 AM, RonB wrote:
> On 2018-07-28, Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-07-28, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
>>>>>> old naked, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
>>>>> example of such a thing proves anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
>>>>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
>>>> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
>>>>
>>>> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
>>>> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those other issues do not make having an utterly incompetent and corrupt
>>> president unimportant.
>>>
>> Still Trump is better then Hilary.
> 
> This is how far the United States has sunk.
> 
> https://imgur.com/gallery/KBhK2
> 

Clinton is horrible, but that video of her making a funny face as she 
looks at balloons is not a sign of it. Trump mocking handicapped 
reporters, is an example of him being horrible. Even worse is how many 
of his enablers have no issue with it.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#459977

On 7/27/18 2:07 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>
>>>> The right-wingers are worse, actually.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure. Examples of some "right-winger" drawing a picture of a 12-year
>>> old naked, please?
>>
>> No.  Only a right-winger would be stupid-enough to think that a single
>> example of such a thing proves anything.
>>
>> Jeezez.  People are being fscking *killed*.  There's floods, famines,
>> mass migrations, bombings, drug overdoses, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> I think that's sorta the point many conservatives are making: 'Why all the fuss
> over everything Trump when all this other stuff is much more important?'
> 
> I don't consider those partisan issues but they are issues that won't be
> addressed as well as they might be due, in part, to rampant partisanship.
> 

The fact we have an utterly incompetent president who is causing the 
people of the US great harm *is* a pretty big issue.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web