Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #687921 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 578 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400
Re:Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:16 +0200
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 03:51 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-31 05:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 12:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 15:49 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-31 20:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 16:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 19:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 21:38 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 08:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 22:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-05-31 19:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-05-31 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 08:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 11:59 -0700
Re: â Snowflake â Slaughtering concert goers. â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus đ¶çŹ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:07 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: â Snowflake â ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus đ¶çŹ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 04:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:12 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 00:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:14 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:19 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:35 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 05:06 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:54 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:51 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 11:59 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:25 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:28 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:08 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 23:24 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:12 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:48 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:32 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 21:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:49 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:49 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:45 -0700
Permission to breath ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:13 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-02 20:36 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 23:33 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:42 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Clarity. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-03 08:52 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:46 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:53 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 22:59 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 23:19 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 09:10 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:31 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:12 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:26 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:10 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:54 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 22:19 -0500
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 20:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 00:24 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 05:43 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 07:17 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 00:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 16:07 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:30 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:34 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:50 -0700
"Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 19:02 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 02:18 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:25 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:16 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-02 01:20 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-03 20:11 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 00:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:30 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 17:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 15:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-04 23:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:51 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 09:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 05:15 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:07 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus đ¶çŹ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 06:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 02:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 13:29 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 11:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:12 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:59 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 19:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 20:21 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:58 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:17 -0500
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Dave Zeeman <arougroutinette@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700
Page 1 of 29 [1] 2 3 … 29 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! |
| Message-ID | <4LMPC.193817$nq5.73490@fx36.iad> |
"Comedian" Chelsea Handler who admitted having armed guards but thinks that self-defense is not for anyone who can't afford armed guards. When confronted with her using armed guards she defended her self-defense by saying: "My armed guards arenât killing children and donât have semi-automatic weapons." So presumably all us law-abiding gun owners ARE killing children, right? I bet she believes all men are rapists too and only universal castration will close the rape 'loophole"! Happily the denizens of Twitter ripper her a new one for being the ignorant lying liberal gun-grabbing hypocrite she is. https://ijr.com/2018/03/1080479-handler-claims-guards-dont-have-semi-auto-weapones/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 09:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <peo7h0$47b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687921 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: > So presumably all us law-abiding gun owners ARE killing children, right? > I bet she believes all men are rapists too and only universal castration > will close the rape 'loophole"! > Well, you are here like a woman, being told "You are very pretty today.", replying "So you mean I am not in other days.". -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." MiloĆĄ Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 03:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CQNPC.280179$DS3.225858@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #687925 |
On 5/31/2018 3:16 AM, Libor Striz wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: > >> So presumably all us law-abiding gun owners ARE killing children, right? >> I bet she believes all men are rapists too and only universal castration >> will close the rape 'loophole"! >> > > Well, you are here like a woman, > being told "You are very pretty today.", > replying "So you mean I am not in other days.". > > Depends if he's asking her to put a bag over her head on other days or not. Chelsea is clearly asking for the bag.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 05:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.31--5.22am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #687921 |
> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms slaughtering concert goers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 12:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <84VPC.228962$yc1.187480@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #687937 |
On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler > > The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, > did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms > slaughtering concert goers. > it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country AND themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't have to sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of duty on every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 10:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnao4dF5v5mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #687954 |
On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: > On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >> >> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >> slaughtering concert goers. >> > it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country AND > themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't have to > sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of duty on every > citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> ----- A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. -- 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 15:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <NlYPC.179788$o43.179381@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #687958 |
On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>> >>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>> slaughtering concert goers. >>> >> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country AND >> themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't have to >> sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of duty on every >> citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. > > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> > > OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> > ----- > A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding Era > American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, > yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early > Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows > 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, > that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th > and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or > organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural > meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we > shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked > comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or > target practice. > ----- > > The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" really means that citizens get to carry their firearms to government 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never meant that you could own or carry them. Terrorists at the colonial NRA had spread the lie and convinced all those Americans from the founding to say 1960 that the sentence meant that colonial men had the right to join a standing army which they all strongly supported and NO right to any self-defense which has always been a crime in America. The issue is settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is permitted to be said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 20:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnb39qF82riU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #687998 |
On Thu, 31 May 2018 15:49:51 -0400, benj wrote: > On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>> >>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>> >>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country AND >>> themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't have to >>> sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of duty on every >>> citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. >> >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong- about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8- b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >> >> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >> ----- >> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding >> Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million >> words, >> yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early >> Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows >> 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, >> that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th >> and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering >> or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural >> meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we >> shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked >> comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or >> target practice. >> ----- >> >> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. > > Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of the > supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the internet > say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". Who can doubt > authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" really means that > citizens get to carry their firearms to government 'buybacks' and turn > them in. It never meant that you could own or carry them. Terrorists at > the colonial NRA had spread the lie and convinced all those Americans > from the founding to say 1960 that the sentence meant that colonial men > had the right to join a standing army which they all strongly supported > and NO right to any self-defense which has always been a crime in > America. The issue is settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is > permitted to be said. "You're mocking me, aren't you?" -Buzz Lightyear -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 17:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <CGZPC.126593$pg3.38049@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #688002 |
