Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #626302 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-01 16:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-27 08:12 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 775 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Smokers are smarter, I say. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-01 16:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 00:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-04-01 20:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 20:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 17:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 14:02 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 20:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:53 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 08:43 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-03 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 09:36 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-07 19:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2017-04-03 11:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 10:32 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-03 11:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-07 19:18 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-03 11:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 13:13 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 14:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-03 10:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-03 14:40 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 11:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-04 09:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 09:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-04 10:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 10:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-04 00:09 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-03 18:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-04 01:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-08 14:31 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 20:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 16:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 16:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 18:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:30 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 18:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 19:15 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-13 14:31 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 20:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 12:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 20:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 13:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-13 15:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 00:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 10:32 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 18:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 12:51 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 11:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-16 15:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-16 16:54 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 11:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 20:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 19:10 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 19:29 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:40 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 11:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:14 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-13 14:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 23:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-13 14:48 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:44 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:05 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-09 14:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-09 14:43 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:46 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 18:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 19:46 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 12:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-19 17:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-19 16:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:37 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 21:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 23:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 22:49 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 15:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 15:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 10:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 19:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 15:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 23:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 16:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 23:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 18:32 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 15:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 23:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 16:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 23:59 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 17:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 15:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:21 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 14:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 17:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 10:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 19:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 11:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 20:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 12:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 20:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 21:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-04 17:40 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 22:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 16:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 15:25 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 01:11 -0400
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 22:22 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 01:38 -0400
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 08:21 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 22:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:42 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 14:17 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 18:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 21:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 13:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-21 13:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-21 13:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:32 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 17:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 18:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 18:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 02:12 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 02:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 03:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 21:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 04:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 22:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-22 22:58 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 16:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 15:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-30 18:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 19:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:23 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:24 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-10 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-10 23:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 12:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-07 11:24 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:32 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 21:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 15:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:24 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-08 00:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 13:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-05-06 10:40 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:25 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:03 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:17 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:22 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:22 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 18:30 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:49 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:43 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:46 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:02 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 18:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 19:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 08:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 19:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-06 22:09 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-06 16:19 