#Guard Soldiers May Go to Border Next Week
Kurt Nicklas
milt....@gmail.com
stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
to be...
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/24/D8HQDOT00.html
Foxtrot
>Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>to be...
Got a link to back up that claim, Schnook? It may be true of illegals
that came from Europe or Asia, but I doubt that it's true of illegals as a
whole. The vast majority of them came from Mexico and other latino
countries, and most of them hopped the border.
Kurt Nicklas
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
> stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
> to be...
To help keep the would-be border-jumpers where they are.
Of course, your statement is a lie to begin with.
2459 Dead
<kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
No, Knickers, as usual you are wrong. That's what happens when you
let god into your tiny little brain.
People who sneak across the border are not criminals, even though the
racist jackals on the missing-DNA side of the GOP are trying to change
that.
People who violate the terms of their temporary visas, however, are
breaking a law and can be charged with a crime.
You just think "illegal" applies to anything that tweaks your racist,
god-struck little brain.
--
"The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
-- Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, April 21, 2006, one week before he officially became a drug felon himself.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Kurt Nicklas
2459 Dead wrote:
> On 27 May 2006 02:31:11 -0700, "Kurt Nicklas"
> <kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
> >
> >milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
> >> stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
> >> to be...
> >
> >To help keep the would-be border-jumpers where they are.
> >
> >Of course, your statement is a lie to begin with.
>
> No, Knickers, as usual you are wrong. That's what happens when you
> let god into your tiny little brain.
Kissy, kissy!
> People who sneak across the border are not criminals, even though the
> racist jackals on the missing-DNA side of the GOP are trying to change
> that.
People who sneak into this country are here illegally and should get
deported.
Unfortunately, the GOP is a guilty as the dems on this issue.
> People who violate the terms of their temporary visas, however, are
> breaking a law and can be charged with a crime.
People who sneak into this country are here illegally and should get
deported.
> You just think "illegal" applies to anything that tweaks your racist,
> god-struck little brain.
You love me! You really do.
2459 Dead
<kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
>2459 Dead wrote:
>> On 27 May 2006 02:31:11 -0700, "Kurt Nicklas"
>> <kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>> >> stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>> >> to be...
>> >
>> >To help keep the would-be border-jumpers where they are.
>> >
>> >Of course, your statement is a lie to begin with.
>>
>> No, Knickers, as usual you are wrong. That's what happens when you
>> let god into your tiny little brain.
>
>Kissy, kissy!
>
>> People who sneak across the border are not criminals, even though the
>> racist jackals on the missing-DNA side of the GOP are trying to change
>> that.
>
>People who sneak into this country are here illegally and should get
>deported.
>
>Unfortunately, the GOP is a guilty as the dems on this issue.
Being a mindless, hate filled racist turd is a lonely thing, Knickers.
You have my pity.
>
>> People who violate the terms of their temporary visas, however, are
>> breaking a law and can be charged with a crime.
>
>People who sneak into this country are here illegally and should get
>deported.
>
>> You just think "illegal" applies to anything that tweaks your racist,
>> god-struck little brain.
>
>You love me! You really do.
Well, it helps that I know exactly what you are.
Kurt Nicklas
2459 Dead wrote:
> On 27 May 2006 07:53:50 -0700, "Kurt Nicklas"
> <kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
> >
> >2459 Dead wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2006 02:31:11 -0700, "Kurt Nicklas"
> >> <kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
> >> >> stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
> >> >> to be...
> >> >
> >> >To help keep the would-be border-jumpers where they are.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, your statement is a lie to begin with.
> >>
> >> No, Knickers, as usual you are wrong. That's what happens when you
> >> let god into your tiny little brain.
> >
> >Kissy, kissy!
> >
> >> People who sneak across the border are not criminals, even though the
> >> racist jackals on the missing-DNA side of the GOP are trying to change
> >> that.
> >
> >People who sneak into this country are here illegally and should get
> >deported.
> >
> >Unfortunately, the GOP is a guilty as the dems on this issue.
>
> Being a mindless, hate filled racist turd is a lonely thing, Knickers.
> You have my pity.
Read it, little man:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325
I can only laugh at your pathetic, idiotic posturing, Porks.
> >
> >> People who violate the terms of their temporary visas, however, are
> >> breaking a law and can be charged with a crime.
> >
> >People who sneak into this country are here illegally and should get
> >deported.
> >
> >> You just think "illegal" applies to anything that tweaks your racist,
> >> god-struck little brain.
> >
> >You love me! You really do.
>
> Well, it helps that I know exactly what you are.
Here, as in most things, you know far less than you think you do.
Typical.
nevermore
>Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>to be...
>
>Milt
>http://weaselweek.com
<LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
2459 Dead
<kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
Let's quote it, Knickers. Oh, it's ok: you don't need permission to
cite the law:
Section 1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or
inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry
(or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty
under
this subsection.
You are discribing an INFRACTION. Lying to customs, of course, is a
crime, but simply sneaking across the border is the same as a parking
ticket. Which is as it should be.
>
>> >
>> >> People who violate the terms of their temporary visas, however, are
>> >> breaking a law and can be charged with a crime.
>> >
>> >People who sneak into this country are here illegally and should get
>> >deported.
>> >
>> >> You just think "illegal" applies to anything that tweaks your racist,
>> >> god-struck little brain.
>> >
>> >You love me! You really do.
>>
>> Well, it helps that I know exactly what you are.
>
>Here, as in most things, you know far less than you think you do.
>
>Typical.
Nope. I know exactly as much about you as I need to.
Kurt Nicklas
It is a crime which can lead to deportation as that is as it should be,
PorkStock.
It is a federal crime. It is a misdemenour which, if repeated, becomes
a felony.
'In addition to sneaking into the country in violation of the
immigration law that requires that aliens be documented for legal entry
(referred to as "entry without inspection -- EWI"), others enter with
legal documentation and then violate the terms on which they
have been admitted by taking jobs that are not authorized or
overstaying the authorized period of stay in the country.
The INS estimated in 1996 that about 60 percent of the then estimated
five million illegal immigrants were EWI and 40 percent were
overstayers.
Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and
Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says:
"Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act
or any other law of the United States is deportable."'
Again, as I said, if they're here in violation of our laws then they
shuold be deported.
Again, I win and you lose.
Kurt Nicklas
nevermore wrote:
> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
> >to be...
> >
> >Milt
> >http://weaselweek.com
>
> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
"weaselweak" would have been more appropriate.
But I do see the weasels have finally dropped the 'lying socialist'
conceit of the nineties.
They've finally realize what a laughing stock that make them.
2459 Dead
<kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
No, it's an infraction. That's why it says "IMPROPER entry by alien"
and not "ILLEGAL entry by alien."
Oh, I know how much you would love to have death camps to make you
feel manly, but hopefully, America isn't quite ready to follow you
nazi bloodlust just yet.
>
>'In addition to sneaking into the country in violation of the
>immigration law that requires that aliens be documented for legal entry
>
>(referred to as "entry without inspection -- EWI"), others enter with
>legal documentation and then violate the terms on which they
> have been admitted by taking jobs that are not authorized or
>overstaying the authorized period of stay in the country.
And that IS a crime under American law. A misdemeanor under normal
circumstances.
>
>The INS estimated in 1996 that about 60 percent of the then estimated
>five million illegal immigrants were EWI and 40 percent were
>overstayers.
>Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and
>Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says:
>"Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act
>or any other law of the United States is deportable."'
>
>Again, as I said, if they're here in violation of our laws then they
>shuold be deported.
>
>Again, I win and you lose.
No, you bluster, and I just let your own cite speak for me.
Lucky for us you're an utter incompetent, isn't it?
Kurt Nicklas
Of course it's an infraction and can lead to deportation, Porks. What's
really so
hard for you to understand?
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien,"
any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place
other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully
false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a
material fact;
has committed a federal crime.
Simple, isn't it?
> Oh, I know how much you would love to have death camps to make you
> feel manly, but hopefully, America isn't quite ready to follow you
> nazi bloodlust just yet.
Look at the loser try to puff 'n bluster his way out of his losing
situation.
Don't you think I know your reaction to being beaten once again? You
always
get this 'high 'n mighty' when you're done and ready to run.
> >
> >'In addition to sneaking into the country in violation of the
> >immigration law that requires that aliens be documented for legal entry
> >
> >(referred to as "entry without inspection -- EWI"), others enter with
> >legal documentation and then violate the terms on which they
> > have been admitted by taking jobs that are not authorized or
> >overstaying the authorized period of stay in the country.
>
> And that IS a crime under American law. A misdemeanor under normal
> circumstances.
> >
> >The INS estimated in 1996 that about 60 percent of the then estimated
> >five million illegal immigrants were EWI and 40 percent were
> >overstayers.
> >Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and
> >Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says:
> >"Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act
> >or any other law of the United States is deportable."'
> >
> >Again, as I said, if they're here in violation of our laws then they
> >shuold be deported.
> >
> >Again, I win and you lose.
>
> No, you bluster, and I just let your own cite speak for me
Huff and puff, Gasbag. You've lost again.
Gonna lie about being a citizen again?
Huhhhhh?
nevermore
<LOL> Irony anyone???
>Lucky for us you're an utter incompetent, isn't it?
More irony????
2459 Dead
<kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
It is.
they are guilty of an infraction.
Not a felony.
Not a misdemeanor.
An infraction.
Despite all your efforts to strip them of any basic human rights by
criminalizing them.
Kurt Nicklas
I can tell you know you're losing this argument because you start
screaming, waving
your arms and pretend I said a lot of things I didn't say. You're so
very predictable, PoundKake.
If they repeatedly violate Section 1325 then it's a felony.
If they violate our law by illegally entering the US then they should
be deported.
If they violate the law by overstaying their visas then they should be
deported.
Deporting them doesn't remove "any basic human rights". It simply puts
them where they belong
for violating our laws, Piggy.
***
By the way, if YOU commit a felony then YOU should and could be
deported.
Did you know that?
milt....@gmail.com
It's called common sense.
There are more than 350 million legal border crossings a year along the
Mexican border, while it's estimated that there are about 4-5 million
illegal border crossings per year, of which about 20% are caught and
sent back. Even if 98% of the legal border crossings go back legally
and 2% do not -- and the estimate is more like 6-10%,-- the number of
legal border crossings is still far higher than that boogie man you
guys like to cite as the "major problem."
I'm not saying this is not a problem, just that it won't solve the
entire illegal immigration problem, and it won't even put much of a
dent in the problem as a whole. We need to get a handle on the real
problem, which is that we let a whole bunch of people into the country,
and then don't track their movements enough. That is how 19 foreign
nationals were able to hijack planes and ram them into buildings; they
didn't crawl across the border in the middle of the night to do it...
milt....@gmail.com
An estimated 350 million people cross the Mexican border legally every
year. Even if only 2% of those people overstay their welcome, and never
go back, that is still a bigger problem than the border jumping
phenomenon, which you folks have adopted as your latest boogie man...
The problem isn't just the people who crawl across the border in the
middle of the night; it's the fact that we can't track people while
they're visiting here. May I remind you that the 19 hijackers didn't
swim the Rio Grande to get here, and I'm less worried about people
coming here to work than I am people who come here to blow us up.
Shouldn't we be concentrating on that?
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore wrote:
> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
> >to be...
> >
> >Milt
> >http://weaselweek.com
>
> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
>
Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
milt....@gmail.com
1. Haven't dropped anything. There will still be a lying socialist
weasels web site, if I can come up with that 30-hour day and 10-day
week I've been longing for.
2. We didn't give ourselves that moniker. It was given to us by the
infamous idiot, Brett Kottman, one of the pioneers of Usenet right wing
drivel, and a guy Al Franken tore apart in his book about Lying Liars.
We still wear it proudly...
nevermore
Hated by Milt_the_moron_Shook *and* Al Franken. What an honor....
That guy must have been quite a guy.
As far as the time Milt claims he longs for, perhaps if he wasn't
addicted to soap operas and chat room romances, he'd have a little
more time on his hands, but then he'd only waste it writing and
rewriting books that he can't get published.
nevermore
If it wasn't for dreams and the internet, milt would have no life at
all. Milt is *very* devoted to doing inconsequential things. He used
to spend quite a bit of time writing in his online diary about the
meaning of true love, and I'd bet that he's still obsessing about it.
Perhaps that comes from being so devoted to watching soap operas on TV
like an awful lot of other lonely, old women who have no flesh and
blood relationships.
>And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
Milt, Milt, your internet transmissions are not even close to being a
"love life"
2469 Dead
Should be obvious Milt: he has none of his own.
milt....@gmail.com
I don't hate anyone, not even you. Wrong again. Don't you tire of being
wrong?
>
> As far as the time Milt claims he longs for, perhaps if he wasn't
> addicted to soap operas and chat room romances, he'd have a little
> more time on his hands, but then he'd only waste it writing and
> rewriting books that he can't get published.
No time for anything to do with tv and chat rooms. Mostly working and
writing and writing and working.
You must be jealous; all you have time for is hobbling around your
trailer and monitor Usenet all day...
milt....@gmail.com
2469 Dead wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 03:26:52 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >nevermore wrote:
> >> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
> >> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
> >> >to be...
> >> >
> >> >Milt
> >> >http://weaselweek.com
> >>
> >> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
> >> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
> >> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
> >>
> >
> >Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
> >30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
> >
> >And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>
> Should be obvious Milt: he has none of his own.
Well, that's obvious. Why else would he pretend to be dating a lawyer,
when the rest of us can read his legal reasoning and know that's simply
not true. My guess is, he hires a hooker and makes her dress like a
lawyer...
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 03:26:52 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >nevermore wrote:
> >> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
> >> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
> >> >to be...