On 5/31/2018 4:12 PM, vallor wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2018 15:49:51 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>>> >>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>>> >>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country AND >>>> themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't have to >>>> sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of duty on every >>>> citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. >>> >>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong- > about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8- > b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >>> >>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >>> ----- >>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding >>> Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million >>> words, >>> yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early >>> Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows >>> 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, >>> that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th >>> and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering >>> or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural >>> meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we >>> shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked >>> comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or >>> target practice. >>> ----- >>> >>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. >> >> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of the >> supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the internet >> say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". Who can doubt >> authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" really means that >> citizens get to carry their firearms to government 'buybacks' and turn >> them in. It never meant that you could own or carry them. Terrorists at >> the colonial NRA had spread the lie and convinced all those Americans >> from the founding to say 1960 that the sentence meant that colonial men >> had the right to join a standing army which they all strongly supported >> and NO right to any self-defense which has always been a crime in >> America. The issue is settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is >> permitted to be said. > > "You're mocking me, aren't you?" -Buzz Lightyear > > I wish that were possible - Me
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 16:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnbf9cFa8kvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #687998 |
On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>> >>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>> >>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country AND >>> themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't have to >>> sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of duty on >>> every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. >> >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >> >> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >> ----- >> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding >> Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million >> words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of >> Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion >> words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 >> duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of >> âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât >> refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases >> confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day >> was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear >> armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal >> self-defense, hunting or target practice. >> ----- >> >> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. > > Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of the > supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the internet > say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". Who can doubt > authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" really means that > citizens get to carry their firearms to government 'buybacks' and turn > them in. It never meant that you could own or carry them. Terrorists at > the colonial NRA had spread the lie and convinced all those Americans > from the founding to say 1960 that the sentence meant that colonial men > had the right to join a standing army which they all strongly supported > and NO right to any self-defense which has always been a crime in > America. The issue is settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is > permitted to be said. > The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... and that the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical evidence. But, hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame "liberals" for the facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal. -- 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 19:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <4_%PC.268347$1e7.225209@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #688031 |
On 5/31/2018 7:37 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote: >> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>>> >>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>>> >>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country AND >>>> themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't have to >>>> sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of duty on >>>> every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. >>> >>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >>> >>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >>> ----- >>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding >>> Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million >>> words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus >>> of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion >>> words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 >>> duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of >>> âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât >>> refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases >>> confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day >>> was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear >>> armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal >>> self-defense, hunting or target practice. >>> ----- >>> >>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. >> >> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of >> the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the >> internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". >> Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" >> really means that citizens get to carry their firearms to government >> 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never meant that you could own or >> carry them. Terrorists at the colonial NRA had spread the lie and >> convinced all those Americans from the founding to say 1960 that the >> sentence meant that colonial men had the right to join a standing army >> which they all strongly supported and NO right to any self-defense >> which has always been a crime in America. The issue is settled. >> Liberals have spoken and nothing more is permitted to be said. >> > The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... and that > the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical evidence. But, > hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame "liberals" for the > facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal. > Sorry snit but you libs don't do facts. Reality is something none of you can handle. Like the reality that since the founding of the country "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for people to walk around with arms. They knew what word "infringed" meant back then. To say that "bear" means to carry firearms in a standing army is so hideously anti-historical as to defy credulity. Oh wait, you are a lib so truth has no place in your thoughts. Are you so uneducated that you don't know that the founders absolutely hated standing armies and considered them a passport to tyranny? Oh wait, I remember, in your world Benjamin Franklin invented the 'universal background check". Makes sense just like republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing KKK, Sim Crow, Segregation, and all other of the horrible and racist things that the Criminal terrorist NRA stand for today!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 17:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnbhb7FajjtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688035 |
On 5/31/18 4:57 PM, benj wrote:
> On 5/31/2018 7:37 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution,
>>>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms
>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country
>>>>> AND themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't
>>>>> have to sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of
>>>>> duty on every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html>
>>>>
>>>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB>
>>>> -----
>>>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding
>>>> Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million
>>>> words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus
>>>> of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion
>>>> words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350
>>>> duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of
>>>> âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât
>>>> refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases
>>>> confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day
>>>> was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear
>>>> armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal
>>>> self-defense, hunting or target practice.
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008.
>>>
>>> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of
>>> the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the
>>> internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts".
>>> Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms"
>>> really means that citizens get to carry their firearms to government
>>> 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never meant that you could own or
>>> carry them. Terrorists at the colonial NRA had spread the lie and
>>> convinced all those Americans from the founding to say 1960 that the
>>> sentence meant that colonial men had the right to join a standing
>>> army which they all strongly supported and NO right to any
>>> self-defense which has always been a crime in America. The issue is
>>> settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is permitted to be said.
>>>
>> The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... and
>> that the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical evidence.
>> But, hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame "liberals"
>> for the facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal.
>>
> Sorry snit but you libs don't do facts. Reality is something none of you
> can handle. Like the reality that since the founding of the country
> "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for people to walk
> around with arms. They knew what word "infringed" meant back then. To
> say that "bear" means to carry firearms in a standing army is so
> hideously anti-historical as to defy credulity. Oh wait, you are a lib
> so truth has no place in your thoughts. Are you so uneducated that you
> don't know that the founders absolutely hated standing armies and
> considered them a passport to tyranny? Oh wait, I remember, in your
> world Benjamin Franklin invented the 'universal background check".
> Makes sense just like republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing
> KKK, Sim Crow, Segregation, and all other of the horrible and racist
> things that the Criminal terrorist NRA stand for today!
>
Again, I am speaking of the evidence. You are going into partisan
attacks and insults and claim without support. For example, you say:
-----
Like the reality that since the founding of the country
"bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for
people to walk around with arms."
----
This is contradicted by the very meaning of how the phrase "bear arms"
is and was used, and by laws that existed at the time of the founding of
the country. This is not hard to show. There is, in a word, a lot of
evidence contrary to your claim.
Do you have any evidence to back your view?