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:33 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:45 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:54 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 19:16 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:42 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 22:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 01:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 18:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 10:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 11:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 19:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 19:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 09:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 10:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 11:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 12:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 13:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 13:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:45 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 09:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 10:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:45 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:56 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 17:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 17:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 09:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 06:59 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-10 13:08 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-04-10 12:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 08:13 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 18:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:44 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 00:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 00:07 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 18:41 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 19:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:13 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. shima.tetsuo@dai.tokyo.teikoku (島鉄雄) - 2017-04-23 21:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-23 17:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 15:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 15:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 17:50 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 20:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 21:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 14:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-24 00:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 16:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-24 01:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 17:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:31 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:15 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 23:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 20:00 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-05-02 23:54 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:29 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:42 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 18:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 10:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 11:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 20:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:50 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 15:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 00:58 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:50 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 14:45 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 16:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:57 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 14:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 09:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 17:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 19:37 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 20:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:18 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:58 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 16:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 01:00 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:40 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:30 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 13:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:41 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:14 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 09:28 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 20:57 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 18:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 15:34 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 17:02 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:26 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-09 20:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-10 02:20 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-10 12:59 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 19:20 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 18:37 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:44 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-09 17:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-04-28 13:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 12:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:05 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:30 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-14 21:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 23:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:37 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 02:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-15 09:03 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 18:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-28 12:36 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 19:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 11:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 20:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:21 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 11:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 20:14 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 13:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 18:00 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 15:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 13:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 22:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 14:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 23:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 15:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 00:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 16:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-25 22:14 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 21:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-25 18:39 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 16:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-08 11:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 17:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-08 16:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 21:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. notX <no.email@dummy.invalid> - 2017-04-03 13:33 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 17:51 +0100
Smoker Willie Nelson turns 84 this month. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-17 17:45 -0300
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:12 +0100
Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-02 12:13 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 20:18 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2017-04-02 16:36 -0500
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 23:05 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-02 18:19 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 23:32 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-02 19:09 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 00:27 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 16:35 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 01:00 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 17:02 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 01:19 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 17:34 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 22:54 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 15:17 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-05 00:08 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 19:05 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-05 09:49 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2017-04-05 23:33 -0500
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:25 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:23 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 23:08 -0500
Tardigrades (Was:Re: Old Age ...) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-03 08:24 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 23:02 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:44 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:34 +0000
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 00:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 23:51 +0800