> >> >
> >> >Milt
> >> >http://weaselweek.com
> >>
> >> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
> >> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
> >> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
> >>
> >
> >Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
> >30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
>
> If it wasn't for dreams and the internet, milt would have no life at
> all. Milt is *very* devoted to doing inconsequential things. He used
> to spend quite a bit of time writing in his online diary about the
> meaning of true love, and I'd bet that he's still obsessing about it.
> Perhaps that comes from being so devoted to watching soap operas on TV
> like an awful lot of other lonely, old women who have no flesh and
> blood relationships.
You have a hell of an imagination. Too bad you have no grasp of
reality...
>
> >And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>
> Milt, Milt, your internet transmissions are not even close to being a
> "love life"
I think you have a crush on me, and you're pissed that I'm not into
you.
Sorry, Canyon, I'm straight. You can pretend to be a woman if you want,
but it's just pretend...
2469 Dead
Was it Moffit who fell in love with "Vee Vee"? Or was that some other
right wing cretin? They're so hard to tell apart, you know...
2469 Dead
>
>2469 Dead wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2006 03:26:52 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >nevermore wrote:
>> >> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>> >> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>> >> >to be...
>> >> >
>> >> >Milt
>> >> >http://weaselweek.com
>> >>
>> >> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
>> >> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
>> >> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
>> >>
>> >
>> >Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
>> >30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
>> >
>> >And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>>
>> Should be obvious Milt: he has none of his own.
>
>Well, that's obvious. Why else would he pretend to be dating a lawyer,
>when the rest of us can read his legal reasoning and know that's simply
>not true. My guess is, he hires a hooker and makes her dress like a
>lawyer...
Maybe it's the same hooker who told Gonzales that warrantless searches
were legal...
nevermore
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On 1 Jun 2006 03:26:52 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>nevermore wrote:
>>> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>>> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>>> >to be...
>>> >
>>> >Milt
>>> >http://weaselweek.com
>>>
>>> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
>>> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
>>> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
>>>
>>
>>Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
>>30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
>>
>>And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>
>Should be obvious Milt: he has none of his own.
<LOL> This from Zepp who is still struggling to figure out what my
name is?
nevermore
>
>nevermore wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2006 03:26:52 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >nevermore wrote:
>> >> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>> >> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>> >> >to be...
>> >> >
>> >> >Milt
>> >> >http://weaselweek.com
>> >>
>> >> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
>> >> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
>> >> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
>> >>
>> >
>> >Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
>> >30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
>>
>> If it wasn't for dreams and the internet, milt would have no life at
>> all. Milt is *very* devoted to doing inconsequential things. He used
>> to spend quite a bit of time writing in his online diary about the
>> meaning of true love, and I'd bet that he's still obsessing about it.
>> Perhaps that comes from being so devoted to watching soap operas on TV
>> like an awful lot of other lonely, old women who have no flesh and
>> blood relationships.
>
>You have a hell of an imagination. Too bad you have no grasp of
>reality...
<LOL> This from Milt Shook whose "reality" consists of internet
romances with other lonely hearts chatroom loonies. I suspect Milt is
to frightened to risk any attempts at romances with flesh and blood
women. I suspect that he has good reasons to go that route.
>> >And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>>
>> Milt, Milt, your internet transmissions are not even close to being a
>> "love life"
>
>I think you have a crush on me, and you're pissed that I'm not into
>you.
I think you have a very vivid imagination. I'd bet big money that
nobody has any crushes on you as much as you like to pretend that they
do. But just wait a while. You're starting to approach the age where
you might appeal a lot of the internet grannies out there. See below:
>Sorry, Canyon, I'm straight. You can pretend to be a woman if you want,
>but it's just pretend...
Ahhhh, so you're still a victim of that unwomanly woman who's stalking
you, I see. <LOL> You want to post some more information about this
little online affair? Does she e-mail you some unwomanly pictures of
herself? Were you smitten with her unwomanly ways? Did she dump you
like all the others?
nevermore
>
>2469 Dead wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2006 03:26:52 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >nevermore wrote:
>> >> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>> >> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>> >> >to be...
>> >> >
>> >> >Milt
>> >> >http://weaselweek.com
>> >>
>> >> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
>> >> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
>> >> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
>> >>
>> >
>> >Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
>> >30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
>> >
>> >And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>>
>> Should be obvious Milt: he has none of his own.
>
>Well, that's obvious. Why else would he pretend to be dating a lawyer,
>when the rest of us can read his legal reasoning and know that's simply
>not true. My guess is, he hires a hooker and makes her dress like a
>lawyer...
<LOL> This from Milt Shook, who says he's a paralegal while claiming
that he was going to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit
against a private party in a state court... and according to Milt, in
this First Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in
unless the judge laughs him out of court.....
nevermore
<LOL> Oh, yeah, I forgot, Milt is a late-blooming hold-over from the
"we wear flowers in our hair" generation.
>> As far as the time Milt claims he longs for, perhaps if he wasn't
>> addicted to soap operas and chat room romances, he'd have a little
>> more time on his hands, but then he'd only waste it writing and
>> rewriting books that he can't get published.
>
>No time for anything to do with tv and chat rooms. Mostly working and
>writing and writing and working.
Errr, so when is that book going to show up on the shelves of Barnes
and Noble like you promised seven or eight years ago?
>You must be jealous;
Yeah, right.. <LOL> I'm just so jealous because I don't have any
chatroom friends...
>all you have time for is hobbling around your
>trailer and monitor Usenet all day...
I have lots of time, Milt, since I put away, saved, or invested a good
percentage of all my earnings ever since I was a kid, and now I can
live off that and use it to make even more money. I still earn a hell
of a lot more than I spend, and have as much free time as I wish.
milt....@gmail.com
No, not really. I just don't see the point in wasting the energy it
takes to hate someone.
>
> >> As far as the time Milt claims he longs for, perhaps if he wasn't
> >> addicted to soap operas and chat room romances, he'd have a little
> >> more time on his hands, but then he'd only waste it writing and
> >> rewriting books that he can't get published.
> >
> >No time for anything to do with tv and chat rooms. Mostly working and
> >writing and writing and working.
>
> Errr, so when is that book going to show up on the shelves of Barnes
> and Noble like you promised seven or eight years ago?
When it does, you'll know.
>
> >You must be jealous;
>
> Yeah, right.. <LOL> I'm just so jealous because I don't have any
> chatroom friends...
>
You don't have any friends, period. That's why you sit around your
trailer and troll Usenet from your dial-up account.
> >all you have time for is hobbling around your
> >trailer and monitor Usenet all day...
>
> I have lots of time, Milt, since I put away, saved, or invested a good
> percentage of all my earnings ever since I was a kid, and now I can
> live off that and use it to make even more money. I still earn a hell
> of a lot more than I spend, and have as much free time as I wish.
And you spend pretty much all of your time trolling in Usenet, and have
done so for years and years. How pathetic is that?
milt....@gmail.com
And I suspect that you sit in a single-wide, chain-smoking cigarettes
and bitching about the government, as you piss away your existence on
Usenet. Bet you've spent more time posting ignorant shit in the last
six months, than I have spent in chat rooms in the last five years...
>
> >> >And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
> >>
> >> Milt, Milt, your internet transmissions are not even close to being a
> >> "love life"
> >
> >I think you have a crush on me, and you're pissed that I'm not into
> >you.
>
> I think you have a very vivid imagination. I'd bet big money that
> nobody has any crushes on you as much as you like to pretend that they
> do. But just wait a while. You're starting to approach the age where
> you might appeal a lot of the internet grannies out there. See below:
>
> >Sorry, Canyon, I'm straight. You can pretend to be a woman if you want,
> >but it's just pretend...
>
> Ahhhh, so you're still a victim of that unwomanly woman who's stalking
> you, I see. <LOL> You want to post some more information about this
> little online affair? Does she e-mail you some unwomanly pictures of
> herself? Were you smitten with her unwomanly ways? Did she dump you
> like all the others?
She was a man pretending to be a woman, Canyon. But you knew that,
didn't you?
milt....@gmail.com
You just never tire of looking stupid, do you? If you're fucking a
lawyer, you sure as shit don't talk to her...
milt....@gmail.com
No one cares what your name is. We just like tweaking you. I get bored
with it, though. It's too easy to make you look stupid.
nevermore
She's been laughing pretty hard at you too. So is everybody else on
Usenet that has any idea what the First Amendment is about.
nevermore
>
>nevermore wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:24:43 -0700, 2469 Dead
>> <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1 Jun 2006 03:26:52 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>nevermore wrote:
>> >>> On 26 May 2006 17:27:23 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally and simply
>> >>> >stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots expect the effect of this
>> >>> >to be...
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Milt
>> >>> >http://weaselweek.com
>> >>>
>> >>> <LOL> Milt has a new website. now he must be spending 10 to 15 hours
>> >>> a day on the computer thinking up new nonsense to put on it....
>> >>> wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been dreaming of a
>> >>30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
>> >>
>> >>And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>> >
>> >Should be obvious Milt: he has none of his own.
>>
>> <LOL> This from Zepp who is still struggling to figure out what my
>> name is?
>
>No one cares what your name is. We just like tweaking you. I get bored
>with it, though. It's too easy to make you look stupid.
Really?? When are you going to try? You're going to have to find
something besides law to argue about, though. When it comes to law,
you're dumbstruck ignorant.
nevermore
Ahhhh, well, you're free to fantasize all you want about me, aren't
you? Have fun...
>> >> >And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
>> >>
>> >> Milt, Milt, your internet transmissions are not even close to being a
>> >> "love life"
>> >
>> >I think you have a crush on me, and you're pissed that I'm not into
>> >you.
>>
>> I think you have a very vivid imagination. I'd bet big money that
>> nobody has any crushes on you as much as you like to pretend that they
>> do. But just wait a while. You're starting to approach the age where
>> you might appeal a lot of the internet grannies out there. See below:
>>
>> >Sorry, Canyon, I'm straight. You can pretend to be a woman if you want,
>> >but it's just pretend...
>>
>> Ahhhh, so you're still a victim of that unwomanly woman who's stalking
>> you, I see. <LOL> You want to post some more information about this
>> little online affair? Does she e-mail you some unwomanly pictures of
>> herself? Were you smitten with her unwomanly ways? Did she dump you
>> like all the others?
>
>She was a man pretending to be a woman, Canyon. But you knew that,
>didn't you?
<ROTFLMAO> So you were being stalked by a man pretending to be a
woman? How did that come about? Did he/she/it see your posts about
watching soap operas and think you were a fruit? C'mon, Milt, did you
have a chatroom romance with this man-woman? Did you e-mail naked
pictures back and forth?
Oh, and yeah, I always suspected that perverts would find somebody
like you attractive.
nevermore
Really?? <Laughing!> Am I to understand that it takes energy on
your part to feel emotions? That's pretty sad. Perhaps you've been
emoting too much electronically.
>> >> As far as the time Milt claims he longs for, perhaps if he wasn't
>> >> addicted to soap operas and chat room romances, he'd have a little
>> >> more time on his hands, but then he'd only waste it writing and
>> >> rewriting books that he can't get published.
>> >
>> >No time for anything to do with tv and chat rooms. Mostly working and
>> >writing and writing and working.
>>
>> Errr, so when is that book going to show up on the shelves of Barnes
>> and Noble like you promised seven or eight years ago?
>
>When it does, you'll know.
I hope you're not still holding your breath... I'm sure nobody else
is.
>> >You must be jealous;
>>
>> Yeah, right.. <LOL> I'm just so jealous because I don't have any
>> chatroom friends...
>>
>
>You don't have any friends, period. That's why you sit around your
>trailer and troll Usenet from your dial-up account.
<LOL> I thought you knew how to trace IP's? Do you want me to tell
how to do it, you ignorant fool?
>> >all you have time for is hobbling around your
>> >trailer and monitor Usenet all day...
>>
>> I have lots of time, Milt, since I put away, saved, or invested a good
>> percentage of all my earnings ever since I was a kid, and now I can
>> live off that and use it to make even more money. I still earn a hell
>> of a lot more than I spend, and have as much free time as I wish.
>
>And you spend pretty much all of your time trolling in Usenet, and have
>done so for years and years. How pathetic is that?
Gosh, Milt, I'll bet I spend way less time on the internet than you
do, and I don't have to spend any time doing what your supervisors
tell you to do.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
>
> milt.shook wrote:
> >
> >"everbored" <sleazed...@yoohoo.nut> writhed in denials:
> >>
> >> 2469 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > milt.shook wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>"everbored" <sleazed...@yoohoo.nut> whimpered:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> milt.shook wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Considering the fact that most illegals come over legally
> >> >>> > and simply stay too long, I'm wondering what you idiots
> >> >>> > expect the effect of this to be...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>put on it....
> >> >>>wonder if his internet romance is suffering...
> >> >>
> >> >> Christ, I wish there were 10-15 hours to spare. I've been
> >> >> dreaming of a 30-hour day and a 10-day week lately.
> >> >>
> >> >> And why are you so obsessed with my love life?
> >> >
> >> > Should be obvious Milt: he has none of his own.
> >>
> >
> > No one cares what your name is. We just like tweaking you.
> > I get bored with it, though. It's too easy to make you look stupid.
>
>Really??
Yup..
>When are you going to try?
Got any "magnetic capacitors", "Steven"?
--Or is that why you're known as a right-wing retard?
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:40:33 GMT
news:<b9avkuouvrkd3o6ghd1kppjhg6kespmdc9%404ax.com>
"A capacitor *is* an open circuit....like a transformer....
both depend on a changing magnetic field to work.."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT
news:<0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
with electric charge attract OR repel one another"
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"the references to capacitors in that cite had nothing
to do with my claims about capacitors,[..]"
__________________________________________________________________
Do you know what a Coulomb is, Crayon?
Tell us what units of measure it takes on..
Tell you what, Crayon. Tell us how much 'magnetic flux'
is generated by charging a 1.0F cap to 5.0 Volts, then tell
us about how much electrostatic force would be present..
