Re: Liberal Smear Campaign Against Donald Trump in Full Swing!

[Lynn McGuire]

On 10/9/2016 12:44 AM, Kay Shapero wrote:
> In article <XnsA69BD46E99...@216.166.97.131>,
> treif...@gmail.com says...
>>
>
>
>>>
>>> This does not change my mind to vote for Trump in the slightest. And
>>> I am Christian fundamentalist. I am not looking for a saint to lead
>>> us, just someone with a little common sense. Hillary has no common
>>> sense, she is a barking dog.
>>
>> Trump - a man with no detectable Christian qualities, who openly
>> lusts for his own daughter, who has uttered 'Till Death do
>> us part' 3 times and counting, and who has been recorded recounting
>> his attempts to fuck women married to other men (while he was also
>> married) is acceptable to a "fundamentalist" Christian?
>>
>> What does that term mean anymore?
>>
> Dunno, but I would STRONGLY recommend any Christian of any stripe go
> read 1 Timothy chapter 3. The one with qualifications for church
> leaders. Now compare Trump to the contents and keep a straight face. I
> dare you...
>
> And remember, it's not counterfeit Hillary, the image built by her
> opponents over the last 25 years with false accusations, and general
> nonsense - it's the REAL Hillary Rodham Clinton who is running for
> office. The one who wants health care for children, and a fair shake
> for the 99%...

Trump is not running for the head of any church. Unless there is
something that I do not know.

How much tax are you willing to pay for all the children of the world to
have USA health insurance ? Because at the end of Hillary's reign,
there will be many more millions of child refugees here in the USA.

Lynn

[Alan Baker]

Will there? Really?

Tell us how many you think.

[Peter Trei]

Lynn is parroting the Trump campaign's misinterpretation of a
statement Hillary made about open borders for trade to refer to 'opening
the border' to unrestricted immigration from the Americas.

pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Alan, I was fairly clear in my posting. "many more millions"

Lynn

[Alan Baker]

1. That implies there have been at least a million child refugees that
have entered the US, does it not? So let's see a cite.

2. Get specific. How many is "many": 2? 10? 100?

To put a little perspective on this, in 2015, the US admitted 69,933
refugees in TOTAL, and the total for the last FORTY years is 3,252,493.
And the rates of admission per year have not been significantly
different under Obama than they were under GW Bush.

<http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/statistics/251288.htm>

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
news:nvqsts$kt1$1...@news.datemas.de:

While it can be interpreted that way, it can just as easily be
interpreted as millions more than there are currently, and there
certainly are currenlty refuee children now.

You of course, being retarded and mentally ill, will no insist that
you, and only, are the sole arbiter of what words mean, thus
proving, beyond any doubt - again - that you are a fucking idiot
with serious mental issues.

>
> 2. Get specific. How many is "many": 2? 10? 100?

In many areas of science, estimating the correct order of magnitude
is considered very, very good. You demand he support a claim he
never made.

Again, you proven, again, beyond any possible doubt, that you are
stupid and deranged. And dishonest.

>
> To put a little perspective on this, in 2015, the US admitted
> 69,933 refugees in TOTAL, and the total for the last FORTY years
> is 3,252,493. And the rates of admission per year have not been
> significantly different under Obama than they were under GW
> Bush.
>
> <http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/statistics/251288.htm>
>

None of which in any way addresses Lynn's claim.

You may now threaten to beat me up again, because you're still a
pussy, and I'll still cheerfully call you a pussy to your face if
you're ever man enough to meet in person.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Alan Baker]

I've never threatened to beat you up, Terry.

If you claim differently: quote me.

:-)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvqtr9$lrh$3...@news.datemas.de:

We know you're a liar, Alan.

>
> If you claim differently: quote me.

Already done, liar.
>
>:-)
>
Pussy.

[Lynn McGuire]

Those are legal refugees. How about illegals ?

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:nvr0kq$51a$1...@dont-email.me:

Nice dodge. Is this a contest to see if you or Alan can look more
stupid and dishonest? (He's winning, so far, so if it is, get with
the program!)

[Alan Baker]

Nope. I've never once threatened you with anything more than laughter.

:-)

>>
>> If you claim differently: quote me.
>
> Already done, liar.

Nope.