You also speak of Republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing the
KKK, and more. Where do you even come up with this stuff? How do you see
it as being related to your unsupported view of the second amendment?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 21:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <Ys1QC.185743$T14.96702@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #688041 |
On 5/31/2018 8:12 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/31/18 4:57 PM, benj wrote: >> On 5/31/2018 7:37 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>>>>> >>>>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country >>>>>> AND themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't >>>>>> have to sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of >>>>>> duty on every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >>>>> >>>>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >>>>> ----- >>>>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of >>>>> Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 >>>>> million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â >>>>> BYUâs Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close >>>>> to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. >>>>> Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 >>>>> separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, >>>>> and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or organized, >>>>> armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of >>>>> âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we shouldnât need >>>>> big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked comfortably >>>>> with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target >>>>> practice. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. >>>> >>>> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of >>>> the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the >>>> internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". >>>> Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" >>>> really means that citizens get to carry their firearms to government >>>> 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never meant that you could own or >>>> carry them. Terrorists at the colonial NRA had spread the lie and >>>> convinced all those Americans from the founding to say 1960 that the >>>> sentence meant that colonial men had the right to join a standing >>>> army which they all strongly supported and NO right to any >>>> self-defense which has always been a crime in America. The issue is >>>> settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is permitted to be said. >>>> >>> The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... and >>> that the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical >>> evidence. But, hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame >>> "liberals" for the facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal. >>> >> Sorry snit but you libs don't do facts. Reality is something none of >> you can handle. Like the reality that since the founding of the >> country "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for >> people to walk around with arms. They knew what word "infringed" meant >> back then. To say that "bear" means to carry firearms in a standing >> army is so hideously anti-historical as to defy credulity. Oh wait, >> you are a lib so truth has no place in your thoughts. Are you so >> uneducated that you don't know that the founders absolutely hated >> standing armies and considered them a passport to tyranny? Oh wait, I >> remember, in your world Benjamin Franklin invented the 'universal >> background check". >> Makes sense just like republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing >> KKK, Sim Crow, Segregation, and all other of the horrible and racist >> things that the Criminal terrorist NRA stand for today! >> > > Again, I am speaking of the evidence. You are going into partisan > attacks and insults and claim without support. For example, you say: Who do you think you are fooling Mr/ms."evidence"? Don't act innocent and a victim because you are NOT. Your argument is total nonsense. It's some fantasy with no basis in truth. Ranks up there with the last wet dream you libs had that said colonials never owned guns. Truth and honest discussion isn't something you do. And that is not a partisan attack and insult it is observed proven truth. >    ----- >    Like the reality that since the founding of the country >    "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for >    people to walk around with arms." >    ---- > > This is contradicted by the very meaning of how the phrase "bear arms" > is and was used, and by laws that existed at the time of the founding of > the country. This is not hard to show. There is, in a word, a lot of > evidence contrary to your claim. There is not except in your fantasies. Your argument is just garbage. How many times a word is used in some context is no criterion for the meaning employed in a given instance. Facts of history show your twisted logic to be pure fantasy. The agreed enforcement of the 2nd amendment for centuries puts the lie to your theory. Note counselor that the phrase "bear arms" would be the British usage (having nothing to do with your modern assinine NRA theory) which in the Oxford English dictionary is: 1. Possess or carry a weapon. 1.1 Participate in military operations as a member of the armed forces. One usage does not negate the other. Is that your argument? And somehow by counting words in books of the era you'll "prove" that the primary definition does not exist? Give us all a break counselor! You have the nerve to call that "evidence"? Bwahahahaha! > Do you have any evidence to back your view? Do you? A word count? Are you a lawyer? You Butthead types have been screaming "He said militia" for years! It's GARBAGE. nothing less than the supreme court of the united states CALLED it garbage. Even the Heller dissent called it garbage! Yet you persist trying ever harder to twist words and history to render rights null an void. That's not very American, you know. > You also speak of Republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing the > KKK, and more. Where do you even come up with this stuff? How do you see > it as being related to your unsupported view of the second amendment? What? I have to draw you a picture? I keep saying that because all you rights-haters keep trying to twist history around to convince the public that the everything is the opposite of what it really is. You know damn well that it was DEMOCRATS to fought to keep slavery, invented the KKK<, Jim Crow, Segregation and the rest, And yet you haters have repeated lies so often that the ignorant public believes you are all on the side of civil rights. You've even managed to totally reverse the meaning of liberal and conservative! SO FUNNY! We don't need crap like this. Piss off. Not an insult just a statement of your true value. No offense.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnc0i3Fd15mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688051 |
On 5/31/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote:
> On 5/31/2018 8:12 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/31/18 4:57 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2018 7:37 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution,
>>>>>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms
>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country
>>>>>>> AND themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't
>>>>>>> have to sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of
>>>>>>> duty on every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of
>>>>>> Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138
>>>>>> million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â
>>>>>> BYUâs Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close
>>>>>> to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase.
>>>>>> Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500
>>>>>> separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th
>>>>>> centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or
>>>>>> organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural
>>>>>> meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we
>>>>>> shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never
>>>>>> worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense,
>>>>>> hunting or target practice.
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of
>>>>> the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the
>>>>> internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts".
>>>>> Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms"
>>>>> really means that citizens get to carry their firearms to
>>>>> government 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never meant that you
>>>>> could own or carry them. Terrorists at the colonial NRA had spread
>>>>> the lie and convinced all those Americans from the founding to say
>>>>> 1960 that the sentence meant that colonial men had the right to
>>>>> join a standing army which they all strongly supported and NO right
>>>>> to any self-defense which has always been a crime in America. The
>>>>> issue is settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is
>>>>> permitted to be said.
>>>>>
>>>> The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... and
>>>> that the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical
>>>> evidence. But, hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame
>>>> "liberals" for the facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal.
>>>>
>>> Sorry snit but you libs don't do facts. Reality is something none of
>>> you can handle. Like the reality that since the founding of the
>>> country "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for
>>> people to walk around with arms. They knew what word "infringed"
>>> meant back then. To say that "bear" means to carry firearms in a
>>> standing army is so hideously anti-historical as to defy credulity.
>>> Oh wait, you are a lib so truth has no place in your thoughts. Are
>>> you so uneducated that you don't know that the founders absolutely
>>> hated standing armies and considered them a passport to tyranny? Oh
>>> wait, I remember, in your world Benjamin Franklin invented the
>>> 'universal background check".
>>> Makes sense just like republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing
>>> KKK, Sim Crow, Segregation, and all other of the horrible and racist
>>> things that the Criminal terrorist NRA stand for today!
