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

Groups > sci.environment > #101776 > unrolled thread

Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

Back to article view | Back to sci.environment

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 14:06 -0600
    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 20:24 +0000
      Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 15:01 -0600
        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 21:24 +0000
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 15:26 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 21:32 +0000
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:37 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 22:39 +0000
                  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:44 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:35 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 22:39 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:46 -0600
                  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 17:23 -0600
                    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:17 -0600
                  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 23:28 +0000
                    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:20 -0600
                      Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:35 +0000
                        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 10:42 -0600
                        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:54 +0000
                          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:27 -0600
                  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-23 04:53 -0500
                    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:24 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 17:22 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:16 -0600
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:32 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 22:42 +0000
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 17:57 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 01:51 +0000
                  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:23 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:21 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:12 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#101776 — Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>
>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>
>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>
>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>> debate.
>>>
>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>
>>> Sheesh.
>>>
>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>
>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
> 
> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
> evidence. This is true on climate,
Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had 
to abandon recently:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/

Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed 
politicians are in shock following an official admission from the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key 
assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”. 
The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions 
which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate 
are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions 
have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have 
been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential 
writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant 
development in climate research in decades”.

Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its 
gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the 
history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.

Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for 
developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community 
has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate 
research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC 
assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

He goes on to note that tens of thousands of research papers have been 
and continue to be published using these scenarios. In addition, a 
similar number of media headlines have “amplified their findings”, while 
governments and international organisations have built these implausible 
scenarios into policy and regulation.

It cannot be over-emphasised how important this finding of 
implausibility is. It means that almost every fearmongering mainstream 
media climate headline and story that has been written over the last 15 
years is junk. Of course it also explains why a growing band of 
sceptical commentators have refused to accept the political concept of 
‘settled’ science and have engaged in widespread debunking. Shooting 
fish in a barrel is one way of describing this work. At times, with just 
a modicum of investigative scepticism, the stories can be seen as little 
more than an insult to average human intelligence.

When the RCP8.5 assumptions are loaded into computer models, they run 
politically-convenient red hot suggestions that the temperature in 2100 
will rise by about 4°C from a 1850-1900 baseline – in other words, a 
rise of nearly 3°C in the next 80 years. Only the most deranged eco 
loons will claim such large short-term rises out loud, so the activist 
scientists quietly loaded garbage assumptions into their computers to 
arrive at their garbage-out Armageddon scares. The writing was on the 
wall for RCP8.5 last year when President Trump’s executive order titled 
‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively banned the use of RCP8.5 
for scientists on the United States federal payroll. It also noted one 
of the unrealistic RCP8.5 assumptions driving deliberate climate 
psychosis to be that end-of-century coal use will exceed estimates of 
recoverable reserves.

At the time, the climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump 
Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research 
community had moved on. But Pielke has taken issue with this ‘nothing to 
see here’ claim. He states that from 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar 
reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5 compared with 16,900 in 
the next three year period. “Some shift,” he observed.

Again, those using less charitable words might note that the ultimate 
climate crackpipe has proved difficult to put down. A long and painful 
process of rehabilitation now seems likely.

RCP8.5 assumed high emissions of carbon dioxide leading to a radiative 
forcing (extra energy trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere) of 8.5 watts 
per square metre. The new pathways act as agreed guidelines for computer 
models that will then provide information for the IPCC’s forthcoming 
seventh assessment reports. Pielke has run the figures and estimates 
that the new high scenario will produce 3°C of warming by 2100, a 
reduction from 3.9°C but still an improbable 1.8°C rise in less than 80 
years. Of course these new scenarios are just assumptions anyway, and on 
past observational evidence of atmospheric gas ‘saturation’ stretching 
back 600 million years they still grossly overestimate the warming 
effect of a few trace gases. Much higher levels of CO2 were the norm in 
the past in a complex, chaotic, non-linear and ultimately unmeasurable 
atmosphere. Climate scare bingo based on sightings in mainstream media 
of ‘scientists say’ will likely continue as long as an audience, albeit 
a diminishing one, still believes in the politicised agitprop of a 
‘climate emergency’.

Finally, it might seem churlish to pick on a single mainstream media 
RCP8.5 nonsense story, but there is one that is your correspondent’s 
favourite. This article not only reported RCP8.5 fantasies but climbed 
even further heights, going where no other story has gone before. In May 
last year, Mark Poynting of the BBC claimed that “scientists say” 
coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea 
level rise if global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree 
centigrade. This claim was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well 
beyond what even SSP5-8.5 (a newer version of RCP8.5) predicted. Based 
on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high emissions 
projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting 
chanced on a suggestion that the IPCC said it could not rule out 
(admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea 
level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. So Poynting got his several metres 
of inundation story, “even if ambitious targets of limiting global 
warming to 1.5°C is met”.