>>
>> :-)
>>
> Pussy.
>

[Alan Baker]

How will her programs result in more ILLEGAL refugees, Lynn?

I notice you have produced nothing of substance.

[Greg Goss]

When Terry gets into "troll mode", the truth becomes irrelevant. The
extended battle that I had with him was launched by his lies.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>We know you're a liar, Alan.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-07, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those are legal refugees. How about illegals ?

Well, OBVIOUSLY we can't legally count _those_.

Dave, do you admit to using ... the Forbidden Integers?
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down, probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvr4cq$2ce$6...@news.datemas.de:

Liar.
>
>:-)

Lying pussy.

>
>>>
>>> If you claim differently: quote me.
>>
>> Already done, liar.
>
> Nope.

Lying pussy who lies badly.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvr4e4$2ce$7...@news.datemas.de:

Maybe he's afraid you'll threatn to beat him up, too.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:e8d28h...@mid.individual.net:

>
> When Terry gets into "troll mode", the truth becomes irrelevant.
> The extended battle that I had with him was launched by his
> lies.

Liar. It was launched by your weakness and inability to wiggle off my
hook.

>
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>We know you're a liar, Alan.
>



--

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/8/2016 4:07 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2016-11-07, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Those are legal refugees. How about illegals ?
>
> Well, OBVIOUSLY we can't legally count _those_.
>
> Dave, do you admit to using ... the Forbidden Integers?

Signed or unsigned ?

Lynn

[Alan Baker]

There can't be a "too" until you produce an actual threat, Terry.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

It would be so easy for you to prove that...

...if you could produce a quote.

:-)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvtd9v$3t2$2...@news.datemas.de:

Whether I repeat it to someone with a long history of lying and
refusing to acknowledge what they forgot to snip out, or not, it's
still there, liar.
>
>:-)
>
Pussy.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvtdas$3t2$3...@news.datemas.de:

And you'd like, again, as you always do, liar.

>
> ...if you could produce a quote.
>
>:-)
>

[David DeLaney]

Some of them are endless, so there's no place to put the signature.

Dave, so it must be deduced

[Alan Baker]

You cannot repeat what you have never quoted even once.

>>
>> :-)
>>
> Pussy.
>
>

[Alan Baker]

Yet your claim that I lied would be proven...

Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?

:-)

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/8/2016 6:41 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2016-11-08, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/8/2016 4:07 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-07, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Those are legal refugees. How about illegals ?
>>>
>>> Well, OBVIOUSLY we can't legally count _those_.
>>>
>>> Dave, do you admit to using ... the Forbidden Integers?
>>
>> Signed or unsigned ?
>
> Some of them are endless, so there's no place to put the signature.
>
> Dave, so it must be deduced

Signed or unsigned integers as in computer programming.

And the NY Times just predicted that Trump is going to win, 54% Trump vs 47% Clinton. We will see what happens, probably around 1 or
2 am Texas time.

And Texas is so far 50% Trump and 46% Clinton with 1/3 of the vote in. I suspect that Texas will go D in the 2020 election. For
sure by the 2024 election. Too many immigrants from inside the USA (California and Michigan) and outside the USA. And all the
immigrants continuously bemoan the lack of state benefits like free health care, unemployment for life, etc.

And Texas has 38 electoral votes. Second in the nation behind California’s 55 electoral votes.

Lynn

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>news:e8d28h...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> When Terry gets into "troll mode", the truth becomes irrelevant.
>> The extended battle that I had with him was launched by his
>> lies.
>
>Liar. It was launched by your weakness and inability to wiggle off my
>hook.

Grin. Remember who won it.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvtur6$1fn$8...@news.datemas.de:

It's been proven, and you lie about it.

>
> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?

What's strange is that you haven't been institutionalized yet, for
whatever the hell is wrong with you. Ronald Reagan's fault, that.
He's the one who let all the crazy people out.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

news:e8fifn...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>news:e8d28h...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> When Terry gets into "troll mode", the truth becomes
>>> irrelevant.
>>> The extended battle that I had with him was launched by his
>>> lies.
>>
>>Liar. It was launched by your weakness and inability to wiggle
>>off my hook.
>
> Grin. Remember who won it.