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-04-02 14:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-04-03 12:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. erickawilliams.d@gmail.com - 2017-04-03 18:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-04-04 11:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-13 11:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2017-04-26 18:22 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:26 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:40 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:12 -0500
Page 12 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 39 Next page →
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 03:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocupm7$nef$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #629256 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:58:15 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/15/17, 7:37 PM, in article oculcm$i2p$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:38:48 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/15/17, 7:12 PM, in article ocujtn$ht4$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:09:20 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> On 4/15/17, 6:53 PM, in article ocuiqk$ht4$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> OK, now we know you will NEVER show understanding of the point: the very >>>>>>> kids Trump says he wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because he >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> afraid of those children. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Basic concepts go far, far over your hard. Fair enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> You went FAR out of your way to make it clear you cannot understand simple >>>>> concepts. No back pedaling now! >>>> >>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>> >>> See: you keep going on and on and on about how you have no clue what my >>> point even is. You just CANNOT get it. Fine. Point made -- you are clueless. >> >> "What about the children?" is old lame. >> You drag that around like a pet rock. > > You are the one bringing it up time and time again. I said NOTHING of it. > Not a word. gibberish > > I did note how Trump uses it inconsistently and to promote war and not > humanitarian efforts, but as you keep noting that point has gone completely > over your head. > Then leave the roost, pack your bags, and head on over there to implement your stategy for solving Muslim mayhem. Have the kevlar necktie on as soon as you get there. Give Trump a call, tell him you're there, so he won't worry. Then, find the guy with the biggest turban, longest beard, and let him know that you can build chicken coupes, and you are *The Expert* on humanitarian causes. You will hear a clang. That's the necktie doing it job, but it won't stand up against too many blows, so you'll want to put those running shoes into high gear. Grab the bowling ball bag, and place it on your head. It's the only way to be sure it will end up there. Run like hell, hide whenever you can, reach a village, town, camel rest stop, then give them the humanitarian advice they sorely need. When you've fixed everything, post back. Let us know what thousands of experts have been unable to do. >>> And before you say I am calling you names or spewing insults remember I >>> posted the point time and time again until you whined... and you still have >>> NO clue what I am even talking about. You have not asked any questions to >>> help you to understand. You have merely shown off your ignorance. >> >> "What about the children?" is old lame. >> You drag that around like a pet rock. > > Again: you are the one bringing it up. Call the taxi, already. >>> Fine. You are ignorant. I get it. Why do you keep belaboring the point? >>> >> >> "What about the children?" is old lame. >> You drag that around like a pet rock. > > And again. ad nauseum -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 21:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5183BCD.9F3F5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629259 |
On 4/15/17, 8:50 PM, in article ocupm7$nef$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:58:15 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/15/17, 7:37 PM, in article oculcm$i2p$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:38:48 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/15/17, 7:12 PM, in article ocujtn$ht4$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:09:20 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>> On 4/15/17, 6:53 PM, in article ocuiqk$ht4$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, now we know you will NEVER show understanding of the point: the >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> kids Trump says he wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because >>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> afraid of those children. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Basic concepts go far, far over your hard. Fair enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>> You went FAR out of your way to make it clear you cannot understand >>>>>> simple >>>>>> concepts. No back pedaling now! >>>>> >>>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>>> >>>> See: you keep going on and on and on about how you have no clue what my >>>> point even is. You just CANNOT get it. Fine. Point made -- you are >>>> clueless. >>> >>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >> >> You are the one bringing it up time and time again. I said NOTHING of it. >> Not a word. > > gibberish Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension, sure, almost everything is gibberish to you. No argument here. >> I did note how Trump uses it inconsistently and to promote war and not >> humanitarian efforts, but as you keep noting that point has gone completely >> over your head. And below you AGAIN show you have no ability to comprehend what you read. Why do you keep posting when your only points are you cannot understand what you read and you want special entitlements? > > Then leave the roost, pack your bags, and head on over there to implement > your stategy for solving Muslim mayhem. > Have the kevlar necktie on as soon as you get there. > > Give Trump a call, tell him you're there, so he won't worry. > > Then, find the guy with the biggest turban, longest beard, and let him know > that you can build chicken coupes, and you are *The Expert* on humanitarian > causes. > > You will hear a clang. > That's the necktie doing it job, but it won't stand up against too many > blows, so you'll want to put those running shoes into high gear. > > Grab the bowling ball bag, and place it on your head. > It's the only way to be sure it will end up there. > > Run like hell, hide whenever you can, reach a village, town, camel rest > stop, then give them the humanitarian advice they sorely need. > > When you've fixed everything, post back. > Let us know what thousands of experts have been unable to do. > >>>> And before you say I am calling you names or spewing insults remember I >>>> posted the point time and time again until you whined... and you still have >>>> NO clue what I am even talking about. You have not asked any questions to >>>> help you to understand. You have merely shown off your ignorance. >>> >>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >> >> Again: you are the one bringing it up. > > Call the taxi, already. > >>>> Fine. You are ignorant. I get it. Why do you keep belaboring the point? >>>> >>> >>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >> >> And again. > > ad nauseum -- 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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocurgb$tkp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #629261 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:06:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/15/17, 8:50 PM, in article ocupm7$nef$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:58:15 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/15/17, 7:37 PM, in article oculcm$i2p$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:38:48 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> On 4/15/17, 7:12 PM, in article ocujtn$ht4$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:09:20 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>>> On 4/15/17, 6:53 PM, in article ocuiqk$ht4$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK, now we know you will NEVER show understanding of the point: the >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> kids Trump says he wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because >>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> afraid of those children. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Basic concepts go far, far over your hard. Fair enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You went FAR out of your way to make it clear you cannot understand >>>>>>> simple >>>>>>> concepts. No back pedaling now! >>>>>> >>>>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>>>> >>>>> See: you keep going on and on and on about how you have no clue what my >>>>> point even is. You just CANNOT get it. Fine. Point made -- you are >>>>> clueless. >>>> >>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>> >>> You are the one bringing it up time and time again. I said NOTHING of it. >>> Not a word. >> >> gibberish > > Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension, sure, almost everything is > gibberish to you. > No argument here. Ha! >>> I did note how Trump uses it inconsistently and to promote war and not >>> humanitarian efforts, but as you keep noting that point has gone completely >>> over your head. > > And below you AGAIN show you have no ability to comprehend what you read. > > Why do you keep posting when your only points are you cannot understand what > you read and you want special entitlements? Oh, I forgot to add to below: When you're running around, giving advice and humanitarian aid and pork chops, beware of crowded areas and buses. Seems people over there can either explode at will, or when getting close to crowds and buses. Perhaps you can find out what's the deal with that. Maybe they'll teach you how to do it. :) >> >> Then leave the roost, pack your bags, and head on over there to implement >> your stategy for solving Muslim mayhem. >> Have the kevlar necktie on as soon as you get there. >> >> Give Trump a call, tell him you're there, so he won't worry. >> >> Then, find the guy with the biggest turban, longest beard, and let him know >> that you can build chicken coupes, and you are *The Expert* on humanitarian >> causes. >> >> You will hear a clang. >> That's the necktie doing it job, but it won't stand up against too many >> blows, so you'll want to put those running shoes into high gear. >> >> Grab the bowling ball bag, and place it on your head. >> It's the only way to be sure it will end up there. >> >> Run like hell, hide whenever you can, reach a village, town, camel rest >> stop, then give them the humanitarian advice they sorely need. >> >> When you've fixed everything, post back. >> Let us know what thousands of experts have been unable to do. >> >>>>> And before you say I am calling you names or spewing insults remember I >>>>> posted the point time and time again until you whined... and you still have >>>>> NO clue what I am even talking about. You have not asked any questions to >>>>> help you to understand. You have merely shown off your ignorance. >>>> >>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>> >>> Again: you are the one bringing it up. >> >> Call the taxi, already. >> >>>>> Fine. You are ignorant. I get it. Why do you keep belaboring the point? >>>>> >>>> >>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>> >>> And again. >> >> ad nauseum -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 22:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D518544A.9F407%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629262 |
On 4/15/17, 9:21 PM, in article ocurgb$tkp$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:06:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/15/17, 8:50 PM, in article ocupm7$nef$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:58:15 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/15/17, 7:37 PM, in article oculcm$i2p$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:38:48 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>> On 4/15/17, 7:12 PM, in article ocujtn$ht4$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:09:20 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>>>> On 4/15/17, 6:53 PM, in article ocuiqk$ht4$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OK, now we know you will NEVER show understanding of the point: the >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> kids Trump says he wants to protect are the ones he refuses to >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> afraid of those children. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Basic concepts go far, far over your hard. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You went FAR out of your way to make it clear you cannot understand >>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>> concepts. No back pedaling now! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>>>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>>>>> >>>>>> See: you keep going on and on and on about how you have no clue what my >>>>>> point even is. You just CANNOT get it. Fine. Point made -- you are >>>>>> clueless. >>>>> >>>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>>> >>>> You are the one bringing it up time and time again. I said NOTHING of it. >>>> Not a word. >>> >>> gibberish >> >> Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension, sure, almost everything is >> gibberish to you. >> No argument here. > > Ha! > >>>> I did note how Trump uses it inconsistently and to promote war and not >>>> humanitarian efforts, but as you keep noting that point has gone completely >>>> over your head. >> >> And below you AGAIN show you have no ability to comprehend what you read. >> >> Why do you keep posting when your only points are you cannot understand what >> you read and you want special entitlements? > > Oh, I forgot to add to below: > When you're running around, giving advice Only advice I have here is for you to work to understand what you read. Good luck! > and humanitarian aid and pork > chops, beware of crowded areas and buses. > > Seems people over there can either explode at will, or when getting close > to crowds and buses. > > Perhaps you can find out what's the deal with that. > Maybe they'll teach you how to do it. :) > >>> >>> Then leave the roost, pack your bags, and head on over there to implement >>> your stategy for solving Muslim mayhem. >>> Have the kevlar necktie on as soon as you get there. >>> >>> Give Trump a call, tell him you're there, so he won't worry. >>> >>> Then, find the guy with the biggest turban, longest beard, and let him know >>> that you can build chicken coupes, and you are *The Expert* on humanitarian >>> causes. >>> >>> You will hear a clang. >>> That's the necktie doing it job, but it won't stand up against too many >>> blows, so you'll want to put those running shoes into high gear. >>> >>> Grab the bowling ball bag, and place it on your head. >>> It's the only way to be sure it will end up there. >>> >>> Run like hell, hide whenever you can, reach a village, town, camel rest >>> stop, then give them the humanitarian advice they sorely need. >>> >>> When you've fixed everything, post back. >>> Let us know what thousands of experts have been unable to do. >>> >>>>>> And before you say I am calling you names or spewing insults remember I >>>>>> posted the point time and time again until you whined... and you still >>>>>> have >>>>>> NO clue what I am even talking about. You have not asked any questions to >>>>>> help you to understand. You have merely shown off your ignorance. >>>>> >>>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>>> >>>> Again: you are the one bringing it up. >>> >>> Call the taxi, already. >>> >>>>>> Fine. You are ignorant. I get it. Why do you keep belaboring the point? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>>> >>>> And again. >>> >>> ad nauseum -- 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 | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 22:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yy384cz2js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629259 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 04:50:31 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:58:15 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/15/17, 7:37 PM, in article oculcm$i2p$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:38:48 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/15/17, 7:12 PM, in article ocujtn$ht4$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:09:20 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>> On 4/15/17, 6:53 PM, in article ocuiqk$ht4$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, now we know you will NEVER show understanding of the point: the very >>>>>>>> kids Trump says he wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because he >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> afraid of those children. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Basic concepts go far, far over your hard. Fair enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>> You went FAR out of your way to make it clear you cannot understand simple >>>>>> concepts. No back pedaling now! >>>>> >>>>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>>>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >>>> >>>> See: you keep going on and on and on about how you have no clue what my >>>> point even is. You just CANNOT get it. Fine. Point made -- you are clueless. >>> >>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >> >> You are the one bringing it up time and time again. I said NOTHING of it. >> Not a word. > > gibberish > >> >> I did note how Trump uses it inconsistently and to promote war and not >> humanitarian efforts, but as you keep noting that point has gone completely >> over your head. >> > > Then leave the roost, pack your bags, and head on over there to implement > your stategy for solving Muslim mayhem. > Have the kevlar necktie on as soon as you get there. > > Give Trump a call, tell him you're there, so he won't worry. > > Then, find the guy with the biggest turban, longest beard, and let him know > that you can build chicken coupes, and you are *The Expert* on humanitarian > causes. > > You will hear a clang. > That's the necktie doing it job, but it won't stand up against too many > blows, so you'll want to put those running shoes into high gear. > > Grab the bowling ball bag, and place it on your head. > It's the only way to be sure it will end up there. > > Run like