Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #328277 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-25 13:13 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-10-27 08:48 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 13:13 -0400
Mind games. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-25 11:41 -0700
Re: Mind games. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-29 09:43 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 19:23 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 16:24 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 20:33 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 16:54 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:00 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:19 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:24 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:33 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:40 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:54 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 18:05 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 22:14 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 18:24 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 22:34 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 18:44 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 23:08 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 19:22 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 23:34 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 19:39 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 00:12 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:21 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 00:50 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:54 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 01:23 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 21:28 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 01:37 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 18:50 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 02:03 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 22:08 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:30 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 23:34 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:48 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 23:52 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 04:03 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 22:06 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:37 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 23:42 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:50 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-25 20:54 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:37 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:43 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 00:56 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 18:41 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 01:58 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 19:18 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:18 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 21:01 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 04:19 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 22:26 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 05:35 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:05 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:29 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 14:38 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:45 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 15:14 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 22:26 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 15:37 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 23:03 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 16:29 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-26 19:31 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 16:58 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-27 00:43 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 17:49 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-27 01:23 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 18:31 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-27 01:41 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 18:53 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 17:21 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:05 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:23 +0000
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 14:40 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-26 09:49 -0400
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 08:39 -0700
Is there a more pathetic Bullying doofus anywhere than our own DooFuS? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 14:51 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 07:12 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 02:31 -0700
Re: This is my 40,000th cola post. That's worrisome. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-27 08:48 -0400
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sesf.kf12i@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328389 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:08:06 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:34:15 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>> >>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:14:27 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:54:14 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:33:20 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:19:28 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2015 4:33 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2015 3:23 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Starting June 3, 2004. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minus a year or so off, so ~4000 posts per year, or 11 per day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 10 years straight on average. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scary. Sicko. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who knew a crappy, hobbyist operating system and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentally-challenged adherents could inspire such an unhealthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obsession... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "it's mentally-challenged adherents" I do love a good self-nuke. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ha! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's about the only one you can find in 40K posts... Im >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing alright... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you can thank the gods of Affirmative Action that "alright" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has forced its way into common usage, allowing you to sidestep yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another self-nuke. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You missed [an intentional] one I made, thereby increasing your >>>>>>>>>>>>> self-nuke count by one. Aight? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And there's nothing affirmative action about the 150-year-old Oxford >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dictionary: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Similar ???merged??? words such as altogether and already have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted in standard English for a very long time, so there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> logical reason to object to the one-word form alright." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/all-right-or-alright >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You should lobby them for "it's" as a possessive form. Threaten to get >>>>>>>>>>>> Al Sharpton on the case if they don't see things your way. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Brother Al is the man. >>>>>>>>>>> Like him or not, Al Sharpton gets the job done. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Al Sharpton is a racist opportunist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And I'll just wager that some of your best friends are people of color. >>>>>>>>> Brother Al gets the job done. >>>>>>>>> Speaking of racists, how is George Zimmerman these days? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brother Al, racist homophobe: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most people are racists. >>>>>>> They just won't admit it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you a racist? >>>>> >>>>> I try not to be but it's human nature to see the races differently >>>>> depending on the context. Racism doesn't have to be negative. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is that a "yes" or a "no"? >>> >>> It's a yes. >>> Unfortunately. >>> The same answer for most people, including you. >>> >> >> Yes. Only without the cowardly PC qualifier in my case. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Most men of the cloth are opposed to homosexuality based upon the Bible, >>>>>>> Koran or other book of faith. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you opposed to homosexuality? >>>>> No I am not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why not? You think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>> >>> What does that have to do with being opposed to homosexuality, which was >>> your question? >>> >> >> Two simple questions. You either have no answers, or you choose not to >> answer. Ignorance or fear: neither state is a happy one. > > My being opposed to homosexuality Make up your mind. You just said earlier that you are *not* opposed to homosexuality. > has nothing to do with two guys fucking > each other in the ass being NORMAL. > > Key word NORMAL. > > Is English your native language? I should ask you, since you are doing everything in your power to avoid answering two simple question written in the English language. You stated you are not opposed to homosexuality. You were then asked: 1. Why not? 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? Something will probably again keep you from answering. Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <15k5e5xdsk4dg.11ygd3wgoriti$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328396 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:34:23 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:08:06 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:34:15 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:14:27 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:54:14 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:33:20 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:19:28 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2015 4:33 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2015 3:23 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Starting June 3, 2004. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minus a year or so off, so ~4000 posts per year, or 11 per day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 10 years straight on average. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scary. Sicko. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who knew a crappy, hobbyist operating system and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentally-challenged adherents could inspire such an unhealthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obsession... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "it's mentally-challenged adherents" I do love a good self-nuke. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ha! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's about the only one you can find in 40K posts... Im >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing alright... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you can thank the gods of Affirmative Action that "alright" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has forced its way into common usage, allowing you to sidestep yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another self-nuke. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You missed [an intentional] one I made, thereby increasing your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-nuke count by one. Aight? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And there's nothing affirmative action about the 150-year-old Oxford >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dictionary: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Similar ???merged??? words such as altogether and already have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted in standard English for a very long time, so there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical reason to object to the one-word form alright." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/all-right-or-alright >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You should lobby them for "it's" as a possessive form. Threaten to get >>>>>>>>>>>>> Al Sharpton on the case if they don't see things your way. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Brother Al is the man. >>>>>>>>>>>> Like him or not, Al Sharpton gets the job done. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Al Sharpton is a racist opportunist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And I'll just wager that some of your best friends are people of color. >>>>>>>>>> Brother Al gets the job done. >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of racists, how is George Zimmerman these days? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Brother Al, racist homophobe: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most people are racists. >>>>>>>> They just won't admit it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you a racist? >>>>>> >>>>>> I try not to be but it's human nature to see the races differently >>>>>> depending on the context. Racism doesn't have to be negative. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is that a "yes" or a "no"? >>>> >>>> It's a yes. >>>> Unfortunately. >>>> The same answer for most people, including you. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. Only without the cowardly PC qualifier in my case. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most men of the cloth are opposed to homosexuality based upon the Bible, >>>>>>>> Koran or other book of faith. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you opposed to homosexuality? >>>>>> No I am not. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why not? You think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>> >>>> What does that have to do with being opposed to homosexuality, which was >>>> your question? >>>> >>> >>> Two simple questions. You either have no answers, or you choose not to >>> answer. Ignorance or fear: neither state is a happy one. >> >> My being opposed to homosexuality > > Make up your mind. You just said earlier that you are *not* opposed to > homosexuality. I'm using your phrase. IOW, "am I opposed to homosexuality". I clearly said I am not. Already answered. However your question is about a direct sexual act regarding men being NORMAL. One has nothing to do with the other. >> has nothing to do with two guys fucking >> each other in the ass being NORMAL. >> >> Key word NORMAL. >> >> Is English your native language? > > I should ask you, since you are doing everything in your power to avoid > answering two simple question written in the English language. > You stated you are not opposed to homosexuality. I'm not. Already answered. > You were then asked: > > 1. Why not? > 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? > > Something will probably again keep you from answering. > Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. Again, key points: 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. Answer: I am not opposed. 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. One has nothing to do with the other. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 00:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsejut83.3a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328398 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:34:23 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: ... >>> Is English your native language? >> >> I should ask you, since you are doing everything in your power to avoid >> answering two simple question written in the English language. > >> You stated you are not opposed to homosexuality. > > I'm not. > Already answered. > Then you referenced your "being opposed to homosexuality": <quote> "My being opposed to homosexuality..." </quote> >> You were then asked: >> >> 1. Why not? >> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >> >> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. > > Again, key points: > > 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. > Answer: I am not opposed. > > 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. > > One has nothing to do with the other. > Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 20:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1rosxjzvihidk.1m0bo4tey47d.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328408 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:34:23 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > ... > >>>> Is English your native language? >>> >>> I should ask you, since you are doing everything in your power to avoid >>> answering two simple question written in the English language. >> >>> You stated you are not opposed to homosexuality. >> >> I'm not. >> Already answered. >> > > Then you referenced your "being opposed to homosexuality": > <quote> > "My being opposed to homosexuality..." > </quote> Referring to your question. Nice attempt at saving your ass though. >>> You were then asked: >>> >>> 1. Why not? >>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>> >>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >> >> Again, key points: >> >> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >> Answer: I am not opposed. >> >> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >> >> One has nothing to do with the other. >> > > Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: > 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your original question. I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. This is getting boring. > 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? No I do not. > You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: > 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? I answered question 1 a few posts ago. You seem unable to read that answer. Now that you have separated opposing homosexuality from the normalcy or not of 2 men fucking each other in the ass, and it sure took you long enough, I have answered your question. Think of it this way: I am not opposed to people committing suicide. Do I think committing suicide is normal? No I don't. See how I have educated you, once again. You really need to remain in snit school because he is doing the same to you. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a2.afa3wp@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328415 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > ... > >>>> You were then asked: >>>> >>>> 1. Why not? >>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>> >>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>> >>> Again, key points: >>> >>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>> >>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>> >>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>> >> >> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? > > So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry of words below, you still fail to answer the question. > Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your > original question. > > I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. > This is getting boring. > > >> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? > > No I do not. Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question 1 ever be answered? Who knows... > > >> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? > > I answered question 1 a few posts ago. Nope. > You seem unable to read that answer. > Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 20:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6ptqmjwkxeeu.y24zjs60u161.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328432 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:50:01 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> > ... >> >>>>> You were then asked: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Why not? >>>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>>> >>>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>>> >>>> Again, key points: >>>> >>>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>>> >>>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>>> >>>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>>> >>> >>> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >>> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? >> >> So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. > > That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry > of words below, you still fail to answer the question. > >> Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your >> original question. >> >> I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. >> This is getting boring. >> >> >>> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? >> >> No I do not. > > Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question > 1 ever be answered? Who knows... Wrong. Your original question was ARE you opposed to homosexuality. Not WHY are you opposed to homosexuality. Keep moving them goal posts. >> >> >>> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >>> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? >> >> I answered question 1 a few posts ago. > > Nope. Yes. Answer: I am not opposed to homosexuality. Since you seem to be missing it. >> You seem unable to read that answer. >> > > Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered. No it hasn't. You keep moving the goal posts. Just like you do in your threads with snit. Snit owns you. So do I. It's not too difficult you know. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 01:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsde.kgi9@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328439 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:50:01 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>> >> ... >>> >>>>>> You were then asked: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Why not? >>>>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>>>> >>>>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>>>> >>>>> Again, key points: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>>>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>>>> >>>>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >>>> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? >>> >>> So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. >> >> That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry >> of words below, you still fail to answer the question. >> >>> Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your >>> original question. >>> >>> I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. >>> This is getting boring. >>> >>> >>>> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? >>> >>> No I do not. >> >> Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question >> 1 ever be answered? Who knows... > > Wrong. > Your original question was ARE you opposed to homosexuality. > Not WHY are you opposed to homosexuality. > "Why not" was the first of the pair of questions that you started to resist answering. The question "are you opposed" was indeed asked and answered prior to that. > Keep moving them goal posts. > Yes, that's what you are doing to avoid the question of why you are not opposed to homosexuality. > >>> >>> >>>> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >>>> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? >>> >>> I answered question 1 a few posts ago. >> >> Nope. > > Yes. > Answer: I am not opposed to homosexuality. > Since you seem to be missing it. > If I were missing your answer to that question, then asking "Why not?" would not have made much sense, now would it? Try to keep up. > >>> You seem unable to read that answer. >>> >> >> Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered. > > No it hasn't. > You keep moving the goal posts. > You keep running from the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 21:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1gx2ej4ip1qgd.1rp5j54tnp387.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328447 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:23:04 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:50:01 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>> >>> ... >>>> >>>>>>> You were then asked: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Why not? >>>>>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>>>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, key points: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>>>>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>>>>> >>>>>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >>>>> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? >>>> >>>> So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. >>> >>> That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry >>> of words below, you still fail to answer the question. >>> >>>> Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your >>>> original question. >>>> >>>> I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. >>>> This is getting boring. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? >>>> >>>> No I do not. >>> >>> Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question >>> 1 ever be answered? Who knows... >> >> Wrong. >> Your original question was ARE you opposed to homosexuality. >> Not WHY are you opposed to homosexuality. >> > > "Why not" was the first of the pair of questions that you started > to resist answering. The question "are you opposed" was indeed > asked and answered prior to that. > >> Keep moving them goal posts. >> > > Yes, that's what you are doing to avoid the question of why you > are not opposed to homosexuality. > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >>>>> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? >>>> >>>> I answered question 1 a few posts ago. >>> >>> Nope. >> >> Yes. >> Answer: I am not opposed to homosexuality. >> Since you seem to be missing it. >> > > If I were missing your answer to that question, then asking "Why not?" > would not have made much sense, now would it? Try to keep up. > > >> >>>> You seem unable to read that answer. >>>> >>> >>> Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered. >> >> No it hasn't. >> You keep moving the goal posts. >> > > You keep running from the question. All answered. You are pulling the same routine you pulled with snit. You move the goal posts and then accuse the other person of doing exactly what you are doing. Hint: It's getting old and it's not making you look good. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 01:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328449 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:23:04 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:50:01 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>> >>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>> >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>>>> You were then asked: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Why not? >>>>>>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>>>>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, key points: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>>>>>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >>>>>> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? >>>>> >>>>> So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. >>>> >>>> That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry >>>> of words below, you still fail to answer the question. >>>> >>>>> Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your >>>>> original question. >>>>> >>>>> I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. >>>>> This is getting boring. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? >>>>> >>>>> No I do not. >>>> >>>> Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question >>>> 1 ever be answered? Who knows... >>> >>> Wrong. >>> Your original question was ARE you opposed to homosexuality. >>> Not WHY are you opposed to homosexuality. >>> >> >> "Why not" was the first of the pair of questions that you started >> to resist answering. The question "are you opposed" was indeed >> asked and answered prior to that. >> >>> Keep moving them goal posts. >>> >> >> Yes, that's what you are doing to avoid the question of why you >> are not opposed to homosexuality. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >>>>>> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? >>>>> >>>>> I answered question 1 a few posts ago. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>> >>> Yes. >>> Answer: I am not opposed to homosexuality. >>> Since you seem to be missing it. >>> >> >> If I were missing your answer to that question, then asking "Why not?" >> would not have made much sense, now would it? Try to keep up. >> >> >>> >>>>> You seem unable to read that answer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered. >>> >>> No it hasn't. >>> You keep moving the goal posts. >>> >> >> You keep running from the question. > > All answered. Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" > You are pulling the same routine you pulled with snit. > You move the goal posts and then accuse the other person of doing exactly > what you are doing. > Jazz sucks. Agree or disagree?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D252D4DD.61733%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328450 |
