Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #687921 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 578 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400
Re:Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:16 +0200
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 03:51 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-31 05:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 12:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 15:49 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-31 20:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 16:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 19:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 21:38 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 08:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 22:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-05-31 19:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-05-31 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 08:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 11:59 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Slaughtering concert goers. ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:07 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 04:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:12 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 00:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:14 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:19 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:35 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 05:06 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:54 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:51 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 11:59 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:25 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:28 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:08 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 23:24 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:12 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:48 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:32 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 21:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:49 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:49 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:45 -0700
Permission to breath ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:13 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-02 20:36 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 23:33 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:42 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Clarity. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-03 08:52 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:46 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:53 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 22:59 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 23:19 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 09:10 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:31 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:12 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:26 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:10 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:54 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 22:19 -0500
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 20:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 00:24 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 05:43 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 07:17 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 00:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 16:07 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:30 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:34 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:50 -0700
"Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 19:02 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 02:18 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:25 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:16 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-02 01:20 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-03 20:11 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 00:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:30 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 17:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 15:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-04 23:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:51 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 09:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 05:15 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:07 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 06:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 02:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 13:29 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 11:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:12 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:59 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 19:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 20:21 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:58 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:17 -0500
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Dave Zeeman <arougroutinette@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700
Page 15 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 29 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <bb441l.6rs.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #689048 |