hell, hide whenever you can, reach a village, town, camel rest > stop, then give them the humanitarian advice they sorely need. > > When you've fixed everything, post back. > Let us know what thousands of experts have been unable to do. > >>>> And before you say I am calling you names or spewing insults remember I >>>> posted the point time and time again until you whined... and you still have >>>> NO clue what I am even talking about. You have not asked any questions to >>>> help you to understand. You have merely shown off your ignorance. >>> >>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >> >> Again: you are the one bringing it up. > > Call the taxi, already. > >>>> Fine. You are ignorant. I get it. Why do you keep belaboring the point? >>>> >>> >>> "What about the children?" is old lame. >>> You drag that around like a pet rock. >> >> And again. > > ad nauseum I think he's a Muslim worshipper. -- Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the fuck happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 22:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yy383awyjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629243 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:50:29 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/15/17, 6:18 PM, in article ocugp1$b5e$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" > <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:17:00 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/15/17, 6:04 PM, in article ocufv3$b5e$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:53:30 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> On 4/15/17, 5:15 PM, in article ocud2d$rm9$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 16:41:37 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>>> On 4/15/17, 3:32 PM, in article ocu71l$hd7$3@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> SNIP >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You STILL show no understanding of the point: the very kids Trump says he >>>>>>> wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because he is afraid of those >>>>>>> children. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then run for President. >>>>>> Good luck getting votes. >>>>> >>>>> You STILL show no understanding of the point: the very kids Trump says he >>>>> wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because he is afraid of those >>>>> children. >>>> >>>> You need to clear your clipboard. >>> >>> Would that help you to show understanding of the point... the very kids >>> Trump says he wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because he is >>> afraid of those children? >> >> Did your kids run away? >> Check the bus depot. > > OK, now we know you will NEVER show understanding of the point: the very > kids Trump says he wants to protect are the ones he refuses to because he is > afraid of those children. The record's stuck, give it a kick. > Basic concepts go far, far over your hard. Fair enough. > -- Should crematoriums give discounts for burn victims?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yy381xf2js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629189 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:15:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/15/17, 11:16 AM, in article octo21$n2s$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" > <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Snit is one of the dirt poor liberals that like to espouse the spending of >>>> other people's money. >>> >>> Quote? >> >> Well, unless you are privately funding all this shit you are for, then that >> is an entirely correct statement. >> Get a child to read for you in the future. > > So no quote to back your claims of my views. Got it. You are just trolling > for attention. > > Keep in mind I am the one who pushes for a STRONGER tie between hard work / > productivity and financial gain. That's called "capitalism". -- Mary had a little lamb, it walked into a pylon. 10,000 volts went up its arse, and turned its wool to nylon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5212D87.A0DA3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630134 |
On 4/22/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yy381xf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:15:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/15/17, 11:16 AM, in article octo21$n2s$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> Snit is one of the dirt poor liberals that like to espouse the spending of >>>>> other people's money. >>>> >>>> Quote? >>> >>> Well, unless you are privately funding all this shit you are for, then that >>> is an entirely correct statement. >>> Get a child to read for you in the future. >> >> So no quote to back your claims of my views. Got it. You are just trolling >> for attention. >> >> Keep in mind I am the one who pushes for a STRONGER tie between hard work / >> productivity and financial gain. > > That's called "capitalism". Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odgn7h$r1r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #630153 |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/22/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yy381xf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:15:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/15/17, 11:16 AM, in article octo21$n2s$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Snit is one of the dirt poor liberals that like to espouse the spending of >>>>>> other people's money. >>>>> >>>>> Quote? >>>> >>>> Well, unless you are privately funding all this shit you are for, then that >>>> is an entirely correct statement. >>>> Get a child to read for you in the future. >>> >>> So no quote to back your claims of my views. Got it. You are just trolling >>> for attention. >>> >>> Keep in mind I am the one who pushes for a STRONGER tie between hard work / >>> productivity and financial gain. >> >> That's called "capitalism". > > Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the > environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. > With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two > is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. > Where do they sell human rights? Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 16:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5213337.A0DB2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630154 |
On 4/22/17, 3:58 PM, in article odgn7h$r1r$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
<spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>> On 4/22/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yy381xf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:15:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/15/17, 11:16 AM, in article octo21$n2s$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Snit is one of the dirt poor liberals that like to espouse the spending
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> other people's money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quote?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, unless you are privately funding all this shit you are for, then
>>>>> that
>>>>> is an entirely correct statement.
>>>>> Get a child to read for you in the future.
>>>>
>>>> So no quote to back your claims of my views. Got it. You are just trolling
>>>> for attention.
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind I am the one who pushes for a STRONGER tie between hard work /
>>>> productivity and financial gain.
>>>
>>> That's called "capitalism".
>>
>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the
>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals.
>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two
>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone.
>
> Where do they sell human rights?
Why they? We can look at extreme examples of selling slaves. Economically
that worked well and in the US we even needed a war to stop it. When it was
(mostly) stopped the slaves were never compensated but the slave OWNERS
were. Insanity.
And the focus on making money over human rights is largely what has lead to
this:
<https://mitpress.mit.edu/vanishing>
-----
The United States is becoming a nation of rich and poor, with few
families in the middle. In this book, MIT economist Peter Temin
offers an illuminating way to look at the vanishing middle class.
Temin argues that American history and politics, particularly
slavery and its aftermath, play an important part in the widening
gap between rich and poor. Temin employs a well-known, simple model
of a dual economy to examine the dynamics of the rich/poor divide in
America, and outlines ways to work toward greater equality so that
America will no longer have one economy for the rich and one for the
poor.
Many poorer Americans live in conditions resembling those of a
developing country‹substandard education, dilapidated housing, and
few stable employment opportunities. And although almost half of
black Americans are poor, most poor people are not black.
Conservative white politicians still appeal to the racism of poor
white voters to get support for policies that harm low-income people
as a whole, casting recipients of social programs as the
Other‹black, Latino, not like "us." Politicians also use mass
incarceration as a tool to keep black and Latino Americans from
participating fully in society. Money goes to a vast entrenched
prison system rather than to education. In the dual justice system,
the rich pay fines and the poor go to jail.
