OT---How the mayor...
Jim Polaski
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Snit
jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/13/06 10:34 AM:
> of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
>
> http://www.pcweenies.org/
Better yet:
"I cannot prove that 2+2=4" - Snit
"You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
100% doubt ... And THAT, my friend... is what a refutation feels
like" - Steve Carroll
[Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
else, but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
stupid his "reasoning" is.]
and
> If A = B then B = A.
> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
- Steve Carroll
[In this Steve was directly arguing against the property of
equality/synonymy: <http://snipurl.com/kpfc>]
Math and logic skills in the US could sure use some improvement if Steve
Carroll is any indication of how people are!
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
> jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/13/06 10:34 AM:
>
> > of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >
> > http://www.pcweenies.org/
>
> Better yet:
>
> "I cannot prove that 2+2=4" - Snit
You're also the guy who stated:
"I cannot prove beyond all certainty that the chair I sit on exists"
What's your point? That you mix medications to a detrimental effect?
Trust me, I seriously doubt anyone has missed this.
> "You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> 100% doubt ... And THAT, my friend... is what a refutation feels
> like" - Steve Carroll
>
> [Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
> else,
Yeah... in regards to law. Of course, sane people recognize that law and
math can part in some pretty drastic ways where the concept of 'proof'
is concerned... which says a lot about you and the position you are
continuing to take. In a legal context, when there is *no* proof, that
would create doubt in the mind of a sane person... which is why you have
no doubt of Bush's guilt, despite claiming your evidence proved nothing;)
> but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
> stupid his "reasoning" is.]
Actually, all it shows is that you are unable to comprehend the concept
of context... something you prove regularly on this ng. That you just
*admitted* I was addressing one context (law), while you thrust my
"logic" into another context (math), makes you appear to be the one that
is "stupid" here.
> and
>
> > If A = B then B = A.
> > If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
> - Steve Carroll
>
> [In this Steve was directly arguing against the property of
> equality/synonymy: <http://snipurl.com/kpfc>]
Not quite... I was arguing against you trying to draw another math
parallel like you just did above. Fact: There is more than one
definition of the word 'synonymous'... because of this, that you felt
compelled to subsequently point me to one of your choosing undermines
your claim here about what I was arguing against. See how "stupid" you
are YET;)
> Math and logic skills in the US could sure use some improvement if Steve
> Carroll is any indication of how people are!
Csma has been waiting for over 2 years now, Snit... feel free to explain
what math has to do with a guilt allegation and reasonable doubt at any
time;)
Better yet, explain this... Snit wrote:
"Bush is guilty of breaking the law."
Regarding the evidence Snit attempted to prove this argument with, Snit
wrote:
""Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
a logical sense, proof."
Problem time for Snit: In the U.S., the success of a guilt allegation
doesn't rest on the *opinion* of someone claiming his evidence offers
"strong support" for the allegation... and it's particularly problematic
when that *opinion* is accompanied by an admission that the evidence in
question "does not offer proof".
Snit... doesn't the smell get to you by now? Don't you think 2 years is
long enough for your head to be buried up your ass?
--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
Jim Polaski
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
> jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/13/06 10:34 AM:
>
> > of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >
> > http://www.pcweenies.org/
>
> Better yet:
>
> "I cannot prove that 2+2=4" - Snit
>
> "You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> 100% doubt ... And THAT, my friend... is what a refutation feels
> like" - Steve Carroll
>
> [Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
> else, but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
> stupid his "reasoning" is.]
>
> and
>
> > If A = B then B = A.
> > If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
> - Steve Carroll
>
> [In this Steve was directly arguing against the property of
> equality/synonymy: <http://snipurl.com/kpfc>]
>
> Math and logic skills in the US could sure use some improvement if Steve
> Carroll is any indication of how people are!
Thanks for starting a three-ring circus act where it wasn't indicated.
Snit
noone-457197....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/13/06 12:24 PM:
> In article <BFED3859.415AF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
>> jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/13/06 10:34 AM:
>>
>>> of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
>>>
>>> http://www.pcweenies.org/
>>
>> Better yet:
>>
>> "I cannot prove that 2+2=4" - Snit
>
> You're also the guy who stated:
>
> "I cannot prove beyond all certainty that the chair I sit on exists"
>
> What's your point? That you mix medications to a detrimental effect?
> Trust me, I seriously doubt anyone has missed this.
Ok, Steve, prove that the chair you are sitting on exists - absolute proof
with *no* room for logical disproof. Ever heard of the "brain in a vat"
thought experiment? Feel free to argue against it all you like.
Do you *ever* say anything that you have actually thought about?
>
>> "You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
>> 100% doubt ... And THAT, my friend... is what a refutation feels
>> like" - Steve Carroll
>>
>> [Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
>> else,
>
> Yeah... in regards to law. Of course, sane people recognize that law and
> math can part in some pretty drastic ways where the concept of 'proof'
> is concerned... which says a lot about you and the position you are
> continuing to take. In a legal context, when there is *no* proof, that
> would create doubt in the mind of a sane person... which is why you have
> no doubt of Bush's guilt, despite claiming your evidence proved nothing;)
Steve, even in law there is no demand for absolute proof. Ever heard of the
concept of "reasonable doubt"? LOL! Again, Steve, do you *ever* think
about what you are saying? Ever?
>
>> but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
>> stupid his "reasoning" is.]
>
> Actually, all it shows is that you are unable to comprehend the concept
> of context... something you prove regularly on this ng. That you just
> *admitted* I was addressing one context (law), while you thrust my
> "logic" into another context (math), makes you appear to be the one that
> is "stupid" here.
Steve, while not all cases are solved in a logical way, the concept of logic
does not cease to apply when you talk about the law. Just imagine if you
were a lawyer: you would argue that while logically your client has been
shown to be guilty this is a legal context so the jury should ignore the
facts. You would be laughed out of court and disbarred very, very quickly.
Once again, do you *ever* think about what you are saying? Your inability
to make a coherent point is rather tiring.
>
>> and
>>
>>> If A = B then B = A.
>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>> Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
>> - Steve Carroll
>>
>> [In this Steve was directly arguing against the property of
>> equality/synonymy: <http://snipurl.com/kpfc>]
>
> Not quite... I was arguing against you trying to draw another math
> parallel like you just did above. Fact: There is more than one
> definition of the word 'synonymous'... because of this, that you felt
> compelled to subsequently point me to one of your choosing undermines
> your claim here about what I was arguing against. See how "stupid" you
> are YET;)
Look up, Steve. Remember how you like to talk about context? You know, the
think you so often miss. Look at the context of my use of the word
"synonymous". Nobody has argued against your straw man position that the
word "synonymous" has more than one meaning, but you spew that BS to
obfuscate the context (or, perhaps, because you really cannot follow the
context). Please, Steve, stop embarrassing yourself with your complete lack
of ability to make a coherent point.
>
>> Math and logic skills in the US could sure use some improvement if Steve
>> Carroll is any indication of how people are!
>
> Csma has been waiting for over 2 years now, Snit... feel free to explain
> what math has to do with a guilt allegation and reasonable doubt at any
> time;)
>
> Better yet, explain this... Snit wrote:
>
> "Bush is guilty of breaking the law."
>
> Regarding the evidence Snit attempted to prove this argument with, Snit
> wrote:
>
> ""Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
> a logical sense, proof."
>
> Problem time for Snit: In the U.S., the success of a guilt allegation
> doesn't rest on the *opinion* of someone claiming his evidence offers
> "strong support" for the allegation... and it's particularly problematic
> when that *opinion* is accompanied by an admission that the evidence in
> question "does not offer proof".
>
> Snit... doesn't the smell get to you by now? Don't you think 2 years is
> long enough for your head to be buried up your ass?
Please, Steve, please read the info on this link and at least *try* to
understand it: <http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html>.
There is nothing wrong with looking at the facts and concluding that someone
has broken a law. Nothing, Steve, though this concept also goes way over
your head.
Not only are your math skills extremely weak, your repeated inability to
understand such simple concepts shows your reading comprehension skills are
all but nonexistent!
So, Steve, how will you respond:
A) Snip and run
B) Obfuscate with tons of off topic BS
C) Calling me names and spewing baseless accusations
D) All of the above
Really, Steve, do you have any other tricks up your sleeves these days? If
that is all you do - and it likely will - do not expect any other response
than my laughing at you and pointing out which of the trolling methods you
use. In other words, Steve, if you want to achieve your ever-present goal
of getting my attention you will *have* to be more creative than that.
Snit
Steve, as was easily predictable, responded with a bunch of BS. I gave him
*one* response. Unless his trolling is more creative than his recent norm
he will not get much more from me in this sub-thread.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
>
>http://www.pcweenies.org/
Everyonre's figured out that you're an immature loser, jimmiejimbob
the liar. There's no need to drive the point home.
--
"The next time you hear an alarming speech about
"global warming" on Earth Day, just remember that the
first Earth Day featured alarms about the danger of a
new ice age."
Thomas Sowell
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-457197....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/13/06 12:24 PM:
>
> > In article <BFED3859.415AF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
> >> jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/13/06 10:34
> >> AM:
> >>
> >>> of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.pcweenies.org/
> >>
> >> Better yet:
> >>
> >> "I cannot prove that 2+2=4" - Snit
> >
> > You're also the guy who stated:
> >
> > "I cannot prove beyond all certainty that the chair I sit on exists"
> >
> > What's your point? That you mix medications to a detrimental effect?
> > Trust me, I seriously doubt anyone has missed this.
>
> Ok, Steve, prove that the chair you are sitting on exists
OK... hold on. Yup... it's there alright. OK... I've proven it for
*me*. See your problem here YET, Mr. moron?
> - absolute proof
> with *no* room for logical disproof. Ever heard of the "brain in a vat"
> thought experiment?
LOL! You've GOT to be shitting me? Ever heard of the tube and a bag glue
experiment? I think you'd better cap off now;)
> Feel free to argue against it all you like.
>
> Do you *ever* say anything that you have actually thought about?
That you can't prove to yourself that the chair you are sitting on
exists surprises no one.
> >> "You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> >> 100% doubt ... And THAT, my friend... is what a refutation feels
> >> like" - Steve Carroll
> >>
> >> [Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
> >> else,
> >
> > Yeah... in regards to law. Of course, sane people recognize that law and
> > math can part in some pretty drastic ways where the concept of 'proof'
> > is concerned... which says a lot about you and the position you are
> > continuing to take. In a legal context, when there is *no* proof, that
> > would create doubt in the mind of a sane person... which is why you have
> > no doubt of Bush's guilt, despite claiming your evidence proved nothing;)
>
> Steve, even in law there is no demand for absolute proof.
Irrelevant... which is why you are bringing it up. In law there is a
demand for a certain level of proof. Admitting one has NO proof doesn't
meet the criteria.
> Ever heard of the
> concept of "reasonable doubt"? LOL! Again, Steve, do you *ever* think
> about what you are saying? Ever?
You admitted you had NO proof, Snit... this FAR surpasses the criteria
required for a reasonable doubt to exist in the mind of a sane person.
> >> but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
> >> stupid his "reasoning" is.]
> >
> > Actually, all it shows is that you are unable to comprehend the concept
> > of context... something you prove regularly on this ng. That you just
> > *admitted* I was addressing one context (law), while you thrust my
> > "logic" into another context (math), makes you appear to be the one that
> > is "stupid" here.
>
> Steve, while not all cases are solved in a logical way, the concept of logic
> does not cease to apply when you talk about the law. Just imagine if you
> were a lawyer: you would argue that while logically your client has been
> shown to be guilty this is a legal context so the jury should ignore the
> facts. You would be laughed out of court and disbarred very, very quickly.
