Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #366298 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-22 20:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-08-25 08:38 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 382 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:04 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:47 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:51 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:07 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:16 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:32 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:38 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 22:04 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 23:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 16:13 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 09:11 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 16:22 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 09:37 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 16:54 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 10:14 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 17:21 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 10:29 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 11:03 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 09:51 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:17 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 09:05 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 11:51 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:01 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 18:27 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:46 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:17 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:07 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:41 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 20:06 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 00:13 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 20:33 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 01:24 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:14 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:26 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:10 -0400
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-26 09:07 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 13:37 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-26 09:56 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:42 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:29 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:41 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 09:17 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:08 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:17 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:32 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 09:24 -0700
Re: Another day chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-26 11:27 -0500
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:36 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:45 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:52 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 13:43 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 17:18 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 14:39 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:42 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 17:24 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 00:09 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 17:33 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:29 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:08 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:26 -0600
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 04:21 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 21:46 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 05:15 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 05:42 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 00:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:30 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:09 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:27 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:06 -0700
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 09:20 +0200
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 10:04 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:06 -0700
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 10:23 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:39 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:09 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:27 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-27 15:10 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 21:58 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 13:17 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:28 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:15 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 09:38 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 22:22 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-27 19:10 -0400
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 03:20 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 09:35 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-28 09:16 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 10:03 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-27 15:02 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:19 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 15:34 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 19:03 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:28 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:27 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:06 -0700
Re: Another day -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:24 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:01 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:42 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 07:39 -0700
Re: Another day William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-28 16:22 +0100
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 09:50 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 15:29 -0400
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 20:16 +0000
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 17:40 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 15:14 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 18:19 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 16:18 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 19:40 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 16:42 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 19:44 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 16:56 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 19:59 -0400
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 18:16 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-28 09:08 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-28 09:17 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-29 09:06 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 09:42 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 10:00 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 19:22 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 16:57 -0700
Re: Another day Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-29 18:39 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 15:43 -0700
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 23:12 +0000
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 23:15 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 17:09 -0700
Re: Another day Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-29 20:52 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 18:13 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-29 19:34 -0400
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 01:49 +0200
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 01:46 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 17:21 -0700
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 02:26 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 17:33 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-30 09:16 -0400
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 15:26 +0200
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-28 12:38 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 17:16 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 14:23 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:20 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:38 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 01:50 +0200
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 20:13 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 09:19 +0200
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:35 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:15 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 08:08 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-27 15:10 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:21 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 09:36 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:43 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:00 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:08 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:16 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:32 +0000