What's the repulsive force between two charged masses of 100 Coulombs
each at a distance of 1.0 centimeter, Porkie. Now, tell us how many
Gauss it would take for a pair of magnets to repel each other with
as much force..
Put your answers right here---> _______________
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore
>Yep... you are definitely the cure for those who are irony deficient...
<LOL> that's from Milt Shook who claims to be a paralegal yet
claimed that he was going to represent himself in a First Amendment
based suit against a private party in a state court... and according
to Milt, in this First Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't
kick in unless the judge laughs him out of court.....
>nevermore wrote:
milt....@gmail.com
That's unfair... that's only one reason why he's known as a right wing
retard...
milt....@gmail.com
Well, she should surrender her license and her bar card, then...
But then, she's probably a blow up doll and doesn't have one...
nevermore
<LOL> This from Milt Shook who doesn't even know any women except
for those on the internet with whom he has "chat room love affairs"
with and whom he suspects are really men.
I wonder if Milt would like to explain how he can have a love affair
with someone whose gender he isn't quite sure of.....
Kurt Lochner (Weasels Remember!)
Too true. He's proven he's a narrow-mind bigot as well..
--But that kinda goes along with the right-wing retardedness..
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
news:<rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
think about me."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
"MY self image is very secure...."
--
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:08:28 GMT
news:<u3sp5vc0nhsdj4fbo...@4ax.com>
"[..] my ego isn't even slightly effected by what others
might think of me."
milt....@gmail.com
Your cluelessness is just breathtaking.
>
> >But then, she's probably a blow up doll and doesn't have one...
>
>
> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who doesn't even know any women except
> for those on the internet with whom he has "chat room love affairs"
> with and whom he suspects are really men.
>
> I wonder if Milt would like to explain how he can have a love affair
> with someone whose gender he isn't quite sure of.....
WTF are you blabbering on about? Is there anything you won't blather on
about, despite the fact that you know nothing about it?
nevermore
<ROTFLMAO> All milt can do to "argue" his position is sputter and
bluster like he did above. The real funny part of all this is that
even while Milt claims to do legal research for a law firm, he cannot
find a single case record of any First Amendment based suit being
adjudicated in a state court, and not a single case of the First
Amendment based suit against a private individual. For some reason,
Milt insists on showing up in Usenet every few weeks as if to remind
everyone what a ignorant fool he is.
>> >But then, she's probably a blow up doll and doesn't have one...
>>
>>
>> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who doesn't even know any women except
>> for those on the internet with whom he has "chat room love affairs"
>> with and whom he suspects are really men.
BTW, Milt, I offered to show you how to do a trace so you could
actually determine what IPS a person is using and you never answered.
It's obvious that you don't know how, or you'd have been able to see
that I don't have a mindspring account.
>> I wonder if Milt would like to explain how he can have a love affair
>> with someone whose gender he isn't quite sure of.....
>
>WTF are you blabbering on about? Is there anything you won't blather on
>about, despite the fact that you know nothing about it?
Well, Milt, you're the one who just a few days ago was telling me that
you had been talking on the internet with a man pretending to be a
woman, who didn't do "womanly things."
Say, did you derive your supposed ability to discern what is or isn't
"womanly" from those soap operas you love so much?
How about if you give everyone on usenet a good laugh and explain just
exactly what she did to you that wasn't "womanly."
milt....@gmail.com
There is no argument to be made to the above. What you say above is so
stupid, it stands on its own.
The fact is, you think your right to stand on a public street and hand
out flyers has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment, and that any
attempt to assert your right in court would have no First Amendment
basis.
You also think that such a suit, in which I take a store owner who
lives in the same state to court, in order to get the court to reassert
my right to use the public sidewalk (in the same state in which the
store owner and I live) to hand out my flyers, would be brought in a
federal court, despite the fact that you claim to be fucking an
attorney. You obviously don't speak to her, because any first year
would know that's not right.
And you also don't understand what any of the items you keep quoting
actually mean. When they say the First Amendment is only actionable
against the state, they are reinforcing what I said, not the fallacy
that you keep repeating. I'm going to demand that the government
(judge) reassert my right to pass out flyers on the public sidewalk,
and the violation of my First Amendment right would not come from the
store owner, it would come from the judge, when (as you say) he
"laugh(s) me out of court."
Seriously; when you say shit like that, what more is there? It's all
extremely ignorant, and amusing. Doubly amusing is the fact that you
think you're kicking my ass. Hell; I'm not even kicking your ass;
you're doing that to yourself...
> The real funny part of all this is that
> even while Milt claims to do legal research for a law firm, he cannot
> find a single case record of any First Amendment based suit being
> adjudicated in a state court, and not a single case of the First
> Amendment based suit against a private individual.
Not a single case? I didn't need them. You presented a bunch of them,
and then stupidly claimed they weren't First Amendment based suits.
> For some reason,
> Milt insists on showing up in Usenet every few weeks as if to remind
> everyone what a ignorant fool he is.
I find it fascinating that two subjects about which you know nothing --
the law, and my alleged love life -- are the only two subjects on here
about which you obsess.
>
> >> >But then, she's probably a blow up doll and doesn't have one...
> >>
> >>
> >> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who doesn't even know any women except
> >> for those on the internet with whom he has "chat room love affairs"
> >> with and whom he suspects are really men.
>
> BTW, Milt, I offered to show you how to do a trace so you could
> actually determine what IPS a person is using and you never answered.
> It's obvious that you don't know how, or you'd have been able to see
> that I don't have a mindspring account.
>
I didn't say you DO, shit for brains. I said you did the last time I
checked a couple of years ago. And it just so happened that it was
roughly the same IP as the person who's been "bothering" me for a while
now; a man pretending to be a woman.
> >> I wonder if Milt would like to explain how he can have a love affair
> >> with someone whose gender he isn't quite sure of.....
> >
> >WTF are you blabbering on about? Is there anything you won't blather on
> >about, despite the fact that you know nothing about it?
>
> Well, Milt, you're the one who just a few days ago was telling me that
> you had been talking on the internet with a man pretending to be a
> woman, who didn't do "womanly things."
I see. So, apparently, you believe that one cannot speak to someone on
the Internet without having a "love affair"?? That explains why you
treat me like I "spurned" you...
> Say, did you derive your supposed ability to discern what is or isn't
> "womanly" from those soap operas you love so much?
Actually, I haven't had time to watch them for a while.
>
> How about if you give everyone on usenet a good laugh and explain just
> exactly what she did to you that wasn't "womanly."
Apparently, Canyon has so little experience with women, he can't tell
the difference between women and men... yet another reason to stop
talking to him...
nevermore
<ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt, Milt...
You're not just claiming to we able to stand on a street corner and
pass out flyers, you're claiming that you can sue a private citizen
with a First Amendment based suit and that's just too funny...
Because:
[..]the First Amendment does not apply to private actors, only
government action can trigger its protections, and lead to a
constitutional challenge.
--Julie Hilden, FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeech/index.html
>You also think that such a suit, in which I take a store owner who
>lives in the same state to court, in order to get the court to reassert
>my right to use the public sidewalk (in the same state in which the
Milt, Milt, Milt, you can have someone re-assert your First Amendment
rights all day long and they will still always apply only to the
restrictions it places upon the government to interfere with you.
>store owner and I live) to hand out my flyers, would be brought in a
>federal court, despite the fact that you claim to be fucking an
Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
court because the Constitution is federal law.
>attorney. You obviously don't speak to her, because any first year
>would know that's not right.
You don't need any education in law to know that First Amendment based
cases must be tried in federal court...
>And you also don't understand what any of the items you keep quoting
>actually mean.
<LOL> Irony anyone? the items I quote say that the First Amendment
is federal law and must be handled in federal courts and that the
First Amendment is a law that only restricts actions of the government
or government agents. Since the store owner is not a government
agent, attempting to sue him in a First Amendment based suit would
create lots of laughter.
>When they say the First Amendment is only actionable
>against the state, they are reinforcing what I said, not the fallacy
>that you keep repeating. I'm going to demand that the government
>(judge) reassert my right to pass out flyers on the public sidewalk,
<ROTFLMAO> No judge can place any restrictions upon a private party as
a result of anything the First Amendment says, you halfwit. You could
have some judge re-assert your First Amendment rights all day long and
it would have no effect on the store owner who is not part of the
government.
>and the violation of my First Amendment right would not come from the
>store owner, it would come from the judge, when (as you say) he
>"laugh(s) me out of court."
<LOL> Milt thinks a judge would be violating the First Amendment for
not making a private individual obey the First Amendment which does
not apply to private individuals....
>Seriously; when you say shit like that, what more is there? It's all
>extremely ignorant, and amusing. Doubly amusing is the fact that you
>think you're kicking my ass. Hell; I'm not even kicking your ass;
>you're doing that to yourself...
Doubly amusing is the fact that everyone can see that you don't know
squat about the law...
>> The real funny part of all this is that
>> even while Milt claims to do legal research for a law firm, he cannot
>> find a single case record of any First Amendment based suit being
>> adjudicated in a state court, and not a single case of the First
>> Amendment based suit against a private individual.
>
>Not a single case? I didn't need them. You presented a bunch of them,
>and then stupidly claimed they weren't First Amendment based suits.
Not a single one.... <LOL> And not a single example of a First
Amendment case being tried in anything but a federal court either...
>> For some reason,
>> Milt insists on showing up in Usenet every few weeks as if to remind
>> everyone what a ignorant fool he is.
>
>I find it fascinating that two subjects about which you know nothing --
>the law, and my alleged love life -- are the only two subjects on here
>about which you obsess.
<LOL> Your ignorance on the law speaks for itself... ...and you've
been whining for years about your sad experiences with women, so now
you've resorted to "romancing" through the internet chatrooms, where
you think you can conceal your true nature and your personality flaws,
from the other social outcasts...
So how is that working for you, Milt? <LOL> You planning any more
marriages?
>> >> >But then, she's probably a blow up doll and doesn't have one...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who doesn't even know any women except
>> >> for those on the internet with whom he has "chat room love affairs"
>> >> with and whom he suspects are really men.
>>
>> BTW, Milt, I offered to show you how to do a trace so you could
>> actually determine what IPS a person is using and you never answered.
>> It's obvious that you don't know how, or you'd have been able to see
>> that I don't have a mindspring account.
>>
>I didn't say you DO, shit for brains. I said you did the last time I
>checked a couple of years ago.
You're totally full of shit, Milt. If you knew how to check my IP
you'd have done so. I remember examples of your internet knowledge a
couple of years ago when you claimed that your neighbors had the same
IP as yourself.
>And it just so happened that it was
>roughly the same IP as the person who's been "bothering" me for a while
>now; a man pretending to be a woman.
So why in the heck were you exchanging e-mails with this person in the
manner where his/her womanliness was an issue?
>> >> I wonder if Milt would like to explain how he can have a love affair
>> >> with someone whose gender he isn't quite sure of.....
>> >
>> >WTF are you blabbering on about? Is there anything you won't blather on
>> >about, despite the fact that you know nothing about it?
>>
>> Well, Milt, you're the one who just a few days ago was telling me that
>> you had been talking on the internet with a man pretending to be a
>> woman, who didn't do "womanly things."
>
>I see. So, apparently, you believe that one cannot speak to someone on
>the Internet without having a "love affair"??
<LOL> Shit! You apparently were exchanging enough e-mails with this
person long enough to discern something that you decided was not
womanly about her.. I don't know about you, but I don't e-mail back
and forth with strangers except about business where womanly or
unwomanly isnt an issue..
>That explains why you
>treat me like I "spurned" you...
Actually, Milt, I treat you like any old garden variety leftwing
loonie...
>> Say, did you derive your supposed ability to discern what is or isn't
>> "womanly" from those soap operas you love so much?
>
>Actually, I haven't had time to watch them for a while.
>>
>> How about if you give everyone on usenet a good laugh and explain just
>> exactly what she did to you that wasn't "womanly."
I think it's sort of funny that Milt, A guy who does womanly things
like watching soap operas and <LOL> chatting would talk about a woman
not doing womanly things.
>Apparently, Canyon has so little experience with women, he can't tell
>the difference between women and men... yet another reason to stop
>talking to him...
Well, you can always run off and hide from me again, Milt...
milt....@gmail.com
And you're too pathetic. It's amazing that no matter how often you read
and post the item below, you don't understand it.
> Because:
>
> [..]the First Amendment does not apply to private actors, only
> government action can trigger its protections, and lead to a
> constitutional challenge.
>
> --Julie Hilden, FindLaw Columnist
> Special to CNN.com
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeech/index.html
Dumbass. One last time...
I'm dragging him to state court, to make the state reinforce my right
to stand on the public sidewalk and hand out literature. In other
words, the above doesn't apply. The store owner has no jurisdiction
over the sidewalk; the state does. Take the sock out of the mouth of
the lawyer you claim to be fucking and ask her what I mean by that.
>
> >You also think that such a suit, in which I take a store owner who
> >lives in the same state to court, in order to get the court to reassert
> >my right to use the public sidewalk (in the same state in which the
>
> Milt, Milt, Milt, you can have someone re-assert your First Amendment
> rights all day long and they will still always apply only to the
> restrictions it places upon the government to interfere with you.
I have the right to free speech. I also have the right to force the
government to protect my right to free speech. If they choose not to
(if the judge "laughs me out of court," for example), then the state
has violated by First Amendment rights.
This shit is so simple, and you simply do not get it. I think it's
funny.
>
> >store owner and I live) to hand out my flyers, would be brought in a
> >federal court, despite the fact that you claim to be fucking an
>
> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
> court because the Constitution is federal law.
It's also state law, you fuckwit. Ask your attorney what the word
"diversity" means, and then ask her who has "jurisdiction" over the
public sidewalks.
It's actually against the rules for me to bring such a suit in federal
court.
>
> >attorney. You obviously don't speak to her, because any first year
> >would know that's not right.