On 2018-06-05 6:10 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/5/18 6:06 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-05 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnon2jFqc8mU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> On 6/5/18 4:33 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> I note your misogyny... >>> >>>>>>> Hey, I LOVE women! >>> >>>>>> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. >>> >>>>>>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. >>> >>>>>>> You're the one who took it as an insult. >>> >>>>>> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, >>>>>> with the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who >>>>>> referred to people in the feminine AS an insult. >>> >>>>> The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the >>>>> liar. >>> >>>>>> Own your own actions. >>> >>>>>>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>>>>>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>>>>>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. >>> >>>>>> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. >>> >>>>> I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll >>>>> note it. >>> >>>>>>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. >>> >>>>>>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>>>>>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" >>> >>>>>> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I >>>>>> am going with the actual meaning. How dare I! >>> >>>>> Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that >>>>> foundation of sand you built your house. >>> >>>>>>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the >>>>>>> phrase. >>> >>>>>> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >>>>>> time of the founding. >>> >>>>> Done and done. >>> >>>>>>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your >>>>>>> view. >>> >>>>>> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, >>>>>> pushed by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also >>>>>> used at the time of the founding. >>> >>>>> It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. >>> >>>>>> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to >>>>>> it. Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? >>> >>>>> Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. >>> >>>>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. >>> >>>>>>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... >>> >>>>>>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with >>>>>>> most of the subscribers to t.p.g. >>> >>>>>>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>>>>>> controversial 5:4 decision. >>> >>>>>>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good >>>>>>> thing the Supreme Court straightened them out. >>> >>>>>> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to >>>>>> show "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. >>> >>>>> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. >>> >>>> More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported >>>> claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to >>>> show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to >>>> what I have shown. >>> >>> Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. >>> >>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." >>> >>> >> its not arms its alms > > :) > not even a dodging reply
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <ojfehdplvqojhf7iocnrqa4q4644g9lm91@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689060 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:48:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >not even a dodging reply While I agree that the term: "to bear arms" has an exclusively military connotation, methinks we would be doing better to take the full 27-word sentence and look at that. Thus, we have: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "A well regulated Militia..." is a noun phrase; "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a present progressive adjective phrase amplifying the preceding noun phrase. Taken together, we have a 13-word noun phrase; there is no verb, so it doesn't qualify as a clause. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is obviously a 10-word noun phrase. And, last but not least, we find that required part of all properly constructed sentences, i.e., the verb phrase: "...shall not be infringed." The subject is 23 words. You can't truncate 13 of them without altering the semantic of the sentence. There is absolutely nothing about the first 13 word phrase that would signal the reader that it might be "prefatory"; similarly, the following 10 words simply form a noun phrase; nothing tells the reader that this is could be the "operant" phrase. The way one arrives at such nonsense is with a pre-existing belief in the NRA marketing material because there is no support found in the syntax of the sentence. ******* When reading the Federalist essays, it is difficult to discern Alexander Hamilton's writing from James Madison's; their styles are very similar. One hallmark of Madison's writing, however, was that he tended to capitalize the important words of a sentence, albeit somewhat inconsistently. In the second amendment, the reader finds: "Militia", "State", and "Arms" so capitalized, none of which are proper nouns. This might lend some insight into the author's intentions. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnqbhpF560lU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689147 |
!Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:48:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns % > <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >> not even a dodging reply > > While I agree that the term: "to bear arms" has an exclusively > military connotation, methinks we would be doing better to take the > full 27-word sentence and look at that. > > Thus, we have: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the > security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear > Arms, shall not be infringed." > > "A well regulated Militia..." is a noun phrase; "being necessary to > the security of a free State" is a present progressive adjective > phrase amplifying the preceding noun phrase. Taken together, we have > a 13-word noun phrase; there is no verb, so it doesn't qualify as a > clause. > > "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is obviously a 10-word > noun phrase. > > And, last but not least, we find that required part of all properly > constructed sentences, i.e., the verb phrase: "...shall not be > infringed." > > The subject is 23 words. You can't truncate 13 of them without > altering the semantic of the sentence. There is absolutely nothing > about the first 13 word phrase that would signal the reader that it > might be "prefatory"; similarly, the following 10 words simply form a > noun phrase; nothing tells the reader that this is could be the > "operant" phrase. The way one arrives at such nonsense is with a > pre-existing belief in the NRA marketing material because there is no > support found in the syntax of the sentence. > > ******* > > When reading the Federalist essays, it is difficult to discern > Alexander Hamilton's writing from James Madison's; their styles are > very similar. One hallmark of Madison's writing, however, was that he > tended to capitalize the important words of a sentence, albeit > somewhat inconsistently. In the second amendment, the reader finds: > "Militia", "State", and "Arms" so capitalized, none of which are > proper nouns. This might lend some insight into the author's > intentions. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > Which version of the second amendment? There are half a dozen or so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <4ugghd5mnafm9q5hp9s2jjudh01u4aju0p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689165 |