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 10:39 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 18:04 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:39 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 10:53 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:26 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 12:23 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 18:06 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 19:11 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:22 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:29 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 18:12 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 19:19 +0000
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:20 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 14:04 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 13:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 18:00 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:18 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 23:40 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:26 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:37 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:42 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 11:49 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 14:08 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:18 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 09:47 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 12:00 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 11:13 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 15:57 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 22:31 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:44 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 23:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 16:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:25 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 21:40 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:22 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 21:39 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 11:59 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:14 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:50 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:39 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 12:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:44 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:17 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-23 20:07 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 01:02 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 09:59 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:25 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:58 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 15:16 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:16 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 21:34 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:09 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-23 20:08 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 01:10 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:28 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:12 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 09:03 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:20 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 12:29 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:55 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:11 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:20 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:33 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:45 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:50 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 14:02 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:54 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:19 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 09:32 -0400
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 10:54 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 11:08 -0400
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 12:03 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 12:47 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:19 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 11:59 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 11:16 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 15:59 -0600
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 22:13 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:18 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:29 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:14 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:33 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:23 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:43 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:53 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:22 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:26 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:36 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:46 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:58 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:14 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:18 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-23 20:47 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 01:24 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:48 -0600
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 05:06 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:27 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:24 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:34 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:58 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 15:14 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:30 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:00 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 08:58 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:24 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:31 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 12:16 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:51 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:17 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:56 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 20:33 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:16 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:30 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:49 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:48 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:09 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:55 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:13 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:15 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:44 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:22 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:48 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 07:57 -0400
Re: Another day -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 06:41 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:35 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:51 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:17 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:03 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:36 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:09 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 09:27 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:33 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:44 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:44 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 17:14 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:10 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:48 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:16 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:24 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:28 -0600
Re: Another day Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:46 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 09:58 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:28 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 08:54 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:47 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:08 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:45 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:03 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:00 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:12 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:09 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:37 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 14:50 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:07 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 19:23 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:25 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:44 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:47 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:58 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:04 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:05 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:37 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 23:38 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:39 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:26 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:42 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 14:47 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:53 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:04 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 19:20 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:24 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:36 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 23:37 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 07:53 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:56 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 11:04 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:53 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 19:16 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-25 23:22 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 19:24 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-25 23:37 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:26 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 02:51 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 22:54 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 19:59 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 03:01 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 21:19 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 19:56 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 03:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 20:31 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 22:29 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 02:50 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 19:57 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 03:04 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 20:31 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:22 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 07:58 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:26 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:44 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:43 -0600