>>>
>>
>> Again, I am speaking of the evidence. You are going into partisan
>> attacks and insults and claim without support. For example, you say:
>
> Who do you think you are fooling Mr/ms."evidence"? Don't act innocent
> and a victim because you are NOT. Your argument is total nonsense. It's
> some fantasy with no basis in truth. Ranks up there with the last wet
> dream you libs had that said colonials never owned guns. Truth and
> honest discussion isn't something you do. And that is not a partisan
> attack and insult it is observed proven truth.
>
>> Â Â Â Â -----
>> Â Â Â Â Like the reality that since the founding of the country
>> Â Â Â Â "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for
>> Â Â Â Â people to walk around with arms."
>> Â Â Â Â ----
>>
>> This is contradicted by the very meaning of how the phrase "bear arms"
>> is and was used, and by laws that existed at the time of the founding
>> of the country. This is not hard to show. There is, in a word, a lot
>> of evidence contrary to your claim.
>
> There is not except in your fantasies. Your argument is just garbage.
> How many times a word is used in some context is no criterion for the
> meaning employed in a given instance. Facts of history show your twisted
> logic to be pure fantasy. The agreed enforcement of the 2nd amendment
> for centuries puts the lie to your theory.
The meaning of the words matter. How they are used matters.
> Note counselor that the phrase "bear arms" would be the British usage
> (having nothing to do with your modern assinine NRA theory) which in the
> Oxford English dictionary is:
>
> 1. Possess or carry a weapon.
> 1.1 Participate in military operations as a member of the armed forces.
This is one modern view... but it is not how the term is even commonly
used now.
> One usage does not negate the other. Is that your argument?
Of course not. I am noting we should go with the understood and common
usage of the language.
> And somehow
> by counting words in books of the era you'll "prove" that the primary
> definition does not exist? Give us all a break counselor! You have the
> nerve to call that "evidence"? Bwahahahaha!
The meaning of the words and phrases is extremely important in knowing
the meaning of the amendment. This is pretty much axiomatic.
>> Do you have any evidence to back your view?
>
> Do you?
Of course: the meaning of the words, the laws that existed, and
scholarly views.
> A word count? Are you a lawyer? You Butthead types have been
> screaming "He said militia" for years! It's GARBAGE. nothing less than
> the supreme court of the united states CALLED it garbage. Even the
> Heller dissent called it garbage! Yet you persist trying ever harder to
> twist words and history to render rights null an void. That's not very
> American, you know.
I am specifically noting my desire to NOT have the words twisted.
And again I ask: do you have any evidence to back your view?
>> You also speak of Republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing the
>> KKK, and more. Where do you even come up with this stuff? How do you
>> see it as being related to your unsupported view of the second amendment?
>
> What? I have to draw you a picture?
A picture is not relevant here.
> I keep saying that because all you
> rights-haters keep trying to twist history around to convince the public
> that the everything is the opposite of what it really is.
Oh, you are just giving an emotional rant. OK.
> You know damn
> well that it was DEMOCRATS to fought to keep slavery, invented the KKK<,
> Jim Crow, Segregation and the rest, And yet you haters have repeated
> lies so often that the ignorant public believes you are all on the side
> of civil rights. You've even managed to totally reverse the meaning of
> liberal and conservative! SO FUNNY!
I have no idea what comment or view of mine you are even ranting
against. Odd.
If you want to know more about the Southern Democrats and their support
of slavery, though, and how they became Southern Republicans, this
explains it reasonably well:
<https://youtu.be/s8VOM8ET1WU>
> We don't need crap like this. Piss off. Not an insult just a statement
> of your true value. No offense.)
What or who are you even arguing against?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 02:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <peqri7$ofh$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688064 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnc0i3Fd15mU1@mid.individual.net... > On 5/31/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >> On 5/31/2018 8:12 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 5/31/18 4:57 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2018 7:37 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>>>>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country >>>>>>>> AND themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't >>>>>>>> have to sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of >>>>>>>> duty on every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >>>>>>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding >>>>>>> Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million >>>>>>> words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus >>>>>>> of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion >>>>>>> words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 >>>>>>> duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of >>>>>>> âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât >>>>>>> refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases >>>>>>> confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day >>>>>>> was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear >>>>>>> armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal >>>>>>> self-defense, hunting or target practice. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of >>>>>> the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the >>>>>> internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". >>>>>> Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" >>>>>> really means that citizens get to carry their firearms to government >>>>>> 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never meant that you could own or >>>>>> carry them. Terrorists at the colonial NRA had spread the lie and >>>>>> convinced all those Americans from the founding to say 1960 that the >>>>>> sentence meant that colonial men had the right to join a standing >>>>>> army which they all strongly supported and NO right to any >>>>>> self-defense which has always been a crime in America. The issue is >>>>>> settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is permitted to be >>>>>> said. >>>>>> >>>>> The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... and >>>>> that the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical evidence. >>>>> But, hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame "liberals" >>>>> for the facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal. >>>>> >>>> Sorry snit but you libs don't do facts. Reality is something none of >>>> you can handle. Like the reality that since the founding of the country >>>> "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for people to walk >>>> around with arms. They knew what word "infringed" meant back then. To >>>> say that "bear" means to carry firearms in a standing army is so >>>> hideously anti-historical as to defy credulity. Oh wait, you are a lib >>>> so truth has no place in your thoughts. Are you so uneducated that you >>>> don't know that the founders absolutely hated standing armies and >>>> considered them a passport to tyranny? Oh wait, I remember, in your >>>> world Benjamin Franklin invented the 'universal background check". >>>> Makes sense just like republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing >>>> KKK, Sim Crow, Segregation, and all other of the horrible and racist >>>> things that the Criminal terrorist NRA stand for today! >>>> >>> >>> Again, I am speaking of the evidence. You are going into partisan >>> attacks and insults and claim without support. For example, you say: >> >> Who do you think you are fooling Mr/ms."evidence"? Don't act innocent and >> a victim because you are NOT. Your argument is total nonsense. It's some >> fantasy with no basis in truth. Ranks up there with the last wet dream >> you libs had that said colonials never owned guns. Truth and honest >> discussion isn't something you do. And that is not a partisan attack and >> insult it is observed proven truth. >> >>> ----- >>> Like the reality that since the founding of the country >>> "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for >>> people to walk around with arms." >>> ---- >>> >>> This is contradicted by the very meaning of how the phrase "bear arms" >>> is and was used, and by laws that existed at the time of the founding of >>> the country. This is not hard to show. There is, in a word, a lot of >>> evidence contrary to your claim. >> >> There is not except in your fantasies. Your argument is just garbage. How >> many times a word is used in some context is no criterion for the meaning >> employed in a given instance. Facts of history show your twisted logic to >> be pure fantasy. The agreed enforcement of the 2nd amendment for >> centuries puts the lie to your theory. > > The meaning of the words matter. How they are used matters. And yet, I bet you are willing to ignore BOTH of these to twist the 2nd into what you want it to be rather than what it is. >> Note counselor that the phrase "bear arms" would be the British usage >> (having nothing to do with your modern assinine NRA theory) which in the >> Oxford English dictionary is: >> >> 1. Possess or carry a weapon. >> 1.1 Participate in military operations as a member of the armed forces. > > This is one modern view... but it is not how the term is even commonly > used now. Then why don't you tell us how it's used? >> One usage does not negate the other. Is that your argument? > > Of course not. I am noting we should go with the understood and common > usage of the language. Then maybe you should start establishing what that is. > >> And somehow by counting words in books of the era you'll "prove" that the >> primary definition does not exist? Give us all a break counselor! You >> have the nerve to call that "evidence"? Bwahahahaha! > > The meaning of the words and phrases is extremely important in knowing the > meaning of the amendment. This is pretty much axiomatic. And yet, I would be willing to bet that you would like to ignore those meanings in favor of something else. >>> Do you have any evidence to back your view? >> >> Do you? > > Of course: the meaning of the words, the laws that existed, and scholarly > views. So where is it? >> A word count? Are you a lawyer? You Butthead types have been screaming >> "He said militia" for years! It's GARBAGE. nothing less than the supreme >> court of the united states CALLED it garbage. Even the Heller dissent >> called it garbage! Yet you persist trying ever harder to twist words and >> history to render rights null an void. That's not very American, you >> know. > > I am specifically noting my desire to NOT have the words twisted. And yet, I bet you would love the twist the words to your own ends. > And again I ask: do you have any evidence to back your view? Where is yours? <snip> Your argument to date boils down to "Does NOT".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 07:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnd518FjtctU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688070 |
On 5/31/18 11:42 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnc0i3Fd15mU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 5/31/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 5/31/2018 8:12 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 5/31/18 4:57 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 5/31/2018 7:37 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>>>>>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the >>>>>>>>> country AND themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. >>>>>>>>> You don't have to sign up for the military to know that this is >>>>>>>>> an oath of duty on every citizen. And that certainly includes >>>>>>>>> YOU, Rolf. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of >>>>>>>> Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and >>>>>>>> 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear >>>>>>>> arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts >>>>>>>> and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the >>>>>>>> phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves >>>>>>>> about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and >>>>>>>> 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, >>>>>>>> soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm >>>>>>>> that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was >>>>>>>> military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear >>>>>>>> armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal >>>>>>>> self-defense, hunting or target practice. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice >>>>>>> of the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on >>>>>>> the internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled >>>>>>> facts". Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that >>>>>>> "bear arms" really means that citizens get to carry their >>>>>>> firearms to government 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never >>>>>>> meant that you could own or carry them. Terrorists at the >>>>>>> colonial NRA had spread the lie and convinced all those Americans >>>>>>> from the founding to say 1960 that the sentence meant that >>>>>>> colonial men had the right to join a standing army which they all >>>>>>> strongly supported and NO right to any self-defense which has >>>>>>> always been a crime in America. The issue is settled. Liberals >>>>>>> have spoken and nothing more is permitted to be said. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... >>>>>> and that the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical >>>>>> evidence. But, hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame >>>>>> "liberals" for the facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal. >>>>>> >>>>> Sorry snit but you libs don't do facts. Reality is something none >>>>> of you can handle. Like the reality that since the founding of the >>>>> country "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for >>>>> people to walk around with arms. They knew what word "infringed" >>>>> meant back then. To say that "bear" means to carry firearms in a >>>>> standing army is so hideously anti-historical as to defy credulity. >>>>> Oh wait, you are a lib so truth has no place in your thoughts. Are >>>>> you so uneducated that you don't know that the founders absolutely >>>>> hated standing armies and considered them a passport to tyranny? Oh >>>>> wait, I remember, in your world Benjamin Franklin invented the >>>>> 'universal background check". >>>>> Makes sense just like republicans fighting to keep slavery, >>>>> inventing KKK, Sim Crow, Segregation, and all other of the horrible >>>>> and racist things that the Criminal terrorist NRA stand for today! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Again, I am speaking of the evidence. You are going into partisan >>>> attacks and insults and claim without support. For example, you say: >>> >>> Who do you think you are fooling Mr/ms."evidence"? Don't act innocent >>> and a victim because you are NOT. Your argument is total nonsense. >>> It's some fantasy with no basis in truth. Ranks up there with the >>> last wet dream you libs had that said colonials never owned guns. >>> Truth and honest discussion isn't something you do. And that is not a >>> partisan attack and insult it is observed proven truth. >>> >>>>     ----- >>>>     Like the reality that since the founding of the country >>>>     "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for >>>>     people to walk around with arms." >>>>     ---- >>>> >>>> This is contradicted by the very meaning of how the phrase "bear >>>> arms" is and was used, and by laws that existed at the time of the >>>> founding of the country. This is not hard to show. There is, in a >>>> word, a lot of evidence contrary to your claim. >>> >>> There is not except in your fantasies. Your argument is just garbage. >>> How many times a word is used in some context is no criterion for the >>> meaning employed in a given instance. Facts of history show your >>> twisted logic to be pure fantasy. The agreed enforcement of the 2nd >>> amendment for centuries puts the lie to your theory. >> >> The meaning of the words matter. How they are used matters. > > And yet, I bet you are willing to ignore BOTH of these to twist the 2nd > into what you want it to be rather than what it is. > >>> Note counselor that the phrase "bear arms" would be the British usage >>> (having nothing to do with your modern assinine NRA theory) which in >>> the Oxford English dictionary is: >>> >>> 1. Possess or carry a weapon. >>> 1.1 Participate in military operations as a member of the armed forces. >> >> This is one modern view... but it is not how the term is even commonly >> used now. > > Then why don't you tell us how it's used? > >>> One usage does not negate the other. Is that your argument? >> >> Of course not. I am noting we should go with the understood and common >> usage of the language. > > Then maybe you should start establishing what that is. > >> >>> And somehow by counting words in books of the era you'll "prove" that >>> the primary definition does not exist? Give us all a break counselor! >>> You have the nerve to call that "evidence"? Bwahahahaha! >> >> The meaning of the words and phrases is extremely important in knowing >> the meaning of the amendment. This is pretty much axiomatic. > > And yet, I would be willing to bet that you would like to ignore those > meanings in favor of something else. Your bet is not relevant here. What is relevant is that the use of the term "bear arms" is NOT used as the NRA says, that the way a militia was seen at the time is NOT the way the NRA says (the Articles of Confederation make that very clear), that most scholarly views do not agree with what the NRA says, etc. You seem to disagree. Cool. The question is if you have any support for your view? So far the answer is no. You have none. And that is fine: I will note your view is unsupported but I shall bit attack you for that. >>>> Do you have any evidence to back your view? >>> >>> Do you? >> >> Of course: the meaning of the words, the laws that existed, and >> scholarly views. > > So where is it? I have already shown the meaning of the words "bear arms" and how they were used. If you look at the Articles of Confederation they clarify how the term "militia" was used in the era: <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp> "... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." And if you do a Google Scholar view you will find that there is a pretty strong consensus on the meaning of the second amendment. Here are some common findings: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> 1) https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=lawreview | First, the second amendment was passed as an | assurance to the states that they would have the | right to maintain their own militias. Such | militias were to be used as the centerpiece of the | nation's military power, as an alternative to a | large standing army, as a tool for the states to | ensure public order, and as a means for the states | to defend against the encroachment of federal | power. | | Second, the second amendment does not operate as a | restraint on the states. It acts as a restraint on the | federal government. | | Third, there is no substantial historical evidence for | the claim that the second amendment guarantees an | individual right to have arms for any purpose other | than participation in a state-regulated militia. | | Fourth, as long as federal gun laws do not adversely | affect the organized state militias, these laws should | encounter no second amendment problems. | | Fifth, because the state militias no longer rely on | the use of privately-owned firearms by their active | members, federal regulation of private gun ownership | poses no threat to state militias, and therefore | raises no constitutional issue. This is demonstrated | by the remarkable unanimity of federal and state | courts in upholding the constitutional validity of | firearms laws against second amendment challenges. 2) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105369 | This article argues that the second amendment was | initially proposed and passed in response to some | antifederalist fears of a standing army. The | thrust of the Amendment was to prevent the | national government from disarming the state | militias. Similarly, the Amendment allowed the | states to arm their own militias if Congress | failed to do so under its Article I, Section 8 | powers. The article notes that Madison and other | Federalists who wrote the Second Amendment were | fully aware of demands for an amendment to protect | an individual's right to own weapons, and that the | framers of the Second Amendment emphatically | rejected this concept. 3) https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/Reviews/rwstand.htm | The contemporary meaning of the Second Amendment | is the same as it was at the time of its adoption. | The federal government may regulate the National | Guard, but may not disarm it against the will of | state legislatures. Nothing in the Second | Amendment, however, precludes Congress or the | states from requiring licensing and registration | of firearms; in fact, there is nothing to stop an | outright congressional ban on private ownership of | all handguns and all rifles. 4) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114 | Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason | to believe that, in significant part, James | Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his | constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, | that Congress could not use its newly-acquired | powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by | disarming the militia, on which the South relied | for slave control. We can also look at early gun laws. Those were clearly not fitting the modern NRA view, and they were NEVER, as far as I can tell, challenged on second amendment terms. Can you how otherwise? http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already | in place during the Founding Era. Militia | regulations were the most common form of laws | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder | were also common. States prohibited the use of | firearms on certain occasions and in certain | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the | population during the Founding Era. ... | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes | providing for the confiscation of firearms from | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms | within the context of militia obligations, and | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is | hardly a modern invention. At the time of the founding it was illegal in Boston to have loaded fire arms in your house. As far as I can find there was no backlash from this about it being against the second amendment. In the "Old West", contrary to what movies tell you, it was often illegal to engage in what we now call "open carry". Again, I cannot find any sign of backlash from this. We can go on and on. The evidence is quite extensive. And your counter? >>> A word count? Are you a lawyer? You Butthead types have been >>> screaming "He said militia" for years! It's GARBAGE. nothing less >>> than the supreme court of the united states CALLED it garbage. Even >>> the Heller dissent called it garbage! Yet you persist trying ever >>> harder to twist words and history to render rights null an void. >>> That's not very American, you know. >> >> I am specifically noting my desire to NOT have the words twisted. > > And yet, I bet you would love the twist the words to your own ends. Again: your bets are not relevant here. >> And again I ask: do you have any evidence to back your view? > > Where is yours? Here and in posts before. How about yours? > <snip> > > Your argument to date boils down to "Does NOT". Clearly incorrect. So far you have empty denial. Not very powerful at all! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <peso6q$obr$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688104 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnd518FjtctU1@mid.individual.net... > On 5/31/18 11:42 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnc0i3Fd15mU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 5/31/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2018 8:12 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 5/31/18 4:57 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 5/31/2018 7:37 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/31/18 12:49 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/31/2018 1:02 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 9:06 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:22 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> " My armed guards arenât killing children " -- Chelsea Handler >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>>>>>>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it certainly did however envision citizens defending the country >>>>>>>>>> AND themselves from armed nutjobs foreign or domestic. You don't >>>>>>>>>> have to sign up for the military to know that this is an oath of >>>>>>>>>> duty on every citizen. And that certainly includes YOU, Rolf. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html> >>>>>>>>> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of >>>>>>>>> Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 >>>>>>>>> million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs >>>>>>>>> Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 >>>>>>>>> billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting >>>>>>>>> about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate >>>>>>>>> occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and >>>>>>>>> only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed >>>>>>>>> action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of âbear >>>>>>>>> armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we shouldnât need big >>>>>>>>> data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked comfortably >>>>>>>>> with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target >>>>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The NRA twists the meaning... and the SCOTUS did, too, in 2008. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, Shit! The reporters at the Washington Post say the justice of >>>>>>>> the supreme court was wrong! Hey anonymous liberal voices on the >>>>>>>> internet say so too! Well that pretty much make it "settled facts". >>>>>>>> Who can doubt authority like that? Everyone knows that "bear arms" >>>>>>>> really means that citizens get to carry their firearms to >>>>>>>> government 'buybacks' and turn them in. It never meant that you >>>>>>>> could own or carry them. Terrorists at the colonial NRA had spread >>>>>>>> the lie and convinced all those Americans from the founding to say >>>>>>>> 1960 that the sentence meant that colonial men had the right to >>>>>>>> join a standing army which they all strongly supported and NO right >>>>>>>> to any self-defense which has always been a crime in America. The >>>>>>>> issue is settled. Liberals have spoken and nothing more is >>>>>>>> permitted to be said. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The evidence shows that the meaning is not what the NRA says... and >>>>>>> that the change made in 2008 was not based on the historical >>>>>>> evidence. But, hey, instead of facing that you can twist and blame >>>>>>> "liberals" for the facts. I get it: to you facts are liberal. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry snit but you libs don't do facts. Reality is something none of >>>>>> you can handle. Like the reality that since the founding of the >>>>>> country "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for >>>>>> people to walk around with arms. They knew what word "infringed" >>>>>> meant back then. To say that "bear" means to carry firearms in a >>>>>> standing army is so hideously anti-historical as to defy credulity. >>>>>> Oh wait, you are a lib so truth has no place in your thoughts. Are >>>>>> you so uneducated that you don't know that the founders absolutely >>>>>> hated standing armies and considered them a passport to tyranny? Oh >>>>>> wait, I remember, in your world Benjamin Franklin invented the >>>>>> 'universal background check". >>>>>> Makes sense just like republicans fighting to keep slavery, inventing >>>>>> KKK, Sim Crow, Segregation, and all other of the horrible and racist >>>>>> things that the Criminal terrorist NRA stand for today! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Again, I am speaking of the evidence. You are going into partisan >>>>> attacks and insults and claim without support. For example, you say: >>>> >>>> Who do you think you are fooling Mr/ms."evidence"? Don't act innocent >>>> and a victim because you are NOT. Your argument is total nonsense. It's >>>> some fantasy with no basis in truth. Ranks up there with the last wet >>>> dream you libs had that said colonials never owned guns. Truth and >>>> honest discussion isn't something you do. And that is not a partisan >>>> attack and insult it is observed proven truth. >>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> Like the reality that since the founding of the country >>>>> "bear arms" under the 2nd amendment has always meant for >>>>> people to walk around with arms." >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> This is contradicted by the very meaning of how the phrase "bear arms" >>>>> is and was used, and by laws that existed at the time of the founding >>>>> of the country. This is not hard to show. There is, in a word, a lot >>>>> of evidence contrary to your claim. >>>> >>>> There is not except in your fantasies. Your argument is just garbage. >>>> How many times a word is used in some context is no criterion for the >>>> meaning employed in a given instance. Facts of history show your >>>> twisted logic to be pure fantasy. The agreed enforcement of the 2nd >>>> amendment for centuries puts the lie to your theory. >>> >>> The meaning of the words matter. How they are used matters. >> >> And yet, I bet you are willing to ignore BOTH of these to twist the 2nd >> into what you want it to be rather than what it is. >> >>>> Note counselor that the phrase "bear arms" would be the British usage >>>> (having nothing to do with your modern assinine NRA theory) which in >>>> the Oxford English dictionary is: >>>> >>>> 1. Possess or carry a weapon. >>>> 1.1 Participate in military operations as a member of the armed forces. >>> >>> This is one modern view... but it is not how the term is even commonly >>> used now. >> >> Then why don't you tell us how it's used? >> >>>> One usage does not negate the other. Is that your argument? >>> >>> Of course not. I am noting we should go with the understood and common >>> usage of the language. >> >> Then maybe you should start establishing what that is. >> >>> >>>> And somehow by counting words in books of the era you'll "prove" that >>>> the primary definition does not exist? Give us all a break counselor! >>>> You have the nerve to call that "evidence"? Bwahahahaha! >>> >>> The meaning of the words and phrases is extremely important in knowing >>> the meaning of the amendment. This is pretty much axiomatic. >> >> And yet, I would be willing to bet that you would like to ignore those >> meanings in favor of something else. > > Your bet is not relevant here. And yet, I can't help but feel I will end up winning my bet. > What is relevant is that the use of the term "bear arms" is NOT used as > the NRA says, And how exactly do you think the NRA says it is used? > that the way a militia was seen at the time is NOT the way the NRA says > (the Articles of Confederation make that very clear), that most scholarly > views do not agree with what the NRA says, etc. With the ratification of the Constitution what the Articles say or don't say are a moot point. > > You seem to disagree. Cool. The question is if you have any support for > your view? So far the answer is no. You have none. And that is