Everyone knows I did, despite your delusions to the contrary. As with
Alan, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvtuq3$1fn$7...@news.datemas.de:

You cannot make your lie true by wishing really hard it was,
pussy.

[David Mitchell]

On 08/11/16 20:17, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:nvtdas$3t2$3...@news.datemas.de:
>
>> On 2016-11-08 8:06 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>>> news:nvr4cq$2ce$6...@news.datemas.de:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-11-07 1:49 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:nvqtr9$lrh$3...@news.datemas.de:

<snip>

>>>> Nope. I've never once threatened you with anything more than
>>>> laughter.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>> It would be so easy for you to prove that...
>
> And you'd like, again, as you always do, liar.
>>
>> ...if you could produce a quote.
>>
>> :-)
>>
> Pussy.
>

So you're responding to a perfectly reasonable request for you to back
up your outrageous claim, with gibberish and insults.

Are you sure you aren't really Donald Trump?

It would explain a few things.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:L-GdncZfkaMnL7_F...@brightview.co.uk:

I do not find a request for something that is _quoted by the person
requesting it_ in the same post as the request to be . . .
reasonable. In fact, I find it to be stupid and deranged. And
typical, of Alan Baker, as are the lies. He *knows* what he
intended. He's just not man enough to admit it. He's clearly so far
gone in his worship of Hillary Clinton that he believes that, like
her, if he screams his lies about enough, he'll at least convince
himself they're true. And he can't even manage to get *that* right.

In point of fact, I have _never_ seen a single post from Alan Baker
that did not indicate that he is deranged and *stupid*.

>
> Are you sure you aren't really Donald Trump?

If I were Donald Trump, it'd be far too busy practicing my victory
speech to post to usenet. Just in case.

>
> It would explain a few things.
>

So would you being an Alan Baker sock puppet. I'm just sayin' it'd
explain a few things.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

>> Grin. Remember who won it.
>
>Everyone knows I did, despite your delusions to the contrary. As with
>Alan, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. And we all know you lie in
troll mode. I don't. Shrug.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-08 8:10 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:e8fifn...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>> news:e8d28h...@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Terry gets into "troll mode", the truth becomes
>>>> irrelevant.
>>>> The extended battle that I had with him was launched by his
>>>> lies.
>>>
>>> Liar. It was launched by your weakness and inability to wiggle
>>> off my hook.
>>
>> Grin. Remember who won it.
>
> Everyone knows I did, despite your delusions to the contrary. As with
> Alan, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>

LOL!

Irony!

[Alan Baker]

No. You STATING it isn't proof.

>>
>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>
> What's strange is that you haven't been institutionalized yet, for
> whatever the hell is wrong with you. Ronald Reagan's fault, that.
> He's the one who let all the crazy people out.

I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

You cannot make a non-existent statement into a threat...

:-)

[Alan Baker]

If it was quoted as you claim, then quote it HERE, NOW...

[Kevrob]

That explains it. Canuckistan has so many loons on the loose,
they put them on the coinage: :)

To be serious, deinstitutionalization has its roots in the 1950s,
much of it was due to lawsuits brought to fight abuse in state
mental hospitals in the 1970s, pre-Reagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

In article <2fbd89be-5028-41fc-9966-e68a21ce5cd7
@googlegroups.com>, kev...@my-deja.com says...

Finally somebody else who "gets it" in that
regard. There's no point in paying for empty
mental institutions.

People who want nuts locked up need to get it
through their heads that before spending more
money for loony bins they need to pass a
Constitutional Amendment that provides for the
locking up of loons who have not committed
crimes, and that is such a dangerous path that
it is pretty much a nonstarter.

[David Mitchell]

...and yet you have still to post your "proof".

Now you're beginning to sound like Shawn.

And
> typical, of Alan Baker, as are the lies. He *knows* what he
> intended. He's just not man enough to admit it.

So are you saying that he didn't actually say what you've been claiming,
but that he "intended" it, when he said something different?

I haven't been paying too much attention (well, who would?), but that's
what it sounds like.

Feel free to put my mind at rest.

>>
>> It would explain a few things.
>>
> So would you being an Alan Baker sock puppet. I'm just sayin' it'd
> explain a few things.