> Once again, do you *ever* think about what you are saying? Your inability
> to make a coherent point is rather tiring.
What has this inane, irrelevant drivel have to do with the fact that you
just admitted you had trouble mixing contexts?
> >> and
> >>
> >>> If A = B then B = A.
> >>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> >> Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
> >> - Steve Carroll
> >>
> >> [In this Steve was directly arguing against the property of
> >> equality/synonymy: <http://snipurl.com/kpfc>]
> >
> > Not quite... I was arguing against you trying to draw another math
> > parallel like you just did above. Fact: There is more than one
> > definition of the word 'synonymous'... because of this, that you felt
> > compelled to subsequently point me to one of your choosing undermines
> > your claim here about what I was arguing against. See how "stupid" you
> > are YET;)
>
> Look up, Steve. Remember how you like to talk about context? You know, the
> think you so often miss. Look at the context of my use of the word
> "synonymous". Nobody has argued against your straw man position that the
> word "synonymous" has more than one meaning,
No? Then why do you point to a reference where you are showing me one of
them? See how stupid you are yet;)
> but you spew that BS to
> obfuscate the context (or, perhaps, because you really cannot follow the
> context). Please, Steve, stop embarrassing yourself with your complete lack
> of ability to make a coherent point.
I made the point. You DO know what "subsequently" means, right?
> >> Math and logic skills in the US could sure use some improvement if Steve
> >> Carroll is any indication of how people are!
> >
> > Csma has been waiting for over 2 years now, Snit... feel free to explain
> > what math has to do with a guilt allegation and reasonable doubt at any
> > time;)
> >
> > Better yet, explain this... Snit wrote:
> >
> > "Bush is guilty of breaking the law."
> >
> > Regarding the evidence Snit attempted to prove this argument with, Snit
> > wrote:
> >
> > ""Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> > series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> > necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> > to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
> > a logical sense, proof."
> >
> > Problem time for Snit: In the U.S., the success of a guilt allegation
> > doesn't rest on the *opinion* of someone claiming his evidence offers
> > "strong support" for the allegation... and it's particularly problematic
> > when that *opinion* is accompanied by an admission that the evidence in
> > question "does not offer proof".
> >
> > Snit... doesn't the smell get to you by now? Don't you think 2 years is
> > long enough for your head to be buried up your ass?
>
> Please, Steve, please read the info on this link and at least *try* to
> understand it: <http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html>.
I read it. It changes nothing... don't know why you would think it does.
> There is nothing wrong with looking at the facts and concluding that someone
> has broken a law. Nothing, Steve, though this concept also goes way over
> your head.
As I've said from day one, I already understand that what you were doing
was *opining*, Snit. I also understand that your *opinion* was based on
evidence even YOU claimed didn't prove a single thing. You are free to
hold any *opinion* you wish... but it's silly for you to claim that your
*opinions* are based on reason and logic when you are tacitly admitting
they are based on politicizing, bias and hatred.
> Not only are your math skills extremely weak, your repeated inability to
> understand such simple concepts shows your reading comprehension skills are
> all but nonexistent!
You are entitled to your *opinions*... but seeing as how you arrive at
them, don't expect other folks to give them much credence.
> So, Steve, how will you respond:
> A) Snip and run
> B) Obfuscate with tons of off topic BS
> C) Calling me names and spewing baseless accusations
> D) All of the above
>
> Really, Steve, do you have any other tricks up your sleeves these days? If
> that is all you do - and it likely will - do not expect any other response
> than my laughing at you and pointing out which of the trolling methods you
> use. In other words, Steve, if you want to achieve your ever-present goal
> of getting my attention you will *have* to be more creative than that.
No tricks required... just reality you keep running from.
Snit
LOL! Here is the funny part: you *really* believe that. Just as a recap,
here are the concepts you miss:
1) One can absolutely lack the type of proof required in mathematics
and still have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The word "proof"
is being used in different ways. (You repeatedly mix contexts and
play semantic games).
2) If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
3) One cannot prove with absolute certainty that the chair they sit
on exists. This is explained more fully in the "brain in a vat"
thought experiment.
These are all easy concepts and they all go over your head. Don't worry,
Steve, your girlfriend can explain them to you. She is an emotional preteen
with severe psychological problems, but at least she is not as stupid as you
are.
Jim Lee Jr.
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:34:25 -0600, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >
> >http://www.pcweenies.org/
>
> Everyonre's figured out that you're an immature loser, jimmiejimbob
> the liar. There's no need to drive the point home.
Then why did you reply to Jim's post?
--
Microsoft and Windoze: The combination that made computing dangerous.
Apple and OS X: The combination that made computing insanely great.
"VISTA" an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
Intrusions, Spyware, Trojans and Adware.
As long as the OS was from Apple and not MS I wouldn't care
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Feel free to show where I 'missed' it. Was it here?
" Of course, sane people recognize that law and math can part in some
pretty drastic ways where the concept of 'proof' is concerned."
LOL!
> The word "proof"
> is being used in different ways. (You repeatedly mix contexts and
> play semantic games).
Uh... gluehead? You are the one mixing contexts. Above, you just
*admitted* you mixed contexts while applying my "logic". Here it is
again:
-----
[Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
else, but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
stupid his "reasoning" is.]
-----
Tell me, do you ever bother to read any of the stuff you write?
> 2) If A = B then B = A.
> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
Your confusion over this lie is well documented.
> 3) One cannot prove with absolute certainty that the chair they sit
> on exists. This is explained more fully in the "brain in a vat"
> thought experiment.
Maybe that's what the trouble is here, Snit... *your* brain is in a
vat;) Tell me... does the 'vat' have metallic looking walls and a
plastic cap on top? Is there a somewhat fuelish odor in there and
printing on the outside that says Testor's? LOL!
> These are all easy concepts and they all go over your head. Don't worry,
> Steve, your girlfriend can explain them to you. She is an emotional preteen
> with severe psychological problems, but at least she is not as stupid as you
> are.
This is all you have left;)
Mayor of R'lyeh
<peejs...@insightbb.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>In article <cg2gs1tb1dm56jd6o...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:34:25 -0600, Jim Polaski
>> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
>> >
>> >http://www.pcweenies.org/
>>
>> Everyonre's figured out that you're an immature loser, jimmiejimbob
>> the liar. There's no need to drive the point home.
>
>Then why did you reply to Jim's post?
To make you jealous.
Snit
>> LOL! Here is the funny part: you *really* believe that. Just as a recap,
>> here are the concepts you miss:
>>
>> 1) One can absolutely lack the type of proof required in mathematics
>> and still have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
> Feel free to show where I 'missed' it. Was it here?
>
> " Of course, sane people recognize that law and math can part in some
> pretty drastic ways where the concept of 'proof' is concerned."
>
> LOL!
Do you or do you not understand the concept that one can absolutely lack
the type of proof required in mathematics and still have "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt". You have shown no understanding of this in many months
of your silly games.
>
>> The word "proof"
>> is being used in different ways. (You repeatedly mix contexts and
>> play semantic games).
>
> Uh... gluehead? You are the one mixing contexts. Above, you just
> *admitted* you mixed contexts while applying my "logic". Here it is
> again:
>
> -----
> [Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
> else, but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
> stupid his "reasoning" is.]
> -----
>
> Tell me, do you ever bother to read any of the stuff you write?
"I cannot prove that 2+2=4" - Snit
"You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
100% doubt ... And THAT, my friend... is what a refutation feels
like" - Steve Carroll
There is nothing out of context about those quotes: you claimed that my lack
of a mathematical / logical proof was all you needed for your refutation.
Your comment is an ignorant one.
>
>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>
> Your confusion over this lie is well documented.
You *still* do not understand this simple concept. Quite telling. You are
an idiot. :)
>
>> 3) One cannot prove with absolute certainty that the chair they sit
>> on exists. This is explained more fully in the "brain in a vat"
>> thought experiment.
>
> Maybe that's what the trouble is here, Snit... *your* brain is in a
> vat;) Tell me... does the 'vat' have metallic looking walls and a
> plastic cap on top? Is there a somewhat fuelish odor in there and
> printing on the outside that says Testor's? LOL!
Ah, more of your silliness. You *still* cannot prove that the chair you sit
on exists. You *still* have shown you have no understanding of the brain in
a vat thought experiment.
>
>> These are all easy concepts and they all go over your head. Don't worry,
>> Steve, your girlfriend can explain them to you. She is an emotional preteen
>> with severe psychological problems, but at least she is not as stupid as you
>> are.
>
> This is all you have left;)
You can have her. Please! I do not and never have wanted her.
Just as a recap (before you bury things with your BS), here are the concepts
you miss:
1) One can absolutely lack the type of proof required in mathematics
and still have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The word "proof"
is being used in different ways. (You repeatedly mix contexts and
play semantic games).
2) If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
3) One cannot prove with absolute certainty that the chair they sit
on exists. This is explained more fully in the "brain in a vat"
thought experiment.
Can you show you understand *any* of those comments?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
(snip)
> >> In other words, Steve, if you want to achieve your ever-present goal
> >> of getting my attention you will *have* to be more creative than that.
> >
> > No tricks required... just reality you keep running from.
>
> LOL!
It's good that you can laugh at yourself running from reality;)
(Snit's crap snipped)
Jim Polaski
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:34:25 -0600, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >
> >http://www.pcweenies.org/
>
> Everyonre's figured out that you're an immature loser, jimmiejimbob
> the liar. There's no need to drive the point home.
The point that you're the liar here--you've driven that home many, many,
many times.
The cartoon just caught up with you, that's all.
Jim Lee Jr.
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:06:52 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> <peejs...@insightbb.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
> >In article <cg2gs1tb1dm56jd6o...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:34:25 -0600, Jim Polaski
> >> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.pcweenies.org/
> >>
> >> Everyonre's figured out that you're an immature loser, jimmiejimbob
> >> the liar. There's no need to drive the point home.
> >
> >Then why did you reply to Jim's post?
>
> To make you jealous.
Why should I be jealous of you? YOu have nothing to be jealous over.
Mayor of R'lyeh
>In article <0e8gs1t9kalivh8sv...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:06:52 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
>> <peejs...@insightbb.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <cg2gs1tb1dm56jd6o...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:34:25 -0600, Jim Polaski
>> >> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.pcweenies.org/
>> >>
>> >> Everyonre's figured out that you're an immature loser, jimmiejimbob
>> >> the liar. There's no need to drive the point home.
>> >
>> >Then why did you reply to Jim's post?
>>
>> To make you jealous.
>
>Why should I be jealous of you? YOu have nothing to be jealous over.
You're not fooling anybody.
Tim Smith
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
> of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
More accurate is the "Far Side" where you see the two scientists at the
blackboard, working on equations. There is a dog sitting beside them,
looking up at the board, head tilted to one side a bit, looking a bit
puzzled. One of the scientists is saying:
"Ooooh! Look at that, Schuster... Dogs are so cute when
they try to comprehend quantum mechanics."
--
--Tim Smith
Mayor of R'lyeh
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>In article <jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
LOL! That fits jimmiejimbiob the liar to a 'T'. Even his girlfriend
Joe told him that he didn't know shit from shinola about quantum
mechanics!
Snit
BFED641D.4161B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/13/06 2:05 PM:
> LOL! Here is the funny part: you *really* believe that. Just as a recap,
> here are the concepts you miss:
>
> 1) One can absolutely lack the type of proof required in mathematics
> and still have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The word "proof"
> is being used in different ways. (You repeatedly mix contexts and
> play semantic games).