-----
> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops?
Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :)
--
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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 00:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odgqst$74h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #630157 |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:20:07 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/22/17, 3:58 PM, in article odgn7h$r1r$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/22/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yy381xf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:15:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/15/17, 11:16 AM, in article octo21$n2s$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Snit is one of the dirt poor liberals that like to espouse the spending >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> other people's money. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quote? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, unless you are privately funding all this shit you are for, then >>>>>> that >>>>>> is an entirely correct statement. >>>>>> Get a child to read for you in the future. >>>>> >>>>> So no quote to back your claims of my views. Got it. You are just trolling >>>>> for attention. >>>>> >>>>> Keep in mind I am the one who pushes for a STRONGER tie between hard work / >>>>> productivity and financial gain. >>>> >>>> That's called "capitalism". >>> >>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two >>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >> >> Where do they sell human rights? > > Why they? We can look at extreme examples of selling slaves. Economically > that worked well and in the US we even needed a war to stop it. When it was > (mostly) stopped the slaves were never compensated but the slave OWNERS > were. Insanity. Well, since you are white, where is your economic boon from slavery? > > And the focus on making money over human rights is largely what has lead to > this: > ><https://mitpress.mit.edu/vanishing> SNIP opinionated theories. > >> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? > > Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) > The froot loops come after them. :) -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5214165.A0DD6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630167 |
On 4/22/17, 5:01 PM, in article odgqst$74h$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:20:07 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/22/17, 3:58 PM, in article odgn7h$r1r$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/22/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yy381xf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:15:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/15/17, 11:16 AM, in article octo21$n2s$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Snit is one of the dirt poor liberals that like to espouse the >>>>>>>>> spending >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> other people's money. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quote? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, unless you are privately funding all this shit you are for, then >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> is an entirely correct statement. >>>>>>> Get a child to read for you in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> So no quote to back your claims of my views. Got it. You are just >>>>>> trolling >>>>>> for attention. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keep in mind I am the one who pushes for a STRONGER tie between hard work >>>>>> / >>>>>> productivity and financial gain. >>>>> >>>>> That's called "capitalism". >>>> >>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two >>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>> >>> Where do they sell human rights? >> >> Why they? We can look at extreme examples of selling slaves. Economically >> that worked well and in the US we even needed a war to stop it. When it was >> (mostly) stopped the slaves were never compensated but the slave OWNERS >> were. Insanity. > > Well, since you are white, where is your economic boon from slavery? When did I say I was white? And who said all whites benefited from it? >> And the focus on making money over human rights is largely what has lead to >> this: >> >> <https://mitpress.mit.edu/vanishing> > > SNIP opinionated theories. OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. >>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >> >> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >> > > The froot loops come after them. :) Yes... they are listed alphabetically. -- 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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 00:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odgscl$a81$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #630172 |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:20:37 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/22/17, 5:01 PM, in article odgqst$74h$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:20:07 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/22/17, 3:58 PM, in article odgn7h$r1r$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> On 4/22/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yy381xf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:15:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/15/17, 11:16 AM, in article octo21$n2s$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Snit is one of the dirt poor liberals that like to espouse the >>>>>>>>>> spending >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> other people's money. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Quote? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, unless you are privately funding all this shit you are for, then >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> is an entirely correct statement. >>>>>>>> Get a child to read for you in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So no quote to back your claims of my views. Got it. You are just >>>>>>> trolling >>>>>>> for attention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keep in mind I am the one who pushes for a STRONGER tie between hard work >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> productivity and financial gain. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's called "capitalism". >>>>> >>>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two >>>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>> >>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>> >>> Why they? We can look at extreme examples of selling slaves. Economically >>> that worked well and in the US we even needed a war to stop it. When it was >>> (mostly) stopped the slaves were never compensated but the slave OWNERS >>> were. Insanity. >> >> Well, since you are white, where is your economic boon from slavery? > > When did I say I was white? And who said all whites benefited from it? You didn't have to say. I know an apologist when I see/read one. > >>> And the focus on making money over human rights is largely what has lead to >>> this: >>> >>> <https://mitpress.mit.edu/vanishing> >> >> SNIP opinionated theories. > > OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. > I don't need to counter it. The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. >>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>> >>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>> >> >> The froot loops come after them. :) > > Yes... they are listed alphabetically. > The froot loops always follow anything environmental. Froot loops are big into race issues too. You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52146FB.A0DF2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630176 |