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 19:15 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:19 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:51 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 14:42 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:38 -0400
Page 1 of 20 [1] 2 3 … 20 Next page →
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 20:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Another day |
| Message-ID | <hjgsuaf93.nbmcju@perch.invalid> |
Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0B004.79D51%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366298 |
On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf93.nbmcju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered. > I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president. And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjviuad83.a0@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366301 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf93.nbmcju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered. >> > I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's > testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other > than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID > show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president. > > And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in > selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House. > But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of winning, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0B3E8.79D5C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366305 |
On 8/22/16, 1:47 PM, in article fhjviuad83.a0@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf93.nbmcju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered. >>> >> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's >> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other >> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID >> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president. >> >> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in >> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House. > > But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors > her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of > winning, right? How does NOT voting for her in any way favor her victory? I hear the same thing from her supporters saying if I do not vote for her I am favoring Trump. Not voting for either is not favoring either. Trump is a horror show, but even he is not so bad as to lead to me supporting the election fraud that has gotten Clinton to where she is. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgue993ta.4@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366306 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 1:47 PM, in article fhjviuad83.a0@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf93.nbmcju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered. >>>> >>> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's >>> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other >>> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID >>> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president. >>> >>> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in >>> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House. >> >> But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors >> her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of >> winning, right? > > How does NOT voting for her in any way favor her victory? I hear the same > thing from her supporters saying if I do not vote for her I am favoring > Trump. > > Not voting for either is not favoring either. Trump is a horror show, but > even he is not so bad as to lead to me supporting the election fraud that > has gotten Clinton to where she is. > Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two. Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin. I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number of choices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0B9D9.79D69%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366310 |
On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue993ta.4@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 1:47 PM, in article fhjviuad83.a0@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf93.nbmcju@perch.invalid, "Octavian >>>> W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered. >>>>> >>>> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's >>>> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other >>>> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID >>>> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president. >>>> >>>> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in >>>> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House. >>> >>> But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors >>> her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of >>> winning, right? >> >> How does NOT voting for her in any way favor her victory? I hear the same >> thing from her supporters saying if I do not vote for her I am favoring >> Trump. >> >> Not voting for either is not favoring either. Trump is a horror show, but >> even he is not so bad as to lead to me supporting the election fraud that >> has gotten Clinton to where she is. > > > Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is > a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary > is a vote for Trump. By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of course, is completely absurd. > The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two. Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in many places. > Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are > votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might > have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin. And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or someone else. > I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number of > choices. You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they mean. Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their opponents. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjviad83.i9@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366312 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue993ta.4@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is >> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary >> is a vote for Trump. > > By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of > course, is completely absurd. > No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something at the ballot box, but chose not to. >> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two. > > Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in > many places. But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when it could have been used to sway the election. > >> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are >> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might >> have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin. > > And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or > someone else. > Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way. In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump will be the next president. Your vote for either can help determine that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote. >> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number of >> choices. > > You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they > mean. > > Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their > opponents. > You don't understand what the choices are. Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed. 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you have the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your vote. All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic duty to vote Clinton. That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard. Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down ballot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0BEF9.79D74%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366316 |