>
> You don't need any education in law to know that First Amendment based
> cases must be tried in federal court...
Apparently, you need more education than you have.
>
> >And you also don't understand what any of the items you keep quoting
> >actually mean.
>
> <LOL> Irony anyone? the items I quote say that the First Amendment
> is federal law and must be handled in federal courts and that the
> First Amendment is a law that only restricts actions of the government
> or government agents. Since the store owner is not a government
> agent, attempting to sue him in a First Amendment based suit would
> create lots of laughter.
No, actually, it wouldn't. But you're too mud dumb to realize I'm
kicking your peglegged ass.
>
> >When they say the First Amendment is only actionable
> >against the state, they are reinforcing what I said, not the fallacy
> >that you keep repeating. I'm going to demand that the government
> >(judge) reassert my right to pass out flyers on the public sidewalk,
>
> <ROTFLMAO> No judge can place any restrictions upon a private party as
> a result of anything the First Amendment says, you halfwit. You could
> have some judge re-assert your First Amendment rights all day long and
> it would have no effect on the store owner who is not part of the
> government.
Is there anything you DO know? Google "Nazis" and "Skokie" for a clue.
Not only did the judge say the Nazis had the right to march, but he
also ordered police protection. Judges issue injunctions all of the
time to stop actions that would impinge on the right to free speech or
assembly.
I swear you just get dumber.
>
> >and the violation of my First Amendment right would not come from the
> >store owner, it would come from the judge, when (as you say) he
> >"laugh(s) me out of court."
>
> <LOL> Milt thinks a judge would be violating the First Amendment for
> not making a private individual obey the First Amendment which does
> not apply to private individuals....
If a store owner drove me off a public sidewalk, and promised to do it
again, and I went to a judge and asked him to order the store owner to
cease and desist, a judge who would refuse to do that would be
violating the First Amendment.
>
> >Seriously; when you say shit like that, what more is there? It's all
> >extremely ignorant, and amusing. Doubly amusing is the fact that you
> >think you're kicking my ass. Hell; I'm not even kicking your ass;
> >you're doing that to yourself...
>
> Doubly amusing is the fact that everyone can see that you don't know
> squat about the law...
Another post from Canyon especially for the irony deficient...
>
> >> The real funny part of all this is that
> >> even while Milt claims to do legal research for a law firm, he cannot
> >> find a single case record of any First Amendment based suit being
> >> adjudicated in a state court, and not a single case of the First
> >> Amendment based suit against a private individual.
> >
> >Not a single case? I didn't need them. You presented a bunch of them,
> >and then stupidly claimed they weren't First Amendment based suits.
>
> Not a single one.... <LOL> And not a single example of a First
> Amendment case being tried in anything but a federal court either...
Look at the cases you presented again, you moron. ALL of them were
brought in state court. You've been presenting Supreme Court cases. You
do know that it's not possible to initiate a case at the Supreme Court,
right?
>
> >> For some reason,
> >> Milt insists on showing up in Usenet every few weeks as if to remind
> >> everyone what a ignorant fool he is.
> >
> >I find it fascinating that two subjects about which you know nothing --
> >the law, and my alleged love life -- are the only two subjects on here
> >about which you obsess.
>
> <LOL> Your ignorance on the law speaks for itself... ...and you've
> been whining for years about your sad experiences with women, so now
> you've resorted to "romancing" through the internet chatrooms, where
> you think you can conceal your true nature and your personality flaws,
> from the other social outcasts...
>
> So how is that working for you, Milt? <LOL> You planning any more
> marriages?
Why? You jealous? You wanted me for yourself, didn't you?
>
> >> >> >But then, she's probably a blow up doll and doesn't have one...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who doesn't even know any women except
> >> >> for those on the internet with whom he has "chat room love affairs"
> >> >> with and whom he suspects are really men.
> >>
> >> BTW, Milt, I offered to show you how to do a trace so you could
> >> actually determine what IPS a person is using and you never answered.
> >> It's obvious that you don't know how, or you'd have been able to see
> >> that I don't have a mindspring account.
> >>
> >I didn't say you DO, shit for brains. I said you did the last time I
> >checked a couple of years ago.
>
> You're totally full of shit, Milt. If you knew how to check my IP
> you'd have done so. I remember examples of your internet knowledge a
> couple of years ago when you claimed that your neighbors had the same
> IP as yourself.
You are such a moron. I got your IP address from your Usenet posts, you
fuckwit. And my neighbor did have the same IP as me, because he was
using my wireless router. Of COURSE he would have the same IP...
>
> >And it just so happened that it was
> >roughly the same IP as the person who's been "bothering" me for a while
> >now; a man pretending to be a woman.
>
> So why in the heck were you exchanging e-mails with this person in the
> manner where his/her womanliness was an issue?
who says I was exchanging anything?
>
> >> >> I wonder if Milt would like to explain how he can have a love affair
> >> >> with someone whose gender he isn't quite sure of.....
> >> >
> >> >WTF are you blabbering on about? Is there anything you won't blather on
> >> >about, despite the fact that you know nothing about it?
> >>
> >> Well, Milt, you're the one who just a few days ago was telling me that
> >> you had been talking on the internet with a man pretending to be a
> >> woman, who didn't do "womanly things."
> >
> >I see. So, apparently, you believe that one cannot speak to someone on
> >the Internet without having a "love affair"??
>
> <LOL> Shit! You apparently were exchanging enough e-mails with this
> person long enough to discern something that you decided was not
> womanly about her.. I don't know about you, but I don't e-mail back
> and forth with strangers except about business where womanly or
> unwomanly isnt an issue..
Neither do I...
>
>
> >That explains why you
> >treat me like I "spurned" you...
>
> Actually, Milt, I treat you like any old garden variety leftwing
> loonie...
>
> >> Say, did you derive your supposed ability to discern what is or isn't
> >> "womanly" from those soap operas you love so much?
> >
> >Actually, I haven't had time to watch them for a while.
> >>
> >> How about if you give everyone on usenet a good laugh and explain just
> >> exactly what she did to you that wasn't "womanly."
>
> I think it's sort of funny that Milt, A guy who does womanly things
> like watching soap operas and <LOL> chatting would talk about a woman
> not doing womanly things.
>
> >Apparently, Canyon has so little experience with women, he can't tell
> >the difference between women and men... yet another reason to stop
> >talking to him...
>
> Well, you can always run off and hide from me again, Milt...
I don't hide from anyone, Canyon. Certainly not you.
nevermore
You claimed you had a First Amendment suit, and of course, that's been
proven to be false.
> In other
>words, the above doesn't apply. The store owner has no jurisdiction
>over the sidewalk; the state does. Take the sock out of the mouth of
>the lawyer you claim to be fucking and ask her what I mean by that.
<LOL> Sorry, but you claimed that you'd be suing this store owner
with a First Amendment based suit, which cannot be used to sue anyone
that is not an agent of the government.
>> >You also think that such a suit, in which I take a store owner who
>> >lives in the same state to court, in order to get the court to reassert
>> >my right to use the public sidewalk (in the same state in which the
>>
>> Milt, Milt, Milt, you can have someone re-assert your First Amendment
>> rights all day long and they will still always apply only to the
>> restrictions it places upon the government to interfere with you.
>
>I have the right to free speech.
The First Amendment provides you with protection against government
intervention of your speech. It does not provide protection against a
private party.
>I also have the right to force the
>government to protect my right to free speech.
Which only applies to government abridgement of your speech....
>If they choose not to
>(if the judge "laughs me out of court," for example), then the state
>has violated by First Amendment rights.
<LOL> A judge is not violating the First Amendment by telling you
that he cannot use the First Amendment to force a private party to
leave you alone, you sad, hapless moron.
>This shit is so simple, and you simply do not get it. I think it's
>funny.
>>
>> >store owner and I live) to hand out my flyers, would be brought in a
>> >federal court, despite the fact that you claim to be fucking an
>>
>> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
>> court because the Constitution is federal law.
>
>It's also state law, you fuckwit.
<LOL> The First Amendment is not state law, you imbecile.
Ask your attorney what the word
>"diversity" means, and then ask her who has "jurisdiction" over the
>public sidewalks.
The First Amendment is part of the US Constitution, you moron.
>It's actually against the rules for me to bring such a suit in federal
>court.
It's actually af=against th rules for you to bring a First Amendment
suit against a private party and that's why the judge will laugh at
you.
>> >attorney. You obviously don't speak to her, because any first year
>> >would know that's not right.
>>
>> You don't need any education in law to know that First Amendment based
>> cases must be tried in federal court...
>
>Apparently, you need more education than you have.
>>
>> >And you also don't understand what any of the items you keep quoting
>> >actually mean.
>>
>> <LOL> Irony anyone? the items I quote say that the First Amendment
>> is federal law and must be handled in federal courts and that the
>> First Amendment is a law that only restricts actions of the government
>> or government agents. Since the store owner is not a government
>> agent, attempting to sue him in a First Amendment based suit would
>> create lots of laughter.
>
>No, actually, it wouldn't. But you're too mud dumb to realize I'm
>kicking your peglegged ass.
You're probably dumb enough to actually believe that too.
>> >When they say the First Amendment is only actionable
>> >against the state, they are reinforcing what I said, not the fallacy
>> >that you keep repeating. I'm going to demand that the government
>> >(judge) reassert my right to pass out flyers on the public sidewalk,
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> No judge can place any restrictions upon a private party as
>> a result of anything the First Amendment says, you halfwit. You could
>> have some judge re-assert your First Amendment rights all day long and
>> it would have no effect on the store owner who is not part of the
>> government.
>
>Is there anything you DO know? Google "Nazis" and "Skokie" for a clue.
<ROTFLMAO> So who exactly was the private party that got sued based
on the First Amendment in that case?
>Not only did the judge say the Nazis had the right to march, but he
>also ordered police protection. Judges issue injunctions all of the
>time to stop actions that would impinge on the right to free speech or
>assembly.
The suit was brought against the city of Skokie, you moron. The city
of Skokie happens to be government, you imbecile.
>I swear you just get dumber.
So who exactly was the private party that got sued based on the First
Amendment in that case?
>> >and the violation of my First Amendment right would not come from the
>> >store owner, it would come from the judge, when (as you say) he
>> >"laugh(s) me out of court."
>>
>> <LOL> Milt thinks a judge would be violating the First Amendment for
>> not making a private individual obey the First Amendment which does
>> not apply to private individuals....
>
>If a store owner drove me off a public sidewalk, and promised to do it
>again, and I went to a judge and asked him to order the store owner to
>cease and desist, a judge who would refuse to do that would be
>violating the First Amendment.
<ROTFLMAO> So apparently you're dropping your claim that you'd be
suing the store owner with a First Amendment based suit?
>> >Seriously; when you say shit like that, what more is there? It's all
>> >extremely ignorant, and amusing. Doubly amusing is the fact that you
>> >think you're kicking my ass. Hell; I'm not even kicking your ass;
>> >you're doing that to yourself...
>>
>> Doubly amusing is the fact that everyone can see that you don't know
>> squat about the law...
>
>Another post from Canyon especially for the irony deficient...
>>
>> >> The real funny part of all this is that
>> >> even while Milt claims to do legal research for a law firm, he cannot
>> >> find a single case record of any First Amendment based suit being
>> >> adjudicated in a state court, and not a single case of the First
>> >> Amendment based suit against a private individual.
>> >
>> >Not a single case? I didn't need them. You presented a bunch of them,
>> >and then stupidly claimed they weren't First Amendment based suits.
>>
>> Not a single one.... <LOL> And not a single example of a First
>> Amendment case being tried in anything but a federal court either...
>
>Look at the cases you presented again, you moron. ALL of them were
>brought in state court. You've been presenting Supreme Court cases. You
>do know that it's not possible to initiate a case at the Supreme Court,
>right?
<LOL> Don't you even know that there are other federal courts
besides the Supreme Court? You are even stupider than I imagined...
The federal courts have jurisdiction over all issues having to so with
the US Constitution. The First Amendment is part of the US
Constitution.
US Code
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001331----000-.html
>> >> For some reason,
>> >> Milt insists on showing up in Usenet every few weeks as if to remind
>> >> everyone what a ignorant fool he is.
>> >
>> >I find it fascinating that two subjects about which you know nothing --
>> >the law, and my alleged love life -- are the only two subjects on here
>> >about which you obsess.
>>
>> <LOL> Your ignorance on the law speaks for itself... ...and you've
>> been whining for years about your sad experiences with women, so now
>> you've resorted to "romancing" through the internet chatrooms, where
>> you think you can conceal your true nature and your personality flaws,
>> from the other social outcasts...
>>
>> So how is that working for you, Milt? <LOL> You planning any more
>> marriages?
>
>Why? You jealous? You wanted me for yourself, didn't you?
I'm pretty sure no one wants any part of you, Milt. You can't even
find a girlfriend among the other social outcasts in the chat rooms.
>> >> >> >But then, she's probably a blow up doll and doesn't have one...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who doesn't even know any women except
>> >> >> for those on the internet with whom he has "chat room love affairs"
>> >> >> with and whom he suspects are really men.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, Milt, I offered to show you how to do a trace so you could
>> >> actually determine what IPS a person is using and you never answered.
>> >> It's obvious that you don't know how, or you'd have been able to see
>> >> that I don't have a mindspring account.
>> >>
>> >I didn't say you DO, shit for brains. I said you did the last time I
>> >checked a couple of years ago.
>>
>> You're totally full of shit, Milt. If you knew how to check my IP
>> you'd have done so. I remember examples of your internet knowledge a
>> couple of years ago when you claimed that your neighbors had the same
>> IP as yourself.
>
>You are such a moron. I got your IP address from your Usenet posts, you
>fuckwit. And my neighbor did have the same IP as me, because he was
>using my wireless router. Of COURSE he would have the same IP...
