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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #641997

Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:50:06 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:4ffa904b-e54c-4c4e-aabb-67e19c960709@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-8,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> James McGinn, in
>>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5-b481-1d26a1d37491@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Also, lest we forget.  I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
>>>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
>>>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
>>>> Earth's atmosphere.
>
>>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure?
>
> Your cowardly snipping is noted, Jim. What are you afraid of? That
> people will see that I've met every single one of your 'Or'
> conditions, thereby more than satisfying the conditions of the
> challenge in the eyes of the law?

you should graph it for him with gnuplot or desmos.com.

>
>> Yes.  Perfectly.
>
>>> Or that water
>>> in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
>>> C?
>>>
>>> You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
>>> which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
>>> 'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
>>> occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
>>> cases, however, evaporation is occurring.
>>>
>>> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase
>
>> You have to prove it is gaseous.
>>
>> You can't just assume it -- dumbass.
>
> I did prove it, you moron. It's not my fault you can't understand that
> simple reality as outlined by science long ago.
>
> To repeat that which you cowardly snipped out, to give you a second
> chance to peruse it and realize your error:
> ================================================================
> ================================================================
> ================================================================
> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water
> in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
> C?
>
> You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
> which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
> 'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
> occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
> cases, however, evaporation is occurring.
>
> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase until its partial pressure
> has reached the vapor pressure for that temperature.
>
> This is best treated by experimental analogy. Get a roulette wheel,
> spin it slowly and drop in 100 marbles. They'll bounce around, and you
> might see one or two collide with other marbles, the kinetic energy
> derived from said collisions giving one of the marbles the necessary
> energy to escape the roulette wheel (ie: to evaporate to gaseous
> phase).
>
> Now collect all your marbles and spin the roulette wheel faster, and
> drop the marbles back in. You'll see more of the marbles experiencing
> collisions which impart to them the energy necessary to fly off the
> wheel. Thus increased temperature increases evaporation.
>
> Now collect all your marbles again, spin the roulette wheel at 5000
> RPM and drop the marbles back in. They'll all fling off the wheel...
> that's boiling.
>
> Now, let's address sublimation. Because even when the water molecules
> are locked in the matrix of ice, the water can evaporate directly from
> solid to gaseous phase. That would be akin to a roulette wheel
> spinning very slowly... the collision of marbles necessary to throw
> one of them off the roulette table wouldn't happen very often, but
> it'd still happen occasionally.
>
> I'm sure you'll blather something akin to "Sublimation produces
> evaporate (vapor, small clusters of H2O). It does not produce gaseous
> H2O.", but hey, take a look at this:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)>
> "Sublimation is the transition of a substance directly from the solid
> to the gas phase without passing through the intermediate liquid
> phase.[1]"
>
> That [1] is the Merriam-Webster definition. You're trying to dispute a
> long-held scientific definition. That's not very smart of you, now is
> it?
>
> Further, just how do you suppose freeze-drying works, if not by
> sublimation in a reduced-pressure environment? Just how do you suppose
> dry ice evaporates if not by sublimation? Do you purport that "small
> clusters of vaporous CO2" are in the atmosphere as a result of
> sublimation? If so, do try not to breathe, you may suffocate on a "CO2
> vapor cluster".
>
> I invite you to peruse the works of Bar-Nun et. al., who studied water
> ice sublimation using mass spectrometry; and Sandford and Allamandola,
> who studied water ice sublimation using infrared spectroscopy; as well
> as R.L. Hudson, who studied water ice sublimation via mass
> spectroscopy. ALL of them found water ice sublimates directly to
> gaseous phase.
>
> Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy
> can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy.
> For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium
> vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in
> equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C).
>
> At an interface between a liquid and a gas, a water molecule can
> randomly fly out of the liquid and join the gas, or drop out of the
> gas and join the liquid. This gas/liquid system is at equilibrium if
> the change in free energy is the same for a molecule to go in either
> direction. In this case, the molecules are transferred in both
> directions at the same rate, and there is no net change. If you have a
> situation that is not in equilibrium, then molecules will be
> transferred from the liquid to the gas or the gas to the liquid
> preferentially, and this will continue until the pressure or
> temperature have changed to achieve equilibrium, or until one phase is
> completely gone. In many common examples, equilibrium is never
> reached. For example, at room temperature, the equilibrium point for
> water will be at a pressure of about 20 Torr. If the relative humidity
> is less than 100%, then the partial pressure of water in the air is
> less than 20 Torr. So, if you put a glass of water in such an
> atmosphere, the water molecules will tend to leave the liquid and join
> the gas. Since the atmosphere is much larger than the glass of water,
> this evaporation will not noticeably change the partial pressure of
> water in the atmosphere, so the water will continue to evaporate until
> it is entirely converted into gas. On the other hand, if you put a cap
> on the glass, the evaporation would only continue until the partial
> pressure of water under that cap went up to 20 Torr.
>
> In point of fact, water is *always* trying to "boil"... except that at
> room temperature, the 20 Torr pressure created isn't enough to expand
> the bubbles created by boiling against the atmospheric pressure of
> ~760 Torr. This can be seen quite easily by putting water in a flask