On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjviad83.i9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue993ta.4@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is >>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary >>> is a vote for Trump. >> >> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of >> course, is completely absurd. > > No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something > at the ballot box, but chose not to. Incorrect. >>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two. >> >> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in >> many places. > > But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when > it could have been used to sway the election. By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win? >>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are >>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might >>> have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin. >> >> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or >> someone else. > > Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way. What do you mean by a "wasted vote"? > In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump > will be the next president. Incorrect (though not by much). > Your vote for either can help determine > that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote. By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump is "wasted"? >>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number >>> of choices. >>> >> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they >> mean. >> >> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their >> opponents. > > You don't understand what the choices are. Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions! > Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed. Very likely but NOT guaranteed. > 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you have > the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your vote. Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a perfectly valid choice. But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd. > All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic > duty to vote Clinton. False. > That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a > duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard. It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You show deep insecurity. > Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he > is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you > vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down ballot. I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all to back him. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdsu8e73.a9@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366317 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjviad83.i9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue993ta.4@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is >>>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary >>>> is a vote for Trump. >>> >>> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of >>> course, is completely absurd. >> >> No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something >> at the ballot box, but chose not to. > > Incorrect. > You are wrong. >>>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two. >>> >>> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in >>> many places. >> >> But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when >> it could have been used to sway the election. > > By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then > vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead > in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on > Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win? > Polls don't count. Votes count. The only way one wins over the other is if that person's vote count is higher. A vote for another candidate besides one of those two is wasted. >>>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are >>>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might >>>> have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin. >>> >>> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or >>> someone else. >> >> Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way. > > What do you mean by a "wasted vote"? > By voting for someone who cannot possibly win. >> In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump >> will be the next president. > > Incorrect (though not by much). > Odds against are about that of the earth reversing its spin. >> Your vote for either can help determine >> that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote. > > By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump > is "wasted"? > A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes that will determine who wins. On the other hand, a vote for candidate C, in an election where it is guaranteed that only A or B will win, is a wasted vote. >>>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number >>>> of choices. >>>> >>> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they >>> mean. >>> >>> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their >>> opponents. >> >> You don't understand what the choices are. > > Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions! > >> Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed. > > Very likely but NOT guaranteed. > LOL who else do you think has a chance? >> 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you have >> the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your vote. > > Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a > perfectly valid choice. > Which means a wasted vote. A chance to tip the scale one way or the other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision. > But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell > me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd. > I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war. >> All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic >> duty to vote Clinton. > > False. > You are wrong. >> That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a >> duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard. > > It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You > show deep insecurity. > Are you or are you not a libtard? >> Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he >> is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you >> vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down ballot. > > I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his > claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all > to back him. > In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0C922.79D81%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366323 |
On 8/22/16, 3:04 PM, in article ghjdsu8e73.a9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjviad83.i9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue993ta.4@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is >>>>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary >>>>> is a vote for Trump. >>>> >>>> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of >>>> course, is completely absurd. >>> >>> No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something >>> at the ballot box, but chose not to. >> >> Incorrect. > > You are wrong. I welcome support for how a vote for someone can become a lack of vote for someone. >>>>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two. >>>> >>>> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted >>>> in >>>> many places. >>> >>> But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when >>> it could have been used to sway the election. >> >> By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then >> vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead >> in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on >> Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win? > > Polls don't count. Votes count. So what makes you think others cannot win? > The only way one wins over the other is if that person's vote count is higher. Which may or may not be the actual vote! Sigh... Clinton. > A vote for another candidate besides one of those two is wasted. You keep saying this but offer no support... nor explain why a vote for Trump is not "wasted" given how he is unlikely to win. >>>>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are >>>>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and >>>>> might have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin. >>>>> >>>> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein >>>> or someone else. >>>> >>> Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way. >>> >> What do you mean by a "wasted vote"? > > By voting for someone who cannot possibly win. As judged by...??? >>> In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump >>> will be the next president. >> >> Incorrect (though not by much). > > Odds against are about that of the earth reversing its spin. Support? >>> Your vote for either can help determine >>> that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote. >> >> By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump >> is "wasted"? > > A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not > wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes > that will determine who wins. Well, given the election fraud that is happening not even that is true, but above you discount polls... so what makes you think only those two have a chance? > On the other hand, a vote for candidate C, in an election where it is > guaranteed that only A or B will win, is a wasted vote. What do you base this on? And why can only A or B win? >>>>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the >>>>> number of choices. >>>>> >>>> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they >>>> mean. >>>> >>>> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their >>>> opponents. >>>> >>> You don't understand what the choices are. >>> >> Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions! >> >>> Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed. >>> >> Very likely but NOT guaranteed. > > LOL who else do you think has a chance? Nobody else has a significant chance at this time. >>> 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you >>> have the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your >>> vote. >>> >> Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a >> perfectly valid choice. > > Which means a wasted vote. So you keep saying but never support... and it is contrary to your original claim that it WAS support for one of the two main candidates. > A chance to tip the scale one way or the > other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision. You assume if I do not make a decision YOU approve of I did not make a decision. That is faulty thinking on your part. >> But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell >> me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd. > > I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being > who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for > a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us > out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war. Your assessment of each is absurd. >>> All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic >>> duty to vote Clinton. >> >> False. > > You are wrong. But in a way you cannot show. >>> That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a >>> duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard. >> >> It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You >> show deep insecurity. > > Are you or are you not a libtard? I do not even know what you mean by the term, though it is clearly a reference to liberals with ties to derogatory terms of people with mental handicaps. More of your bigotry showing through. >>> Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he >>> is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you >>> vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down >>> ballot. >> >> I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his >> claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all >> to back him. > > In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will > share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins. I do not support her either. The concept of not supporting either simply goes over your head. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhoo9afa.jud7@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366324 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 3:04 PM, in article ghjdsu8e73.a9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjviad83.i9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue993ta.4@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is >>>>>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary >>>>>> is a vote for Trump. >>>>> >>>>> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of >>>>> course, is completely absurd. >>>> >>>> No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something >>>> at the ballot box, but chose not to. >>> >>> Incorrect. >> >> You are wrong. > > I welcome support for how a vote for someone can become a lack of vote for > someone. > A vote outside the group of possible winners is a wasted vote. >>>>>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two. >>>>> >>>>> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted >>>>> in >>>>> many places. >>>> >>>> But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when >>>> it could have been used to sway the election. >>> >>> By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then >>> vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead >>> in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on >>> Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win? >> >> Polls don't count. Votes count. > > So what makes you think others cannot win? > History and common sense. The fact that the potential third party candidates will not be on all ballots. >> The only way one wins over the other is if that person's vote count is higher. > > Which may or may not be the actual vote! Sigh... Clinton. > True dat. >> A vote for another candidate besides one of those two is wasted. > > You keep saying this but offer no support... nor explain why a vote for > Trump is not "wasted" given how he is unlikely to win. > You say he is unlikely to win. I say he is likely to win in a landslide. There is a legitimate question there, between Hillary and Trump. Both of them have an actual chance. No one else does though, so a vote for someone else is wasted. >>>>>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are >>>>>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and >>>>>> might have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin. >>>>>> >>>>> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein >>>>> or someone else. >>>>> >>>> Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way. >>>> >>> What do you mean by a "wasted vote"? >> >> By voting for someone who cannot possibly win. > > As judged by...??? > History and common sense. Ralph Nader was not even on the ballot in my state. No way that fucker could win. But he siphoned off enough votes to tip the scale electorally for Bush in one state in the northeast. I forget which. >>>> In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump >>>> will be the next president. >>> >>> Incorrect (though not by much). >> >> Odds against are about that of the earth reversing its spin. > > Support? > Yes, I support that. >>>> Your vote for either can help determine >>>> that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote. >>> >>> By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump >>> is "wasted"? >> >> A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not >> wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes >> that will determine who wins. > > Well, given the election fraud that is happening not even that is true, but > above you discount polls... so what makes you think only those two have a > chance? > Because election fraud is not going to put a third party candidate in office, and even if it results in a House selection of the Pres., they will choose one of Hillary or Trump. >> On the other hand, a vote for candidate C, in an election where it is >> guaranteed that only A or B will win, is a wasted vote. > > What do you base this on? And why can only A or B win? > Because only A or B has the money, popularity, party machinery, etc., to win. >>>>>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the >>>>>> number of choices. >>>>>> >>>>> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they >>>>> mean. >>>>> >>>>> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their >>>>> opponents. >>>>> >>>> You don't understand what the choices are. >>>> >>> Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions! >>> >>>> Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed. >>>> >>> Very likely but NOT guaranteed. >> >> LOL who else do you think has a chance? > > Nobody else has a significant chance at this time. > Nobody else has a significant chance period. >>>> 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you >>>> have the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your >>>> vote. >>>> >>> Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a >>> perfectly valid choice. >> >> Which means a wasted vote. > > So you keep saying but never support... and it is contrary to your original > claim that it WAS support for one of the two main candidates. > Nope. Anything other than a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump, because you *could* have voted for Hillary but didn't, thereby depriving her of a vote. Anything other than a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, because you *could* have voted for Trump, but didn't, thereby depriving him of a vote >> A chance to tip the scale one way or the >> other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision. > > You assume if I do not make a decision YOU approve of I did not make a > decision. That is faulty thinking on your part. > >>> But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell >>> me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd. >> >> I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being >> who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for >> a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us >> out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war. > > Your assessment of each is absurd. > LOL. What would you know about it. You're brainwashed. >>>> All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic >>>> duty to vote Clinton. >>> >>> False. >> >> You are wrong. > > But in a way you cannot show. > Nope. Your inability to see it does not translate to me not showing it. >>>> That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a >>>> duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard. >>> >>> It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You >>> show deep insecurity. >> >> Are you or are you not a libtard? > > I do not even know what you mean by the term, though it is clearly a > reference to liberals with ties to derogatory terms of people with mental > handicaps. More of your bigotry showing through. > There you are calling me hurtful names. Nice self-nuke. >>>> Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he >>>> is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you >>>> vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down >>>> ballot. >>> >>> I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his >>> claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all >>> to back him. >> >> In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will >> share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins. > > I do not support her either. The concept of not supporting either simply > goes over your head. > What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not otherwise have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0D52B.79D8E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366328 |