On 4/22/17, 5:27 PM, in article odgscl$a81$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>> >>>> Why they? We can look at extreme examples of selling slaves. Economically >>>> that worked well and in the US we even needed a war to stop it. When it was >>>> (mostly) stopped the slaves were never compensated but the slave OWNERS >>>> were. Insanity. >>> >>> Well, since you are white, where is your economic boon from slavery? >> >> When did I say I was white? And who said all whites benefited from it? > > You didn't have to say. > I know an apologist when I see/read one. Ah, so you are just making things up to get attention. OK. >>>> And the focus on making money over human rights is largely what has lead to >>>> this: >>>> >>>> <https://mitpress.mit.edu/vanishing> >>> >>> SNIP opinionated theories. >> >> OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. > > I don't need to counter it. Correct: but if you are going to deny it you should back your denial with something. Or you can say you just disagree and offer nothing relevant. > The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. Like that: not relevant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise. >>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>> >>>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>>> >>> >>> The froot loops come after them. :) >> >> Yes... they are listed alphabetically. >> > > The froot loops always follow anything environmental. > Froot loops are big into race issues too. > You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. I am not surprised to see you thinking in such terms. -- 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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 00:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odgtk8$dfh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #630177 |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:44:27 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/22/17, 5:27 PM, in article odgscl$a81$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>>> >>>>> Why they? We can look at extreme examples of selling slaves. Economically >>>>> that worked well and in the US we even needed a war to stop it. When it was >>>>> (mostly) stopped the slaves were never compensated but the slave OWNERS >>>>> were. Insanity. >>>> >>>> Well, since you are white, where is your economic boon from slavery? >>> >>> When did I say I was white? And who said all whites benefited from it? >> >> You didn't have to say. >> I know an apologist when I see/read one. > > Ah, so you are just making things up to get attention. OK. > >>>>> And the focus on making money over human rights is largely what has lead to >>>>> this: >>>>> >>>>> <https://mitpress.mit.edu/vanishing> >>>> >>>> SNIP opinionated theories. >>> >>> OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. >> >> I don't need to counter it. > > Correct: but if you are going to deny it you should back your denial with > something. Or you can say you just disagree and offer nothing relevant. > I don't deny someone wrote a book (maybe to get into the "rich" class). >> The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. > > Like that: not relevant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied > otherwise. My bad. The US has poor people of all races, religions, national origins. > >>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>> >>>>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> The froot loops come after them. :) >>> >>> Yes... they are listed alphabetically. >>> >> >> The froot loops always follow anything environmental. >> Froot loops are big into race issues too. >> You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. > > I am not surprised to see you thinking in such terms. I'm consistant. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D521493E.A0E00%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630178 |
On 4/22/17, 5:48 PM, in article odgtk8$dfh$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>>> OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. >>> >>> I don't need to counter it. >> >> Correct: but if you are going to deny it you should back your denial with >> something. Or you can say you just disagree and offer nothing relevant. > > I don't deny someone wrote a book (maybe to get into the "rich" class). You disagree with a researched perspective you cannot counter. That is fine. >>> The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. >> >> Like that: not relevant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied >> otherwise. > > My bad. > The US has poor people of all races, religions, national origins. That is also true... and also something that nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied was not true. >>>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The froot loops come after them. :) >>>> >>>> Yes... they are listed alphabetically. >>>> >>> >>> The froot loops always follow anything environmental. >>> Froot loops are big into race issues too. >>> You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. >> >> I am not surprised to see you thinking in such terms. > > I'm consistant. You are better than a Linux distro! :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 00:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odgu2f$dfh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #630179 |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:54:06 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/22/17, 5:48 PM, in article odgtk8$dfh$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>> OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. >>>> >>>> I don't need to counter it. >>> >>> Correct: but if you are going to deny it you should back your denial with >>> something. Or you can say you just disagree and offer nothing relevant. >> >> I don't deny someone wrote a book (maybe to get into the "rich" class). > > You disagree with a researched perspective you cannot counter. That is fine. I'm not ordering that book, no matter how many times you suggest it. > >>>> The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. >>> >>> Like that: not relevant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied >>> otherwise. >> >> My bad. >> The US has poor people of all races, religions, national origins. > > That is also true... and also something that nobody said, suggested, hinted, > or implied was not true. > Then what's the fuckin book about? You linked to it. >>>>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The froot loops come after them. :) >>>>> >>>>> Yes... they are listed alphabetically. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The froot loops always follow anything environmental. >>>> Froot loops are big into race issues too. >>>> You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. >>> >>> I am not surprised to see you thinking in such terms. >> >> I'm consistant. > > You are better than a Linux distro! :) So my Mom used to say. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 18:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5214DCD.A0E16%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630180 |