Insults instead of answers, how very Trump-esque.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvum3p$b5o$6...@news.datemas.de:

You cannot make a lie true by continually repeating it. You can,
however, make yourself look dishonest and stupid.
>
>:-)
>
And you're a pussy.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvum2u$b5o$5...@news.datemas.de:

You lying about having made an implied threat doesn't mean it
didn't happen.

>
>>>
>>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>>
>> What's strange is that you haven't been institutionalized yet,
>> for whatever the hell is wrong with you. Ronald Reagan's fault,
>> that. He's the one who let all the crazy people out.
>
> I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?

That does explain why you don't know shit about anything, I guess.
>
>:-)
>
And why you're a pussy.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

news:e8g00l...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>
>>> Grin. Remember who won it.
>>
>>Everyone knows I did, despite your delusions to the contrary. As
>>with Alan, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Very true. You should stop doing so, or you'll look as dishonest and
stupid as Alan.

> And we all know you lie
> in troll mode.

We also all know that the most effective trolls are true, and I'm a
very effective troll. Though not, I'll admit, as effective as Donald
Trump. Or, rather, President-elect Trump. He trolled his way all the
way to the White House.

> I don't. Shrug.

When you have a history of lying, claiming you don't just makes you
look stupid.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvum1a$b5o$4...@news.datemas.de:

Indeed, Greggie's pretty funny when he lies, badly, like you.
>
> Irony!
>
Pussy!

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvum53$b5o$7...@news.datemas.de:

To what point? You'll lie and deny, like your goddess, Hillary (the
loser) Clinton. If you could lie as well as her, maybe you wouldn't
look sto *stupid*, but hey, it's not your fault your parents gave
you defective DNA.

>
>>
>> In point of fact, I have _never_ seen a single post from Alan
>> Baker that did not indicate that he is deranged and *stupid*.
>>>
>>> Are you sure you aren't really Donald Trump?
>>
>> If I were Donald Trump, it'd be far too busy practicing my
>> victory speech to post to usenet. Just in case.
>>>
>>> It would explain a few things.
>>>
>> So would you being an Alan Baker sock puppet. I'm just sayin'
>> it'd explain a few things.
>>
>
>

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:9-WdnVvJIfezYb_F...@brightview.co.uk:

You have still to provide any reason to do so. You're clearly no
more able to admit it than Alan is, and it's trivial to find the
post.

>
> Now you're beginning to sound like Shawn.

Imitation, flattery, etc. You must really idolize me.

>
> And
>> typical, of Alan Baker, as are the lies. He *knows* what he
>> intended. He's just not man enough to admit it.
>
> So are you saying that he didn't actually say what you've been
> claiming, but that he "intended" it, when he said something
> different?

If you want to play word games, you need to be better at it than
that.

>
> I haven't been paying too much attention (well, who would?), but
> that's what it sounds like.

Only to an illiterate retard.

>
> Feel free to put my mind at rest.

"What would you have me do? Give out? Give up? Give in? "

"Give me a little peace."

"A little? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a
thought."

>
>>>
>>> It would explain a few things.
>>>
>> So would you being an Alan Baker sock puppet. I'm just sayin'
>> it'd explain a few things.
>
> Insults instead of answers, how very Trump-esque.

Lies instead of questions, how very Clinton-esque.

[Alan Baker]

Since you have repeated the lie that I've threatened you over and over...

(while failing to produce any proof)

...I wonder if you see the irony in that statement.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Oh! Now you're claiming it was just IMPLIED!

Backing the claims down now, hmmm?

You sure that the threat wasn't just INFERRED?

Do you even know the difference between "imply" and "infer"?

>>
>>>>
>>>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>>>
>>> What's strange is that you haven't been institutionalized yet,
>>> for whatever the hell is wrong with you. Ronald Reagan's fault,
>>> that. He's the one who let all the crazy people out.
>>
>> I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?
>
> That does explain why you don't know shit about anything, I guess.

LOL!

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-09 7:34 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:e8g00l...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>
>>>> Grin. Remember who won it.
>>>
>>> Everyone knows I did, despite your delusions to the contrary. As
>>> with Alan, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>>
>> Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>
> Very true. You should stop doing so, or you'll look as dishonest and
> stupid as Alan.
>
>> And we all know you lie
>> in troll mode.
>
> We also all know that the most effective trolls are true, and I'm a
> very effective troll. Though not, I'll admit, as effective as Donald
> Trump. Or, rather, President-elect Trump. He trolled his way all the
> way to the White House.

post hoc ergo propter hoc...

