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

Groups > sci.physics > #689929 > unrolled thread

Re: Slaughtering concert goers.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0700
    Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 16:51 -0700
      Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 19:44 -0700
        Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:50 -0700
          Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 21:14 -0700
            Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 21:21 -0700
              Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-11 06:39 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 06:48 -0700
                  Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-11 07:10 -0700
                  Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 11:04 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 11:03 -0700
              Re: Slaughtering concert goers. will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-11 14:22 +0000

#689929 — Re: Slaughtering concert goers.

In news:fo5l05F9hajU1@mid.individual.net,
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:

> On 6/10/18 2:33 PM, max headroom wrote:
> ...
>>> You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable".

>> No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable.

> Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK.

I denied YOUR evidence as disputable and shoddy.

> But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU
> pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others).
> Those include:

> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free
> ex-felons often are denied arms.

Were they at the time the Bill of Rights were adopted?

> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace"
> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied
> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much
> more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a
> country.

Were those federal laws or state laws?

> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to
> guns... completely disingenuous of you]

Ummm, those quotes did not limit the right to poor white males. How disingenuous of
YOU.

"[T]he whole body of the people...."

> * It denies ANY gun laws work...

More of your bullshit. "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of
legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime
rates reduced by such legislation...."

> ... but we know that is complete and utter poppycock....

So are your estrogen-fueled fantasies.

> ... Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems
> with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I
> gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws
> working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so
> they know this claim of theirs is a lie.

More fantasy. Dickey amendment = no CDC lobbying.

> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.

What did he do before 1982 to thwart research?

> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and
> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun
> violence and other harm.

When and how?

> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend
> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That
> is absurd.

What is absurd is your hysterical claim. Again, I quote the source--

"... What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long-lost -
proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual
right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for
protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and
findings forms the first portion of this report.
    In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also
invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit
their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here
following the report of the Subcommittee."

> [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to
> see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest
> of you.]

Forgive me. I didn't realize your reading comprehension is so poor. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#689934

On 6/10/18 3:46 PM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fo5l05F9hajU1@mid.individual.net,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
> 
>> On 6/10/18 2:33 PM, max headroom wrote:
>> ...
>>>> You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable".
> 
>>> No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable.
> 
>> Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK.
> 
> I denied YOUR evidence as disputable and shoddy.

You deny things which do not fit your bias. Whatever. I want to talk 
about the topic, not your weaknesses. Not your excuses.

>> But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU
>> pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others).
>> Those include:
> 
>> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free
>> ex-felons often are denied arms.
> 
> Were they at the time the Bill of Rights were adopted?

Many were, sure. But others were not. Think

>> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace"
>> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied
>> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much
>> more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a
>> country.
> 
> Were those federal laws or state laws?
> 
>> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to
>> guns... completely disingenuous of you]
> 
> Ummm, those quotes did not limit the right to poor white males. How disingenuous of
> YOU.
> 
> "[T]he whole body of the people...."
> 
>> * It denies ANY gun laws work...
> 
> More of your bullshit. "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of
> legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime
> rates reduced by such legislation...."
> 
>> ... but we know that is complete and utter poppycock....
> 
> So are your estrogen-fueled fantasies.
> 
>> ... Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems
>> with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I
>> gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws
>> working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so
>> they know this claim of theirs is a lie.
> 
> More fantasy. Dickey amendment = no CDC lobbying.
> 
>> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.
> 
> What did he do before 1982 to thwart research?
> 
>> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and
>> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun
>> violence and other harm.
> 
> When and how?
> 
>> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend
>> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That
>> is absurd.
> 
> What is absurd is your hysterical claim. Again, I quote the source--
> 
> "... What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long-lost -
> proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual
> right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for
> protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and
> findings forms the first portion of this report.
>      In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also
> invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit
> their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here
> following the report of the Subcommittee."
> 
>> [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to
>> see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest
>> of you.]
> 
> Forgive me. I didn't realize your reading comprehension is so poor.
> 
> 
My comments before your snipping:

Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK.

But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU 
pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others). 
Those include:

* Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free 
ex-felons often are denied arms.

* The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace" 
which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied 
not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much 
more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a 
country.

[You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to 
guns... completely disingenuous of you]

* It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter 
poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems 
with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I 
gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws 
working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so 
they know this claim of theirs is a lie.

* He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.

* He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and 
other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun 
violence and other harm.

* He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend 
themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That 
is absurd.

[You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to 
see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest 
of you.]

Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and suggested 
I look at.