> and evacuating the flask to a lower pressure than atmospheric. The
> water will boil at a lower temperature. In fact, there are such
> devices that allow one to boil water merely by holding the flask, the
> heat from one's hand causing the boiling... until gaseous phase water
> partial pressure in the flask rises sufficiently to prevent bubble
> formation.
>
> <http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/689/air-moisture-temperature-saturation-diagram-SI.png>
> You'll note that at 100 C, the saturation pressure is 100,000 Pa, or
> atmospheric pressure. You'll further note that at that 100 C / 100,000
> Pa point, Density = 1... but at lower temperatures, water in its
> gaseous phase can still exist at lower partial pressure. At lower
> atmospheric pressure, the partial pressure:atmospheric pressure ratio
> increases such that evaporation occurs at a higher rate for a given
> temperature, finally leading to perpetual boiling for a sufficiently
> low atmospheric pressure, as in the evacuated flask example above.
>
> Did you not think about your contention that all water in the
> atmosphere is in a liquid state, or that a simple saturation diagram
> and an evacuated flask would cost you $100,000?
>
> I'd like to request my $100,000 in the form of BitCoin, if you please.
>
>> Or
>>
>> That moist air, all other factors being the same, is or can be
>> lighter than dry air.  Here is a link to experimental procedures
>> that would suffice:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ
>
> Mason jars? Desert environment? Aluminum foil? Cotton balls?
>
> You silly little man, there's no need to go to such lengths if you're
> so very determined to give away $100,000.
>
> Density of Dry Air
> Pa = 0.0035 pa / T
>
> Where:
> Pa = density dry air (kg/m3)
> pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
>
> Density of Water In Its Gaseous Phase
> Pw = 0.0022 pw / T
>
> Where:
> pw = partial pressure water in its gaseous phase (Pa, N/m2)
> Pw = density water in its gaseous phase (kg/m3)
> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
>
> <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html>
>
> Were you not aware that liquid water has an electrostatic surface
> potential of ~1.815 eV in liquid phase, but ~-1.815 eV in gaseous
> phase, thus water is *always* trying to evaporate to its gaseous phase
> to reduce its free energy, but the majority of it is held in check
> from doing so via the inter-molecular hydrogen bonds?
>
> <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jz900268s>
>
>> Or
>>
>> That moist air can rise as a result of convection through dry air
>
> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
>
> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
>
> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
>
> The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
> the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.
>
> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
> 28.57 g for air
>
> Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
> air with water in its gaseous phase in it is lighter than dry air.
>
> Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
> gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.
>
> Ergo, your entire basis of argument is invalid, and you'll be
> forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account immediately.
>
>> The person that wrote this "Troll Report," was obviously joking.  I  
>> want to assure you that this offer of $100,000.00 US Dollars is no joke.
>
> Great... so you'll be forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account
> post-haste. Don't make me sue you for it. You've made a public offer,
> legally binding. I've met _all_ of your 'Or' conditions, thereby more
> than thoroughly satisfying the demands of the challenge. I've amply
> proven using well-known and long-established scientific equations,
> tables and concepts that you're a kooktard. And kooktards gotta pay.
>
> <snicker>
>
>> Feel free to submit claim here or at my email address below.
>>
>> James McGinn
>> Solving Tornadoes
>> jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com
>
> The claim has been submitted and you've been proven wrong. Pay up.
>
> James McGinn owes FNVWe $100,000. Because stupidity should be costly.
>
> <snicker>
> ================================================================
> ================================================================
> ================================================================
>
> I'll further add that a gas is a single well-defined thermodynamic
> phase, whereas a vapor is a mixture of two phases (in the case of
> water, gas and liquid). A cloud contains water vapor, whereas clear
> sky contains gaseous water. IOW, all vapor contains gaseous phase, but
> gas is not vaporous.
>
> This applies to all substances which can be liquefied... liquid oxygen
> will coexist with oxygen vapor right up to the boiling point of oxygen
> at the pressure it is being stored. Above that Critical Temperature,
> it is gaseous.
>
> So even in water vapor, there is gaseous water... so no matter what,
> you're wrong, I'm right, and you owe me $100,000.
>
> Remember, I'm litigious. I'll gladly spend $25k on an attorney to get
> $75 net. And I can afford to do so. So you've better pay up.
>
> The scientific proof I've provided will stand up in any court of law,
> you've made a public challenge with a payoff of $100,000 and you've
> reiterated that offer. It is a legally binding offer.
>
> I've met _all_ of your 'Or' conditions, thereby more than thoroughly
> satisfying the demands of the challenge. I've amply proven using
> well-known and long-established scientific equations, tables and
> concepts that I've met your challenge
>
> You're the moron who claims that warmer air is *heavier* than colder
> air... that level of stupidity should be painful. I intend to make it
> so for you.
>
> Pay up. Now.
>
> James McGinn owes FNVWe $100,000. Because stupidity should be costly.
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 06:50 +0100
  Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-06 23:13 +0800
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 18:51 +0100
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-06 13:21 -0500
  Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 19:50 +0100
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-06 14:04 -0500
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 01:09 +0100
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-07 01:11 +0000
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 01:35 +0100
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-06 20:07 -0500
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 03:57 +0100
          Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:18 -0800
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 04:53 +0100
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:15 -0800
          Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:08 +0100
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:18 +0100
          Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:43 +0100

csiph-web