>
>> I don't. Shrug.
>
> When you have a history of lying, claiming you don't just makes you
> look stupid.

Hi, Stupid!

[Alan Baker]

So you have yet another claim you won't substantiate...

...followed by insults.

Do you happen to have short little fingers, too?

:-)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvp3n$8ur$1...@news.datemas.de:

Since you continue to not be man enough to admit you intended a
threat...

>
> (while failing to produce any proof)

unconvincingly

>
> ...I wonder if you see the irony in that statement.

...I know you are too stupid to know how stupid you are.
>
>:-)
>
Pussy.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvp79$8ur$1...@news.datemas.de:

An implied threat is still a threat. Nobody would ever believe
you'd be man enough to do it otherwise.

>
> Backing the claims down now, hmmm?

Nope. You made a threat that you new at the time you'll never be
man enough to back up. And I called you out on it. Pussy.

>
> You sure that the threat wasn't just INFERRED?

No, it was implied, and your intention was the threaten, whether
you're man enough to admit it or not.

>
> Do you even know the difference between "imply" and "infer"?

Do you know the difference between "lie" and "truth"? No? But I
knew that already.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> What's strange is that you haven't been institutionalized
>>>> yet, for whatever the hell is wrong with you. Ronald Reagan's
>>>> fault, that. He's the one who let all the crazy people out.
>>>
>>> I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?
>>
>> That does explain why you don't know shit about anything, I
>> guess.
>
>
> LOL!
>

Yeah, Canadians are laughable, the object of ridicule. You even
moer so than Quaddie.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvp8l$8ur$1...@news.datemas.de:

> On 2016-11-09 7:34 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>> news:e8g00l...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>>
>>>>> Grin. Remember who won it.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone knows I did, despite your delusions to the contrary.
>>>> As with Alan, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>>>
>>> Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>>
>> Very true. You should stop doing so, or you'll look as
>> dishonest and stupid as Alan.
>>
>>> And we all know you lie
>>> in troll mode.
>>
>> We also all know that the most effective trolls are true, and
>> I'm a very effective troll. Though not, I'll admit, as
>> effective as Donald Trump. Or, rather, President-elect Trump.
>> He trolled his way all the way to the White House.
>
> post hoc ergo propter hoc...

I noted he'd gotten the nomination by out-wingnutting the rest of
the clown car. I predicted he would focuse his campaign on out-
nasty-ing Clinton, and he did. Brilliantly.

>
>>
>>> I don't. Shrug.
>>
>> When you have a history of lying, claiming you don't just makes
>> you look stupid.
>
> Hi, Stupid!
>

You shouldn't talk to yourself. People will think you're crazy.
They'll be right.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvpb7$8ur$1...@news.datemas.de:

So you have yet more lying about what you've posted...
>
> ...followed by insults.

...followed by more lying.

>
> Do you happen to have short little fingers, too?

Does size matter that much to you?
>
>:-)
>
Pussy.

[Alan Baker]

Now I didn't "imply" it...

...you claim I merely "intended it"...

...without a quote.

>>
>> (while failing to produce any proof)
>
> unconvincingly
>>
>> ...I wonder if you see the irony in that statement.
>
> ...I know you are too stupid to know how stupid you are.

So you don't see the irony!


>>
>> :-)
>>
> Pussy.
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-09 9:42 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>> It's been proven, and you lie about it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> No. You STATING it isn't proof.
>>> >>
>>> >> You lying about having made an implied threat doesn't mean it
>>> >> didn't happen.
>> >
>> > Oh! Now you're claiming it was just IMPLIED!
> An implied threat is still a threat. Nobody would ever believe
> you'd be man enough to do it otherwise.

LOL!

But now we have to not only accept your empty claim that my words were a
threat...

...but that it was an implication in those words.

>> >
>> > Backing the claims down now, hmmm?
> Nope. You made a threat that you new at the time you'll never be
> man enough to back up. And I called you out on it. Pussy.

I "new" it did I, Terry?

You're beginning to rave.