Maybe you should look at it. :)


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

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

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

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

#689957

In news:fo5rr8FamrhU1@mid.individual.net,
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:

> On 6/10/18 3:46 PM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:fo5l05F9hajU1@mid.individual.net,
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:

>>> On 6/10/18 2:33 PM, max headroom wrote:

>>> ...
>>>>> You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable".

>>>> No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable.

>>> Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK.

>> I denied YOUR evidence as disputable and shoddy.

> You deny things which do not fit your bias. Whatever. I want to talk
> about the topic, not your weaknesses. Not your excuses.

You lost track of the topic long ago.

>>> But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU
>>> pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others).
>>> Those include:

>>> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free
>>> ex-felons often are denied arms.

>> Were they at the time the Bill of Rights were adopted?

> Many were, sure. But others were not. Think

>>> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace"
>>> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied
>>> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much
>>> more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a
>>> country.

>> Were those federal laws or state laws?

>>> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to
>>> guns... completely disingenuous of you]

>> Ummm, those quotes did not limit the right to poor white males. How disingenuous
>> of YOU.

>> "[T]he whole body of the people...."

>>> * It denies ANY gun laws work...

>> More of your bullshit. "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of
>> legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime
>> rates reduced by such legislation...."

>>> ... but we know that is complete and utter poppycock....

>> So are your estrogen-fueled fantasies.

>>> ... Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems
>>> with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I
>>> gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws
>>> working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so
>>> they know this claim of theirs is a lie.

>> More fantasy. Dickey amendment = no CDC lobbying.

>>> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.

>> What did he do before 1982 to thwart research?

>>> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and
>>> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun
>>> violence and other harm.

>> When and how?

>>> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend
>>> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That
>>> is absurd.

>> What is absurd is your hysterical claim. Again, I quote the source--

>> "... What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and
>> long-lost - proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as
>> an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful
>> manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of
>> our research and findings forms the first portion of this report.
>>      In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we
>> also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to
>> submit their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced
>> here following the report of the Subcommittee."

>>> [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to
>>> see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest
>>> of you.]

>> Forgive me. I didn't realize your reading comprehension is so poor.


> My comments before your snipping:

> Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK.

> But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU
> pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others).
> Those include:

> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free
> ex-felons often are denied arms.

> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace"
> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied
> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much
> more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a
> country.

> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to
> guns... completely disingenuous of you]

> * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter
> poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems
> with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I
> gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws
> working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so
> they know this claim of theirs is a lie.

> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.

> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and
> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun
> violence and other harm.

> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend
> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That
> is absurd.

> [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to
> see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest
> of you.]

> Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and suggested
> I look at.

> Maybe you should look at it. :)

Asked, and answered.

Your capitulation is acknowledged. 

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

#689959

On 6/10/18 7:44 PM, max headroom wrote:
...
>> My comments before your snipping:
> 
>> Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK.
> 
>> But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU
>> pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others).
>> Those include:
> 
>> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free
>> ex-felons often are denied arms.
> 
>> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace"
>> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied
>> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much
>> more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a
>> country.
> 
>> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to
>> guns... completely disingenuous of you]
> 
>> * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter
>> poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems
>> with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I
>> gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws
>> working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so
>> they know this claim of theirs is a lie.
> 
>> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.
> 
>> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and
>> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun
>> violence and other harm.
> 
>> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend
>> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That
>> is absurd.
> 
>> [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to
>> see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest
>> of you.]
> 
>> Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and suggested
>> I look at.
> 
>> Maybe you should look at it. :)
> 
> Asked, and answered.
> 
> Your capitulation is acknowledged.

You picked some nits, were called out, then snipped those parts of the 
discussion. Then when called out you claim I "capitulated", showing 
projection and dishonesty on your part.

Fair enough: you have shown you are not interested in an honest 
conversation and cannot defend your views. That is an issue for you to 
deal with, not me.

And, predictably, you will reply with insults and accusations and NOT 
responding to those points in an honest way. If you ever do try the 
conversation will be so buried that neither of us remember the details.

It is not like your nonsense is clever or creative. :)



-- 
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]

#689967

In news:fo66c3Fcd58U1@mid.individual.net,
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:

> On 6/10/18 7:44 PM, max headroom wrote:

[big snit snip]

> ...
>>> My comments before your snipping:

>>> Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK.

>>> But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU
>>> pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others).
>>> Those include:

>>> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free
>>> ex-felons often are denied arms.

>>> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace"
>>> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied
>>> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much
>>> more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a
>>> country.

>>> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to
>>> guns... completely disingenuous of you]

>>> * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter
>>> poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems
>>> with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I
>>> gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws
>>> working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so
>>> they know this claim of theirs is a lie.