x-no-idiots: yes On 6 Jun 2018 15:05:29 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Which version of the second amendment? There are half a dozen or so. Yes, I am aware of that, however, only one of them was ratified. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnr93uFbpqgU57@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689210 |
On 6/6/18 1:27 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On 6 Jun 2018 15:05:29 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Which version of the second amendment? There are half a dozen or so. > > Yes, I am aware of that, however, only one of them was ratified. Different states had different versions -- and 2/3 approved of the version THEY got, but not necessarily the official one. If one is pedantic, no one version ever WAS ratified. Technically one can say we do not even have a second amendment. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnqef9FbpqgU47@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689147 |
On 6/6/18 5:48 AM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:48:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns % > <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >> not even a dodging reply > > While I agree that the term: "to bear arms" has an exclusively > military connotation, methinks we would be doing better to take the > full 27-word sentence and look at that. Keep in mind your admission here. OK. > Thus, we have: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the > security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear > Arms, shall not be infringed." Remember what YOU said of "bear arms". > "A well regulated Militia..." is a noun phrase; "being necessary to > the security of a free State" is a present progressive adjective > phrase amplifying the preceding noun phrase. Taken together, we have > a 13-word noun phrase; there is no verb, so it doesn't qualify as a > clause. Depends on how you define "clause". Sigh. > "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is obviously a 10-word > noun phrase. One need not go into grammar lessons to understand the meaning -- esp. given how there are about half a dozen versions with slightly different punctuation and capitalization, and because the author almost certainly did not dissect their sentences to this extent. > And, last but not least, we find that required part of all properly > constructed sentences, i.e., the verb phrase: "...shall not be > infringed." So no stopping convicts... or stopping me from having nukes and dirty bombs, ricin and dynamite... or shall we agree ALL rights have limits (something even the SCOTUS agreed to in their 2008 decision when they went with the new definition of the second amendment). > The subject is 23 words. You can't truncate 13 of them without > altering the semantic of the sentence. There is absolutely nothing > about the first 13 word phrase that would signal the reader that it > might be "prefatory"; similarly, the following 10 words simply form a > noun phrase; nothing tells the reader that this is could be the > "operant" phrase. The way one arrives at such nonsense is with a > pre-existing belief in the NRA marketing material because there is no > support found in the syntax of the sentence. You say there is nothing that would "signal" the reader, but most scholars DO see it that way. Here is a sample (the first four relevant articles I found when doing this search: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> 1) https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=lawreview | First, the second amendment was passed as an | assurance to the states that they would have the | right to maintain their own militias. Such | militias were to be used as the centerpiece of the | nation's military power, as an alternative to a | large standing army, as a tool for the states to | ensure public order, and as a means for the states | to defend against the encroachment of federal | power. | | Second, the second amendment does not operate as a | restraint on the states. It acts as a restraint on the | federal government. | | Third, there is no substantial historical evidence for | the claim that the second amendment guarantees an | individual right to have arms for any purpose other | than participation in a state-regulated militia. | | Fourth, as long as federal gun laws do not adversely | affect the organized state militias, these laws should | encounter no second amendment problems. | | Fifth, because the state militias no longer rely on | the use of privately-owned firearms by their active | members, federal regulation of private gun ownership | poses no threat to state militias, and therefore | raises no constitutional issue. This is demonstrated | by the remarkable unanimity of federal and state | courts in upholding the constitutional validity of | firearms laws against second amendment challenges. 2) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105369 | This article argues that the second amendment was | initially proposed and passed in response to some | antifederalist fears of a standing army. The | thrust of the Amendment was to prevent the | national government from disarming the state | militias. Similarly, the Amendment allowed the | states to arm their own militias if Congress | failed to do so under its Article I, Section 8 | powers. The article notes that Madison and other | Federalists who wrote the Second Amendment were | fully aware of demands for an amendment to protect | an individual's right to own weapons, and that the | framers of the Second Amendment emphatically | rejected this concept. 