>
> 2) If A = B then B = A.
> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>
> 3) One cannot prove with absolute certainty that the chair they sit
> on exists. This is explained more fully in the "brain in a vat"
> thought experiment.
>
> These are all easy concepts and they all go over your head. Don't worry,
> Steve, your girlfriend can explain them to you. She is an emotional preteen
> with severe psychological problems, but at least she is not as stupid as you
> are.
How many times did you snip and run from this *today*, Steve? LOL! Too
damned funny. You first tried to BS your way out of the fact that you
cannot understand those simple concepts, and then when your BS game was not
believed you just snip and run - over and over and over and over.
Can you show you understand those three simple concepts? Can you find
anyone who shares your inability to understand those three simple concepts?
Of course you can't. Nobody but you is so stupid as to not be able to
understand those concepts.
Oh, and before you try to spew BS accusations where you claim I do not
understand the concepts I keep explaining to you, be aware that I sold my
cow - I have no use for your bull now. :)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
~big snip
>
> 2) If A = B then B = A.
> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>
Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't been
able to grasp that simple point.
~snip
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
6:29 PM:
>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>
> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
> been able to grasp that simple point.
Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
mean the same thing. That is *your* straw man and not what I have written,
above.
Do you *ever* get anything right? Heck, will you run from this just as you
run from your error about the tilde? What Tim keeps running from:
-----
Daniel Johnson started the thread titled "Dashboard, Malware, and a Theory".
In it he commented on Apple's error in allowing auto-installed widgets to
appear to replace Apple widgets. Macslut responded by asking "how many
brain cells does it take to be able to remove a widget from its folder and
relaunch dashboard (or restart)". I commented, about *those* widgets, the
widgets that are auto-installed, that Apple (at the time) had info on their
web site that stated you could not remove widgets. This made it more a
matter of technical competence than intelligence, being that even an
intelligent person without much technical skill was being deceived by the
maker of the product (ouch!). You responded by talking about the Apple
installed widgets - and were quickly corrected by two people about how you
had changed the topic. You were neither trolled nor flamed for your error.
In fact, my exact wording was:
In case you are actually trying to be helpful and educate those
who do not know that, I will say thanks... but keep in mind that
the comment was not a question about how to remove it, but a
comment about what Apple says about it. Still, some may not have
known the details of how to remove a Widget, so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt
Please note I was kind and considerate in my comments to you. You started
trolling and flaming based on your error, and have not stopped.
Look at the thread titled, "Dashboard, Malware, and a Theory". What I say
is very well supported. If you doubt it and need help finding any given
post just ask and I will provide you with a direct link to the post in
question.
-----
Face it, Tim, you are the one person in CSMA who has gone out of your way to
try to prove you are as stupid as Steve Carroll. And you run from your
mistakes just as he does. Is there any reason to think you are not one of
his many sock puppets?
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
> 6:29 PM:
>
>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>
>> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
>> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
>> been able to grasp that simple point.
>
> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
> mean the same thing. That is *your* straw man and not what I have written,
> above.
Tim! Look at this very clear example of how Snit uses the word
'synonymous'......
Snit wrote...
"I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More often than
not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse was not true. The
experience was certainly not synonymous."
Now ask yourself what terms is he using 'synonymous' in place of? And
compare your results to his statement......
Snit wrote...
"Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
mean the same thing."
As Steve rightly said Snits "...confusion over this lie is well documented."
(I now look forward to snit producing statements *that I have never denied*
concerning concepts that I consider to be synonymous) ROTFL!
--
"I have yet to have any doctor or pshrink make an official diagnisis,
so I get around the whole thing by describing my health problems as
"Probable Polysystemic Dysautonomia" or other equally long and
essentually non-questioable "sysndrome".-Snit
------------
"What do you mean by "psychosomatic complaints"?
Don't be discouraged when you find out that our details differ, but you
could be describing me quite accurately."-Snit
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
LOL! You got Snit right between the eyes with that one! It is amazing
how "slapped around" Snit has been and we're not even halfway through
January;)
> --
> "I have yet to have any doctor or pshrink make an official diagnisis,
> so I get around the whole thing by describing my health problems as
> "Probable Polysystemic Dysautonomia" or other equally long and
> essentually non-questioable "sysndrome".-Snit
> ------------
> "What do you mean by "psychosomatic complaints"?
> Don't be discouraged when you find out that our details differ, but you
> could be describing me quite accurately."-Snit
Those are good... but I think this one tells the story better:
"The weird part is that when I feel anxious, my body stays in
control...when I feel emotionally fine, my body and I start fighting
with one another - as if I am repressing anxiety or as if there is an
internal "anxiety" switch that has two settings: physical and
emotional." - Snit
When Snit is "emotionally fine" he fights with himself... why am I not
surprised?
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
> 6:29 PM:
>
> >> 2) If A = B then B = A.
> >> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> >
> > Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
> > above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
> > been able to grasp that simple point.
>
> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
> mean the same thing. That is *your* straw man and not what I have written,
> above.
Yet you use it as your sole claim that incest isn't synonymous to sex. go figure.
~babbling snipped
--
Tim
Tim Adams
I noticed how fast he tried to change the subject also. poor little deluded fool
snit.
--
Tim
Jim Polaski
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:53:13 GMT, Tim Smith
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
> >In article <jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
> >
> >> of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >
> >More accurate is the "Far Side" where you see the two scientists at the
> >blackboard, working on equations. There is a dog sitting beside them,
> >looking up at the board, head tilted to one side a bit, looking a bit
> >puzzled. One of the scientists is saying:
> >
> > "Ooooh! Look at that, Schuster... Dogs are so cute when
> > they try to comprehend quantum mechanics."
>
> LOL! That fits jimmiejimbiob the liar to a 'T'. Even his girlfriend
> Joe told him that he didn't know shit from shinola about quantum
> mechanics!
Who cares? I l know more QM, chemistry, phyisics and math than you, not
to mention the biggest one, honesty.
Snit
BFEE9119.126A8%wa...@wally.world.net on 1/13/06 8:29 PM:
> On 14/1/06 9:36 AM, in article BFEDA3A3.416EB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
>> 6:29 PM:
>>
>>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>>
>>> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
>>> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
>>> been able to grasp that simple point.
>>
>> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
>> mean the same thing. That is *your* straw man and not what I have written,
>> above.
>
> Tim! Look at this very clear example of how Snit uses the word
> 'synonymous'......
>
> Snit wrote...
> "I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More often than
> not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse was not true. The
> experience was certainly not synonymous."
And it was not. That does not mean the word "synonymous" must mean equal to
(it does not mean that even in the context above!)
I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More
often than not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse
was not true. The experience was certainly not [similar].
While it could mean equals in that context it need not. You really should
learn to read, Wally. If you want to make a point and shove it in my face,
please at least try to make your point one that at least appears valid for a
second or two!
>
> Now ask yourself what terms is he using 'synonymous' in place of? And
> compare your results to his statement......
Let's keep in mind the context which was not the comments about Mac classes:
If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
Please note how you tried to change the context (though in this case your
change *still* would not have worked for you!)
> Snit wrote...
> "Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
> mean the same thing."
And, of course, in that context the words synonymous need not mean the same
thing either.
If A = B then B = A.
If A is similar to B then B is similar to A.
That works, too. You really should work on your reading comprehension. Why
did you even try to claim otherwise? Did you think *anyone* other than
Steve Carroll and Tim Adams would be dumb enough to buy your babbling?
> As Steve rightly said Snits "...confusion over this lie is well documented."
Er? What are you even talking about?
>
> (I now look forward to snit producing statements *that I have never denied*
> concerning concepts that I consider to be synonymous) ROTFL!
Again, what are you babbling about? Never denied what? You are just
babbling about nothing now. Are you *that* desperate.
Likely you are, based on your own comments with the word synonymous that you
humiliated yourself with.
In disagreement with my statement of:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
You stated such things as
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
Your comments are *repulsive*! The two concepts are neither the same nor
nearly the same. While incest is a subset of sex they are certainly not
synonymous. For you to argue, as you repeatedly did, that they are
synonymous is simply gross!
You have been in deep denial over your comments and have been spewing lie
after lie after lie. I have corrected your lies over and over and over. Do
not expect me to keep playing the same game forever!
This is discussed in more detail here: <http://snipurl.com/lk8q>,
<http://snipurl.com/lk8p>, <http://snipurl.com/jzhj>, and many other posts.
Do not pretend like this is the first time your ignorant BS has been pointed
out to you!
Mayor of R'lyeh
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
LOL! Given your track record and how the people like you I've meant in
real life are I'd say its dubious that you know anything about
anything except how to flap your gums.. And you're of the most
dishonest, hateful people I've ever come across.
Snit
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
> 6:29 PM:
>
>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>
>> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
>> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
>> been able to grasp that simple point.
>
> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
> mean the same thing.
Tim responded to the above, stating:
Yet you use it as your sole claim that incest isn't synonymous to sex.
go figure.
No, Tim. That was not my claim. Sex and incest are not synonymous. They
are neither the same nor nearly the same. While incest is a subset of sex,
the two concepts are very different.
Leave it to you to miss this *simple* point after it was explained to very,
very clearly: <http://snipurl.com/lk8v> "You see, Tim, I am the one saying
the word means two things are the same or nearly so - which would mean that
if one thing is synonymous with the other than the relationship works both
ways."
No matter how many repulsive claims you, Elizabot, Steve and Wally make, you
cannot make the two concepts become synonymous! At least now we know what
holds your little band of repulsive perverts together; you all think the two
concepts are synonymous. How unbelievably repulsive your little group is!
> That is *your* straw man and not what I have written, above.
Will you at least *try* to support your claim that this was anything other
than your straw man. I doubt it. Look below for another example of where
you run from the Google record and spew straw men attacks.
You ran from all of that. You will *always* run from it because it is true,
and the truth offends you. You will claim it is not relevant, but it shows
a pattern of your behavior: just as you were an ignorant sod when it comes
to the tilde you are just as ignorant in the above conversation about
synonymous words. Your ignorance is something that you are ashamed of and
you snip and run from it *every* time. I suggest you stop showing it off
and then I will not be able to point it out. Deal?
Wally
noone-F92A5B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Steve Carroll"
<no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
I would enjoy hearing his argument as to who won! ........and why! LOL!
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BFEE9119.126A8%wa...@wally.world.net on 1/13/06 8:29 PM:
>
>> On 14/1/06 9:36 AM, in article BFEDA3A3.416EB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>>> teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
>>> 6:29 PM:
>>>
>>>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>>>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>>>
>>>> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
>>>> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
>>>> been able to grasp that simple point.
>>>
>>> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
>>> mean the same thing. That is *your* straw man and not what I have written,
>>> above.
>>
>> Tim! Look at this very clear example of how Snit uses the word
>> 'synonymous'......
>>
>> Snit wrote...
>> "I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More often than
>> not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse was not true. The
>> experience was certainly not synonymous."
>
> And it was not.
Was not what? Synonymous?, of course not as it makes no sense used in that
way! A clear example? Or the truth? It certainly is a clear example, well as
clear as anything gets when you are involved!, as to it being the truth, as
with most of your statements most people are beyond caring.
> That does not mean the word "synonymous" must mean equal to
Nobody has suggested that it *must* mean equal have they Snit?
Nobody except you of course.........
Snit wrote...
http://tinyurl.com/dgm9n
"Sometimes your lie and claim that the synonymous terms we are talking about
are not *really* synonymous (equal) and that the order they are listed
matters...."