>> >
>> > You sure that the threat wasn't just INFERRED?
> No, it was implied, and your intention was the threaten, whether
> you're man enough to admit it or not.

My "intention WAS THE threaten"?

>> >
>> > Do you even know the difference between "imply" and "infer"?
> Do you know the difference between "lie" and "truth"? No? But I
> knew that already.

Too bad you can't actually demonstrate this "knowledge" to anyone.

>> >
>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> What's strange is that you haven't been institutionalized
>>>>> >>>> yet, for whatever the hell is wrong with you. Ronald Reagan's
>>>>> >>>> fault, that. He's the one who let all the crazy people out.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?
>>> >>
>>> >> That does explain why you don't know shit about anything, I
>>> >> guess.
>> >
>> >
>> > LOL!
>> >
> Yeah, Canadians are laughable, the object of ridicule. You even
> moer so than Quaddie.

"moer so"!

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvr2n$buf$1...@news.datemas.de:

You've exhausted even your ability to lie to _yourself_. So all
you have left is word games, now. You're not even denying the lies
any more.

Maybe you're treatable after all. Heh.

>
>>>
>>> (while failing to produce any proof)
>>
>> unconvincingly
>>>
>>> ...I wonder if you see the irony in that statement.
>>
>> ...I know you are too stupid to know how stupid you are.
>
>
> So you don't see the irony!

The only irony I see is dripping off your chin, son. But you knew
that.
>
>
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Pussy.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-09 9:44 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:nvvp8l$8ur$1...@news.datemas.de:
>
>> On 2016-11-09 7:34 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>> news:e8g00l...@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>>> Grin. Remember who won it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone knows I did, despite your delusions to the contrary.
>>>>> As with Alan, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>>>>
>>>> Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>>>
>>> Very true. You should stop doing so, or you'll look as
>>> dishonest and stupid as Alan.
>>>
>>>> And we all know you lie
>>>> in troll mode.
>>>
>>> We also all know that the most effective trolls are true, and
>>> I'm a very effective troll. Though not, I'll admit, as
>>> effective as Donald Trump. Or, rather, President-elect Trump.
>>> He trolled his way all the way to the White House.
>>
>> post hoc ergo propter hoc...
>
> I noted he'd gotten the nomination by out-wingnutting the rest of
> the clown car. I predicted he would focuse his campaign on out-
> nasty-ing Clinton, and he did. Brilliantly.

Way to miss the point.

Even if one accepts the premise that the most effective trolls are true,
that doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that all of yours must be
because you are (as declared by yourself) "effective".

>>
>>>
>>>> I don't. Shrug.
>>>
>>> When you have a history of lying, claiming you don't just makes
>>> you look stupid.
>>
>> Hi, Stupid!
>>
> You shouldn't talk to yourself. People will think you're crazy.
> They'll be right.

LOL!

>

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvr75$buf$1...@news.datemas.de:

> On 2016-11-09 9:42 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>>> It's been proven, and you lie about it.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> No. You STATING it isn't proof.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You lying about having made an implied threat doesn't mean
>>>> >> it didn't happen.
>>> >
>>> > Oh! Now you're claiming it was just IMPLIED!
>> An implied threat is still a threat. Nobody would ever believe
>> you'd be man enough to do it otherwise.
>
> LOL!

Yes, your stupidity is still hysterically funny.

>
> But now we have to not only accept your empty claim that my
> words were a threat...

Which they were, by your intent...

>
> ...but that it was an implication in those words.

...because you're not man enough to just come out and say it.

>
>>> >
>>> > Backing the claims down now, hmmm?
>> Nope. You made a threat that you new at the time you'll never
>> be man enough to back up. And I called you out on it. Pussy.
>
> I "new" it did I, Terry?

My spastic typing is hardly knew.

>
> You're beginning to rave.

I'm imitating you.

>
>>> >
>>> > You sure that the threat wasn't just INFERRED?
>> No, it was implied, and your intention was the threaten,
>> whether you're man enough to admit it or not.
>
> My "intention WAS THE threaten"?

Yes.

>
>>> >
>>> > Do you even know the difference between "imply" and "infer"?
>> Do you know the difference between "lie" and "truth"? No? But I
>> knew that already.
>
> Too bad you can't actually demonstrate this "knowledge" to
> anyone.