On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9afa.jud7@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: ... >>> You are wrong. >> >> I welcome support for how a vote for someone can become a lack of vote for >> someone. > > A vote outside the group of possible winners is a wasted vote. That is your opinion... as is who is a "possible winner." At this point it seems unlikely Trump will win. Do you consider a vote for him to be "wasted"? ... >>> Polls don't count. Votes count. >> >> So what makes you think others cannot win? > > History and common sense. The fact that the potential third party > candidates will not be on all ballots. But it is possible one of both candidates will, for whatever reason, have to drop out or become unable to run. >>> The only way one wins over the other is if that person's vote count is >>> higher. >> >> Which may or may not be the actual vote! Sigh... Clinton. > > True dat. Unlike you I do not feel obligated to support ANYONE, Democrat or Republican. I back people if they are decent candidates. Right now Stein is likely the best but she is NOT a leader... and has made comments about vaccinations which are a bit silly (pandering perhaps)? >>> A vote for another candidate besides one of those two is wasted. >> >> You keep saying this but offer no support... nor explain why a vote for >> Trump is not "wasted" given how he is unlikely to win. > > You say he is unlikely to win. I say he is likely to win in a landslide. > There is a legitimate question there, between Hillary and Trump. Both > of them have an actual chance. No one else does though, so a vote for > someone else is wasted. So there is a question as to whom can win... or is likely to. Thus no vote is "wasted." ... >>> A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not >>> wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes >>> that will determine who wins. >> >> Well, given the election fraud that is happening not even that is true, but >> above you discount polls... so what makes you think only those two have a >> chance? >> > > Because election fraud is not going to put a third party candidate > in office, and even if it results in a House selection of the Pres., > they will choose one of Hillary or Trump. > >>> On the other hand, a vote for candidate C, in an election where it is >>> guaranteed that only A or B will win, is a wasted vote. >> >> What do you base this on? And why can only A or B win? > > Because only A or B has the money, popularity, party machinery, etc., > to win. How do you know they have popularity? Heck, who else has a LOWER rating than the two of them on trustworthiness and likability? ... >> So you keep saying but never support... and it is contrary to your original >> claim that it WAS support for one of the two main candidates. >> > > Nope. > > Anything other than a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump, because > you *could* have voted for Hillary but didn't, thereby depriving > her of a vote. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. Other votes are not votes for EITHER. It is like saying if you pick Linux then you are backing Windows and Mac. Utter nonsense. > Anything other than a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, because > you *could* have voted for Trump, but didn't, thereby depriving him > of a vote So a vote for neither is a vote for both by your twisted logic. >>> A chance to tip the scale one way or the >>> other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision. >> >> You assume if I do not make a decision YOU approve of I did not make a >> decision. That is faulty thinking on your part. >> >>>> But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell >>>> me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd. >>> >>> I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being >>> who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for >>> a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us >>> out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war. >> >> Your assessment of each is absurd. > > LOL. What would you know about it. You're brainwashed. The idea that either has the nation's best interest at heart is silly... and the "spawn of Satan" comment is hyperbole. ... >>> Are you or are you not a libtard? >> >> I do not even know what you mean by the term, though it is clearly a >> reference to liberals with ties to derogatory terms of people with mental >> handicaps. More of your bigotry showing through. > > There you are calling me hurtful names. Nice self-nuke. I called you no names. I noted your use of bigotry. And now I will note your lack of defining your own term. ... >>> In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will >>> share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins. >> >> I do not support her either. The concept of not supporting either simply >> goes over your head. > > What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you > are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some > other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump > a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who > don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not > otherwise have. This is not complex: * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. Candidates have to EARN votes. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 16:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdue9t793.aju@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366330 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9afa.jud7@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > > ... >> >> What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you >> are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some >> other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump >> a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who >> don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not >> otherwise have. > > This is not complex: > > * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump > * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. > * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. > * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. > What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal, to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? Why do you think the Romtards are trying to get this loser on the ballots: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/08/evan-mcmullin-republican-donald-trump-utah This is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E1C3BF.79DE1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366352 |
On 8/23/16, 9:00 AM, in article ghjdue9t793.aju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9afa.jud7@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... > >>> >>> What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you >>> are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some >>> other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump >>> a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who >>> don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not >>> otherwise have. >> >> This is not complex: >> >> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >> > > What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal, > to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted, least liked politicians on the national scene. > Why do you think the Romtards are trying to get this loser on the ballots: I have no idea who you are even referring to. > https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/08/evan-mcmullin-republican-donal > d-trump-utah > > This is why: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgie899.37@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366354 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/23/16, 9:00 AM, in article ghjdue9t793.aju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9afa.jud7@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >> >>>> >>>> What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you >>>> are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some >>>> other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump >>>> a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who >>>> don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not >>>> otherwise have. >>> >>> This is not complex: >>> >>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >>> >> >> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal, >> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? > > You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted, > least liked politicians on the national scene. > Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother trying to get you to vote Trump. As a libtard, you are would be likely to vote for the Democrat, but you have shown that you might have difficulty pulling the lever for Hillary. I say that's great. Don't vote for Hillary. Vote for anybody but Hillary (since she is the only one other than Trump who chance to win). A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, so I encourage you to vote early and often. >> Why do you think the Romtards are trying to get this loser on the ballots: > > I have no idea who you are even referring to. > Of course you don't. *pats it on the head* >> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/08/evan-mcmullin-republican-donal >> d-trump-utah >> >> This is why: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E1C9E6.79DE9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366356 |