Notice who added the bracketed qualifier Snit, why did you do that it
certainly wasnšt necessary? You did it for one reason only, you wanted to
specify how YOU were defining synonymous!..."equal" ROTFLMAO!
You made the same mistake then as you did when you wrote....
"I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More often than
not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse was not true. The
experience was certainly not synonymous."
You should stick to having battles within yourself Snit, at least then you
have half a chance. LOL
> (it does not mean that even in the context above!)
Does not mean what Snit? Where have I stated what it does mean?
Are you now able to interpret something that isn't there?....impressive!
> I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More
> often than not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse
> was not true. The experience was certainly not [similar].
Hahahhhahahahahahahah...and I mean that most sincerely! ;=)
> While it could mean equals in that context it need not.
In that context it certainly does mean equal!
.
"...the reverse was not true." adds a specific that nullifies any thought of
you meaning similar!
> You really should learn to read, Wally.
You still think that the problem is reading Snit? That isn't it, the problem
is you not *understanding* what you read and write!
<snip>
Jim Polaski
You've "meant" folks in real life? WTF is that? Coming from you almost
anything's possible. Regardless if I were you, I wouldn't be talking
about dishonest, hateful people since honesty isn't your strong suit as
the folks here know. You can prattle all you want little man, but you
don't measure up in the honesty department. Oh, and btw, don't forget
about annoying folks and your alias, it could get you in trouble.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
> BFEDA3A3.416EB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/13/06 6:36 PM:
>
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
> > 6:29 PM:
> >
> >>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
> >>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> >>
> >> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
> >> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
> >> been able to grasp that simple point.
> >
> > Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
> > mean the same thing.
>
> Tim responded to the above, stating:
>
> Yet you use it as your sole claim that incest isn't synonymous to sex.
> go figure.
>
> No, Tim. That was not my claim. Sex and incest are not synonymous.
Yet incest IS synonymous with sex. Proving your claim above to be totally WRONG.
Still!
>
> They are neither the same nor nearly the same.
Says you. All of the references books I've looked at state otherwise. Seems your
reading problem is working overtime on this one. Please note the words sexual
activity in both definitions below - added so you might get a clue.
incest n
sexual activity between two people who are considered, for moral and genetic
reasons, too closely related to have such a relationship.
sex n
1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and
plants
2. sexual intercourse
3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
4. the genitals (literary)
5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of an
animal or plant is male or female
~more babbling snipped.
--
Tim
Tim Adams
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
Well if the 'brain damaged' posts we see here are any indication - snit lost. :)
>
> --
> "With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
--
Tim
Snit
And how does Wally respond? By mixing contexts and then snipping and
running. It gets boring, Wally. Face it, you made an ass of yourself
*again*. Don't worry, Steve Carroll and Tim Adams will be right there to
offer moral support for you... they understand what it is like to be so
humiliated by making stupid comments and having to run away.
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-93A749.10...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <BFEDD148.41734%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
> > BFEDA3A3.416EB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/13/06 6:36 PM:
> >
> > > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> > > teadams$2$0$0$3-C645F6.20...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/13/06
> > > 6:29 PM:
> > >
> > >>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
> > >>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> > >>
> > >> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal
> > >> (see
> > >> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still
> > >> haven't
> > >> been able to grasp that simple point.
> > >
> > > Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
> > > mean the same thing.
> >
> > Tim responded to the above, stating:
> >
> > Yet you use it as your sole claim that incest isn't synonymous to sex.
> > go figure.
> >
> > No, Tim. That was not my claim. Sex and incest are not synonymous.
>
> Yet incest IS synonymous with sex. Proving your claim above to be totally
> WRONG.
> Still!
>
What's most comical here is that the original reference to this was by
Snit... when he was disingenuously stuffing text into Ebot's keyboard.
IOW, the whole thing started with one of his lies... of course, this
doesn't in no way distinguishes it from the rest of what he writes;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
(snip)
> How many times did
... you post your obsessive lists while ignoring the reality I've been
banging you over the head with? Too many.
Snit
8:04 AM:
>>>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>>>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>>>
>>>> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal (see
>>>> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still haven't
>>>> been able to grasp that simple point.
>>>
>>> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
>>> mean the same thing.
>>
>> Tim responded to the above, stating:
>>
>> Yet you use it as your sole claim that incest isn't synonymous to sex.
>> go figure.
>>
>> No, Tim. That was not my claim. Sex and incest are not synonymous.
Please note, Tim, you never did admit to your inability to understand my
argument. You never apologized for pushing your straw man and you snipped
the info where I quoted old material proving you 100% wrong. Why do you run
so much? The sad thing is you run from that, but then *still* spew your
views that place you morally equal to NAMBLA members... look below!
>
> Yet incest IS synonymous with sex. Proving your claim above to be totally
> WRONG.
> Still!
Feel free to argue for your perversions all you want. No matter repulsive
your claim, though, you will *never* make the two concepts become
synonymous. You just can't do it, Tim. But it is fun to watch you admit to
your perverse view. Your shared perversions is what holds you, Steve
Carroll, Elizabeth, and Wally together. You all think the two concepts are
synonymous, which is, clearly, perverse!
>>
>> They are neither the same nor nearly the same.
>
> Says you. All of the references books I've looked at state otherwise. Seems
> your reading problem is working overtime on this one. Please note the words
> sexual activity in both definitions below - added so you might get a clue.
>
> incest n
> sexual activity between two people who are considered, for moral and genetic
> reasons, too closely related to have such a relationship.
>
> sex n
> 1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and
> plants
> 2. sexual intercourse
> 3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
> 4. the genitals (literary)
> 5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of
> an
> animal or plant is male or female
>
> ~more babbling snipped.
LOL! Keep arguing for why you think the two concepts are synonymous! See
if you can get *anyone* other than your sick little buddies to agree. Your
views place you at the same level as NAMBLA members.
Please note, Tim, I have no need to snip a word of your BS to show how
perverse you are. Look at how much you run from with your snipping. It is
a sign that even you, at some level, realize how grotesque your NAMBLA-like
views are.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
(snip a whole bunch of Snit's silliness)
> Face it, you made an ass of yourself*again*. Don't worry,
> Steve Carroll and Tim Adams will be right there
Sure we will... but only so you can claim to be psychic again while
showing who the real ass is here *again* (that'd be you). LOL!
Snit
noone-70E9CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:25 AM:
> In article <BFEE6F0C.417B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> (snip a whole bunch of Snit's silliness)
>
>> Face it, you made an ass of yourself*again*. Don't worry,
>> Steve Carroll and Tim Adams will be right there
>
> Sure we will... but only so you can claim to be psychic again while
> showing who the real ass is here *again* (that'd be you). LOL!
I do not care, Steve, what you guys discuss in your NAMBLA-like meetings.
Please hold them in private!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-70E9CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:25 AM:
>
> > In article <BFEE6F0C.417B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > (snip a whole bunch of Snit's silliness)
> >
> >> Face it, you made an ass of yourself*again*. Don't worry,
> >> Steve Carroll and Tim Adams will be right there
> >
> > Sure we will... but only so you can claim to be psychic again while
> > showing who the real ass is here *again* (that'd be you). LOL!
>
> I do not care, Steve, what you guys
... confront you with in the way of realities you'll deny? Yes, we know.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-93A749.10...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/14/06
> 8:04 AM:
>
> >>>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
> >>>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal
> >>>> (see
> >>>> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still
> >>>> haven't
> >>>> been able to grasp that simple point.
> >>>
> >>> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
> >>> mean the same thing.
> >>
> >> Tim responded to the above, stating:
> >>
> >> Yet you use it as your sole claim that incest isn't synonymous to sex.
> >> go figure.
> >>
> >> No, Tim. That was not my claim. Sex and incest are not synonymous.
<sarcasm on>
Of course not which is why you keep adding it to your many posts.
<sarcasm off>
>
> Please note, Tim, you never did admit to your inability to understand my
> argument.
Your argument was clearly debunked below IF you had bothered to READ and had the
ability to comprehend what you did read.
> You never apologized for pushing your straw man and you snipped
> the info where I quoted old material proving you 100% wrong. Why do you run
> so much? The sad thing is you run from that, but then *still* spew your
> views that place you morally equal to NAMBLA members... look below!
> >
> > Yet incest IS synonymous with sex. Proving your claim above to be totally
> > WRONG.
> > Still!
>
> Feel free to argue for your perversions all you want.
Not a perversion - simply an understanding of the english language - something
you clearly lack.
Once again your total understand of what has been written shows up.
I've NOT stated that the two concepts are synonymous. Incest IS synonymous with
sex. Sex IS NOT synonymous with incest.
> See
> if you can get *anyone* other than your sick little buddies to agree. Your
> views place you at the same level as NAMBLA members.
>
> Please note, Tim, I have no need to snip a word of your BS to show how
> perverse you are.
And leaving it clearly shows everybody how poorly you understand the english
language. That is if they hadn't already figured it out.
> Look at how much you run from with your snipping. It is
> a sign that even you, at some level, realize how grotesque your NAMBLA-like
> views are.
--
Tim
Snit
11:01 AM:
> In article <BFEE7172.417C0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-93A749.10...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/14/06
>> 8:04 AM:
>>
>>>>>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>>>>>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is totally incorrect because to be synonymous word can be equal
>>>>>> (see
>>>>>> above) or similar which is NOT the same as equal. To bad you still
>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>> been able to grasp that simple point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note, Tim, that my statement does not claim that = and synonymous
>>>>> mean the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Tim responded to the above, stating:
>>>>
>>>> Yet you use it as your sole claim that incest isn't synonymous to sex.
>>>> go figure.
>>>>
>>>> No, Tim. That was not my claim. Sex and incest are not synonymous.
>
> <sarcasm on>
> Of course not which is why you keep adding it to your many posts.
> <sarcasm off>
Er? I talk about you perversion because it amuses me to do so. You and
your group of NAMBLA-like freaks are repulsive.
>>
>> Please note, Tim, you never did admit to your inability to understand my
>> argument.
>
> Your argument was clearly debunked below IF you had bothered to READ and had
> the ability to comprehend what you did read.
The question is not even if you accept my argument, the question was if you
understood it. You did not, hence your silly straw man. But no, Tim, you
have not altered the facts of sex and incest; they are *still* very
different, non-synonymous, concepts. I do not expect to convince you:
sickos such as yourself will use *any* excuse to engage in your perversions.
>
>> You never apologized for pushing your straw man and you snipped
>> the info where I quoted old material proving you 100% wrong. Why do you run
>> so much? The sad thing is you run from that, but then *still* spew your
>> views that place you morally equal to NAMBLA members... look below!
>>>
>>> Yet incest IS synonymous with sex. Proving your claim above to be totally
>>> WRONG.
>>> Still!
>>
>> Feel free to argue for your perversions all you want.
>
> Not a perversion - simply an understanding of the english language -
> something you clearly lack.
No language can make sex and incest become the same or even essentially the
same. They will always be very different. There may be cultures that do
not differentiate between the two, as your sick little sub-culture does not,
but from the perspective of most cultures you are grotesque perverts. If
you insist on your incestuous ways I cannot stop you, but I certainly do not
endorse your behavior!
You never did get the concept of symmetry, did you? NPR's science Friday is
talking about it today. I suggest you listen. Then again, even that will
not get you to give up on your repulsive claims or your actions. You and
your little incest buddies are the moral equivalents to NAMBLA members in my
eyes. I suppose if you do not commit incest with minors you may be a hair
better; do you differentiate minors in your perversion?