It's been demonstrated quite clearly by your post. There's no point
to doing so again. You'll only lie about it anyway, as you have so
many times already.

>
>>> >
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> What's strange is that you haven't been
>>>>>> >>>> institutionalized yet, for whatever the hell is wrong
>>>>>> >>>> with you. Ronald Reagan's fault, that. He's the one
>>>>>> >>>> who let all the crazy people out.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That does explain why you don't know shit about anything,
>>>> >> I guess.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > LOL!
>>> >
>> Yeah, Canadians are laughable, the object of ridicule. You even
>> moer so than Quaddie.
>
> "moer so"!
>

And now you're reduced to spelling flames, because you can't even
lie to yourself any more. Sad, but as you say, funny.

Pussy.

[Alan Baker]

Just to make it clear (because very shortly you'll claim I agreed with
you) I categorically deny lying about any of this.

:-)

>
> Maybe you're treatable after all. Heh.
>>
>>>>
>>>> (while failing to produce any proof)
>>>
>>> unconvincingly
>>>>
>>>> ...I wonder if you see the irony in that statement.
>>>
>>> ...I know you are too stupid to know how stupid you are.
>>
>>
>> So you don't see the irony!
>
> The only irony I see is dripping off your chin, son. But you knew
> that.

The sad part for you is... ...you think that's clever.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvr9g$buf$1...@news.datemas.de:

You do that a lot, yes. Intentionally, I believe, rather than admit
you lost.

>
> Even if one accepts the premise that the most effective trolls
> are true, that doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that all
> of yours must be because you are (as declared by yourself)
> "effective".

Since I never said that, once again, you're trying to change the
subject away from your threat (and being too much of a pussy to
admit it) because you can't even lie to yourself any more.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't. Shrug.
>>>>
>>>> When you have a history of lying, claiming you don't just
>>>> makes you look stupid.
>>>
>>> Hi, Stupid!
>>>
>> You shouldn't talk to yourself. People will think you're crazy.
>> They'll be right.
>
> LOL!

And it will be funny, how pathetic a loser you are, yes.

Pussy.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:nvvrjf$buf$1...@news.datemas.de:

It's very clear that you're a pussy and a liar.

>(because very shortly you'll claim I
> agreed with you)

You always end up admitting I'm right, yes.

> I categorically deny lying about any of this.

And lie doing so.
>
>:-)

Pussy.

>
>>
>> Maybe you're treatable after all. Heh.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (while failing to produce any proof)
>>>>
>>>> unconvincingly
>>>>>
>>>>> ...I wonder if you see the irony in that statement.
>>>>
>>>> ...I know you are too stupid to know how stupid you are.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you don't see the irony!
>>
>> The only irony I see is dripping off your chin, son. But you
>> knew that.
>
> The sad part for you is... ...you think that's clever.
>

No, not at all. It think it's *funny*. There's nothing clever about
you, and no need to be clever in keeping you dangling on my hook.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-09 9:56 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:nvvr75$buf$1...@news.datemas.de:
>
>> On 2016-11-09 9:42 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>>>> It's been proven, and you lie about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. You STATING it isn't proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You lying about having made an implied threat doesn't mean
>>>>>>> it didn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh! Now you're claiming it was just IMPLIED!
>>> An implied threat is still a threat. Nobody would ever believe
>>> you'd be man enough to do it otherwise.
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Yes, your stupidity is still hysterically funny.
>>
>> But now we have to not only accept your empty claim that my
>> words were a threat...
>
> Which they were, by your intent...

Yet another empty claim.

Quote...

...the...

...supposed...

...threat.

>>
>> ...but that it was an implication in those words.
>
> ...because you're not man enough to just come out and say it.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Backing the claims down now, hmmm?
>>> Nope. You made a threat that you new at the time you'll never
>>> be man enough to back up. And I called you out on it. Pussy.
>>
>> I "new" it did I, Terry?
>
> My spastic typing is hardly knew.
>>
>> You're beginning to rave.
>
> I'm imitating you.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You sure that the threat wasn't just INFERRED?
>>> No, it was implied, and your intention was the threaten,
>>> whether you're man enough to admit it or not.
>>
>> My "intention WAS THE threaten"?
>
> Yes.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you even know the difference between "imply" and "infer"?
>>> Do you know the difference between "lie" and "truth"? No? But I
>>> knew that already.
>>
>> Too bad you can't actually demonstrate this "knowledge" to
>> anyone.
>
> It's been demonstrated quite clearly by your post. There's no point
> to doing so again. You'll only lie about it anyway, as you have so
> many times already.
>>

No. It hasn't been demonstrated.