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around
here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
>> >And it just so happened that it was
>> >roughly the same IP as the person who's been "bothering" me for a while
>> >now; a man pretending to be a woman.
>>
>> So why in the heck were you exchanging e-mails with this person in the
>> manner where his/her womanliness was an issue?
>
>who says I was exchanging anything?
You claimed to be talking to her/him/it...
>> >> >> I wonder if Milt would like to explain how he can have a love affair
>> >> >> with someone whose gender he isn't quite sure of.....
>> >> >
>> >> >WTF are you blabbering on about? Is there anything you won't blather on
>> >> >about, despite the fact that you know nothing about it?
>> >>
>> >> Well, Milt, you're the one who just a few days ago was telling me that
>> >> you had been talking on the internet with a man pretending to be a
>> >> woman, who didn't do "womanly things."
>> >
>> >I see. So, apparently, you believe that one cannot speak to someone on
>> >the Internet without having a "love affair"??
>>
>> <LOL> Shit! You apparently were exchanging enough e-mails with this
>> person long enough to discern something that you decided was not
>> womanly about her.. I don't know about you, but I don't e-mail back
>> and forth with strangers except about business where womanly or
>> unwomanly isnt an issue..
>
>Neither do I...
<LOL> Yet you were "speaking" (your word) to this person enough for
you to discern that she/he was unwomanly...
>> >That explains why you
>> >treat me like I "spurned" you...
>>
>> Actually, Milt, I treat you like any old garden variety leftwing
>> loonie...
>>
>> >> Say, did you derive your supposed ability to discern what is or isn't
>> >> "womanly" from those soap operas you love so much?
>> >
>> >Actually, I haven't had time to watch them for a while.
>> >>
>> >> How about if you give everyone on usenet a good laugh and explain just
>> >> exactly what she did to you that wasn't "womanly."
Well??????
>> I think it's sort of funny that Milt, A guy who does womanly things
>> like watching soap operas and <LOL> chatting would talk about a woman
>> not doing womanly things.
>>
>> >Apparently, Canyon has so little experience with women, he can't tell
>> >the difference between women and men... yet another reason to stop
>> >talking to him...
<LOL> You seem to be the one who had trouble... I pretty much send
e-mails from everyone I don't know directly to the spam traps. <LOL>
Of course, I'm not looking for romance on the internet like you
are....
>> Well, you can always run off and hide from me again, Milt...
>
>I don't hide from anyone, Canyon. Certainly not you.
<LOL> Come back anytime, Milt.
>Milt
>http://weaselweek.com
milt....@gmail.com
willfully ignorant, who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
You wouldn't be the smartest person in a womb...
nevermore
>You are a loon. There is no other word appropriate for someone who
>willfully ignorant, who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
>
>You wouldn't be the smartest person in a womb...
This is from Milt Shook who claimed that he was going
to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit against a private
party in a state court... and according to Milt, in this First
Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in unless the
judge laughs him out of court.....
...and who apparently believes that the Supreme Court is the only
federal court, and who claims that the US Constitution is part of
state law.
nevermore
>
>nevermore wrote:
>>
>> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
>> court because the Constitution is federal law.
>
>It's also state law, you fuckwit.
This is a keeper, of course... more proof that Milt Shook is truly
dumb as a box of rocks.
milt....@gmail.com
Jesus Fucking Christ!
You have to be the most ignorant blowhard on Usenet, and that is
definitely something to me decidedly NOT proud of...
Do try to learn something for a change...
nevermore
<ROTFLMAO> Once again, Milt shook demonstrates his total ignorance of
the law. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights simply states that
all the governments, including state governments are subject to the
same restrictions the Bills of Rights place on the federal government.
It does not mean, nor does any of Shook's arguments, even hint that
any legal case involving the Constitution, including the Bill of
Rights could ever be defined as state law, nor be decided in a state
court.
In fact: The US code states....
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.
Shook is totally ignorant on the subject of law....
2480 Dead
>On 9 Jun 2006 17:32:50 -0700, milt....@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>
>>nevermore wrote:
>>> On 8 Jun 2006 15:53:06 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >nevermore wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
>>> >> court because the Constitution is federal law.
>>> >
>>> >It's also state law, you fuckwit.
>>>
>>> This is a keeper, of course... more proof that Milt Shook is truly
>>> dumb as a box of rocks.
>>
>>Jesus Fucking Christ!
>>
>>You have to be the most ignorant blowhard on Usenet, and that is
>>definitely something to me decidedly NOT proud of...
>
>
>No, he's not
>
>first place goes to Pajamaloon
>
>Second to Kurt Knicklas
>
>Third to Billy Beck
Becky and Knickers also score in the top three as "Most Pompous
blowhards on Usenet (along with Jeffy Linder) and in the top three for
"Most Vicious Blowhards". Since Henny is in that category to, I have
to put him ahead in the overall waste of oxygen list ahead of
Pajamaloon.
--
Go, England!
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
milt....@gmail.com
CL...@KNICKLAS.COM wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:04:42 -0400, nevermore
> <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>> >nevermore wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
> >>> >> court because the Constitution is federal law.
>
>
>
>
> >Rights could ever be defined as state law, nor be decided in a state
> >court.
>
>
> parts of the federal constitution were resolved, states
> were exempt from the law.
>
> Gideon v Wainwright applied the due process clause of
> the 14th amendment to the states expanding civil
> liberties that were only required of the federal
> government
>
> Everson drew in states in the "wall" heretofore only
> applicable to federal law.
>
> In those two alone, the cases were state cases which
> "involved the federal constitution"
>
> They originated in State court
If he had a brain in his head, he should know this by now.
One more time, Canyon:
Look at the link I just provided you. The Supreme Court ruled a long
time ago that the 14th Amendment extends most of the Bill of Rights to
the states. The exceptions would be those amendments which
grant/protect states' rights.
As for which court you bring a suit in, if you and your opponent are
residents of the same state, you CANNOT bring suit in federal court --
federal court doesn't have JURISDICTION. The term is DIVERSITY.
Look up Jurisdiction and Diversity in Black's, and you might have a
clue. I'm sure that fake attorney you're claiming to be fucking has a
copy.
Oh, and on a side note; you fucked up. I now have incontrovertible
proof that it was YOU that was following me all over Yahoo last year.
And the screen shots and IP addresses to prove it.
Just thought you'd like to know...
nevermore
>
>CL...@KNICKLAS.COM wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:04:42 -0400, nevermore
>> <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>> >nevermore wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
>> >>> >> court because the Constitution is federal law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >any legal case involving the Constitution, including the Bill of
>> >Rights could ever be defined as state law, nor be decided in a state
>> >court.
>>
>>
>> Until suits relating to the application of various
>> parts of the federal constitution were resolved, states
>> were exempt from the law.
>>
>> Gideon v Wainwright applied the due process clause of
>> the 14th amendment to the states expanding civil
>> liberties that were only required of the federal
>> government
>>
>> Everson drew in states in the "wall" heretofore only
>> applicable to federal law.
>>
>> In those two alone, the cases were state cases which
>> "involved the federal constitution"
>
>> They originated in State court
I guess I should amend my statement to say "The district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution"
OI wait, I already said that several times.
State and even local courts must obey the parts of the Constitution
that applies to them, even though it is federal law.
>If he had a brain in his head, he should know this by now.
>
>One more time, Canyon:
>
>Look at the link I just provided you. The Supreme Court ruled a long
>time ago that the 14th Amendment extends most of the Bill of Rights to
>the states. The exceptions would be those amendments which
>grant/protect states' rights.
The fact that states must respect and obey the Bill of Rights does no
more make them part of state law than does the fact that you must
respect and obey speeding laws make them part of Mlt's law.
>As for which court you bring a suit in, if you and your opponent are
>residents of the same state, you CANNOT bring suit in federal court --
>federal court doesn't have JURISDICTION. The term is DIVERSITY.
>
>Look up Jurisdiction and Diversity in Black's, and you might have a
>clue. I'm sure that fake attorney you're claiming to be fucking has a
>copy.
All one needs do is look at the following:
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331
§ 1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001331----000-.html
See where it says "all civil actions?" When you talk about suing
someone, Milt, it's a civil action. See where it says "actions
arising under the Constitution?" When you "base" your suit on the
First Amendment, its under the constitution.
>Oh, and on a side note; you fucked up. I now have incontrovertible
>proof that it was YOU that was following me all over Yahoo last year.
>And the screen shots and IP addresses to prove it.
<ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt, Milt, you are such a pathetic fool. If your
need to have something be true was all it took for it to be true,
you'd probably be dangerous, but as it is, you're only amusing.
>Just thought you'd like to know...
<LOL> What I "know" is that you're so full of bluster, lies, and
bullshit, it must be running out your ears.
nevermore
Zepp keeps me well informed on how upset he is that I outed all of his
lies and stupidity.
--
Some more of Zepp's stupid claims below:
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, [...], the National Security
advisor, spend last evening attending a Broadway play."
--Zepp Jamieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
"No plane hit the Pentagon. I don’t know what did,[...]"
-- Zepp Jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/39d98c910d32047b?hl=en&
milt....@gmail.com
Hey, dipshit! Did you bother to read the next section, § 1332??
My right to be on the street corner is based on the First Amendment,
and that would be the basis for my suit. I have the right to be there,
and he has no right to kick me out. But the First Amendment would only
kick in IF the judge "laughs me out of court." Then it becomes a
federal case. Until then, it's a dispute between two locals over the
use of a street corner. Do you get it yet?
Probably not...
>
>
> >Oh, and on a side note; you fucked up. I now have incontrovertible
> >proof that it was YOU that was following me all over Yahoo last year.
> >And the screen shots and IP addresses to prove it.
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt, Milt, you are such a pathetic fool. If your
> need to have something be true was all it took for it to be true,
> you'd probably be dangerous, but as it is, you're only amusing.
No, it's actual, incontrovertible proof. Certain things lined up
correctly, based on crap you pulled recently.
>
> >Just thought you'd like to know...
>
> <LOL> What I "know" is that you're so full of bluster, lies, and
> bullshit, it must be running out your ears.
You're the one with all the space between your ears... you projecting
again?
milt....@gmail.com
CL...@KNICKLAS.COM wrote:
>
> States cannot write laws abrogating federally
> guaranteed rights
>
> States MUST comply with federal law
>
> States CAN originate suits based on application of
> federal constitutional principles.
>
> You need some remedial law, CANYONLOON
You would think he'd actually talk to that lawyer he claims he's
fucking before saying things which are so profoundly stupid...
2480 Dead
Maybe she was the one who let him incorporate secretly?
milt....@gmail.com
2480 Dead wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2006 06:28:29 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >CL...@KNICKLAS.COM wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:16:15 -0400, nevermore
> >> <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 8 Jun 2006 15:53:06 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>nevermore wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
> >> >>> court because the Constitution is federal law.
> >> >>
> >> >>It's also state law, you fuckwit.
> >> >
> >> >This is a keeper, of course... more proof that Milt Shook is truly
> >> >dumb as a box of rocks.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >>
> >> States cannot write laws abrogating federally
> >> guaranteed rights
> >>
> >> States MUST comply with federal law
> >>
> >> States CAN originate suits based on application of
> >> federal constitutional principles.
> >>
> >> You need some remedial law, CANYONLOON
> >
> >You would think he'd actually talk to that lawyer he claims he's
> >fucking before saying things which are so profoundly stupid...
>
> Maybe she was the one who let him incorporate secretly?
> --
secret corporation.
Maybe he runs it out of Gitmo.
2480 Dead
Well, he better be careful. I hear there's a nasty case of suicide
making the rounds there. He wouldn't want to catch it.
>
>Milt
>http://weaselweek.com
nevermore
No it isn't you moron. The only thing the free speech clause of the
First Amendment gives you is the right not to be interfered with by
government.
>and that would be the basis for my suit. I have the right to be there,
>and he has no right to kick me out. But the First Amendment would only
>kick in IF the judge "laughs me out of court."
<LOL> Yeah, right, but then one wonders why you were claiming that
it was a First Amendment case back before anyone mentioned laughing
you out of court. Well, actually, I don't wonder at all. that was
all back before I schooled you about the First Amendment being only a
restriction on the government.
>Then it becomes a
>federal case.
Ahhh, so now it would appear that you've been schooled about how
Constitutional cases have to originate in federal court. It's good to
see that you're actually learning a thing or two.
>Until then, it's a dispute between two locals over the
>use of a street corner. Do you get it yet?
>
>Probably not...
>>
>>
>> >Oh, and on a side note; you fucked up. I now have incontrovertible
>> >proof that it was YOU that was following me all over Yahoo last year.
>> >And the screen shots and IP addresses to prove it.
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt, Milt, you are such a pathetic fool. If your
>> need to have something be true was all it took for it to be true,
>> you'd probably be dangerous, but as it is, you're only amusing.
>
>No, it's actual, incontrovertible proof. Certain things lined up
>correctly, based on crap you pulled recently.
Oh, of course "certain things lined up," Milt, and I strongly suggest
that you go to the nearest authorities about it too.
nevermore
<LOL> this from Milt Shook, who claimed that he was going
to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit against a private
party in a state court... and according to Milt, in this First
Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in unless the
judge laughs him out of court.....
...and who apparently believes that the Supreme Court is the only
nevermore
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On 10 Jun 2006 06:28:29 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>CL...@KNICKLAS.COM wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:16:15 -0400, nevermore
>>> <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 8 Jun 2006 15:53:06 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>nevermore wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
>>> >>> court because the Constitution is federal law.
>>> >>
>>> >>It's also state law, you fuckwit.
>>> >
>>> >This is a keeper, of course... more proof that Milt Shook is truly
>>> >dumb as a box of rocks.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>>
>>> States cannot write laws abrogating federally
>>> guaranteed rights
>>>
>>> States MUST comply with federal law
>>>
>>> States CAN originate suits based on application of
>>> federal constitutional principles.