>
>> See
>> if you can get *anyone* other than your sick little buddies to agree. Your
>> views place you at the same level as NAMBLA members.
>>
>> Please note, Tim, I have no need to snip a word of your BS to show how
>> perverse you are.
>
> And leaving it clearly shows everybody how poorly you understand the english
> language. That is if they hadn't already figured it out.
The question is not about language, it is about your inability to tell two
difference concepts apart: sex and incest. They simply are not synonymous.
>
>> Look at how much you run from with your snipping. It is
>> a sign that even you, at some level, realize how grotesque your NAMBLA-like
>> views are.
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You are the only person talking about NAMBLA. I'm talking about the use and
understanding of the english language as well as your claim above that starts
with 2).
> >>
> >> Please note, Tim, you never did admit to your inability to understand my
> >> argument.
> >
> > Your argument was clearly debunked below IF you had bothered to READ and
> > had
> > the ability to comprehend what you did read.
>
> The question is not even if you accept my argument, the question was if you
> understood it.
You argument is wrong and has been proven wrong. English doesn't work like math.
Live with it.
~ More babbling from the reading impaired snit snipped
--
Tim
Snit
4:14 PM:
>> Er? I talk about you perversion because it amuses me to do so. You and
>> your group of NAMBLA-like freaks are repulsive.
>
> You are the only person talking about NAMBLA. I'm talking about the use and
> understanding of the english language as well as your claim above that starts
> with 2).
So, Tim, do you claim pedophilia is synonymous with sex? LOL! It will be
fun to watch you claim the English language makes you think so. What a
sicko you are! Come on, Tim, take a stand on this simple issue!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-70E9CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:25 AM:
>
> > In article <BFEE6F0C.417B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > (snip a whole bunch of Snit's silliness)
> >
> >> Face it, you made an ass of yourself*again*. Don't worry,
> >> Steve Carroll and Tim Adams will be right there
> >
> > Sure we will... but only so you can claim to be psychic again while
> > showing who the real ass is here *again* (that'd be you). LOL!
>
> I do not care, Steve, what you guys discuss in your NAMBLA-like meetings.
> Please hold them in private!
What's all this talk about NAMBLA and incest today, Snit? You got a
young male cousin visiting your house that you fancy?
Snit
> In article <BFEE7817.417D9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-70E9CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:25 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BFEE6F0C.417B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip a whole bunch of Snit's silliness)
>>>
>>>> Face it, you made an ass of yourself*again*. Don't worry,
>>>> Steve Carroll and Tim Adams will be right there
>>>
>>> Sure we will... but only so you can claim to be psychic again while
>>> showing who the real ass is here *again* (that'd be you). LOL!
>>
>> I do not care, Steve, what you guys discuss in your NAMBLA-like meetings.
>> Please hold them in private!
>
> What's all this talk about NAMBLA and incest today, Snit? You got a
> young male cousin visiting your house that you fancy?
I am pointing out what sickos you and your friends are. You, Wally,
Elizabeth, and Tim Adams have all argued that incest is synonymous with sex.
None of you will state that pedophilia is *not* synonymous with sex.
I, on the other hand, have made it very clear that the concepts are *not*
synonymous. So, Steve, to answer your question I *still* do not want to
join your NAMBLA-like group. That will not change no matter how much you
beg!
Will you state that you think the concepts of incest and pedophilia are
simply not synonymous with sex or will you show you are still a perverted
sicko?
Snit
> What's most comical here is that the original reference to this was by
> Snit... when he was disingenuously stuffing text into Ebot's keyboard.
> IOW, the whole thing started with one of his lies... of course, this
> doesn't in no way distinguishes it from the rest of what he writes;)
So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
The answer, of course!, is NO and NO. But you and your NAMBLA-like group
have yourselves so twisted up in your perversions you will run from the
questions.
Does your group have a name? How about UPIG? Here is an idea for you
business card:
PUSS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support
Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth
Members: Tim Adams and Wally
Will *any* of you deny the above *very* different concepts are synonymous?
Snit
noone-443670....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:08 AM:
> What's most comical here is that the original reference to this was by
> Snit... when he was disingenuously stuffing text into Ebot's keyboard.
> IOW, the whole thing started with one of his lies... of course, this
> doesn't in no way distinguishes it from the rest of what he writes;)
So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
The answer, of course!, is NO and NO. But you and your NAMBLA-like group
have yourselves so twisted up in your perversions you will run from the
questions.
Does your group have a name? How about PISS? Here is an idea for you
business card:
PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support
Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth
Members: Tim Adams and Wally
Will *any* of you deny the above *very* different concepts are synonymous?
[Sorry for the previous post where I gave different suggested names, I was
working on finding one that fit you and your PISS group the best)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-76AE37.18...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/14/06
> 4:14 PM:
>
> >> Er? I talk about you perversion because it amuses me to do so. You and
> >> your group of NAMBLA-like freaks are repulsive.
> >
> > You are the only person talking about NAMBLA. I'm talking about the use and
> > understanding of the english language as well as your claim above that
> > starts
> > with 2).
>
> So, Tim, do you claim pedophilia is synonymous with sex? LOL! It will be
> fun to watch you claim the English language makes you think so. What a
> sicko you are! Come on, Tim, take a stand on this simple issue!
First your bering in your group NAMBLA and now your group of pedophilia. Having
fun trying to change the topic to hide your stupidity again?
As I've pointed out the topic is the english language and your poor
understanding of it. It isn't like math, even though you try to make it so with
your claim
"2) If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"
In english word A can be synonymous with word B but word B does NOT need to be
synonymous with word A. I even used an example a couple months ago to point that
out to you and you ran away from it also.
You also ran away from the following:
incest n
sexual activity between two people who are considered, for moral and genetic
reasons, too closely related to have such a relationship.
sex n
1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and
plants
2. sexual intercourse
3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
4. the genitals (literary)
5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of an
animal or plant is male or female
See the words _sexual activity_ in BOTH definitions? That makes them similar -
something you claimed that they were not. Making you clearly WRONG. AGAIN.
--
Tim
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <BFEE7817.417D9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> > noone-70E9CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:25 AM:
> >
> > > In article <BFEE6F0C.417B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip a whole bunch of Snit's silliness)
> > >
> > >> Face it, you made an ass of yourself*again*. Don't worry,
> > >> Steve Carroll and Tim Adams will be right there
> > >
> > > Sure we will... but only so you can claim to be psychic again while
> > > showing who the real ass is here *again* (that'd be you). LOL!
> >
> > I do not care, Steve, what you guys discuss in your NAMBLA-like meetings.
> > Please hold them in private!
>
> What's all this talk about NAMBLA and incest today, Snit? You got a
> young male cousin visiting your house that you fancy?
poor snit thinks pedophilia is the same as incest.
--
Tim
Snit
7:30 PM:
> In article <BFEED597.41857%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-76AE37.18...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/14/06
>> 4:14 PM:
>>
>>>> Er? I talk about you perversion because it amuses me to do so. You and
>>>> your group of NAMBLA-like freaks are repulsive.
>>>
>>> You are the only person talking about NAMBLA. I'm talking about the use and
>>> understanding of the english language as well as your claim above that
>>> starts
>>> with 2).
>>
>> So, Tim, do you claim pedophilia is synonymous with sex? LOL! It will be
>> fun to watch you claim the English language makes you think so. What a
>> sicko you are! Come on, Tim, take a stand on this simple issue!
>
> First your bering in your group NAMBLA and now your group of pedophilia.
> Having fun trying to change the topic to hide your stupidity again?
I am not the one who has stated a repulsive NAMBLA-like view that incest
and/or pedophilia is synonymous with sex. That is you and your sick group
of perverts.
If you do not want me to mention it you should never have shared your
perversion!
>
> As I've pointed out the topic is the english language and your poor
> understanding of it. It isn't like math, even though you try to make it so
> with your claim
> "2) If A = B then B = A.
> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"
>
> In english word A can be synonymous with word B but word B does NOT need to be
> synonymous with word A. I even used an example a couple months ago to point
> that out to you and you ran away from it also.
You really need to look up the concept of symmetry. If A is similar to B
then B is similar to A. If A = B then B = A. If A is synonymous with B
then B is synonymous with A. These are all very, very simple concepts.
They do, however, go way over your head. Why would you whine and accuse me
of "running away" from your ignorance on this topic? I am happy to point it
out!
>
> You also ran away from the following:
> incest n
> sexual activity between two people who are considered, for moral and genetic
> reasons, too closely related to have such a relationship.
>
> sex n
> 1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and
> plants
> 2. sexual intercourse
> 3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
> 4. the genitals (literary)
> 5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of
> an
> animal or plant is male or female
Nobody has questioned the definitions. Nobody has run from the definitions
of the words. What I have pointed out is that the two concepts are *not*
synonymous. You and your sicko buddies deny that though.
>
> See the words _sexual activity_ in BOTH definitions?
Sure - but that does not make them synonymous. Just like squares and
rectangles are different even though they each have 4 sides and four right
angles. Of course, someone getting geometry wrong would not be pushing the
perversion you are pushing.
> That makes them similar -
> something you claimed that they were not. Making you clearly WRONG. AGAIN.
I am not remotely interested in your attempts to justify why you think
pedophilia and/or incest are synonymous with sex. They are not. They never
will be. Your insistence otherwise I find repulsive!
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
Snit
7:32 PM:
Wow! What an amazing straw man you just presented.
So, Tim, can you answer the questions:
1) Is incest synonymous with sex?
2) is pedophilia synonymous with sex?
Hint, the answer to both is a strong and obvious *no*. Not a chance. Only
a perverted sicko would argue otherwise.
Which is *exactly* what you have been doing.
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
Wally
teadams$2$0$0$3-6A5B6D.13...@news.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Not a perversion - simply an understanding of the english language -
> something you clearly lack.
As can be seen when Snit used one of his puppets to ask...
"How can dissimilar things be said to be synonymous?"-yobo_obyo
I replied...
"Easily! Soho is synonymous with the sex industry!
1) Soho is a district of Westminster, Central London!
2) The sex industry is a collection of sexual services!"
Predictably yobo emulated the puppet master and bailed out! ;=)
Snit
Wow! What an interesting accusation you are pushing. In any case, Wally,
keep in mind that I am not the one claiming such perverse things such as
incest or pedophilia as being synonymous with sex! That is you and your
group of sickos. I do not think you have made your view clear on Pediphlia
though, so perhaps you can answer these two simple questions (hint, the
answer to both is a very strong *no* - not a chance!)
1) Is incest synonymous with sex?
2) is pedophilia synonymous with sex?
So far the other PISS members have not been willing to answer. Will you?
LOL... of course not, you are afraid of what the answers will say about you.
Poor, poor embarrassed Wally.
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-443670....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:08 AM:
>
> > What's most comical here is that the original reference to this was by
> > Snit... when he was disingenuously stuffing text into Ebot's keyboard.
> > IOW, the whole thing started with one of his lies... of course, this
> > doesn't in no way distinguishes it from the rest of what he writes;)
>
> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>
> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
Define "sex".
Snit
>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>
>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>
> Define "sex".
LOL! Look at Tim Adam's recent posts... he - like you - did not know, but
he - unlike you - was able to look it up in a dictionary!
<http://snipurl.com/lkwn>.
Can you answer the questions or not? LOL - of course you can't, not without
making your perversions even more clear. Too damned funny! You will run
*every* time.
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F5F07B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 8:20 PM:
>
> >> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
> >>
> >> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
> >> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
> >
> > Define "sex".