On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie899.37@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: ... >>>> This is not complex: >>>> >>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >>> >>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal, >>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? >> >> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted, >> least liked politicians on the national scene. >> > > Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother > trying to get you to vote Trump. I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not be responsible in any way for either of them. ... > A vote for Stein is > a vote for Trump, so I encourage you to vote early and often. This is not complex, but sadly over your head: * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. You whine when I repeat things but you show no understanding. Remember, only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. Oh, and Trump has essentially no chance of winning. Sadly Clinton does. But you have said to NOT vote for someone who does not have much chance of winning, so if you are true to yourself you will not vote for Trump. ... -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjgdua993ga.jgi@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366358 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie899.37@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>> This is not complex: >>>>> >>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >>>> >>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal, >>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? >>> >>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted, >>> least liked politicians on the national scene. >>> >> >> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother >> trying to get you to vote Trump. > > I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not > be responsible in any way for either of them. > Fantastic! Vote for Stein. Tell all your liberal friends to vote for Stein. Hell, write in Bernie. LOL! Go Trump! > ... >> A vote for Stein is >> a vote for Trump, so I encourage you to vote early and often. > > This is not complex, but sadly over your head: > > * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump > * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. > * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. > * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. > > You whine when I repeat things but you show no understanding. Remember, only > a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. > Keep telling yourself that. Remember now, be sure to vote for Stein. LOL. Just like I told you earlier. This election is going to be a Trump landslide. > Oh, and Trump has essentially no chance of winning. Sadly Clinton does. > You must not have heard me. Trump landslide. > But you have said to NOT vote for someone who does not have much chance of > winning, Not unless you're a liberal. Then vote for anybody but Hillary. Or stay home. Either action works out great for Trump. Now you'll notice that I take the opposite tack with DFS. Since he is a Republican who is having a hard time pulling the lever for Trump, I do my best to convince him that that is wrong, that he should just hold his nose and vote for Trump. Can't let Hillary win because of a split vote on the right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E1D26F.79DF2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366359 |
On 8/23/16, 9:54 AM, in article hjgdua993ga.jgi@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie899.37@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> This is not complex: >>>>>> >>>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >>>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >>>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >>>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >>>>> >>>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal, >>>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? >>>> >>>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted, >>>> least liked politicians on the national scene. >>>> >>> >>> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother >>> trying to get you to vote Trump. >> >> I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not >> be responsible in any way for either of them. > > Fantastic! Vote for Stein. Tell all your liberal friends > to vote for Stein. Hell, write in Bernie. LOL! Go Trump! Wait: if you are going to be consistent, given how Trump is not likely to win, you should not vote for him either. I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments on things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky. >> ... >>> A vote for Stein is >>> a vote for Trump, so I encourage you to vote early and often. >> >> This is not complex, but sadly over your head: >> >> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >> >> You whine when I repeat things but you show no understanding. Remember, only >> a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. > > Keep telling yourself that. Remember now, be sure to vote for Stein. > LOL. Just like I told you earlier. This election is going to be a > Trump landslide. And you base this on??? His only chance is that he is running against Clinton. Her only chance is she is running against him. >> Oh, and Trump has essentially no chance of winning. Sadly Clinton does. > > You must not have heard me. Trump landslide. I heard... but I reject your claims you show no support for and go with evidence and reason instead. >> But you have said to NOT vote for someone who does not have much chance of >> winning, > > Not unless you're a liberal. Then vote for anybody but Hillary. Or > stay home. Either action works out great for Trump. I have no more problem with him winning than with Clinton. Both are disasters. > Now you'll notice that I take the opposite tack with DFS. Since > he is a Republican who is having a hard time pulling the lever > for Trump, I do my best to convince him that that is wrong, that > he should just hold his nose and vote for Trump. Can't let Hillary > win because of a split vote on the right. I frankly do not care which of the disasters is elected... and hoping for a miracle to give us another option. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjgua993.ajgi8@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366360 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/23/16, 9:54 AM, in article hjgdua993ga.jgi@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie899.37@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>> This is not complex: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >>>>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >>>>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >>>>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >>>>>> >>>>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal, >>>>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? >>>>> >>>>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted, >>>>> least liked politicians on the national scene. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother >>>> trying to get you to vote Trump. >>> >>> I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not >>> be responsible in any way for either of them. >> >> Fantastic! Vote for Stein. Tell all your liberal friends >> to vote for Stein. Hell, write in Bernie. LOL! Go Trump! > > Wait: if you are going to be consistent, given how Trump is not likely to > win, you should not vote for him either. > I'm consistent. Trump has a chance. Hillary has a chance. No one else has a chance. A vote for Trump is not wasted. > I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments on > things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky. > I don't care what she does or says. Just vote for her. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E1D611.79DFD%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366362 |
On 8/23/16, 10:21 AM, in article hjgua993.ajgi8@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/23/16, 9:54 AM, in article hjgdua993ga.jgi@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie899.37@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>>>> This is not complex: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump >>>>>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. >>>>>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither. >>>>>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a >>>>>>> liberal, >>>>>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein? >>>>>> >>>>>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted, >>>>>> least liked politicians on the national scene. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother >>>>> trying to get you to vote Trump. >>>> >>>> I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not >>>> be responsible in any way for either of them. >>> >>> Fantastic! Vote for Stein. Tell all your liberal friends >>> to vote for Stein. Hell, write in Bernie. LOL! Go Trump! >> >> Wait: if you are going to be consistent, given how Trump is not likely to >> win, you should not vote for him either. > > I'm consistent. Trump has a chance. Hillary has a chance. No one else > has a chance. A vote for Trump is not wasted. Trump has a slim chance... so why vote for him? >> I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments on >> things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky. > > I don't care what she does or says. Just vote for her. :) I might... though I would have to hold my nose to do so. There are truly no decent options. -- * 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]
Page 1 of 20 [1] 2 3 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web