3) https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/Reviews/rwstand.htm | The contemporary meaning of the Second Amendment | is the same as it was at the time of its adoption. | The federal government may regulate the National | Guard, but may not disarm it against the will of | state legislatures. Nothing in the Second | Amendment, however, precludes Congress or the | states from requiring licensing and registration | of firearms; in fact, there is nothing to stop an | outright congressional ban on private ownership of | all handguns and all rifles. 4) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114 | Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason | to believe that, in significant part, James | Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his | constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, | that Congress could not use its newly-acquired | powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by | disarming the militia, on which the South relied | for slave control. > > ******* > > When reading the Federalist essays, it is difficult to discern > Alexander Hamilton's writing from James Madison's; their styles are > very similar. One hallmark of Madison's writing, however, was that he > tended to capitalize the important words of a sentence, albeit > somewhat inconsistently. In the second amendment, the reader finds: > "Militia", "State", and "Arms" so capitalized, none of which are > proper nouns. This might lend some insight into the author's > intentions. > > Jones Sadly I bet not all who signed it even agreed. The wording of the second amendment, even excluding the multiple versions, is a mess. But we all agree there should be limits... infringements if you will. The question is where to have those limits, not if. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <rbgghdh976h8i51bmbrkvk97ku4dvgpfkr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689170 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Depends on how you define "clause". Sigh. Well, how do *you* define a clause? I could copy and paste from dozens of sources; however, the term is quite well defined. A clause could stand alone as a sentence from a syntactic perspective in that it has a subject and a verb... lacking that, it is a phrase. Many sentences have multiple clauses; this sentence is an example of such. Q: What is the difference between a sentence and a cat? A: A sentence has pause at the end of its clause and a cat has claws at the end of its paws. (Look out Stephen Colbert!) Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnr9arFbpqgU58@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689214 |
On 6/6/18 1:32 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Depends on how you define "clause". Sigh. > > Well, how do *you* define a clause? A jolly man who brings presents to good boys and girls. And now others, too. He is a liberal! OK: Depends on context... but by some definitions it does not need both a subject and predicate. > I could copy and paste from > dozens of sources; however, the term is quite well defined. 1. a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate. 2. a particular and separate article, stipulation, or proviso in a treaty, bill, or contract. > A clause > could stand alone as a sentence from a syntactic perspective in that > it has a subject and a verb... lacking that, it is a phrase. Many > sentences have multiple clauses; this sentence is an example of such. > > Q: What is the difference between a sentence and a cat? > > A: A sentence has pause at the end of its clause and a cat has claws > at the end of its paws. (Look out Stephen Colbert!) :) That is almost as bad as my first comment... and I did not read down on yours before I wrote that. :) > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <f8hghd5rofh4puf2ac22r139l5doa40fog@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689170 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >One need not go into grammar lessons to understand the meaning -- esp. >given how there are about half a dozen versions with slightly different >punctuation and capitalization, and because the author almost certainly >did not dissect their sentences to this extent. James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf9pap$k4s$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689216 |
"!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message news:f8hghd5rofh4puf2ac22r139l5doa40fog@4ax.com... > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>One need not go into grammar lessons to understand the meaning -- esp. >>given how there are about half a dozen versions with slightly different >>punctuation and capitalization, and because the author almost certainly >>did not dissect their sentences to this extent. > > James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. And yet you tell us that he didn't know what "the people" meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnre2sFbpqgU60@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689240 |
On 6/6/18 4:03 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message > news:f8hghd5rofh4puf2ac22r139l5doa40fog@4ax.com... >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> One need not go into grammar lessons to understand the meaning -- esp. >>> given how there are about half a dozen versions with slightly different >>> punctuation and capitalization, and because the author almost certainly >>> did not dissect their sentences to this extent. >> >> James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. > > And yet you tell us that he didn't know what "the people" meant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied that. But YOU are saying you disagree with his intentions, as least according to LiveScience. <https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html> ----- James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. ----- -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnrdrsFbh1hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689216 |
On 6/6/18 1:34 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> One need not go into grammar lessons to understand the meaning -- esp. >> given how there are about half a dozen versions with slightly different >> punctuation and capitalization, and because the author almost certainly >> did not dissect their sentences to this extent. > > James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. Interesting. <https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html> ----- James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. ----- -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnoqd8Fqsh7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689012 |