>
> LOL!
Are you going to define the word or not?
Snit
>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>>>
>>> Define "sex".
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Are you going to define the word or not?
Here is what you snipped:
-----
Look at Tim Adam's recent posts... he - like you - did not know, but he -
unlike you - was able to look it up in a dictionary!
<http://snipurl.com/lkwn>.
Can you answer the questions or not? LOL - of course you can't, not without
making your perversions even more clear. Too damned funny! You will run
*every* time.
-----
Do you not notice that I sent you not just to a definition but to one that
your own little incest buddy posted! Holy cow, Steve, do you not know how
you use links!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-4B221A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 8:40 PM:
>
> >>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
> >>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
> >>>
> >>> Define "sex".
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >
> > Are you going to define the word or not?
>
> Here
... is where you should have posted the definition? I know.
Snit
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-4B221A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 8:40 PM:
>
>>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>
>>>> Define "sex".
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> Are you going to define the word or not?
>
> Here is what you snipped:
>
> -----
> Look at Tim Adam's recent posts... he - like you - did not know, but he -
> unlike you - was able to look it up in a dictionary!
> <http://snipurl.com/lkwn>.
>
> Can you answer the questions or not? LOL - of course you can't, not without
> making your perversions even more clear. Too damned funny! You will run
> *every* time.
> -----
>
> Do you not notice that I sent you not just to a definition but to one that
> your own little incest buddy posted! Holy cow, Steve, do you not know how
> you use links!
LOL! And Steve responds with:
"... is where you should have posted the definition? I know."
Er? What the hell, Steve? Can you not follow a damned link? Do you really
need someone to tell you what "sex" is? Does your ignorance have anything
to do with the name of the guy who wrote "The 40 Year Old Virgin" being
Steve Carell? <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405422/>
Your ignorance is just too damned funny, Steve, just too damned funny.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
> BFEF17CD.418ED%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/14/06 9:04 PM:
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> > noone-4B221A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 8:40 PM:
> >
> >>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
> >>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
> >>>>
> >>>> Define "sex".
> >>>
> >>> LOL!
> >>
> >> Are you going to define the word or not?
> >
> > Here is
... where you should have posted the definition again but for some
reason refuse to? Yes, I've seen.
Snit
> In article <BFEF1F16.41905%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
>> BFEF17CD.418ED%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/14/06 9:04 PM:
>>
>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>>> noone-4B221A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 8:40 PM:
>>>
>>>>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define "sex".
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to define the word or not?
>>>
>>> Here is
>
> ... where you should have posted the definition again but for some
>
> reason refuse to? Yes, I've seen.
Learn to follow a damned link, Steve. Here is what you snipped... *again*!
-----
Look at Tim Adam's recent posts... he - like you - did not know, but he -
unlike you - was able to look it up in a dictionary!
<http://snipurl.com/lkwn>.
Can you answer the questions or not? LOL - of course you can't, not without
making your perversions even more clear. Too damned funny! You will run
*every* time.
-----
of course you are merely avoiding answering the question because you know
your lies have backed you into a corner again.
Learn to use links and dictionaries, Steve. Hell, too damned funny that you
keep begging me to repeatedly tell you what sex is. How many times do you
need me to point you to a link, a link to your incest buddy's definition!
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-4CF964.21...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I asked him how he was using the word "sex" and he sent me to a link
that had multiple definitions. He's obviously terrified of committing to
a specific one for some reason;) He may actually be learning... either
that or he's developed a sense of impending doom. LOL!
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BFEFDDA1.12C47%wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/06 8:08 PM:
>
>> On 15/1/06 2:01 AM, in article
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-6A5B6D.13...@news.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
>> <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not a perversion - simply an understanding of the english language -
>>> something you clearly lack.
>>
>> As can be seen when Snit used one of his puppets to ask...
>>
>> "How can dissimilar things be said to be synonymous?"-yobo_obyo
>>
>> I replied...
>>
>> "Easily! Soho is synonymous with the sex industry!
>>
>> 1) Soho is a district of Westminster, Central London!
>>
>> 2) The sex industry is a collection of sexual services!"
>>
>> Predictably yobo emulated the puppet master and bailed out! ;=)
>>
> Wow! What an interesting accusation you are pushing.
Interesting and undeniable it seems! LOL
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-E61E2B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:40 PM:
>
> > In article <BFEF1F16.41905%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
> >> BFEF17CD.418ED%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/14/06 9:04 PM:
> >>
> >>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >>> noone-4B221A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 8:40 PM:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
> >>>>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Define "sex".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LOL!
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you going to define the word or not?
> >>>
> >>> Here is
> >
> > ... where you should have posted the definition again but for some
> >
> > reason refuse to? Yes, I've seen.
>
> Learn
... that you are afraid to commit to a specific definition? No, I
already knew that... no learning was required.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-5EB9C9.21...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/14/06
> 7:30 PM:
>
> > In article <BFEED597.41857%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-76AE37.18...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/14/06
> >> 4:14 PM:
> >>
> >>>> Er? I talk about you perversion because it amuses me to do so. You and
> >>>> your group of NAMBLA-like freaks are repulsive.
> >>>
> >>> You are the only person talking about NAMBLA. I'm talking about the use
> >>> and
> >>> understanding of the english language as well as your claim above that
> >>> starts
> >>> with 2).
> >>
> >> So, Tim, do you claim pedophilia is synonymous with sex? LOL! It will be
> >> fun to watch you claim the English language makes you think so. What a
> >> sicko you are! Come on, Tim, take a stand on this simple issue!
> >
> > First your bering in your group NAMBLA and now your group of pedophilia.
> > Having fun trying to change the topic to hide your stupidity again?
>
> I am not the one who has stated a repulsive NAMBLA-like view that incest
> and/or pedophilia is synonymous with sex. That is you and your sick group
> of perverts.
To bad you can't understand the english language. Incest doesn't have anything
to do with either of the two group you mentioned
and apparently belong to.
>
> If you do not want me to mention it you should never have shared your
> perversion!
> >
> > As I've pointed out the topic is the english language and your poor
> > understanding of it. It isn't like math, even though you try to make it so
> > with your claim
>
> > "2) If A = B then B = A.
> > If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"
> >
> > In english word A can be synonymous with word B but word B does NOT need to
> > be
> > synonymous with word A. I even used an example a couple months ago to point
> > that out to you and you ran away from it also.
>
> You really need to look up the concept of symmetry. If A is similar to B
> then B is similar to A.
BUT not synonymous with it as has been pointed out several times before. I
believe the word I first used was 'Number'. Check it out sometime.
> If A = B then B = A. If A is synonymous with B
> then B is synonymous with A. These are all very, very simple concepts.
> They do, however, go way over your head. Why would you whine and accuse me
> of "running away" from your ignorance on this topic? I am happy to point it
> out!
> >
You pointing out your ignorance is all you ever do.
> > You also ran away from the following:
> > incest n
> > sexual activity between two people who are considered, for moral and
> > genetic
> > reasons, too closely related to have such a relationship.
> >
> > sex n
> > 1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals
> > and
> > plants
> > 2. sexual intercourse
> > 3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
> > 4. the genitals (literary)
> > 5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role
> > of
> > an
> > animal or plant is male or female
>
> Nobody has questioned the definitions.
Except you! Why else would you be dragging in all the different groups you
belong to?>
> Nobody has run from the definitions
> of the words. What I have pointed out is that the two concepts are *not*
> synonymous.
even though the definitions clearly show that they are. How quaint.
> You and your sicko buddies deny that though.
> >
> > See the words _sexual activity_ in BOTH definitions?
>
> Sure - but that does not make them synonymous. Just like squares and
> rectangles are different even though they each have 4 sides and four right
> angles. Of course, someone getting geometry wrong would not be pushing the
> perversion you are pushing.
>
> > That makes them similar -
> > something you claimed that they were not. Making you clearly WRONG. AGAIN.
>
~snipped more babbling from Snit - charter member of NAMBLA and resident
pedophile.
--
Tim
Wally
noone-4B221A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Steve Carroll"
<no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <BFEF0EAD.418DF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-F5F07B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 8:20 PM:
>>
>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>>>
>>> Define "sex".
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Are you going to define the word or not?
Snit dare not!
But Yobo might!....LOL
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BFEFDDA1.12C47%wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/06 8:08 PM:
>
> > On 15/1/06 2:01 AM, in article
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-6A5B6D.13...@news.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
> > <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Not a perversion - simply an understanding of the english language -
> >> something you clearly lack.
> >
> > As can be seen when Snit used one of his puppets to ask...
> >
> > "How can dissimilar things be said to be synonymous?"-yobo_obyo
> >
> > I replied...
> >
> > "Easily! Soho is synonymous with the sex industry!
> >
> > 1) Soho is a district of Westminster, Central London!
> >
> > 2) The sex industry is a collection of sexual services!"
> >
> > Predictably yobo emulated the puppet master and bailed out! ;=)
> >
> Wow! What an interesting accusation you are pushing. In any case, Wally,
> keep in mind that I am not the one claiming such perverse things such as
> incest or pedophilia as being synonymous with sex!
Making thing up as you go again I see. YOU are the only one in this discussion
bring up pedophilia.
> babbling snipped
--
Tim
Snit
>> poor snit thinks pedophilia is the same as incest.
>
> I asked him how he was using the word "sex" and he sent me to a link
> that had multiple definitions.
You wrote, Steve:
Define "sex".
I *repeatedly* have sent you to one of your incest buddies posts where he
quoted a dictionary. What more do you need? Do you not trust your very own
incest buddy Tim Adams?
You have been asked two simple questions:
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
You keep running. You will *always* run. Even you have figured out how
humiliating your claims about incest are to others.
> He's obviously terrified of committing to a specific one for some reason;) He
> may actually be learning... either that or he's developed a sense of impending
> doom. LOL!
Look at how much delusional BS you spew... wow! By the way, Steve, there is
*no* definition of sex that is synonymous with either incest or pedophilia.
The fact that you need those words defined in order to answer the question
is simply another sign of your repulsive sickness!
Snit
9:52 PM:
I am *still* not interested in your BS justifications as to why you share
the perverted view that incest and sex are synonymous with you PISS buddies.
Just pointing out your perversions and watching as you and Steve are unable
to deny them is great fun by the way.
Neither of you will back away from your positions that incest and/or
pedophilia are - to you - synonymous with sex. You are both sicko perverts.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-15A702....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:49 PM:
>
> >> poor snit thinks pedophilia is the same as incest.
> >
> > I asked him how he was using the word "sex" and he sent me to a link
> > that had multiple definitions.
>
> You wrote, Steve:
>
> Define "sex".
>
> I *repeatedly* have
... refused to commit to a specific definition? Yes, I know... and we
both know why;)
Snit
>>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>
>>>> Define "sex".
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> Are you going to define the word or not?
>
> Snit dare not!
> But Yobo might!....LOL
>
Er? Has he even posted recently?
In any case, Steve asked me to "Define sex" because he was avoiding
answering the very simple questions you, he, and Tim Adams are running from.
I pointed Steve to *Tim's* post where he had to quote a dictionary to figure
out what sex is... and Steve *still* cannot answer the questions. Can you?
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
Watching you run from the questions will bring me great joy. So fun to
watch your whole little PISS group try to run from your own perversions.
Snit
9:54 PM:
>> Wow! What an interesting accusation you are pushing. In any case, Wally,
>> keep in mind that I am not the one claiming such perverse things such as
>> incest or pedophilia as being synonymous with sex!