>>>
>>> You need some remedial law, CANYONLOON
>>
>>You would think he'd actually talk to that lawyer he claims he's
>>fucking before saying things which are so profoundly stupid...
>
>Maybe she was the one who let him incorporate secretly?
And once again, Zepp explains why he's too stupid to have ever put
away any savings that he'd need to report capital gains on...
"If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 demonstrating his earnings status since
the only 1040 form that you cannot report your capital gains on is
the "EZ" form for low income folks.
nevermore
Actually, I run it pretty much on the computers. It's hardly secret.
I'm looking at a reference to it on the internet right now. Perhaps
Zepp's problem is that he doesn't know it's name. Not surprising,
since Zepp doesn't know much.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:11:58 -0600, CL...@KNICKLAS.COM wrote:
>
>>On 9 Jun 2006 17:32:50 -0700, milt....@gmail.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>nevermore wrote:
>>>> On 8 Jun 2006 15:53:06 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >nevermore wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Milt, Any and all First Amendment based suits must be in a federal
>>>> >> court because the Constitution is federal law.
>>>> >
>>>> >It's also state law, you fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> This is a keeper, of course... more proof that Milt Shook is truly
>>>> dumb as a box of rocks.
>>>
>>>Jesus Fucking Christ!
>>>
>>>You have to be the most ignorant blowhard on Usenet, and that is
>>>definitely something to me decidedly NOT proud of...
>>
>>
>>No, he's not
>>
>>first place goes to Pajamaloon
>>
>>Second to Kurt Knicklas
>>
>>Third to Billy Beck
>
>Becky and Knickers also score in the top three as "Most Pompous
>blowhards on Usenet (along with Jeffy Linder) and in the top three for
>"Most Vicious Blowhards". Since Henny is in that category to, I have
>to put him ahead in the overall waste of oxygen list ahead of
>Pajamaloon.
I guess exposing Zepp as a liar and a nutcase makes one a pompous
blowhard....
No suprise there.
JSL
nevermore
I give Zepp a C- for trying, while Shook isn't even trying to look
intelligent anymore. His latest example of shooting in the dark was
claiming he had "proof" I was some woman he was having a chatroom
"romance" with....
....that reminds me, a while back, I think it was Zepp who was running
around claiming that my name was Mary Jo, or something like that.
That was back before he became so frightened of me that he'll only
address me through a filter of his usenet buddies.
I'm still waiting to hear from his lawyer for exposing his fat little
werewolf's usenet posts.
2495 Dead
Linder) wrote:
Glad to see you finally admit you are on the same level as "Steve" and
Knickers.
Get a life, Jeffy.
>
>JSL
nevermore
<ROTFLMAO> That's from Zepp whose only level of existence is
pretending to be significant on the internet. Well, in his defense,
being so obese, it's about all he can do.
milt....@gmail.com
No, I said "stalker." Why would you get "romance" out of "stalker"?
Makes me wonder even more about you...
nevermore
get off it, Milt, you've already admitted that you had enough internet
contact with this "person" to not only come to believe that "she" was
a man, but to have her IP, which you're not going to get if she was
only stalking you... It's pretty clear, given how much this seems to
have bothered you, that there was something going on there..
I'd guess that it was exactly the opposite of what your claiming, that
you were pursuing her, and she rejected you in a very unkind manner,
which you see as being unwomanly, and now you're smarting from it.
You'd just love to think it was me so you don't have to accept the
fact that you got rejected by another woman.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
milt....@gmail.com
Getting an IP isn't all that difficult from a chat client. I have
several of them; you'd be surprised whose....
>
> I'd guess that it was exactly the opposite of what your claiming, that
> you were pursuing her, and she rejected you in a very unkind manner,
> which you see as being unwomanly, and now you're smarting from it.
> You'd just love to think it was me so you don't have to accept the
> fact that you got rejected by another woman.
Rejected by what woman? It wasn't a woman. In fact, I knew who it was
pretty much from the beginning... it wasn't difficult. It was a little
more difficult finding proof, but now we have absolute proof who it
was...
nevermore
None of your silly garbage surprises me anymore, Milt. I've learned
that you'll lie and bluster to whatever degree you feel is necessary
to keep your fantasies about yourself alive. Just like you tried to
claim that your son's mother didn't walk out on you, when your own
words years ago said that she did.
I'm sure you're doing your best to collect all sorts of information
from your chat women friends. You never know when you'll want to try
"romancing" another one of 'em.
By the way, you apparently don't know this, but an IP does not
necessarily identify a person, or a person's account on the internet.
A dial-up account's IP changes everytime you log on, and even a
broadband's IP will change periodically, and, of course, internet
service providers will not divulge names anyway.
The only absolute proof of anything is that you're a moron.
Your bluff became laughable back when you claimed that my IP was
Mindspring, Milt. You're a joke without a punchline, and you always
will be.
Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?
>> I'd guess that it was exactly the opposite of what your claiming, that
>> you were pursuing her, and she rejected you in a very unkind manner,
>> which you see as being unwomanly, and now you're smarting from it.
>> You'd just love to think it was me so you don't have to accept the
>> fact that you got rejected by another woman.
>
>Rejected by what woman? It wasn't a woman.
<LOL> I don't think you should be surprised anymore, Milt, when
women are turned off by your advances, even those poor lonely
creatures in the chatrooms. It's not like any woman would want a guy
that spends his days watching soap operas....
>In fact, I knew who it was
>pretty much from the beginning...
Yes, yes, Milt knows everything about IP addresses... he even knows
how many people in his neighborhood "sport the same IP as [Milt]"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
...and Milt also knows that "that the government has an obligation to
protect your First Amendment rights to the best of its ability, even
from a private party who would abrogate them."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=N4Wdnfn1v6AJwDrdRVn-jg%40comcast.com&
>it wasn't difficult. It was a little
>more difficult finding proof, but now we have absolute proof who it
>was...
<LOL> Well, like I said, you'd better get your butt off to the
authorities with that absolute proof. Be sure and let me know what
happens. Be sure to tell them how you pinged me and found three ports
open, too.
"I just pinged your sorry ass and found three open ports, as
well."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407231847.76c7fc4e%40posting.google.com
>> >> ....that reminds me, a while back, I think it was Zepp who was running
>> >> around claiming that my name was Mary Jo, or something like that.
>> >> That was back before he became so frightened of me that he'll only
>> >> address me through a filter of his usenet buddies.
>> >>
>> >> I'm still waiting to hear from his lawyer for exposing his fat little
>> >> werewolf's usenet posts.
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around
here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I
have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me,
it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net
nevermore
>Ever notice how chatty Canyon gets, um, at certain times?
>
>> None of your silly garbage surprises me anymore, Milt. I've learned
>> that you'll lie and bluster to whatever degree you feel is necessary
>> to keep your fantasies about yourself alive. Just like you tried to
>> claim that your son's mother didn't walk out on you, when your own
>> words years ago said that she did.
>
>I said she walked out on my son. You see, the rest of us -- those who
>have had real relationships with women without a nozzle -- know how
>it's possible for a woman to abandon a kid, without walking out on the
>other parent.
" As for not marrying my son's mother, that's none of your business,
but I will tell you this much. He is seven years old (at the end of
the month, he will be, anyway). Since he was eight months old, when
she moved out on her own, and went off to live on her own, (I did not
kick her out), she has seen him three times. "
Milt Shook Apr 10 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/95dac7e4c60e3f27?hl=en&
She walked out on you too...
>> I'm sure you're doing your best to collect all sorts of information
>> from your chat women friends. You never know when you'll want to try
>> "romancing" another one of 'em.
>
>Maybe I will, maybe I won't. That's up to me, isn't it? How did you
>meet your attorney girlfriend? Was she shrinkwrapped, or did you get a
>really good discount off the shelf.
She was referred to me as a lawyer.
>> By the way, you apparently don't know this, but an IP does not
>> necessarily identify a person, or a person's account on the internet.
>
>I never said it did. In fact, aren't YOU the one claiming that, when my
>neighbor Matt posted on Usenet, you knew for a FACT that it was me,
>based on IP number? I'm pretty sure you did.
<LOL> you checked several people in your neighborhood and found two
that "sported" the same IP as you.... It wasn't any neighbor named
matt, it was you, obviously, and you were way too stupid to even know
what an IP was.
>> A dial-up account's IP changes everytime you log on, and even a
>> broadband's IP will change periodically, and, of course, internet
>> service providers will not divulge names anyway.
>
>Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I moved
>into a house.
<LOL> Bullshit! You're still a moron.
>And FYI, idiot; an IP can be used to identify someone, combined with
>other information. For example, say someone was posting certain
>information on Usenet, and that person was the only one posting such
>information, and that person showed a special interest in a certain
>other person. Then suppose the same sort of posted information suddenly
>showed up somewhere else, in a place where that other person just
>happened to be, despite the fact that the person in question had never
>posted where he hangs out and with whom? If the IP numbers MATCHED,
>number for number, it's pretty safe to assume that the same person is
>posting both places. Not that it matters... one person just finds it
>funny and pathetic...
>
>> The only absolute proof of anything is that you're a moron.
>
>Okay, but another absolute fact is that I kick your ass every time I
>come on here. How does it feel to have your ass kicked by a moron.
<LOL> This from Milt Shook who claimed that he was going
to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit against a private
party in a state court... and according to Milt, in this First
Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in unless the
judge laughs him out of court.....
...and who apparently believes that the Supreme Court is the only
federal court, and who claims that the US Constitution is part of
state law.
>> Your bluff became laughable back when you claimed that my IP was
>> Mindspring, Milt. You're a joke without a punchline, and you always
>> will be.
>
>You did post from a Mindspring account at one time. You do realize
>that, even though Earthlink bought them, they were still identifiable
>as Mindspring IPs, right.
<LOL> Nope, my account was always Earthlink... Any trace would show
Earthlink.
>I think it's funny now that you swear you're no longer using dial up.
>You claim that you post from a Roadrunner account, and yet most of your
>posts come via SuperNews. Time Warner has its own newsgroup server, so
>I'd be curious as to why you would pay for a newsgroup service on top
>of that. I also noticed that you occasionally post directly from a
>Roadrunner account, but only very occasionally.
<LOL> keep digging, Milt....
>And FYI, this shit took me about 2 minutes to figure out. When you
>stalked me in a chat room (and yes, Canyon, it was you, and I have
>absolute proof now, because you were stupid enough to post something
>somewhere recently that absolutely gave you away) it had to have taken
>you ages to gather all of the information necessary to do so.
Well, OK... as long as you think you have that absolute proof thing
going for ya...... <ROTFLMAO> ... I think this qualifies as absolute
proof that you are a moron....
>> Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?
>
>If they can get the fucking cover right for a change, July 18.
Sure, sure.. <LOL>
>> >> I'd guess that it was exactly the opposite of what your claiming, that
>> >> you were pursuing her, and she rejected you in a very unkind manner,
>> >> which you see as being unwomanly, and now you're smarting from it.
>> >> You'd just love to think it was me so you don't have to accept the
>> >> fact that you got rejected by another woman.
>> >
>> >Rejected by what woman? It wasn't a woman.
>>
>> <LOL> I don't think you should be surprised anymore, Milt, when
>> women are turned off by your advances, even those poor lonely
>> creatures in the chatrooms. It's not like any woman would want a guy
>> that spends his days watching soap operas....
>
>Hmmm... one of my best friends is a former NFL linebacker and he's been
>watching General Hospital with a group of ex-athletes for years.
Oh Gawd, Milt, you don't have any former NFL linebacker friends. That
bullshit is running out of your ears again. You're a very typical
leftist, Milt, in that telling the truth about anything isn't even
remotely important to you.
>They're all married, but one. I would guess you're wrong. But then, you
>always are.
Only little dried up old grannies and you need to live vicariously
through the soaps, Milt. Most of the rest of the world has a real
life.
>(I actually put almost in there and had to change it... you've never
>been correct...)
<LOL> This from Milt who says "I was hit by buckshot by accident
milt....@gmail.com
This is why you're such a fucking numbnuts. Everything is either black,
or it's white...
>
> >> I'm sure you're doing your best to collect all sorts of information
> >> from your chat women friends. You never know when you'll want to try
> >> "romancing" another one of 'em.
> >
> >Maybe I will, maybe I won't. That's up to me, isn't it? How did you
> >meet your attorney girlfriend? Was she shrinkwrapped, or did you get a
> >really good discount off the shelf.
>
> She was referred to me as a lawyer.
Sure she was. A lawyer who can't even steer you right when it comes to
basic constitutional law? Can't fool me, Canyon. You may put a suit on
her and call her your lawyer, but she's just a blow up doll. Better
seal that nozzle real good.
>
> >> By the way, you apparently don't know this, but an IP does not
> >> necessarily identify a person, or a person's account on the internet.
> >
> >I never said it did. In fact, aren't YOU the one claiming that, when my
> >neighbor Matt posted on Usenet, you knew for a FACT that it was me,
> >based on IP number? I'm pretty sure you did.
>
> <LOL> you checked several people in your neighborhood and found two
> that "sported" the same IP as you.... It wasn't any neighbor named
> matt, it was you, obviously, and you were way too stupid to even know
> what an IP was.
No, it was Matt. He used my wireless internet for about 4 years.
>
> >> A dial-up account's IP changes everytime you log on, and even a
> >> broadband's IP will change periodically, and, of course, internet
> >> service providers will not divulge names anyway.
> >
> >Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I moved
> >into a house.
>
> <LOL> Bullshit! You're still a moron.
You just keep thinking there, butch...
>
> >And FYI, idiot; an IP can be used to identify someone, combined with
> >other information. For example, say someone was posting certain
> >information on Usenet, and that person was the only one posting such
> >information, and that person showed a special interest in a certain
> >other person. Then suppose the same sort of posted information suddenly
> >showed up somewhere else, in a place where that other person just
> >happened to be, despite the fact that the person in question had never
> >posted where he hangs out and with whom? If the IP numbers MATCHED,
> >number for number, it's pretty safe to assume that the same person is
> >posting both places. Not that it matters... one person just finds it
> >funny and pathetic...