On 6/5/18 5:09 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/5/18 4:33 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>> ... >>>>> I note your misogyny... >> >>>> Hey, I LOVE women! >> >>> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. >> >>>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. >> >>>> You're the one who took it as an insult. >> >>> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, with >>> the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who referred to >>> people in the feminine AS an insult. >> >> The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the >> liar. >> >>> Own your own actions. >> >>>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. >> >>> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. >> >> I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll >> note it. >> >>>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. >> >>>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" >> >>> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I am >>> going with the actual meaning. How dare I! >> >> Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that foundation >> of sand you built your house. >> >>>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the phrase. >> >>> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >>> time of the founding. >> >> Done and done. >> >>>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your view. >> >>> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, pushed >>> by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also used at the >>> time of the founding. >> >> It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. >> >>> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to it. >>> Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? >> >> Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. >> >> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. >> >>>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... >> >>>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with most >>>> of the subscribers to t.p.g. >> >>>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>>> controversial 5:4 decision. >> >>>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good thing >>>> the Supreme Court straightened them out. >> >>> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to show >>> "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. >> >> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. >> >> > More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported > claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to > show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to > what I have shown. > > Bottom line: you have certainty with no support, I have support with no > certainty. I am open to contrary information where you are close minded. > > Fair enough. > > Max had nothing to add other than insults. Not interested. So, back to the topic: * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <dveehd53mv92v00f5ju5dhdjag1uvb4in8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #688955 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:50:09 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're both thinking with your ovaries and >> not your brains. Have you ever wondered what that "contradicting evidence" is, exactly? Would you care to wager that it doesn't come from: www.nraila.org ? Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf72sb$hr7$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688890 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 7:19 AM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnmns5Fecg6U3@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >> >>>> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence >>>> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned >>>> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. >> >>>> I always say that I support the 27-word version of 2A, not the >>>> 14-word one. >> >>> Love it. >> >> Then you girls should understand what you support. > > The fact you use "girls" as an insult, which you clearly are, speaks > poorly of you. > >> I've provided this link before and, as before, I expect Jones to ignore >> it. We'll see if Snit >> ignores it, too. >> >> http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html > > Interesting analogy: > > Books, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-schooled electorate, > and thus those people referenced (the electorate... ALL citizens) should > have the right to books. > > Arms, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-regulated militia, and > this those people referenced (the militia... a subset of citizens) should > have the right to arms. > > Interesting analogy which makes it VERY clear that the new interpretation > of the second amendment is not an accurate one. Thank you. > > A better analogy to the second amendment might be: > > A well informed group of scholars, being necessary to the > education of a free State, the right of the people to keep > and support libraries shall not be infringed. > > It does not imply that anyone and everyone should be able to have a > library in their home, nor even that everyone should have access to a > library card. Excuse me, but if I can't keep a library in my home, then wouldn't that be a direct violation of the terms of your sentence. Since it doesn't limit where the library is, the size of the library or even who owns the library. Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a sentence would protect my right to do so. indeed, I don't know of any scholar who doesn't have their own personal library. Further I would note that according to your claims only the state could have a library, and only when a scholar is called into the service of the state could they access that library, and that they could only do so in such a time and manner as the state directs. So how many scholars would you have in such a society where the knowledge is controlled by the state and released only to those the state deems worth and then only during such a time as they are deemed worthy? Nope, if we apply YOUR arguments to this sentence we start to see exactly how insane your arguments are with regard to the 2nd Amendment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnokucFbpqgU19@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688975 |