fine: I > will note your view is unsupported but I shall bit attack you for that. But let me post a few quotations and then you can tell us that they don't really mean what they said. "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." â George Mason in Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." â Samuel Adams in Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 "[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." â Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights by William Grayson of Virginia "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." â Robert Henry Lee - Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788 The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." â The Federalist, No. 46 - James Madison "As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." â Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 by Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." â An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787 - Noah Webster "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." â Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 - Thomas Paine of Pennsylvania Yea, but all these people didn't really mean to have the people be able to keep and bear their own personal arms according to the dipshit known as Snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 17:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fne747Fq86rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688186 |
On 6/1/18 5:22 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> Your bet is not relevant here. > > And yet, I can't help but feel I will end up winning my bet. > >> What is relevant is that the use of the term "bear arms" is NOT used >> as the NRA says, > > And how exactly do you think the NRA says it is used? Are you suggesting you really do not know? Good grief. This is going nowhere. >> that the way a militia was seen at the time is NOT the way the NRA >> says (the Articles of Confederation make that very clear), that most >> scholarly views do not agree with what the NRA says, etc. > > With the ratification of the Constitution what the Articles say or don't > say are a moot point. Well, I gave ways they are of value... but you are not even trying to hold a conversation. >> You seem to disagree. Cool. The question is if you have any support >> for your view? So far the answer is no. You have none. And that is >> fine: I will note your view is unsupported but I shall bit attack you >> for that. > > But let me post a few quotations and then you can tell us that they > don't really mean what they said. Why would I do that? That does not even make sense to do from MY perspective. For you it seems the norm. As far as digging up all your quotes -- no thanks. Already showed you how you were hand-picking and misrepresenting some. Not interested in you just tossing quote after quote into the conversation and ignoring when you are shown to be wrong only to have you toss MORE in. It is boring and useless. ... > Yea, but all these people didn't really mean to have the people be able > to keep and bear their own personal arms according to the dipshit known > as Snit. First: I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that. Second, you are now at name calling, insults, and just tossing anything you can into the conversation hoping to overwhelm me with things I cannot respond to. Not playing. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pet2kd$74n$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688188 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fne747Fq86rU1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 5:22 PM, Scout wrote: > ... >>> Your bet is not relevant here. >> >> And yet, I can't help but feel I will end up winning my bet. >> >>> What is relevant is that the use of the term "bear arms" is NOT used as >>> the NRA says, >> >> And how exactly do you think the NRA says it is used? > > Are you suggesting you really do not know? > > Good grief. This is going nowhere. > >>> that the way a militia was seen at the time is NOT the way the NRA says >>> (the Articles of Confederation make that very clear), that most >>> scholarly views do not agree with what the NRA says, etc. >> >> With the ratification of the Constitution what the Articles say or don't >> say are a moot point. > > Well, I gave ways they are of value... but you are not even trying to hold > a conversation. > >>> You seem to disagree. Cool. The question is if you have any support for >>> your view? So far the answer is no. You have none. And that is fine: I >>> will note your view is unsupported but I shall bit attack you for that. >> >> But let me post a few quotations and then you can tell us that they don't >> really mean what they said. > > Why would I do that? That does not even make sense to do from MY > perspective. For you it seems the norm. > > As far as digging up all your quotes -- no thanks. Already showed you how > you were hand-picking and misrepresenting some. Not interested in you just > tossing quote after quote into the conversation and ignoring when you are > shown to be wrong only to have you toss MORE in. > > It is boring and useless. Ah, so you're not interested in a discussion, the presentation of facts, or otherwise finding the truth...you simply want to spout your bullshit and have it accepted as true. You must deal with liberals a lot. They tend to accept that sort of nonsense as long as your bullshit is something they want to hear. Meanwhile, I acknowledge your inability or even willingness to hold rational discussion as well as your total denial of quotes which utterly contradict what you claim to be the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnehcpFrrtgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688209 |
On 6/1/18 8:07 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fne747Fq86rU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 5:22 PM, Scout wrote: >> ... >>>> Your bet is not relevant here. >>> >>> And yet, I can't help but feel I will end up winning my bet. >>> >>>> What is relevant is that the use of the term "bear arms" is NOT used >>>> as the NRA says, >>> >>> And how exactly do you think the NRA says it is used? >> >> Are you suggesting you really do not know? >> >> Good grief. This is going nowhere. >> >>>> that the way a militia was seen at the time is NOT the way the NRA >>>> says (the Articles of Confederation make that very clear), that most >>>> scholarly views do not agree with what the NRA says, etc. >>> >>> With the ratification of the Constitution what the Articles say or >>> don't say are a moot point. >> >> Well, I gave ways they are of value... but you are not even trying to >> hold a conversation. >> >>>> You seem to disagree. Cool. The question is if you have any support >>>> for your view? So far the answer is no. You have none. And that is >>>> fine: I will note your view is unsupported but I shall bit attack >>>> you for that. >>> >>> But let me post a few quotations and then you can tell us that they >>> don't really mean what they said. >> >> Why would I do that? That does not even make sense to do from MY >> perspective. For you it seems the norm. >> >> As far as digging up all your quotes -- no thanks. Already showed you >> how you were hand-picking and misrepresenting some. Not interested in >> you just tossing quote after quote into the conversation and ignoring >> when you are shown to be wrong only to have you toss MORE in. >> >> It is boring and useless. > > Ah, so you're not interested in a discussion, the presentation of facts, > or otherwise finding the truth...you simply want to spout your bullshit > and have it accepted as true. > You must deal with liberals a lot. They tend to accept that sort of > nonsense as long as your bullshit is something they want to hear. > > Meanwhile, I acknowledge your inability or even willingness to hold > rational discussion as well as your total denial of quotes which utterly > contradict what you claim to be the truth. So you have nothing to counter and just want to push insults. Fair enough. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 29 [1] 2 3 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web