> >
> >> The only absolute proof of anything is that you're a moron.
> >
> >Okay, but another absolute fact is that I kick your ass every time I
> >come on here. How does it feel to have your ass kicked by a moron.
>
> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who claimed that he was going
> to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit against a private
> party in a state court... and according to Milt, in this First
> Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in unless the
> judge laughs him out of court.....
And you're fucking a lawyer? What do you do, put a sock in her mouth so
she won't talk to you? or do you post in secret, so she doesn't know
how fucking mud-dumb you are?
>
> ...and who apparently believes that the Supreme Court is the only
> federal court, and who claims that the US Constitution is part of
> state law.
Dontcha love it when he's cornered and repeats shit I didn't say( the
first part)? As for the second part, um, the 14th Amendment applied
most of the Bill of Rights to the states. And just so you know... what
the FUCK do you think the word "ratify" means?
>
> >> Your bluff became laughable back when you claimed that my IP was
> >> Mindspring, Milt. You're a joke without a punchline, and you always
> >> will be.
> >
> >You did post from a Mindspring account at one time. You do realize
> >that, even though Earthlink bought them, they were still identifiable
> >as Mindspring IPs, right.
>
> <LOL> Nope, my account was always Earthlink... Any trace would show
> Earthlink.
>
You dumbfuck. Earthlink BOUGHT Mindspring. The IPs from the former
Mindspring are still identifiable as Mindspring IPs. Or were at the
time I was looking it up. Couldn't tell you now.
> >I think it's funny now that you swear you're no longer using dial up.
> >You claim that you post from a Roadrunner account, and yet most of your
> >posts come via SuperNews. Time Warner has its own newsgroup server, so
> >I'd be curious as to why you would pay for a newsgroup service on top
> >of that. I also noticed that you occasionally post directly from a
> >Roadrunner account, but only very occasionally.
>
> <LOL> keep digging, Milt....
Naw.. it didn't take any digging.
>
> >And FYI, this shit took me about 2 minutes to figure out. When you
> >stalked me in a chat room (and yes, Canyon, it was you, and I have
> >absolute proof now, because you were stupid enough to post something
> >somewhere recently that absolutely gave you away) it had to have taken
> >you ages to gather all of the information necessary to do so.
>
> Well, OK... as long as you think you have that absolute proof thing
> going for ya...... <ROTFLMAO> ... I think this qualifies as absolute
> proof that you are a moron....
Oh, it's absolute proof. You fucked up with something you posted
recently, that identifies you specifically. No one else has ever posted
that one thing. Got a little chatty there...
>
> >> Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?
> >
> >If they can get the fucking cover right for a change, July 18.
>
> Sure, sure.. <LOL>
>
> >> >> I'd guess that it was exactly the opposite of what your claiming, that
> >> >> you were pursuing her, and she rejected you in a very unkind manner,
> >> >> which you see as being unwomanly, and now you're smarting from it.
> >> >> You'd just love to think it was me so you don't have to accept the
> >> >> fact that you got rejected by another woman.
> >> >
> >> >Rejected by what woman? It wasn't a woman.
> >>
> >> <LOL> I don't think you should be surprised anymore, Milt, when
> >> women are turned off by your advances, even those poor lonely
> >> creatures in the chatrooms. It's not like any woman would want a guy
> >> that spends his days watching soap operas....
> >
> >Hmmm... one of my best friends is a former NFL linebacker and he's been
> >watching General Hospital with a group of ex-athletes for years.
>
> Oh Gawd, Milt, you don't have any former NFL linebacker friends. That
> bullshit is running out of your ears again. You're a very typical
> leftist, Milt, in that telling the truth about anything isn't even
> remotely important to you.
Actually, I also count a Major League baseball manager as one of my
best friends. I went to college with him during my first unsuccessful
foray into University world. Just because you have no friends and sit
in a fucking trailer all day typing shit on Usenet, doesn't mean the
rest of us don't have a life.
>
> >They're all married, but one. I would guess you're wrong. But then, you
> >always are.
>
> Only little dried up old grannies and you need to live vicariously
> through the soaps, Milt. Most of the rest of the world has a real
> life.
Live vicariously?
Is that what you do when you watch TV? Live vicariously through it? No
wonder you sound like a third-rate Bill O'Reilly on here...
>
> >(I actually put almost in there and had to change it... you've never
> >been correct...)
>
> <LOL> This from Milt who says "I was hit by buckshot by accident
> once when I was a kid. I have a scar to show for it. But no matter
> where it would have hit me, it wouldn't have killed me, because I was
> running away from it."
> --Milt Shook
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net
Canyon's presence here has to be as a public service to the irony
deficient... there's always so much...
nevermore
<LOL> So now, apparently Milt wants everyone to believe, that this
woman, who he's claimed has abandoned their baby, remained his
girlfriend.
>> >> I'm sure you're doing your best to collect all sorts of information
>> >> from your chat women friends. You never know when you'll want to try
>> >> "romancing" another one of 'em.
>> >
>> >Maybe I will, maybe I won't. That's up to me, isn't it? How did you
>> >meet your attorney girlfriend? Was she shrinkwrapped, or did you get a
>> >really good discount off the shelf.
>>
>> She was referred to me as a lawyer.
>
>Sure she was. A lawyer who can't even steer you right when it comes to
>basic constitutional law? Can't fool me, Canyon. You may put a suit on
>her and call her your lawyer, but she's just a blow up doll. Better
>seal that nozzle real good.
<LOL> This from Milt Shook who claimed that he was going
to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit against a private
party in a state court... and according to Milt, in this First
Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in unless the
judge laughs him out of court.....
...and who apparently believes that the Supreme Court is the only
federal court, and who claims that the US Constitution is part of
state law.
>> >> By the way, you apparently don't know this, but an IP does not
>> >> necessarily identify a person, or a person's account on the internet.
>> >
>> >I never said it did. In fact, aren't YOU the one claiming that, when my
>> >neighbor Matt posted on Usenet, you knew for a FACT that it was me,
>> >based on IP number? I'm pretty sure you did.
>>
>> <LOL> you checked several people in your neighborhood and found two
>> that "sported" the same IP as you.... It wasn't any neighbor named
>> matt, it was you, obviously, and you were way too stupid to even know
>> what an IP was.
>
>No, it was Matt. He used my wireless internet for about 4 years.
Sure it was, and the other three persons who sported your IP?
Fact is, Shook was very quiet about all this until somebody else
suggested that people sharing a network router had the same IP. Of
course, those wireless routers have a very small range, and shook
admitted that he'd gone out and checked eight other people in his
neighborhood looking for people that "sport" the same IP as him.
Milt claimed to have found four.
<LOL> It's not enough that Milt is a liar, he's also so stupid that
he get's caught at it all the time.
>> >> A dial-up account's IP changes everytime you log on, and even a
>> >> broadband's IP will change periodically, and, of course, internet
>> >> service providers will not divulge names anyway.
>> >
>> >Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I moved
>> >into a house.
>>
>> <LOL> Bullshit! You're still a moron.
>
>You just keep thinking there, butch...
Keeerist, Milt, there is a record of your IP addresses, you know. I
always keep wondering how stupid Milt has to be to continually write
things that are so easily proven to be lies.
<LOL> Yep, Milt said it....
**************************************************************************************
"I am going to bring suit against the store
owner. It is First Amendment based, [...]
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2011b7116c7c26d5?hl=en&
"Oh, yeah, and I never said "federal court." This wouldn't be a
federal court case."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/222a87c9f825a004?hl=en&
*************************************************************************************************************
>As for the second part, um, the 14th Amendment applied
>most of the Bill of Rights to the states. And just so you know... what
>the FUCK do you think the word "ratify" means?
<LOL> That state governments are bound by the Constitution does not
make it state law, you moron, any more than you being bound by
speeding laws makes them Milt's law.
>> >> Your bluff became laughable back when you claimed that my IP was
>> >> Mindspring, Milt. You're a joke without a punchline, and you always
>> >> will be.
>> >
>> >You did post from a Mindspring account at one time. You do realize
>> >that, even though Earthlink bought them, they were still identifiable
>> >as Mindspring IPs, right.
>>
>> <LOL> Nope, my account was always Earthlink... Any trace would show
>> Earthlink.
>>
>You dumbfuck. Earthlink BOUGHT Mindspring. The IPs from the former
>Mindspring are still identifiable as Mindspring IPs. Or were at the
>time I was looking it up. Couldn't tell you now.
Nope, it would say Earthlink. Always. But it doesn't matter, you're
so inept that you still think I have that account. ...and you think
you can find open ports by pinging. ...and I think I remember you
claiming to have two firewalls and were contemplating getting a third,
too.
You're almost too stupid to be on the internet, Milt.
>> >I think it's funny now that you swear you're no longer using dial up.
>> >You claim that you post from a Roadrunner account, and yet most of your
>> >posts come via SuperNews. Time Warner has its own newsgroup server, so
>> >I'd be curious as to why you would pay for a newsgroup service on top
>> >of that. I also noticed that you occasionally post directly from a
>> >Roadrunner account, but only very occasionally.
>>
>> <LOL> keep digging, Milt....
>
>Naw.. it didn't take any digging.
Sure, OK, <LOL> But I'll tell you that there's a really good reason
for everything.
>> >And FYI, this shit took me about 2 minutes to figure out. When you
>> >stalked me in a chat room (and yes, Canyon, it was you, and I have
>> >absolute proof now, because you were stupid enough to post something
>> >somewhere recently that absolutely gave you away) it had to have taken
>> >you ages to gather all of the information necessary to do so.
>>
>> Well, OK... as long as you think you have that absolute proof thing
>> going for ya...... <ROTFLMAO> ... I think this qualifies as absolute
>> proof that you are a moron....
>
>Oh, it's absolute proof. You fucked up with something you posted
>recently, that identifies you specifically. No one else has ever posted
>that one thing. Got a little chatty there...
<LOL> Milt, you're probably stupid enough to actually believe that
you have proof of something or other. I've seen some of the really
stupid things you've tried to make claims about. The four people who
"sport" the same IP as you, for example.
But then, if you had anything that even you, in your incredible
ignorance, could possibly believe was proof, you'd have posted it
right away.
But you know, the fact that you have enough of this obsession with me
to think this is sort of satisfying. It lets me know how much I get
to you by reposting all your stupid claims for everyone to see.
>> >> Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?
>> >
>> >If they can get the fucking cover right for a change, July 18.
>>
>> Sure, sure.. <LOL>
>>
>> >> >> I'd guess that it was exactly the opposite of what your claiming, that
>> >> >> you were pursuing her, and she rejected you in a very unkind manner,
>> >> >> which you see as being unwomanly, and now you're smarting from it.
>> >> >> You'd just love to think it was me so you don't have to accept the
>> >> >> fact that you got rejected by another woman.
>> >> >
>> >> >Rejected by what woman? It wasn't a woman.
>> >>
>> >> <LOL> I don't think you should be surprised anymore, Milt, when
>> >> women are turned off by your advances, even those poor lonely
>> >> creatures in the chatrooms. It's not like any woman would want a guy
>> >> that spends his days watching soap operas....
>> >
>> >Hmmm... one of my best friends is a former NFL linebacker and he's been
>> >watching General Hospital with a group of ex-athletes for years.
>>
>> Oh Gawd, Milt, you don't have any former NFL linebacker friends. That
>> bullshit is running out of your ears again. You're a very typical
>> leftist, Milt, in that telling the truth about anything isn't even
>> remotely important to you.
>
>Actually, I also count a Major League baseball manager as one of my
>best friends. I went to college with him during my first unsuccessful
>foray into University world. Just because you have no friends and sit
>in a fucking trailer all day typing shit on Usenet, doesn't mean the
>rest of us don't have a life.
Face it Milt, I know and you know that the only "friends" you have are
on the internet. You're afraid to deal with people face to face and
you spend all your time that you're not working or writing to silly
websites, sitting and obsessing over the meaning of love with the
other chatroom freaks and you're embarrassed enough about it that you
had to lock all but your chatroom friends out of your little diary.
>> >They're all married, but one. I would guess you're wrong. But then, you
>> >always are.
>>
>> Only little dried up old grannies and you need to live vicariously
>> through the soaps, Milt. Most of the rest of the world has a real
>> life.
>
>Live vicariously?
Yeah, nobody with a real life of their own needs that silly phony
drama.
>Is that what you do when you watch TV? Live vicariously through it? No
>wonder you sound like a third-rate Bill O'Reilly on here...
Actually, I don't watch much TV. I much prefer my own reality.
>> >(I actually put almost in there and had to change it... you've never
>> >been correct...)
>>
>> <LOL> This from Milt who says "I was hit by buckshot by accident
>> once when I was a kid. I have a scar to show for it. But no matter
>> where it would have hit me, it wouldn't have killed me, because I was
>> running away from it."
>> --Milt Shook
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net
>
>Canyon's presence here has to be as a public service to the irony
>deficient... there's always so much...
Milt must have never checked to see why they call it buckshot. It was
originally designed to bring down deer. Buckshot is lethal, and
travels at a speed (1500/1700 fps) that makes the fact that makes his
"running away from it" totally insignificant.
milt....@gmail.com
Black... white... black... white...
>
> >> >> I'm sure you're doing your best to collect all sorts of information
> >> >> from your chat women friends. You never know when you'll want to try
> >> >> "romancing" another one of 'em.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe I will, maybe I won't. That's up to me, isn't it? How did you
> >> >meet your attorney girlfriend? Was she shrinkwrapped, or did you get a
> >> >really good discount off the shelf.
> >>
> >> She was referred to me as a lawyer.