>
> Making thing up as you go again I see. YOU are the only one in this discussion
> bring up pedophilia.
I pointed out that *your* "logic" applies just as well to pedophilia as it
does to incest.
Do you deny that pedophilia is synonymous with sex? It is, of course, not
at all synonymous, but you are your PISS group will never admit to that,
will you?
Snit
> In article <BFEF23F9.4191E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-15A702....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:49 PM:
>>
>>>> poor snit thinks pedophilia is the same as incest.
>>>
>>> I asked him how he was using the word "sex" and he sent me to a link
>>> that had multiple definitions.
>>
>> You wrote, Steve:
>>
>> Define "sex".
>>
>> I *repeatedly* have
>
> ... refused to commit to a specific definition? Yes, I know... and we
>
> both know why;)
Still not playing your stupid game, Steve. I have pointed you - repeatedly
- to Tim Adams dictionary definition. Your own PISS buddy! But you cannot
accept his definition.
In any case, you are *still* running from the simple questions I asked you:
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
All you will do is run. You will ask question after question but you will
*never* give the obvious and easy answer that sex is not synonymous with
*either* of the other two concepts. You are just too embarrassed by your
own perversion to admit to that!
Mayor of R'lyeh
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <7e0hs1hqe82jn12uu...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:26:16 -0600, Jim Polaski
>> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <gcjgs15tufbsguq1r...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:53:13 GMT, Tim Smith
>> >> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> >> wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <jpolaski-4DE825...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> >> > Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
>> >> >
>> >> >More accurate is the "Far Side" where you see the two scientists at the
>> >> >blackboard, working on equations. There is a dog sitting beside them,
>> >> >looking up at the board, head tilted to one side a bit, looking a bit
>> >> >puzzled. One of the scientists is saying:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Ooooh! Look at that, Schuster... Dogs are so cute when
>> >> > they try to comprehend quantum mechanics."
>> >>
>> >> LOL! That fits jimmiejimbiob the liar to a 'T'. Even his girlfriend
>> >> Joe told him that he didn't know shit from shinola about quantum
>> >> mechanics!
>> >
>> >Who cares? I l know more QM, chemistry, phyisics and math than you, not
>> >to mention the biggest one, honesty.
>>
>> LOL! Given your track record and how the people like you I've meant in
>> real life are I'd say its dubious that you know anything about
>> anything except how to flap your gums.. And you're of the most
>> dishonest, hateful people I've ever come across.
>
>You've "meant" folks in real life?
jimmijimbob the liar declares that he's never made a typo.
> WTF is that?
Its a typo. If you were half as smart as you claim to be you'd know
that.
>Coming from you almost anything's possible. Regardless if I were you, I wouldn't be talking
>about dishonest, hateful people since honesty isn't your strong suit as
>the folks here know.
LOL! Channeling George and his asinine appeals to peer pressure? Like
I've told him several times, that crap didn't affect me when I was a
teenager. It sure as hell doesn't affect me now.
Your hatefulness is obvious as is your dishonesty. They both stand on
their own and need no affirmations via peer pressure or anything else
for that matter. You are simply a louse of a human being. That's all
there is to that.
> You can prattle all you want little man, but you
>don't measure up in the honesty department. Oh, and btw, don't forget
>about annoying folks and your alias, it could get you in trouble.
If you're feeling froggy, go ahead and jump. I'd love to get you on
the stand blubbering about how my telling the truth about you
'annoyed' you. I'd be pulling sigs from that transcript for years!
And of course in the end it would all go away when a little thing
called the First Amendment got pulled out and dusted off.
--
"The next time you hear an alarming speech about
"global warming" on Earth Day, just remember that the
first Earth Day featured alarms about the danger of a
new ice age."
Thomas Sowell
Snit
7cmjs11vle3rq2n28...@4ax.com on 1/14/06 10:19 PM:
>> You can prattle all you want little man, but you
>> don't measure up in the honesty department. Oh, and btw, don't forget
>> about annoying folks and your alias, it could get you in trouble.
>
> If you're feeling froggy, go ahead and jump. I'd love to get you on
> the stand blubbering about how my telling the truth about you
> 'annoyed' you. I'd be pulling sigs from that transcript for years!
> And of course in the end it would all go away when a little thing
> called the First Amendment got pulled out and dusted off.
LOL! I am sure it annoys the PISS group that I keep pointing out how incest
and pedophilia are not synonymous with sex. If telling perverts that their
sick claims are repulsive is illegal it is a sad, sad state of affairs for
the US.
Ok, enough shoving their views into their faces for now. Good night.
Snit
7cmjs11vle3rq2n28...@4ax.com on 1/14/06 10:19 PM:
>> You can prattle all you want little man, but you
>> don't measure up in the honesty department. Oh, and btw, don't forget
>> about annoying folks and your alias, it could get you in trouble.
>
> If you're feeling froggy, go ahead and jump. I'd love to get you on
> the stand blubbering about how my telling the truth about you
> 'annoyed' you. I'd be pulling sigs from that transcript for years!
> And of course in the end it would all go away when a little thing
> called the First Amendment got pulled out and dusted off.
LOL! I am sure it annoys the PISS group that I keep pointing out how incest
and pedophilia are not synonymous with sex. If telling perverts that their
sick claims are repulsive is illegal it is a sad, sad state of affairs for
the US.
Ok, enough shoving their views into their faces for now. Good night.
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BFEFF618.12CCF%wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/06 9:52 PM:
>
>>>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "sex".
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Are you going to define the word or not?
>>
>> Snit dare not!
>> But Yobo might!....LOL
>>
> Er? Has he even posted recently?
>
> In any case, Steve asked me to "Define sex" because he was avoiding
> answering the very simple questions you, he, and Tim Adams are running from.
If you are unable or unwilling to define 'sex' then simply say so!, Steve
did not ask you to point out any other persons definition but yours!
Is it your position that by you referring to a link supplied by Tim this
link can be assumed to represent your definition? A simple Yes or No will
suffice.
I realize how difficult a position you are in, so I doubt an answer from you
will be forthcoming, after all you are a person who can state that incest
and sex are not synonymous, and yet state....
"Do you not see how sibling sex is related to incest?
Just what do you think incest is?"-Snit
A clear admission from you that in that instance incest is synonymous with
'sibling sex', why are you able to admit that 'incest' is synonymous with
'sibling sex' and yet not be able to admit that incest in general is
synonymous with sex, its almost as though you are trying to remove adult
participation from the equation! why would you need to achieve that aim
Snit?
Or
"Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the subject of sex. That has
never been in question"-Snit
If a discussion about incest would bring up the subject of sex, as can be
shown you have no doubt about, how can you then claim that incest and sex
are not synonymous.
Of course I know the answer to the questions that I have asked you here, and
that is that you have shown on your own, and by your use of puppets that you
have absolutely no idea what to be synonymous means!
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Jim Polaski
After all your claims of perfection and superiority, no one knows for
sure.
>
> >Coming from you almost anything's possible. Regardless if I were you, I
> >wouldn't be talking
> >about dishonest, hateful people since honesty isn't your strong suit as
> >the folks here know.
>
> LOL! Channeling George and his asinine appeals to peer pressure? Like
> I've told him several times, that crap didn't affect me when I was a
> teenager. It sure as hell doesn't affect me now.
> Your hatefulness is obvious as is your dishonesty. They both stand on
> their own and need no affirmations via peer pressure or anything else
> for that matter. You are simply a louse of a human being. That's all
> there is to that.
Nothing hateful here I've said, OTOH, I am remarkably amused at your
stupidity and repeating, repeating, repeating where all we see is you
listening to your own voice repeating, repeating....repeating.
>
> > You can prattle all you want little man, but you
> >don't measure up in the honesty department. Oh, and btw, don't forget
> >about annoying folks and your alias, it could get you in trouble.
>
> If you're feeling froggy, go ahead and jump. I'd love to get you on
> the stand blubbering about how my telling the truth about you
> 'annoyed' you. I'd be pulling sigs from that transcript for years!
> And of course in the end it would all go away when a little thing
> called the First Amendment got pulled out and dusted off.
They'd be amazed at your self-constructed strawman arguments that are a
pack of lies in the beginning and then your obfuscated nature to defend
same, annoying everyone, save for your fellow winnuts in the bag.
You're willingness to repeatedly construct lies is noted by all.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Elizabeth
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
>
>
>>LOL! Here is the funny part: you *really* believe that. Just as a recap,
>>here are the concepts you miss:
>>
>>1) One can absolutely lack the type of proof required in mathematics
>> and still have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The word "proof"
>> is being used in different ways. (You repeatedly mix contexts and
>> play semantic games).
>>
>>2) If A = B then B = A.
>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>
>> on exists. This is explained more fully in the "brain in a vat"
>> thought experiment.
>>
>>These are all easy concepts and they all go over your head. Don't worry,
>>Steve, your girlfriend can explain them to you. She is an emotional preteen
>>with severe psychological problems, but at least she is not as stupid as you
>>are.
>
>
> How many times did you snip and run from this *today*, Steve? LOL! Too
> damned funny.
So I take it that you are now calling yourself "Steve."
Please note who your post here was in response to. And this quotation as
well:
"I have not been following this thread, but I can agree that there is at
least one insane Steve who frequents CSMA. :) "
No doubt that you are the "insane Steve" that you referenced.
<snip the rest of insane Steve/Snit's babbling>
Elizabeth
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-93A749.10...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Yet incest IS synonymous with sex. Proving your claim above to be totally
>>WRONG.
>>Still!
>>
>
>
> What's most comical here is that the original reference to this was by
> Snit... when he was disingenuously stuffing text into Ebot's keyboard.
> IOW, the whole thing started with one of his lies... of course, this
> doesn't in no way distinguishes it from the rest of what he writes;)
>
Snit's claim about sex/incest being synonymous originated in October,
2004. Nearly a year and a half ago. And Snit is still trolling about
that. What a freakin' pervert that "Snit" guy is.
Elizabeth
> 8:04 AM:
>
>>>No, Tim. That was not my claim. Sex and incest are not synonymous.
>
>
> Please note, Tim, you never did admit to your inability to understand my
> argument. You never apologized for pushing your straw man and you snipped
> the info where I quoted old material proving you 100% wrong. Why do you run
> so much? The sad thing is you run from that, but then *still* spew your
> views that place you morally equal to NAMBLA members... look below!
What a sicko you are, Snit, to equate incest and having sex with little
boys as synonymous. Really, Snit, no one wants to hear about your
perverted upbringing. So knock it off.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
in reality. Yes we know all that. It shows in all of your posts just how badly
you need real help.
~yet more demented babbling from Snit - charter member of NAMBLA and resident
pedophile - snipped
--
Tim
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-803EFD.23...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/14/06
> 9:54 PM:
>
> >> Wow! What an interesting accusation you are pushing. In any case, Wally,
> >> keep in mind that I am not the one claiming such perverse things such as
> >> incest or pedophilia as being synonymous with sex!
> >
> > Making thing up as you go again I see. YOU are the only one in this
> > discussion
> > bring up pedophilia.
>
> I pointed out that *your* "logic" applies just as well to pedophilia as it
> does to incest.
Only in your mind. Pedophilia is defined as _sexual desire_ which is different
that _sexual activity_. To bad your reading problem is so bad or you might have
been able to have figured that out all by yourself.
>
> Do you deny that pedophilia is synonymous with sex? It is,
in your mind as you are the one that introduced it and your group NAMBLA into a
discussion synonymous words.
~snipped more babbling from Snit - charter member of NAMBLA and resident
pedophile.