>>> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.

>>> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and
>>> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun
>>> violence and other harm.

>>> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend
>>> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That
>>> is absurd.

>>> [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to
>>> see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest
>>> of you.]

>>> Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and suggested
>>> I look at.

>>> Maybe you should look at it. :)

>> Asked, and answered.

>> Your capitulation is acknowledged.

> You picked some nits, were called out, then snipped those parts of the
> discussion...

No, you're the one doing the snipping.

> ... Then when called out you claim I "capitulated", showing
> projection and dishonesty on your part.

The dishonesty is yours. You lie when cornered.

> Fair enough: you have shown you are not interested in an honest
> conversation and cannot defend your views. That is an issue for you to
> deal with, not me.

I defended my views and blew yours out of the water.

> And, predictably, you will reply with insults and accusations and NOT
> responding to those points in an honest way....

I responded to all of your red herrings, showing you the liar.

> ... If you ever do try the conversation will be so buried that neither of us 
> remember the details.

That's what you're hoping for.

> It is not like your nonsense is clever or creative. :)

It's not like yours is honest or honorable.

p.s. You should slink away now. 

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

#689969

On 6/10/18 9:14 PM, max headroom wrote:
>> You picked some nits, were called out, then snipped those parts of the
>> discussion...
> No, you're the one doing the snipping.
> 
>> ... Then when called out you claim I "capitulated", showing
>> projection and dishonesty on your part.
> The dishonesty is yours. You lie when cornered.
> 
>> Fair enough: you have shown you are not interested in an honest
>> conversation and cannot defend your views. That is an issue for you to
>> deal with, not me.
> I defended my views and blew yours out of the water.
> 
>> And, predictably, you will reply with insults and accusations and NOT
>> responding to those points in an honest way....
> I responded to all of your red herrings, showing you the liar.
> 
>> ... If you ever do try the conversation will be so buried that neither of us
>> remember the details.
> That's what you're hoping for.
> 
>> It is not like your nonsense is clever or creative. :)
> It's not like yours is honest or honorable.
> 
> p.s. You should slink away now.
> 
> 
You did as predicted... and my points stand, unrefuted. Fair enough.

* Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free 
ex-felons often are denied arms. And of course this did not apply to 
women and others.

* The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace" 
which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied 
not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much 
more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a 
country.

* It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter 
poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems 
with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I 
gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws 
working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so 
they know this claim of theirs is a lie.

* He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.

* He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and 
other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun 
violence and other harm.

* He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend 
themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That 
is absurd.


Those points are solid enough where the best you could do was pick nits 
(such as pointing to examples of poor white males having guns) and 
snipped (esp. with the third point where your snipping was extensive).

You will now insist that you have refuted those point... even though you 
have not (and had you, you would just copy and paste and NOT snip the 
points being made).

You have no interest in an honest discussion and focus on your emotion 
over 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]

#689990

In news:fo6bleFd7t7U1@mid.individual.net,
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:

> You will now insist that you have refuted those point...

Yup.

> ... even though you have not (and had you, you would just copy and paste and NOT
> snip the points being made).

That's your style, not mine

> You have no interest in an honest discussion and focus on your emotion
> over evidence.

Right back at ya, lady. Your games may work in comp.os.linux.advocacy or sci.physics,
but they ain't gonna fly in t.p.g.

You're a fraud and a liar. 

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

#689991

On 2018-06-11 6:39 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fo6bleFd7t7U1@mid.individual.net,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
> 
>> You will now insist that you have refuted those point...
> 
> Yup.
> 
>> ... even though you have not (and had you, you would just copy and paste and NOT
>> snip the points being made).
> 
> That's your style, not mine
> 
>> You have no interest in an honest discussion and focus on your emotion
>> over evidence.
> 
> Right back at ya, lady. Your games may work in comp.os.linux.advocacy or sci.physics,
> but they ain't gonna fly in t.p.g.
> 
> You're a fraud and a liar.
> 
> 
so if they aren't going to fly there what are you doing here

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

#689993

In news:bbik4o.317.17.12@news.alt.net,
% <persent@gmail.com> typed:

> On 2018-06-11 6:39 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> Right back at ya, lady. Your games may work in comp.os.linux.advocacy or
>> sci.physics, but they ain't gonna fly in t.p.g.

>> You're a fraud and a liar.

> so if they aren't going to fly there what are you doing here

Now that's a damn good question. I've wondered why something called Jeff-Relf.Me
originally cross-posted this article in comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics,
alt.checkmate, and talk.politics.guns. They seem to have very little in common.