> >
> >Sure she was. A lawyer who can't even steer you right when it comes to
> >basic constitutional law? Can't fool me, Canyon. You may put a suit on
> >her and call her your lawyer, but she's just a blow up doll. Better
> >seal that nozzle real good.
>
> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who claimed that he was going
> to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit against a private
> party in a state court... and according to Milt, in this First
> Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in unless the
> judge laughs him out of court.....
>
> ...and who apparently believes that the Supreme Court is the only
> federal court, and who claims that the US Constitution is part of
> state law.
This from someone who only has the balls to post under a fake name and
who has no clue how stupid he sounds with the above two paragraphs.
>
> >> >> By the way, you apparently don't know this, but an IP does not
> >> >> necessarily identify a person, or a person's account on the internet.
> >> >
> >> >I never said it did. In fact, aren't YOU the one claiming that, when my
> >> >neighbor Matt posted on Usenet, you knew for a FACT that it was me,
> >> >based on IP number? I'm pretty sure you did.
> >>
> >> <LOL> you checked several people in your neighborhood and found two
> >> that "sported" the same IP as you.... It wasn't any neighbor named
> >> matt, it was you, obviously, and you were way too stupid to even know
> >> what an IP was.
> >
> >No, it was Matt. He used my wireless internet for about 4 years.
>
> Sure it was, and the other three persons who sported your IP?
>
> Fact is, Shook was very quiet about all this until somebody else
> suggested that people sharing a network router had the same IP. Of
> course, those wireless routers have a very small range, and shook
> admitted that he'd gone out and checked eight other people in his
> neighborhood looking for people that "sport" the same IP as him.
> Milt claimed to have found four.
Yup. They don't have that "small" of a range.
>
> <LOL> It's not enough that Milt is a liar, he's also so stupid that
> he get's caught at it all the time.
And yet I kick your ass every time I'm here. How "stupid" does that
make you?
>
> >> >> A dial-up account's IP changes everytime you log on, and even a
> >> >> broadband's IP will change periodically, and, of course, internet
> >> >> service providers will not divulge names anyway.
> >> >
> >> >Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I moved
> >> >into a house.
> >>
> >> <LOL> Bullshit! You're still a moron.
> >
> >You just keep thinking there, butch...
>
> Keeerist, Milt, there is a record of your IP addresses, you know. I
> always keep wondering how stupid Milt has to be to continually write
> things that are so easily proven to be lies.
Actually, I have to retract that. I've had TWO IP numbers in five
years. It changed when Comcast changed to several levels of broadband
service back in 2003.
It is simply remarkable that you can sound so stupid and yet think you
sound smart...
>
> >As for the second part, um, the 14th Amendment applied
> >most of the Bill of Rights to the states. And just so you know... what
> >the FUCK do you think the word "ratify" means?
>
> <LOL> That state governments are bound by the Constitution does not
> make it state law, you moron, any more than you being bound by
> speeding laws makes them Milt's law.
Oh, my God! You are certifiable.
nevermore
you said, "she moved out on her own, and went off to live on her own."
<LOL> So how did it feel to have your girlfriend walk out on you and
go live by herself? You know, she probably was just tired of your
stupid bullshit.
>> >> >> I'm sure you're doing your best to collect all sorts of information
>> >> >> from your chat women friends. You never know when you'll want to try
>> >> >> "romancing" another one of 'em.
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe I will, maybe I won't. That's up to me, isn't it? How did you
>> >> >meet your attorney girlfriend? Was she shrinkwrapped, or did you get a
>> >> >really good discount off the shelf.
>> >>
>> >> She was referred to me as a lawyer.
>> >
>> >Sure she was. A lawyer who can't even steer you right when it comes to
>> >basic constitutional law? Can't fool me, Canyon. You may put a suit on
>> >her and call her your lawyer, but she's just a blow up doll. Better
>> >seal that nozzle real good.
>>
>> <LOL> This from Milt Shook who claimed that he was going
>> to represent himself in a First Amendment based suit against a private
>> party in a state court... and according to Milt, in this First
>> Amendment based suit, the First Amendment won't kick in unless the
>> judge laughs him out of court.....
>>
>> ...and who apparently believes that the Supreme Court is the only
>> federal court, and who claims that the US Constitution is part of
>> state law.
>
>This from someone who only has the balls to post under a fake name and
>who has no clue how stupid he sounds with the above two paragraphs.
This from Milt who issued the following ignorant claim..
"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the
Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
>> >> >> By the way, you apparently don't know this, but an IP does not
>> >> >> necessarily identify a person, or a person's account on the internet.
>> >> >
>> >> >I never said it did. In fact, aren't YOU the one claiming that, when my
>> >> >neighbor Matt posted on Usenet, you knew for a FACT that it was me,
>> >> >based on IP number? I'm pretty sure you did.
>> >>
>> >> <LOL> you checked several people in your neighborhood and found two
>> >> that "sported" the same IP as you.... It wasn't any neighbor named
>> >> matt, it was you, obviously, and you were way too stupid to even know
>> >> what an IP was.
>> >
>> >No, it was Matt. He used my wireless internet for about 4 years.
>>
>> Sure it was, and the other three persons who sported your IP?
Well????
>> Fact is, Shook was very quiet about all this until somebody else
>> suggested that people sharing a network router had the same IP. Of
>> course, those wireless routers have a very small range, and shook
>> admitted that he'd gone out and checked eight other people in his
>> neighborhood looking for people that "sport" the same IP as him.
>> Milt claimed to have found four.
>
>Yup. They don't have that "small" of a range.
Yes they do...
>> <LOL> It's not enough that Milt is a liar, he's also so stupid that
>> he get's caught at it all the time.
>
>And yet I kick your ass every time I'm here. How "stupid" does that
>make you?
<LOL> Milt is probably stupid enough to believe that too... I'll
let the lurkers decide for themselves...
>> >> >> A dial-up account's IP changes everytime you log on, and even a
>> >> >> broadband's IP will change periodically, and, of course, internet
>> >> >> service providers will not divulge names anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I moved
>> >> >into a house.
>> >>
>> >> <LOL> Bullshit! You're still a moron.
>> >
>> >You just keep thinking there, butch...
>>
>> Keeerist, Milt, there is a record of your IP addresses, you know. I
>> always keep wondering how stupid Milt has to be to continually write
>> things that are so easily proven to be lies.
>
>Actually, I have to retract that. I've had TWO IP numbers in five
>years. It changed when Comcast changed to several levels of broadband
>service back in 2003.
You're totally full of bullshit. Apparently, you don't even know that
you have several IP's scattered around usenet.... You probably still
don't know what an IP is... <LOL> You actually claimed that there
were four people with the same IP as you....
...and I keep telling you that you're really too stupid to be using
the internet at all, Milt.
yep, I sure think I'm smart enough to show what a fool you are....
So what happened to your undisputable proof that I was pretending to
be the woman you were trying to romance on the internet? <LOL> You
going to keep it secret?
Did it go the same place that you claim that you could find open ports
by pinging?
...and how come you snipped out your claim about of being able to
outrun buckshot?
"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I
have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me,
it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net
Hey, Milt, I got a long, long list of your stupid claims....
how about this series?
*****************************************************************
"And I have never been wrong in predicting an
election in my lifetime."
--Milt Shook Dec 23 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0312230621.4eae5f2b%40posting.google.com
"But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next year."
--Milt Shook 1999/09/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in time.
face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough to
win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they won't
vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to the right
wing, he loses the Dems."
--Milt Shook Aug 15 1999
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
--Milt Shook Sep 10 2000
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=x4Vu5.1826%24%25p2.89198%40newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net
****************************************************************************
How stupid do you have to be to say you've never been wrong when there
are several posts out there showing you to be wrong?
>> >As for the second part, um, the 14th Amendment applied
>> >most of the Bill of Rights to the states. And just so you know... what
>> >the FUCK do you think the word "ratify" means?
>>
>> <LOL> That state governments are bound by the Constitution does not
>> make it state law, you moron, any more than you being bound by
>> speeding laws makes them Milt's law.
>
>Oh, my God! You are certifiable.
Keep peddlling Milt....
We have to remember that Milt shook put himself into hock to go back
to college and what did he get a degree in? <LOL> Political
Science.. totally worthless... so now he works out of a cubicle
running errands for a law firm...
And even working for a law firm, he makes incredibly stupid claims
like below:
"The Bill of Rights not only protects you from government excess, but
also requires the government to protect you from people who would
violate your rights under them."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/215df19b874340ec
You're a hoot, Milt. Come back when you need another spanking.
stupendo...@yahoo.com
nevermore wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 06:36:36 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
...
> >> >2. We didn't give ourselves that moniker. It was given to us by the
> >> >infamous idiot, Brett Kottman, one of the pioneers of Usenet right wing
> >> >drivel, and a guy Al Franken tore apart in his book about Lying Liars.
> >> >We still wear it proudly...
lol
The only thing Al Franken has ever done concerning me is lie.
My challenge to him has been out there 24x7 and he has ignored it, just
like he never contacted me before he decided that his being stupid made
me a liar.
He's an awful lot like you Milt!
> >>
> >>
> >> Hated by Milt_the_moron_Shook *and* Al Franken. What an honor....
> >> That guy must have been quite a guy.
Indeed. ;)
Reality Hammer:
Because you are too smart to be a liberal
And too honest to be a Democrat
http://www.presidentreagan.info/discussion/
http://reality-hammer.livejournal.com/
2513 Dead
>
>nevermore wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2006 06:36:36 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>...
>> >> >2. We didn't give ourselves that moniker. It was given to us by the
>> >> >infamous idiot, Brett Kottman, one of the pioneers of Usenet right wing
>> >> >drivel, and a guy Al Franken tore apart in his book about Lying Liars.
>> >> >We still wear it proudly...
>
>lol
>
>The only thing Al Franken has ever done concerning me is lie.
>
>My challenge to him has been out there 24x7 and he has ignored it, just
>like he never contacted me before he decided that his being stupid made
>me a liar.
>
>He's an awful lot like you Milt!
Say, Brett, why don't you contact Bill O'Reilly and see if he'll
interview you.
Then Franken would pretty much HAVE to have you on his show...
milt....@gmail.com
stupendo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> nevermore wrote:
> > On 1 Jun 2006 06:36:36 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> ...
> > >> >2. We didn't give ourselves that moniker. It was given to us by the
> > >> >infamous idiot, Brett Kottman, one of the pioneers of Usenet right wing
> > >> >drivel, and a guy Al Franken tore apart in his book about Lying Liars.
> > >> >We still wear it proudly...
>
> lol
>
> The only thing Al Franken has ever done concerning me is lie.
>
> My challenge to him has been out there 24x7 and he has ignored it, just
> like he never contacted me before he decided that his being stupid made
> me a liar.
>
> He's an awful lot like you Milt!
>
Brett, you human codpiece...
If anything he had said was actually a lie, you would have been in
court in five minutes. The problem is, he not only outed you as a
bullshitter, he fucking PROVED it. And you know it, and coming on here
and calling him a liar and ignoring a challenge from you that he
already met doesn't make you any smarter.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hated by Milt_the_moron_Shook *and* Al Franken. What an honor....
> > >> That guy must have been quite a guy.
>
> Indeed. ;)
Yeah, a liar and a homo for Reagan... what a guy...
milt....@gmail.com
2513 Dead wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2006 11:43:48 -0700, stupendo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >nevermore wrote:
> >> On 1 Jun 2006 06:36:36 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >...
> >> >> >2. We didn't give ourselves that moniker. It was given to us by the
> >> >> >infamous idiot, Brett Kottman, one of the pioneers of Usenet right wing
> >> >> >drivel, and a guy Al Franken tore apart in his book about Lying Liars.
> >> >> >We still wear it proudly...
> >
> >lol
> >
> >The only thing Al Franken has ever done concerning me is lie.
> >
> >My challenge to him has been out there 24x7 and he has ignored it, just
> >like he never contacted me before he decided that his being stupid made
> >me a liar.
> >
> >He's an awful lot like you Milt!
>
> Say, Brett, why don't you contact Bill O'Reilly and see if he'll
> interview you.
>
> Then Franken would pretty much HAVE to have you on his show...
I doubt Kottman would have the guts to be taken apart in front of
millions on national radio.
2526 Dead
Guts, no. Stupidity, yes.
Al's got a birthday coming up. I thought I would give him a present.
nevermore
milt....@gmail.com
Yes, jagoff... based on arbitron figures, Franken's audience on the
radio is somewhere around 2 million. Streaming and satellite radio
would about double that number.
Yes, that means more people listen to Franken than watch O'Reilly's
television show. And Franken is kicking O'Reilly's ass in many of the
markets where they are head to head. Liberal talk is here to stay,
because at least four programs have been putting up pretty phenomenal
numbers in a medium where the format was considered a failure just 2
years ago.
Put another way, when Limbaugh's show was two years old, they were
still giving it away for free, and their largest advertiser seemed to
be Hooked on Phonics. (Tell me they don't know their audience!), and
that was with no competition. Now, with tons of competition, Franken's
show, as well as the Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes
shows are boasting pretty decent numbers and a higher level of
advertiser. Air America's new morning show is also doing pretty well,
although it's still kind of new to figure out if it will work or not.
They're not number one, by any means, but they beat the pants off of
most of the right wing squawkers, like Medved, Bennett, Parshall et.
al.
Honestly, the only wingnut radio shows with truly spectacular numbers
are Limbaugh's and Hannity's. The drop-off after Hannity is huge, and
Schultz and Franken are damn close to being in the thick of it.
We can add radio to the unending list of shit about which you know
nothing, I guess...
2523 Dead
All of which reminds me; I must listen to Randi Rhodes today. Rush
and Viagra. She should have a field day with that.
I guess you heard that Faux's prime-time lineup has dropped 22% in the
30-55 demographic. In just six months.
That's a catastrophic drop.