Purely anecdotal, but the BBC seems to have moderated its wilder climate 
stories of late with the “Climate” topic on its News site relegated to 
the second tier of subjects. This might be considered a bit of a status 
drop for a subject whose authors had past pretentions to provide an 
essential core for all reporting. Now it finds itself rubbing shoulders 
with the picture gallery and the dumbed-down “Newsbeat” offering.


But we must avoid the temptation to intrude on private grief. It is to 
be hoped that this move does not spell the end of the highly imaginative 
claptrap classics that have added to the gaiety of the nation over so 
many years. Regular readers will recall climate change could make beer 
taste worse and the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025 – how we shall 
miss all this copy aimed at the idiot short of a village.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#101777

On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> 
>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>> 
>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>> 
>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>> debate.
>>>> 
>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>> 
>>>> Sheesh.
>>>> 
>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>> 
>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>> 
>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>> evidence. This is true on climate,
> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
> to abandon recently:

Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/

This article mixes a few real points with a large amount of exaggeration,
misrepresentation, and outright false claims.

Here are the key factual corrections.

1. The IPCC did not “admit climate crisis assumptions were implausible”
    The article frames this as if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change abandoned mainstream climate science. That did not happen.

What actually happened:

* RCP8.5 was always intended as a very high emissions scenario.
* Many climate scientists have argued for years that it should not be treated
as the “most likely future.”
* Newer scenario frameworks (SSPs) emphasize a broader range of futures.
* The research community increasingly considers RCP8.5 less likely because:
    * coal growth is slower than assumed,
    * renewable energy expanded faster than expected,
    * energy efficiency improved.

That is not the same as saying climate change is a hoax, or that climate risks
are fabricated.

2. RCP8.5 was never the “official prediction”
    The article falsely implies scientists presented RCP8.5 as “what will
happen.”

In reality, climate models use scenarios:

* low emissions,
* medium emissions,
* high emissions.

RCP8.5 represented a worst-case or near worst-case pathway.

Scientists often explicitly stated:

* it was not a forecast,
* it was a conditional scenario,
* it explored what could happen under very high emissions.

Critics do have a partially valid point that:

* media outlets,
* activists,
* and sometimes researchers
    occasionally treated RCP8.5 as more probable than many experts believed.

That criticism is real and widely discussed inside climate science itself.

3. Roger Pielke Jr. did criticize overuse of RCP8.5
    Roger Pielke Jr. has indeed argued that RCP8.5 became overused and
distorted public discussion.

But:

* Pielke is not saying climate change is fake,
* not saying warming is harmless,
* not saying emissions do not matter.

He has repeatedly stated humans are warming the climate and that climate risks
are real. His criticism is mostly about:

* scenario misuse,
* poor communication,
* exaggerated framing.

The article weaponizes his criticism far beyond what he actually argues.

4. The article falsely claims warming is “unmeasurable”
    Global warming is measurable through multiple independent datasets:

* surface thermometers,
* ocean heat content,
* satellite observations,
* glacier loss,
* sea level rise,
* Arctic ice decline.

These measurements come from multiple organizations worldwide, including:

* NASA,
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
* Met Office,
* European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

Global average temperature has risen roughly 1.2°C since the late 19th century
according to multiple independent analyses.

5. The “CO2 saturation” argument is misleading
    The article claims atmospheric gas saturation means warming is grossly
overestimated.

This is a common climate skeptic argument, but it is misleading.

CO2 absorption is logarithmic, not absent.

Meaning:

* the first increases matter more,
* later increases still add warming,
* but each doubling produces a similar incremental effect.

This physics has been understood since the 19th century and is incorporated
into modern climate science.

6. The article misrepresents geological CO2 history
    It is true Earth had much higher CO2 levels millions of years ago.

But the article omits major context:

* continents were arranged differently,
* solar brightness differed,
* ecosystems differed,
* sea levels were dramatically different,
* many past high-CO2 periods were substantially warmer.

Past Earth climates do not prove modern rapid warming is harmless.

7. Sea level rise claims are distorted
    The article mocks discussion of multi-meter sea level rise.

Current mainstream projections for 2100 are generally around:

* roughly 0.3 to 1 meter depending on emissions and ice-sheet behavior.