On 6/5/18 3:15 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 7:19 AM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnmns5Fecg6U3@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >>> >>>>> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence >>>>> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned >>>>> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. >>> >>>>> I always say that I support the 27-word version of 2A, not the >>>>> 14-word one. >>> >>>> Love it. >>> >>> Then you girls should understand what you support. >> >> The fact you use "girls" as an insult, which you clearly are, speaks >> poorly of you. >> >>> I've provided this link before and, as before, I expect Jones to >>> ignore it. We'll see if Snit >>> ignores it, too. >>> >>> http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html >>> >> >> Interesting analogy: >> >> Books, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-schooled >> electorate, and thus those people referenced (the electorate... ALL >> citizens) should have the right to books. >> >> Arms, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-regulated militia, >> and this those people referenced (the militia... a subset of citizens) >> should have the right to arms. >> >> Interesting analogy which makes it VERY clear that the new >> interpretation of the second amendment is not an accurate one. Thank you. >> >> A better analogy to the second amendment might be: >> >> A well informed group of scholars, being necessary to the >> education of a free State, the right of the people to keep >> and support libraries shall not be infringed. >> >> It does not imply that anyone and everyone should be able to have a >> library in their home, nor even that everyone should have access to a >> library card. > > Excuse me, but if I can't keep a library in my home, then wouldn't that > be a direct violation of the terms of your sentence. Since it doesn't > limit where the library is, the size of the library or even who owns the > library. Oh, we can play word games with it all day. > Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a sentence > would protect my right to do so. From here we would have to debate the meaning of the term "library". The sentence is poorly worded... as is the second amendment. People would be able to debate it for hundreds of years and have different views... but the real problem would be the poor wording. So what should we do? Either look to see how the words were used at the time and in that context or, perhaps, go with what works best for us now. And I would think that no matter what an amendment said you should be able to keep books at your house whether we deem it a "library" or not! > indeed, I don't know of any scholar who doesn't have their own personal > library. > > Further I would note that according to your claims only the state could > have a library, Incorrect. The federal government could, too. > and only when a scholar is called into the service of > the state could they access that library, and that they could only do so > in such a time and manner as the state directs. I could see that interpretation. Others would work, too. > So how many scholars would you have in such a society where the > knowledge is controlled by the state and released only to those the > state deems worth and then only during such a time as they are deemed > worthy? Well, you could have drafts where you force people to be scholars. :) Sadly right now in our country we should have MUCH more of an emphasis on education. > Nope, if we apply YOUR arguments to this sentence we start to see > exactly how insane your arguments are with regard to the 2nd Amendment. How so? The sentence (both the second amendment and my above) are worded so poorly you can get different meanings from them. That is why I say we should look at things like what "bear arms" meant and how it was used at the time. That leads to one conclusion. You can also look at how "arms" was used... and in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere it was used not just for guns but for the biggest arms of the day -- the arms of a country. By THAT way of looking at it you can argue that we should be able to have nukes and even ricin and dirty bombs (the rights of even the government have been infringed there!) Really we have a poorly written sentence that was generally interpreted one way for most of the history of the country but then in 2008 the SCOTUS offered the first official support of the new definition. I am not saying the new definition cannot be read into those same words -- but why would we want to do that other than to push an agenda? I think we should go with what we do with other tools (at least ideally, and better than we do with guns), support evidence-based polices. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7evv$g93$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688996 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnokucFbpqgU19@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:15 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/5/18 7:19 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fnmns5Fecg6U3@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >>>> >>>>>> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence >>>>>> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned >>>>>> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. >>>> >>>>>> I always say that I support the 27-word version of 2A, not the >>>>>> 14-word one. >>>> >>>>> Love it. >>>> >>>> Then you girls should understand what you support. >>> >>> The fact you use "girls" as an insult, which you clearly are, speaks >>> poorly of you. >>> >>>> I've provided this link before and, as before, I expect Jones to ignore >>>> it. We'll see if Snit >>>> ignores it, too. >>>> >>>> http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html >>> >>> Interesting analogy: >>> >>> Books, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-schooled electorate, >>> and thus those people referenced (the electorate... ALL citizens) should >>> have the right to books. >>> >>> Arms, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-regulated militia, and >>> this those people referenced (the militia... a subset of citizens) >>> should have the right to arms. >>> >>> Interesting analogy which makes it VERY clear that the new >>> interpretation of the second amendment is not an accurate one. Thank >>> you. >>> >>> A better analogy to the second amendment might be: >>> >>> A well informed group of scholars, being necessary to the >>> education of a free State, the right of the people to keep >>> and support libraries shall not be infringed. >>> >>> It does not imply that anyone and everyone should be able to have a >>> library in their home, nor even that everyone should have access to a >>> library card. >> >> Excuse me, but if I can't keep a library in my home, then wouldn't that >> be a direct violation of the terms of your sentence. Since it doesn't >> limit where the library is, the size of the library or even who owns the >> library. > > Oh, we can play word games with it all day. Translation: Run away, run away, he just kicked my ass using a sentence structure the same as the 2nd and I don't have any idea of how to make my twisted interpretation work now that we’ve changed it to a neutral subject. >> Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a sentence >> would protect my right to do so. > > From here we would have to debate the meaning of the term "library". Definition of library plural libraries 1 a : a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (such as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use but not for sale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/library Debate is now over. > The sentence is poorly worded... as is the second amendment. It's poorly worded if you want to try to force it to mean something else, but for the idea is exists to convey it's quite clear. >People would be able to debate it for hundreds of years and have different >views... but the real problem would be the poor wording. True, but even if you debated it for hundreds of years the language, meaning and intent of the 2nd still wouldn't match the view you what to force upon it. > So what should we do? Either look to see how the words were used at the > time and in that context or, perhaps, go with what works best for us now. SCOTUS has already ruled on that and it is the meaning of the words at the time of the legislation and the intent of the authors that determine it's meaning. If you wish to change it to what you think would work for us now, then you need to do so via Article V. Good luck with that since I don't see your view ever being accepted to the extent necessary to ratify a change to the language of the 2nd. > And I would think that no matter what an amendment said you should be able > to keep books at your house whether we deem it a "library" or not! Just as I should be able to keep and bear my arms whether you like it or not. > >> indeed, I don't know of any scholar who doesn't have their own personal >> library. >> >> Further I would note that according to your claims only the state could >> have a library, > > Incorrect. The federal government could, too. > >> and only when a scholar is called into the service of the state could >> they access that library, and that they could only do so in such a time >> and manner as the state directs. > > I could see that interpretation. Others would work, too. I'm sure it is because you think a person can go from dumb and ignorant to a well educated scholar in a matter of moments once exposed to a library. That is assuming there is a library around at just the moment in time when it's needed. Which is sort of why people have their personal arms to keep and bear so that they can be more likely to have it around when needed. >> So how many scholars would you have in such a society where the knowledge >> is controlled by the state and released only to those the state deems >> worth and then only during such a time as they are deemed worthy? > > Well, you could have drafts where you force people to be scholars. :) You could, but under the 13th Amendment I would consider that as involuntary servitude. Just as I would with a military draft. > Sadly right now in our country we should have MUCH more of an emphasis on > education. Agreed, the Department of Education has all but destroyed education in this country. Look at you, a single complex sentence and you are totally unable to read it for comprehension even using current definitions. Clearly we need more emphasis on actually educating rather than indoctrination as is currently the case. Of course, that means your view would be rejected even more, but that's what happens when you know the facts. > >> Nope, if we apply YOUR arguments to this sentence we start to see exactly >> how insane your arguments are with regard to the 2nd Amendment. > > How so? The sentence (both the second amendment and my above) are worded > so poorly you can get different meanings from them. Your inability to read for comprehension isn't a failure of the sentence, but rather either your ignorance in how to read, or your refusal to accept what is said. > That is why I say we should look at things like what "bear arms" meant and > how it was used at the time. Which SCOTUS did and found that bearing arms wasn't something limited to a military function. See DC vs Heller for cites. > That leads to one conclusion. That you're ignorant, and should research the facts? >You can also look at how "arms" was used... and in the Federalist Papers >and elsewhere it was used not just for guns but for the biggest arms of the >day -- the arms of a country. By THAT way of looking at it you can argue >that we should be able to have nukes and even ricin and dirty bombs (the >rights of even the government have been infringed there!) Yes, it does. Now I agree that might need to be revised and I would support a properly worded Amendment to that effect, but let's stick to the subject of firearms and level the rest for a newsgroup that deals with WMD. > Really we have a poorly written sentence that was generally interpreted > one way for most of the history of the country but then in 2008 the SCOTUS > offered the first official support of the new definition. Actually the interpretation of SCOTUS has been consistent and the court has NEVER denied standing for any individual to claim the 2nd in their defense. As such the 2nd has always been demonstrably shown to have been viewed by the Court as protecting an individual right, just as any other right of the people is. >I am not saying the new definition cannot be read into those same words -- > but why would we want to do that other than to push an agenda? Yes, and you apparently want to push an agenda since you ignore the clear language and the historical references to support that language in favor of some twisted interpretation that would allow you to deny people their rights. > > I think we should go with what we do with other tools (at least ideally, > and better than we do with guns), support evidence-based polices. Good luck with that, because there is no real evidence that shows gun control does anything positive in preventing criminal access, lowering violent crime rates or any of the other excuses made to engage in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnou5oFrfodU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689065 |