--
Tim
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 7cmjs11vle3rq2n28...@4ax.com on 1/14/06 10:19 PM:
>
> >> You can prattle all you want little man, but you
> >> don't measure up in the honesty department. Oh, and btw, don't forget
> >> about annoying folks and your alias, it could get you in trouble.
> >
> > If you're feeling froggy, go ahead and jump. I'd love to get you on
> > the stand blubbering about how my telling the truth about you
> > 'annoyed' you. I'd be pulling sigs from that transcript for years!
> > And of course in the end it would all go away when a little thing
> > called the First Amendment got pulled out and dusted off.
>
> LOL! I am sure it annoys the PISS group that I keep pointing out how incest
> and pedophilia are not synonymous with sex.
Yet snit is the only person that has related the t items in this ng making it
look like HE thinks they are synonymous.
Tim Adams
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
We now also know a couple of other topics that the discussion of incest brings
up in snit's mind.
>
> Of course I know the answer to the questions that I have asked you here, and
> that is that you have shown on your own, and by your use of puppets that you
> have absolutely no idea what to be synonymous means!
>
> --
> "With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
--
Tim
Wally
teadams$2$0$0$3-0C4183.07...@news.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I agree! that is disturbing.
Snit
> On 15/1/06 1:18 PM, in article BFEF294A.41940%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> BFEFF618.12CCF%wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/06 9:52 PM:
>>
>>>>>>> So, Steve, will you take a stand on two simple questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>>>> 2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define "sex".
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to define the word or not?
>>>
>>> Snit dare not!
>>> But Yobo might!....LOL
>>>
>> Er? Has he even posted recently?
>>
>> In any case, Steve asked me to "Define sex" because he was avoiding
>> answering the very simple questions you, he, and Tim Adams are running from.
>
> If you are unable or unwilling to define 'sex' then simply say so!,
Unable or unwilling? Tim Adams - one of your PISS buddies - supplied a
definition. He quoted a dictionary. I never argued against it and even
pointed Steve Carroll to it. Repeatedly. He snipped and ran from it.
Are your own PISS buddy's words not good enough for you?
<SNIP CONTENT="Babbling and obfuscations by Wally" />
For that matter, Wally, you - like your PISS buddy friends - have not been
willing to answer my simple questions (questions I asked before Steve
started obfuscating with his, if you care).
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
Are you so embarrassed by your perversions you will run from the questions
as Tim and Steve do?
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
_________________________________________
Snit
11sk4ll...@corp.supernews.com on 1/15/06 2:15 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
>> BFED641D.4161B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/13/06 2:05 PM:
>>
>>
>>> LOL! Here is the funny part: you *really* believe that. Just as a recap,
>>> here are the concepts you miss:
>>>
>>> 1) One can absolutely lack the type of proof required in mathematics
>>> and still have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The word "proof"
>>> is being used in different ways. (You repeatedly mix contexts and
>>> play semantic games).
>>>
>>> 2) If A = B then B = A.
>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>>
>>> 3) One cannot prove with absolute certainty that the chair they sit
>>> on exists. This is explained more fully in the "brain in a vat"
>>> thought experiment.
>>>
>>> These are all easy concepts and they all go over your head. Don't worry,
>>> Steve, your girlfriend can explain them to you. She is an emotional preteen
>>> with severe psychological problems, but at least she is not as stupid as you
>>> are.
>>
>>
>> How many times did you snip and run from this *today*, Steve? LOL! Too
>> damned funny.
>
> So I take it that you are now calling yourself "Steve."
I am not interested in your new fantasies about me, Elizabeth. I do not
care what names you call out or when.
<SNIP />
Gee, can you answer the questions your PISS buddies are too embarrassed to
answer?
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
I say *NO* to both. Those concepts are not at all synonymous. None of
your friends will take a stand on such things - you are *all* perverts!
Snit
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> In article
>> <teadams$2$0$0$3-93A749.10...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
>> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Yet incest IS synonymous with sex. Proving your claim above to be totally
>>> WRONG.
>>> Still!
>>>
>>
>>
>> What's most comical here is that the original reference to this was by
>> Snit... when he was disingenuously stuffing text into Ebot's keyboard.
>> IOW, the whole thing started with one of his lies... of course, this
>> doesn't in no way distinguishes it from the rest of what he writes;)
>>
>
> Snit's claim about sex/incest being synonymous
I never a said they were:
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
> originated in October,
Sure, and your PISS buddies have not let it go ever since. Poor Elizabeth,
she just wants her perversions to be forgotten!
> 2004. Nearly a year and a half ago. And Snit is still trolling about
> that. What a freakin' pervert that "Snit" guy is.
You and your perverted friends thing incest and sex should be considered the
same or nearly so and you want to call me a pervert for merely pointing it
out. Poor, poor Elizabeth.
Snit
>> Please note, Tim, you never did admit to your inability to understand my
>> argument. You never apologized for pushing your straw man and you snipped
>> the info where I quoted old material proving you 100% wrong. Why do you run
>> so much? The sad thing is you run from that, but then *still* spew your
>> views that place you morally equal to NAMBLA members... look below!
>
> What a sicko you are, Snit, to equate incest and having sex with little
> boys as synonymous. Really, Snit, no one wants to hear about your
> perverted upbringing. So knock it off.
Er? How do your NAMBLA like views reflect on me? Keep in mind I am the one
telling you and your PISS friends in *NO UNCERTAIN TERMS* that incest and
pedophelia *ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS* with sex. *NOT*. It is you and your sicko
friends who deny these things.
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
And look at Tim's recent bizarre ramblings to try to excuse his views as to
why sex and incest are - to him - synonymous! What sickos!
Snit
5:14 AM:
Stop typing left handed when you speak to me. Sicko!
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
Snit
>> We now also know a couple of other topics that the discussion of incest
>> brings
>> up in snit's mind.
>
> I agree! that is disturbing.
>
And now for some words from one of your PISS founders:
"FUCK your brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle,
cousin.... grandma, grandpa, whomever. And procreate or
don't. The health concerns of you and yours are not my
concern. If you are so horny and stupid to do fuck your
family, well, then, by all means, knock your filthy socks
off." - PISS founder, Elizabeth
And she felt *so* strongly about it she had to add in another post:
"Don't forget to fuck your *dead* relatives (can't forget them),
dead and/or alive pets, mammals, reptiles, birds, whatever, (you
oughta get the point), other animate or inanimate objects, figures
of speech, colors, visible or invisible imaginary friends, knotholes,
twigs, bumpy or non-bumpy things, slimy or non-slimy things and/or
whatever floats your boat and/or sinks it." - - PISS founder, Elizabot
True, your founder Elizabeth was using one of her sock puppets at the time
(Elizabot) but not even she denies her nymshifting.
You and your PISS group support things that are far, far more disturbing
than someone just pointing it out! Heck, your group supports necrophilia,
incest, bestiality, and perversions I cannot even guess what the names are!
Don't try pushing your problems onto me!
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-19277A.07...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/15/06
> 5:14 AM:
>
> > In article <BFEF2AAB.41948%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
> >> 7cmjs11vle3rq2n28...@4ax.com on 1/14/06 10:19 PM:
> >>
> >>>> You can prattle all you want little man, but you
> >>>> don't measure up in the honesty department. Oh, and btw, don't forget
> >>>> about annoying folks and your alias, it could get you in trouble.
> >>>
> >>> If you're feeling froggy, go ahead and jump. I'd love to get you on
> >>> the stand blubbering about how my telling the truth about you
> >>> 'annoyed' you. I'd be pulling sigs from that transcript for years!
> >>> And of course in the end it would all go away when a little thing
> >>> called the First Amendment got pulled out and dusted off.
> >>
> >> LOL! I am sure it annoys the PISS group that I keep pointing out how
> >> incest
> >> and pedophilia are not synonymous with sex.
> >
> >
> > Yet snit is the only person that has related the t items in this ng making
> > it
> > look like HE thinks they are synonymous.
>
> Stop typing left handed when you speak to me. Sicko!
>
Poor baby - the truth of your sick belief's, show for all here in csma, hurts
huh?
Snit
3:20 PM:
>> Stop typing left handed when you speak to me. Sicko!
>
> Poor baby - the truth of your sick belief's,
Gross! Even you admit that it is truth that you are "typing left handed" as
you write to me. Yes, Tim, this belief about your actions - the one you
just verified - is sick! Repulsive. You truly are a sick bastard!
____________________________________________
|\____________________________________________/|
| | | |
| | PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support | |
| | Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth | |
| | Members: Tim Adams and Wally | |
| | | |
| | Let this sick group know pedophilia & | |
| | incest are *not* synonymous with sex! | |
| |__________________________________________| |
|/____________________________________________\|
Snit
> In article <BFEF23F9.4191E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-15A702....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:49 PM:
>>
>>>> poor snit thinks pedophilia is the same as incest.
>>>
>>> I asked him how he was using the word "sex" and he sent me to a link
>>> that had multiple definitions.
>>
>> You wrote, Steve:
>>
>> Define "sex".
>>
>> I *repeatedly* have
>
> ... refused to commit to a specific definition? Yes, I know... and we
>
> both know why;)
Still not playing your stupid game, Steve. I have pointed you - repeatedly
- to Tim Adams dictionary definition. Your own PISS buddy! But you cannot
accept his definition.
In any case, you are *still* running from the simple questions I asked you:
1) Do you see incest as being synonymous with sex?
2) Do you see pedophilia as being synonymous with sex?
All you will do is run. You will ask question after question but you will
*never* give the obvious and easy answer that sex is not synonymous with
*either* of the other two concepts. You are just too embarrassed by your
own perversion to admit to that!
__________________________________________
| |
| PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support |
| Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth |
| Members: Tim Adams and Wally |
| |
| Let this sick group know pedophilia & |
| incest are *not* synonymous with sex! |
|__________________________________________|
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-4345E9....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 10:01 PM:
>
> > In article <BFEF23F9.4191E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-15A702....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/14/06 9:49 PM:
> >>
> >>>> poor snit thinks pedophilia is the same as incest.
> >>>
> >>> I asked him how he was using the word "sex" and he sent me to a link
> >>> that had multiple definitions.
> >>
> >> You wrote, Steve:
> >>
> >> Define "sex".
> >>
> >> I *repeatedly* have
> >
> > ... refused to commit to a specific definition? Yes, I know... and we
> >
> > both know why;)
>
> Still not playing your stupid game, Steve.
As you are the guy asking questions about the synonymity of words you
refuse to define the game is all yours.
--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
Snit
>> Still not playing your stupid game, Steve.
>
> As you are the guy asking questions about the synonymity of words you
> refuse to define the game is all yours.
Steve, no semantic game of yours will make sex and incest become equal or
nearly so. They simply are not. They are very, very different. You asked
me to define "sex" for you - a word you *should* know the meaning of but
apparently do not. I gave you a link to your own PISS buddies definition
and told you that would do. Do you need me to quote it? Can you not follow
a link? Do you expect me to believe you are *that* stupid?
No, Steve, you are just running from your foul claims that sex and incest
are for all intents and purposes, to you, the same thing. It is repulsive
and grotesque!
____________________________________________
|\____________________________________________/|
| | | |
| | PISS: Pedophiliac & Incest Sicko Support | |
| | Founders: Steve Carroll and Elizabeth | |
| | Members: Tim Adams and Wally | |
| | | |
| | Let this sick group know pedophilia & | |
| | incest are *not* synonymous with sex! | |
| |__________________________________________| |
|/____________________________________________\|
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06