However:

* multi-meter sea level rise over centuries is considered physically possible
if major ice sheets destabilize.
* Long-term sea level response can continue for centuries even after
temperatures stabilize.

The article confuses:

* short-term projections,
    with
* long-term possibilities.

8. The article uses heavy ridicule instead of evidence
    Terms like:

* “eco loons,”
* “climate crackpipe,”
* “agitprop,”
* “idiot short of a village”

are rhetorical attacks, not scientific arguments.

Strong scientific critiques normally rely on:

* model validation,
* uncertainty analysis,
* empirical evidence,
* statistical comparisons.

This article mostly uses emotionally loaded language.

9. There is a legitimate debate underneath the rhetoric
    Buried inside the polemic are some real discussions happening in climate
science:

Legitimate debates include:

* whether RCP8.5 was overused,
* how media should discuss uncertainty,
* whether worst-case framing distorts public understanding,
* how likely extreme emissions futures really are.

Those are real methodological and communication debates.

But they do not overturn the broader scientific consensus that:

* humans are warming the planet,
* greenhouse gases are the primary driver,
* continued emissions increase climate risks,
* uncertainty cuts both ways.


-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

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

#101778

On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>>> debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>
>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>
>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
>> to abandon recently:
> 
> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.

There was no "discussion" nor need there be.

You bored Snit?

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

#101779

On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> 
>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>     chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>> 
>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>> 
>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
>>> to abandon recently:
>> 
>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
> 
> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
> 
> You bored Snit?

No support from you.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

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

#101780

Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>
>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>
>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>
>> You bored Snit?
> 
> No support from you.
> 
zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely 
because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about 
quality over quantity.

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

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

#101781

On May 22, 2026 at 2:26:10 PM MST, "phoenix" wrote
<n7bvviFbnsgU2@mid.individual.net>:

> Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> 
>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>      chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
>>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>> 
>>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>> 
>>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>> 
>>> You bored Snit?
>> 
>> No support from you.
>> 
> zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely
> because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about
> quality over quantity.

The worst I ever saw with that thinking was the COLA / CSMA / ACW troll -- he
made a bot to post 100 or more times a day through Google Groups and then
started obsession over post counts as a metric of value. Completely weird.



-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

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

#101785

On 5/22/26 3:32 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 2:26:10 PM MST, "phoenix" wrote
> <n7bvviFbnsgU2@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>       chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>>>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
>>>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>>>
>>>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>>>
>>>> You bored Snit?
>>>
>>> No support from you.
>>>
>> zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely
>> because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about
>> quality over quantity.
> 
> The worst I ever saw with that thinking was the COLA / CSMA / ACW troll -- he
> made a bot to post 100 or more times a day through Google Groups and then
> started obsession over post counts as a metric of value. Completely weird.
> 
> 
> 
Iow you have a history of acting contumaciously moronic and goading such 
responses, already conformed.

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

#101786

On May 22, 2026 at 3:37:17 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a10da9d$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/22/26 3:32 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:26:10 PM MST, "phoenix" wrote
>> <n7bvviFbnsgU2@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>       chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>>>>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
>>>>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You bored Snit?
>>>> 
>>>> No support from you.
>>>> 
>>> zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely
>>> because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about
>>> quality over quantity.
>> 
>> The worst I ever saw with that thinking was the COLA / CSMA / ACW troll -- he
>> made a bot to post 100 or more times a day through Google Groups and then
>> started obsession over post counts as a metric of value. Completely weird.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Iow you have a history of acting contumaciously moronic and goading such
> responses, already conformed.

More insults from you. How sad for you.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

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

#101790

On 5/22/26 4:39 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 3:37:17 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10da9d$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 3:32 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:26:10 PM MST, "phoenix" wrote
>>> <n7bvviFbnsgU2@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did Stephen King
>>>>>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated hearsay, in a
>>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side more with
>>>>>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>>>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate liars had
>>>>>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You bored Snit?
>>>>>
>>>>> No support from you.
>>>>>
>>>> zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely
>>>> because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about
>>>> quality over quantity.
>>>
>>> The worst I ever saw with that thinking was the COLA / CSMA / ACW troll -- he
>>> made a bot to post 100 or more times a day through Google Groups and then
>>> started obsession over post counts as a metric of value. Completely weird.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Iow you have a history of acting contumaciously moronic and goading such
>> responses, already conformed.
> 
> More insults from you. 
Yes your behavior consists of a series of insults, true enough.