On 6/5/18 6:41 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> Oh, we can play word games with it all day. > > Translation: When you do this you are admitting you are not responding to my ideas but your own twisting of them. > Run away, run away, he just kicked my ass using a sentence > structure the same as the 2nd and I don't have any idea of how to make > my twisted interpretation work now that we’ve changed it to a neutral > subject. Sorry you feel that way. I say if you think you made a mistake so what? Own it and move on. >>> Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a >>> sentence would protect my right to do so. >> >> From here we would have to debate the meaning of the term "library". > > Definition of library > plural libraries > > 1 a : a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference > materials (such as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept > for use but not for sale > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/library > > Debate is now over. You have decided a side issue debate where you play word games with things not even in the second amendment is over. Good! I hope you keep your word on that! ... >> I could see that interpretation. Others would work, too. > > I'm sure it is because you think a person can go from dumb and ignorant > to a well educated scholar in a matter of moments once exposed to a > library. Interesting that what you are "sure" of is not at all correct. Now apply this to other thoughts of yours. You being "sure" is not a sign at all of something being accurate. Good thing to note. Thank you. ... > Clearly we need more emphasis on actually educating rather than > indoctrination as is currently the case. > > Of course, that means your view would be rejected even more, but that's > what happens when you know the facts. See: this is another unsupported assumption on your part. Remember: * I back evidence-based policies. That scares the NRA and their supporters. They work against education and research. ... >> You can also look at how "arms" was used... and in the Federalist >> Papers and elsewhere it was used not just for guns but for the biggest >> arms of the day -- the arms of a country. By THAT way of looking at it >> you can argue that we should be able to have nukes and even ricin and >> dirty bombs (the rights of even the government have been infringed >> there!) > > Yes, it does. Now I agree that might need to be revised and I would > support a properly worded Amendment to that effect, but let's stick to > the subject of firearms and level the rest for a newsgroup that deals > with WMD. Why move goal posts from the second amendment to firearms? >> Really we have a poorly written sentence that was generally >> interpreted one way for most of the history of the country but then in >> 2008 the SCOTUS offered the first official support of the new definition. > > Actually the interpretation of SCOTUS has been consistent and the court > has NEVER denied standing for any individual to claim the 2nd in their > defense. When did they back that meaning before 2008? > As such the 2nd has always been demonstrably shown to have been > viewed by the Court as protecting an individual right, just as any other > right of the people is. You are "sure" of this. But, as even you demonstrate above, that is of no value to suggesting accuracy. >> I am not saying the new definition cannot be read into those same >> words -- but why would we want to do that other than to push an agenda? > > Yes, and you apparently want to push an agenda since you ignore the > clear language and the historical references to support that language in > favor of some twisted interpretation that would allow you to deny people > their rights. My "agenda" is to go with whatever the evidence shows. Currently the evidence does not back your view. Maybe someday new evidence will, as unlikely as that seems. But, as I have noted, my push to use evidence and research is terrifying to the NRA and most of their backers. >> I think we should go with what we do with other tools (at least >> ideally, and better than we do with guns), support evidence-based >> polices. > > Good luck with that, because there is no real evidence that shows gun > control does anything positive in preventing criminal access, lowering > violent crime rates or any of the other excuses made to engage in it. Trivial to show research which contradicts your claim there (also has other info in it): https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ Your views, repeatedly, are trivial to show are contrary to the evidence. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf72sa$hr7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688835 |
"!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... > x-no-idiots: yes > > On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>Look at the WHOLE sentence. > > Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence > with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned > inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't seem to figure out how to read the sentence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnokd1Fpu21U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688974 |
On 6/5/18 3:09 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message > news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >> >> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence >> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned >> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. > > Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't seem > to figure out how to read the sentence. Do you understand the concept of supporting your view? Seems not. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web