I don't alter the list of groups unless the denizens howl and moan loudly (notably
aus.politics). Snit has shot her wad and this thread is over. You won't have Max to
kick around anymore. 

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

#690036

On 6/11/18 6:48 AM, % wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 6:39 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:fo6bleFd7t7U1@mid.individual.net,
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
>>
>>> You will now insist that you have refuted those point...
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>> ... even though you have not (and had you, you would just copy and 
>>> paste and NOT
>>> snip the points being made).
>>
>> That's your style, not mine
>>
>>> You have no interest in an honest discussion and focus on your emotion
>>> over evidence.
>>
>> Right back at ya, lady. Your games may work in comp.os.linux.advocacy 
>> or sci.physics,
>> but they ain't gonna fly in t.p.g.
>>
>> You're a fraud and a liar.
>>
>>
> so if they aren't going to fly there what are you doing here

Max is feeling insecure. He offered a document as "evidence" and it was 
trivial to show it was deeply biased and incorrect in its claims.

He will take some time to move on from it. I have seen many who troll 
much as he does.

If you look at my post from a few minutes ago you will see where I tend 
to stick to the topic and point out specifics. Max will ignore those, 
though, and deem himself "right". That is more important to him than to 
be TRULY accurate and to learn.

-- 
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]

#690034

On 6/11/18 6:39 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fo6bleFd7t7U1@mid.individual.net,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
> 
>> You will now insist that you have refuted those point...
> 
> Yup.
> 
>> ... even though you have not (and had you, you would just copy and paste and NOT
>> snip the points being made).
> 
> That's your style, not mine
> 
>> You have no interest in an honest discussion and focus on your emotion
>> over evidence.
> 
> Right back at ya, lady. Your games may work in comp.os.linux.advocacy or sci.physics,
> but they ain't gonna fly in t.p.g.
> 
> You're a fraud and a liar.
> 
> 
Your tendency to resort to insults when you feel insecure is not an 
endearing one.

-- 
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]

#689994

On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 21:21:01 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 6/10/18 9:14 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>> You picked some nits, were called out, then snipped those parts of the
>>> discussion...
>> No, you're the one doing the snipping.
>> 
>>> ... Then when called out you claim I "capitulated", showing projection
>>> and dishonesty on your part.
>> The dishonesty is yours. You lie when cornered.
>> 
>>> Fair enough: you have shown you are not interested in an honest
>>> conversation and cannot defend your views. That is an issue for you to
>>> deal with, not me.
>> I defended my views and blew yours out of the water.
>> 
>>> And, predictably, you will reply with insults and accusations and NOT
>>> responding to those points in an honest way....
>> I responded to all of your red herrings, showing you the liar.
>> 
>>> ... If you ever do try the conversation will be so buried that neither
>>> of us remember the details.
>> That's what you're hoping for.
>> 
>>> It is not like your nonsense is clever or creative. :)
>> It's not like yours is honest or honorable.
>> 
>> p.s. You should slink away now.
>> 
>> 
> You did as predicted... and my points stand, unrefuted. Fair enough.
> 
> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free
> ex-felons often are denied arms. And of course this did not apply to
> women and others.
> 
> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace"
> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied
> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much
> more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a
> country.
> 
> * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter
> poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems
> with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I
> gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws
> working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so
> they know this claim of theirs is a lie.
> 
> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.
> 
> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and
> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun
> violence and other harm.
> 
> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend
> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That
> is absurd.
> 
> 
> Those points are solid enough where the best you could do was pick nits
> (such as pointing to examples of poor white males having guns) and
> snipped (esp. with the third point where your snipping was extensive).
> 
> You will now insist that you have refuted those point... even though you
> have not (and had you, you would just copy and paste and NOT snip the
> points being made).
> 
> You have no interest in an honest discussion and focus on your emotion
> over evidence.

Anti-gun slut-bitch ... what kind of Trotsky drool are you spewing over 
my newsgroup ?  Your Rawlsian cankar shows thru. Of-course the yeomanry 
do not want armed felons .. --ex or otherwise. USA women have always been 
armed ... gotta kill those RedSkin savages eh hoser, and niggars should 
never be armed ...  a race stupid, violent and lazy-by-blood. As for anti-
gun laws working in other countries they surely do not WORK .. but re-
inforce Stalinist/statist Gub'mnt rule, while preventing Euro-white 
citizens from butchering-out  faggot-pimped Muzzi-wog and Bantu invaders.

Of-course you have no interest in an honest discussion and focus on your 
collectivist emotion  over evidence. Now Bosco think-it-over before U-
spew  DemoRat/Trotsky drool all over my newsgroup. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web