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

#101784

On 5/22/26 3:26 PM, phoenix wrote:
> Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected 
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to- 
>>>>>>>>>> pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html? 
>>>>>>>>>> mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did 
>>>>>>>>> Stephen King
>>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated 
>>>>>>>> hearsay, in a
>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side 
>>>>>> more with
>>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate 
>>>>> liars had
>>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>>
>>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>>
>>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>>
>>> You bored Snit?
>>
>> No support from you.
>>
> zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely 
> because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about 
> quality over quantity.
> 

Thomas Jefferson to William Smith
Paris Nov. 13. 1787.

persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their 
gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in 
anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation 
has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & 
what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does 
this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single 
instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a 
rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they 
were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 
20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, 
well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in 
proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they 
remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner 
of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. 
years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a 
century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a 
century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's 
liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their 
people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy 
is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a 
few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be 
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is 
it's natural manure

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

#101787

On May 22, 2026 at 3:35:27 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a10da2f$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/22/26 3:26 PM, phoenix wrote:
>> Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-
>>>>>>>>>>> pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?
>>>>>>>>>>> mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did
>>>>>>>>>> Stephen King
>>>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated
>>>>>>>>> hearsay, in a
>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side
>>>>>>> more with
>>>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate
>>>>>> liars had
>>>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>>> 
>>>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>>> 
>>>> You bored Snit?
>>> 
>>> No support from you.
>>> 
>> zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely
>> because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about
>> quality over quantity.
>> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson to William Smith
> Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
> 
> persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their
> gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in
> anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation
> has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, &
> what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does
> this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single
> instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a
> rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they
> were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be
> 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always,
> well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in
> proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they
> remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner
> of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11.
> years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a
> century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a
> century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
> liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
> people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy
> is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a
> few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be
> refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is
> it's natural manure

Kirk was not quoting any of that:

1 "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every
single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other
God-given rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

2 "I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new
age term that does a lot of damage."

3 "Birth control really screws up female brains, by the way... It increases
depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation."

4 "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified."

5 "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."

6 "Diversity is not our strength."

7 "The one issue I think that is so against our senses, so against the natural
law, and dare I say, a throbbing middle finger to God, is the transgender
thing happening in America right now."

8 "Some of the largest financiers of left-wing, anti-white causes have been
Jewish Americans ... Jews had been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical,
open border neoliberal quasi-Marxist policies..."

9 "There is no separation of church and state. It's a fabrication, it's a
fiction, it's not in the Constitution. It's made up by secular humanists."

10 "The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day
in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with
something different."

11 "America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we
dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be
unafraid to do that."

12 "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it
collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."

13 "America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large
dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America."

14 "Masks are about submission, not science."

15 "The one issue with the so-called transgender movement is the same as the
one with gender identity--that if you stop being a man then maybe you could
stop being a human being."



-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

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

#101791

On 5/22/26 4:39 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 3:35:27 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10da2f$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 3:26 PM, phoenix wrote:
>>> Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:01:10 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>> <6a10c416$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:06:40 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>> <6a10b751$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:54 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:03 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>>> <6a10b1c7$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> phoenix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Kirk "accepted" the alphabet crowd, he just rejected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lies, and rightly so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://rumble.com/v7a7lpg-revealed-who-told-this-dude-to-
>>>>>>>>>>>> pave-over-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-cri.html?
>>>>>>>>>>>> mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If Charlie Kirk accepted the alphabet crowd, then why did
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen King
>>>>>>>>>>> say that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone gays?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only a friggen idiot would offer up such unsubstantiated
>>>>>>>>>> hearsay, in a
>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "This guy said that some other guy said that Charlie Kirk said..."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Leftists *lie* about all kinds of things!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no truth in them at all, just none.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither side is perfect -- by far -- but in general liberals side
>>>>>>>> more with
>>>>>>>> evidence. This is true on climate,
>>>>>>> Again you are in denial of reality, something even the climate
>>>>>>> liars had
>>>>>>> to abandon recently:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice your link does not back your claim. As was already discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no "discussion" nor need there be.
>>>>>
>>>>> You bored Snit?
>>>>
>>>> No support from you.
>>>>
>>> zendejo is apparently trying to claim victory in the conversation merely
>>> because he wrote the most posts. I'm about to show him it's about
>>> quality over quantity.
>>>
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson to William Smith
>> Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
>>
>> persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their
>> gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in
>> anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation
>> has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, &
>> what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does
>> this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single
>> instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a
>> rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they
>> were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be
>> 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always,
>> well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in
>> proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they
>> remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner
>> of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11.
>> years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a
>> century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a
>> century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
>> liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
>> people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy
>> is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a
>> few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be
>> refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is
>> it's natural manure
> 
> Kirk was not quoting any of that:
> 

His words are so close as to be inspirationally confirmed.