On 4/22/17, 5:55 PM, in article odgu2f$dfh$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:54:06 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/22/17, 5:48 PM, in article odgtk8$dfh$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. >>>>> >>>>> I don't need to counter it. >>>> >>>> Correct: but if you are going to deny it you should back your denial with >>>> something. Or you can say you just disagree and offer nothing relevant. >>> >>> I don't deny someone wrote a book (maybe to get into the "rich" class). >> >> You disagree with a researched perspective you cannot counter. That is fine. > > I'm not ordering that book, no matter how many times you suggest it. Which so far is zero. But OK. Are you planning on disordering that book? Maybe place it in the section on penguins? >>>>> The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. >>>> >>>> Like that: not relevant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied >>>> otherwise. >>> >>> My bad. >>> The US has poor people of all races, religions, national origins. >> >> That is also true... and also something that nobody said, suggested, hinted, >> or implied was not true. > > Then what's the fuckin book about? > You linked to it. Ah, you disagree with an idea but have NO understanding of it. Let me guess: you support Trump. >>>>>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The froot loops come after them. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes... they are listed alphabetically. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The froot loops always follow anything environmental. >>>>> Froot loops are big into race issues too. >>>>> You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. >>>> >>>> I am not surprised to see you thinking in such terms. >>> >>> I'm consistant. >> >> You are better than a Linux distro! :) > > So my Mom used to say. Moms are like that. -- 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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 01:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odgvh5$i3s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #630182 |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:13:33 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/22/17, 5:55 PM, in article odgu2f$dfh$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:54:06 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/22/17, 5:48 PM, in article odgtk8$dfh$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>> OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't need to counter it. >>>>> >>>>> Correct: but if you are going to deny it you should back your denial with >>>>> something. Or you can say you just disagree and offer nothing relevant. >>>> >>>> I don't deny someone wrote a book (maybe to get into the "rich" class). >>> >>> You disagree with a researched perspective you cannot counter. That is fine. >> >> I'm not ordering that book, no matter how many times you suggest it. > > Which so far is zero. But OK. > > Are you planning on disordering that book? Maybe place it in the section on > penguins? I plan on paying it no mind. It's a book, with a "prejudice" keyword. I can guess from there what it will be about. "Your not successful because of other people." zzzzzzzzzzz >>>>>> The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. >>>>> >>>>> Like that: not relevant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied >>>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> My bad. >>>> The US has poor people of all races, religions, national origins. >>> >>> That is also true... and also something that nobody said, suggested, hinted, >>> or implied was not true. >> >> Then what's the fuckin book about? >> You linked to it. > > Ah, you disagree with an idea but have NO understanding of it. Let me guess: > you support Trump. You guess about as well as you form ideologies. >>>>>>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The froot loops come after them. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes... they are listed alphabetically. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The froot loops always follow anything environmental. >>>>>> Froot loops are big into race issues too. >>>>>> You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. >>>>> >>>>> I am not surprised to see you thinking in such terms. >>>> >>>> I'm consistant. >>> >>> You are better than a Linux distro! :) >> >> So my Mom used to say. > > Moms are like that. Not minority Moms. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 14:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yznz002djs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630182 |
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 02:13:33 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/22/17, 5:55 PM, in article odgu2f$dfh$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" > <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:54:06 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/22/17, 5:48 PM, in article odgtk8$dfh$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>> OK, so you have nothing to counter it with. Fair enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't need to counter it. >>>>> >>>>> Correct: but if you are going to deny it you should back your denial with >>>>> something. Or you can say you just disagree and offer nothing relevant. >>>> >>>> I don't deny someone wrote a book (maybe to get into the "rich" class). >>> >>> You disagree with a researched perspective you cannot counter. That is fine. >> >> I'm not ordering that book, no matter how many times you suggest it. > > Which so far is zero. But OK. > > Are you planning on disordering that book? Maybe place it in the section on > penguins? Disordering the book would mean swapping the pages about. He'll get a library fine for that: http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/poBqXBjxqIc/hqdefault.jpg >>>>>> The US has rich people of all races, religions, national origins. >>>>> >>>>> Like that: not relevant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied >>>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> My bad. >>>> The US has poor people of all races, religions, national origins. >>> >>> That is also true... and also something that nobody said, suggested, hinted, >>> or implied was not true. >> >> Then what's the fuckin book about? >> You linked to it. > > Ah, you disagree with an idea but have NO understanding of it. Let me guess: > you support Trump. Trump will be the saviour of the USA. He has common sense and ignores silly snowflakes like yourself. >>>>>>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope... that is where environmental disasters are. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The froot loops come after them. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes... they are listed alphabetically. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The froot loops always follow anything environmental. >>>>>> Froot loops are big into race issues too. >>>>>> You would think people may be tempted to make careers out of it. >>>>> >>>>> I am not surprised to see you thinking in such terms. >>>> >>>> I'm consistant. >>> >>> You are better than a Linux distro! :) >> >> So my Mom used to say. > > Moms are like that. It's "mum". Think how you pronounce "mother". -- Dopeler effect (n): The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web