On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> You keep running from the question. >> >> All answered. > > Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered > the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" Why the hell would anyone be opposed to it? It is like asking why are you not opposed to heterosexuality. It is a stupid question that assumes there is a good reason to care one whit about what consenting adults do. Comes down to you being a bigot. -- * 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 | 2015-10-26 02:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <daela.3p3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328453 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> You keep running from the question. >>> >>> All answered. >> >> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" > > Why the hell Cuss word alert! The butthurt has arrived. > would anyone be opposed to it? It is like asking why are you > not opposed to heterosexuality. It is a stupid question that assumes there > is a good reason to care one whit about what consenting adults do. > Well, that's *your* reason; what's Small Crotch's reason? We may never know, since he fears even trying to contrive a similarly lame answer. > Comes down to you being a bigot. > Comes down to you being a faggot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 22:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uzyuf9cqz1z5.hgq2pyrru0fg.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328453 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> You keep running from the question. >>> >>> All answered. >> >> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" > > Why the hell would anyone be opposed to it? Because some people feel that for example one man sticking his dick in another man's ass is not "normal". > Comes down to you being a bigot. Wrong. Comes down to a personal decision. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 03:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <awle.fo3aq@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328457 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> You keep running from the question. >>>> >>>> All answered. >>> >>> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >>> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" >> >> Why the hell would anyone be opposed to it? > > Because some people feel that for example one man sticking his dick in > another man's ass is not "normal". > Why then did you object my linking the question of why you were not opposed to homosexuality with whether or not you thought this act was normal? Obviously here you see a natural connection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 23:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n15vu1t6kw1y.ohj6d6g2rjos.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328460 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:30:08 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> You keep running from the question. >>>>> >>>>> All answered. >>>> >>>> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >>>> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" >>> >>> Why the hell would anyone be opposed to it? >> >> Because some people feel that for example one man sticking his dick in >> another man's ass is not "normal". >> > > Why then did you object my linking the question of why you were not opposed to > homosexuality with whether or not you thought this act was normal? Obviously > here you see a natural connection. You specifically asked me if it's normal. Keep dancing. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsdlea.e3e@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328461 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:30:08 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> You keep running from the question. >>>>>> >>>>>> All answered. >>>>> >>>>> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >>>>> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" >>>> >>>> Why the hell would anyone be opposed to it? >>> >>> Because some people feel that for example one man sticking his dick in >>> another man's ass is not "normal". >>> >> >> Why then did you object my linking the question of why you were not opposed to >> homosexuality with whether or not you thought this act was normal? Obviously >> here you see a natural connection. > > You specifically asked me if it's normal. > Keep dancing. > I asked you if you were opposed to homosexuality, and you said no. I then asked why not, and whether you thought the act was normal. After much hemming and hawing, you finally said you thought it was not normal, but continued to dance around the question of why you were not opposed to it, claiming that the two questions were not related. Yet here you answer Snit's question of why anyone would be opposed to it by suggesting that a personal view of its normality could be used as an indicator of why someone might be opposed to it. Were you shaken, not stirred?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 23:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ij2oh6saycbl$.1pysvnanubiw5.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328465 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:48:02 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:30:08 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> You keep running from the question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All answered. >>>>>> >>>>>> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >>>>>> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" >>>>> >>>>> Why the hell would anyone be opposed to it? >>>> >>>> Because some people feel that for example one man sticking his dick in >>>> another man's ass is not "normal". >>>> >>> >>> Why then did you object my linking the question of why you were not opposed to >>> homosexuality with whether or not you thought this act was normal? Obviously >>> here you see a natural connection. >> >> You specifically asked me if it's normal. >> Keep dancing. >> > > I asked you if you were opposed to homosexuality, and you said no. I then > asked why not, and whether you thought the act was normal. After much > hemming and hawing, you finally said you thought it was not normal, but > continued to dance around the question of why you were not opposed to it, > claiming that the two questions were not related. Yet here you answer > Snit's question of why anyone would be opposed to it by suggesting that > a personal view of its normality could be used as an indicator of why > someone might be opposed to it. Were you shaken, not stirred? Wrong. You danced all over the place asking various different versions of questions. Be specific and I'll answer. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 04:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsdue93.jgia@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328467 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:48:02 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:30:08 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>> >>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/25/15, 6:37 PM, in article fseot93.a43@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep running from the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All answered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >>>>>>> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Why the hell would anyone be opposed to it? >>>>> >>>>> Because some people feel that for example one man sticking his dick in >>>>> another man's ass is not "normal". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why then did you object my linking the question of why you were not opposed to >>>> homosexuality with whether or not you thought this act was normal? Obviously >>>> here you see a natural connection. >>> >>> You specifically asked me if it's normal. >>> Keep dancing. >>> >> >> I asked you if you were opposed to homosexuality, and you said no. I then >> asked why not, and whether you thought the act was normal. After much >> hemming and hawing, you finally said you thought it was not normal, but >> continued to dance around the question of why you were not opposed to it, >> claiming that the two questions were not related. Yet here you answer >> Snit's question of why anyone would be opposed to it by suggesting that >> a personal view of its normality could be used as an indicator of why >> someone might be opposed to it. Were you shaken, not stirred? > > Wrong. > You danced all over the place asking various different versions of questions. > Be specific and I'll answer. > Wrong. I asked specific questions. You didn't like the juxtaposition of those questions, so you tap-danced. And yet here you bring the questions together yourself when answering your butt buddy Snit. I won't scream hypocrisy yet until we determine that don't just have some screws loose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 22:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <y7xxdjvx13hq$.4d8mzo85nlar$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328450 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:37:42 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:23:04 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:50:01 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You were then asked: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Why not? >>>>>>>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>>>>>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, key points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>>>>>>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >>>>>>> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? >>>>>> >>>>>> So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. >>>>> >>>>> That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry >>>>> of words below, you still fail to answer the question. >>>>> >>>>>> Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your >>>>>> original question. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. >>>>>> This is getting boring. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? >>>>>> >>>>>> No I do not. >>>>> >>>>> Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question >>>>> 1 ever be answered? Who knows... >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>>> Your original question was ARE you opposed to homosexuality. >>>> Not WHY are you opposed to homosexuality. >>>> >>> >>> "Why not" was the first of the pair of questions that you started >>> to resist answering. The question "are you opposed" was indeed >>> asked and answered prior to that. >>> >>>> Keep moving them goal posts. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, that's what you are doing to avoid the question of why you >>> are not opposed to homosexuality. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >>>>>>> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? >>>>>> >>>>>> I answered question 1 a few posts ago. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> Answer: I am not opposed to homosexuality. >>>> Since you seem to be missing it. >>>> >>> >>> If I were missing your answer to that question, then asking "Why not?" >>> would not have made much sense, now would it? Try to keep up. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> You seem unable to read that answer. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered. >>>> >>>> No it hasn't. >>>> You keep moving the goal posts. >>>> >>> >>> You keep running from the question. >> >> All answered. > > Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered > the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" I will accomodate your goal post move now that you are framing the question that way, by itself. Why? Freedom and the fact that what people do in their own personal life as long as it's consensual and not breaking any law, is no business of mine. Now of course one can argue sodomy laws and technically that's a valid point however in practice who are these homosexuals harming, except maybe each other? Laws get changed all the time. Maybe the USA is a bit behind the rest of the earth. > >> You are pulling the same routine you pulled with snit. >> You move the goal posts and then accuse the other person of doing exactly >> what you are doing. >> > > Jazz sucks. Agree or disagree? Agree. Mostly noise. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 03:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsdje9.gaer@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328456 |
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:37:42 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:23:04 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>> >>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:50:01 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You were then asked: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Why not? >>>>>>>>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>>>>>>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again, key points: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>>>>>>>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >>>>>>>> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. >>>>>> >>>>>> That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry >>>>>> of words below, you still fail to answer the question. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your >>>>>>> original question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. >>>>>>> This is getting boring. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No I do not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question >>>>>> 1 ever be answered? Who knows... >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. >>>>> Your original question was ARE you opposed to homosexuality. >>>>> Not WHY are you opposed to homosexuality. >>>>> >>>> >>>> "Why not" was the first of the pair of questions that you started >>>> to resist answering. The question "are you opposed" was indeed >>>> asked and answered prior to that. >>>> >>>>> Keep moving them goal posts. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, that's what you are doing to avoid the question of why you >>>> are not opposed to homosexuality. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >>>>>>>> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I answered question 1 a few posts ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> Answer: I am not opposed to homosexuality. >>>>> Since you seem to be missing it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If I were missing your answer to that question, then asking "Why not?" >>>> would not have made much sense, now would it? Try to keep up. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> You seem unable to read that answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered. >>>>> >>>>> No it hasn't. >>>>> You keep moving the goal posts. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You keep running from the question. >>> >>> All answered. >> >> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" > > I will accomodate your goal post move now that you are framing the question > that way, by itself. > Why then did you link the two questions when responding to Snit? > Why? > > Freedom and the fact that what people do in their own personal life as long > as it's consensual and not breaking any law, is no business of mine. > Do you think it's OK for a man to marry a man? > Now of course one can argue sodomy laws and technically that's a valid > point however in practice who are these homosexuals harming, except maybe > each other? > They are harming society. They are lobbying for unrealistic propaganda representation in media in order to corrupt young minds to be sympathetic to their cause. They spread disease into the hetero population. They are generally without morality and love to parade their filthy lifestyle. > Laws get changed all the time. > Maybe the USA is a bit behind the rest of the earth. > Maybe the rest of the earth is just full of fags.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 23:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1pw8p4rzjjs72.1tg9ojnlytbt$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328462 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:37:00 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:37:42 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:23:04 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:50:01 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You were then asked: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Why not? >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do you think it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Something will probably again keep you from answering. >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe ignorance. Maybe fear. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, key points: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Opposed or not to homosexuality. >>>>>>>>>> Answer: I am not opposed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Men fucking each other in the ass being normal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One has nothing to do with the other. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Still no answer to the two questions you were asked: >>>>>>>>> 1. Why are you not opposed to homosexuality? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So now it turns into WHY are you not opposed to homosexuality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That has always been "question 1". I see that despite a flurry >>>>>>> of words below, you still fail to answer the question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not just a simple "are you opposed to homosexuality" which was your >>>>>>>> original question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do wish you would learn to focus, Owl. >>>>>>>> This is getting boring. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Do you think two men fucking each other in the ass is normal? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No I do not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finally. That took you long enough. Question 2 answered. Will question >>>>>>> 1 ever be answered? Who knows... >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. >>>>>> Your original question was ARE you opposed to homosexuality. >>>>>> Not WHY are you opposed to homosexuality. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Why not" was the first of the pair of questions that you started >>>>> to resist answering. The question "are you opposed" was indeed >>>>> asked and answered prior to that. >>>>> >>>>>> Keep moving them goal posts. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, that's what you are doing to avoid the question of why you >>>>> are not opposed to homosexuality. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You must *really* not want to answer those, so we'll add a third: >>>>>>>>> 3. Why do you fear answering questions 1 and 2? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I answered question 1 a few posts ago. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> Answer: I am not opposed to homosexuality. >>>>>> Since you seem to be missing it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I were missing your answer to that question, then asking "Why not?" >>>>> would not have made much sense, now would it? Try to keep up. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> You seem unable to read that answer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Question 1 has always been "Why not". And you still have not answered. >>>>>> >>>>>> No it hasn't. >>>>>> You keep moving the goal posts. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You keep running from the question. >>>> >>>> All answered. >>> >>> Surely then you will be able to point to exactly where you answered >>> the question, "Why are you not opposed to homosexuality?" >> >> I will accomodate your goal post move now that you are framing the question >> that way, by itself. >> > > Why then did you link the two questions when responding to Snit? > >> Why? >> >> Freedom and the fact that what people do in their own personal life as long >> as it's consensual and not breaking any law, is no business of mine. >> > > Do you think it's OK for a man to marry a man? > >> Now of course one can argue sodomy laws and technically that's a valid >> point however in practice who are these homosexuals harming, except maybe >> each other? >> > > They are harming society. They are lobbying for unrealistic propaganda > representation in media in order to corrupt young minds to be sympathetic > to their cause. They spread disease into the hetero population. They are > generally without morality and love to parade their filthy lifestyle. > > >> Laws get changed all the time. >> Maybe the USA is a bit behind the rest of the earth. >> > > Maybe the rest of the earth is just full of fags. Goal posts have moved into the middle east. Noted. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web