"It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every
single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our 
other God-given rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

Cope, you deceitful traitor.

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

#101793

zendejo wrote:
> unfortunately, some gun deaths every
> single year

Foolish Kirk wasn't very good at quoting. As his other half said, a few 
deaths every century.

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

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

#101801

On 5/22/26 5:23 PM, phoenix wrote:
> zendejo wrote:
>> unfortunately, some gun deaths every
>> single year
> 
> Foolish Kirk wasn't very good at quoting. 

You seem baffled by referencing in context, as opposed to a direct 
quotation.

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

#101794

On May 22, 2026 at 3:46:17 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a10dcba$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> ...
>> 
>> Kirk was not quoting any of that:
>> 
> 
> His words are so close as to be inspirationally confirmed.
> 
> "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every
> single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our
> other God-given rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
> 
> Cope, you deceitful traitor.

Already discussed:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


* rebellion against rulers
* resistance to state power
* political uprisings

Kirk’s statement is about:

* civilian gun ownership
* constitutional rights
* modern gun violence policy

Also, Jefferson’s statement emerged from an 18th-century revolutionary context
where:

* governments were weaker
* standing armies were feared
* militias were central to defense
* monarchy and tyranny were immediate historical memories

Modern debates occur in a completely different technological and political
environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But with that quote, while *I* do not back Kirk's murder it is good to know he
did.

 "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single
year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given
rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

He directly said he thought his death was worth it to keep the rest of us
free. In his own mind his death was rational.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

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

#101802

On 5/22/26 5:28 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 3:46:17 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10dcba$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> ...
>>>
>>> Kirk was not quoting any of that:
>>>
>>
>> His words are so close as to be inspirationally confirmed.
>>
>> "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every
>> single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our
>> other God-given rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
>>
>> Cope, you deceitful traitor.
> 
> Already discussed:
> 

Again:


"what country before ever existed a
century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
people preserve the spirit of resistance? "

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

#101807

zendejo <zd@no.here> wrote:
> On 5/22/26 5:28 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 3:46:17 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a10dcba$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> 
>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> Kirk was not quoting any of that:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> His words are so close as to be inspirationally confirmed.
>>> 
>>> "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every
>>> single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our
>>> other God-given rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
>>> 
>>> Cope, you deceitful traitor.
>> 
>> Already discussed:
>> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> 
> "what country before ever existed a
> century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
> liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
> people preserve the spirit of resistance? "
> 

We can talk about your changed topic if you wish — but let’s be clear
you’ve moved goal posts. This has nothing to do with Kirk’s quotes and the
powerful evidence he was a bigot and a fool. 

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

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

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

#101810

On 5/23/26 10:35 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> zendejo <zd@no.here> wrote:
>> On 5/22/26 5:28 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 3:46:17 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10dcba$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Kirk was not quoting any of that:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> His words are so close as to be inspirationally confirmed.
>>>>
>>>> "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every
>>>> single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our
>>>> other God-given rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
>>>>
>>>> Cope, you deceitful traitor.
>>>
>>> Already discussed:
>>>
>>
>> Again:
>>
>>
>> "what country before ever existed a
>> century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
>> liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
>> people preserve the spirit of resistance? "
>>
> 
> We can talk 

this===>
"what country before ever existed a
century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
people preserve the spirit of resistance? "

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

#101813

Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> zendejo <zd@no.here> wrote:
>> On 5/22/26 5:28 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 3:46:17 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10dcba$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kirk was not quoting any of that:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> His words are so close as to be inspirationally confirmed.
>>>> 
>>>> "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every
>>>> single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our
>>>> other God-given rights... That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
>>>> 
>>>> Cope, you deceitful traitor.
>>> 
>>> Already discussed:
>>> 
>> 
>> Again:
>> 
>> 
>> "what country before ever existed a
>> century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
>> liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
>> people preserve the spirit of resistance? "
>> 
> 
> We can talk about your changed topic if you wish — but let’s be clear
> you’ve moved goal posts. This has nothing to do with Kirk’s quotes and the
> powerful evidence he was a bigot and a fool. 
> 

zendejo ran. His white flag is tattered. 

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

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

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

#101818

On 5/23/26 10:54 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> His white flag is tattered.
Again:


"what country before ever existed a
century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's
liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
people preserve the spirit of resistance? "

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.environment

csiph-web