>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's strange is that you haven't been
>>>>>>>>>>> institutionalized yet, for whatever the hell is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> with you. Ronald Reagan's fault, that. He's the one
>>>>>>>>>>> who let all the crazy people out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That does explain why you don't know shit about anything,
>>>>>>> I guess.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>> Yeah, Canadians are laughable, the object of ridicule. You even
>>> moer so than Quaddie.
>>
>> "moer so"!
>>
> And now you're reduced to spelling flames, because you can't even
> lie to yourself any more. Sad, but as you say, funny.

This coming from the king of insults instead of evidence!

LOL

[Alan Baker]

That is PRECISELY what you said:

'We also all know that the most effective trolls are true, and I'm a
very effective troll.'

Clearly imply that your trolls must be true.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. Since my statement is about what YOU've posted (or more
accurately, what you've failed to post) it cannot be a lie about what
I've posted.

>>
>> ...followed by insults.
>
> ...followed by more lying.

You deny your insults, Terry?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o00qsp$5ma$2...@news.datemas.de:

> On 2016-11-09 9:56 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>> news:nvvr75$buf$1...@news.datemas.de:
>>
>>> On 2016-11-09 9:42 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's been proven, and you lie about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. You STATING it isn't proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You lying about having made an implied threat doesn't
>>>>>>>> mean it didn't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh! Now you're claiming it was just IMPLIED!
>>>> An implied threat is still a threat. Nobody would ever
>>>> believe you'd be man enough to do it otherwise.
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> Yes, your stupidity is still hysterically funny.
>>>
>>> But now we have to not only accept your empty claim that my
>>> words were a threat...
>>
>> Which they were, by your intent...
>
> Yet another empty claim.

Yet another lie.
>
> Quote...
>
> ...the...
>
> ...supposed...
>
> ...threat.

Still not point, since you're still lying. As further support for
my contetion that you are, literally, mentally ill, I am reminded
of the old saying about doing the same thing (or making the same
retarded demands) and expecting a different result.

And you *will* continue, becuase I will not let you stop.

>
>>>
>>> ...but that it was an implication in those words.
>>
>> ...because you're not man enough to just come out and say it.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Backing the claims down now, hmmm?
>>>> Nope. You made a threat that you new at the time you'll never
>>>> be man enough to back up. And I called you out on it. Pussy.
>>>
>>> I "new" it did I, Terry?
>>
>> My spastic typing is hardly knew.
>>>
>>> You're beginning to rave.
>>
>> I'm imitating you.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sure that the threat wasn't just INFERRED?
>>>> No, it was implied, and your intention was the threaten,
>>>> whether you're man enough to admit it or not.
>>>
>>> My "intention WAS THE threaten"?
>>
>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you even know the difference between "imply" and
>>>>>> "infer"?
>>>> Do you know the difference between "lie" and "truth"? No? But
>>>> I knew that already.
>>>
>>> Too bad you can't actually demonstrate this "knowledge" to
>>> anyone.
>>
>> It's been demonstrated quite clearly by your post. There's no
>> point to doing so again. You'll only lie about it anyway, as
>> you have so many times already.
>>>
>
> No. It hasn't been demonstrated.

Liar.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strange you won't do it then, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's strange is that you haven't been
>>>>>>>>>>>> institutionalized yet, for whatever the hell is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> with you. Ronald Reagan's fault, that. He's the one
>>>>>>>>>>>> who let all the crazy people out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm a Canadian, Terry. Care to try again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That does explain why you don't know shit about anything,
>>>>>>>> I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, Canadians are laughable, the object of ridicule. You
>>>> even moer so than Quaddie.
>>>
>>> "moer so"!
>>>
>> And now you're reduced to spelling flames, because you can't
>> even lie to yourself any more. Sad, but as you say, funny.
>
> This coming from the king of insults instead of evidence!

And thus, you were compelled back onto the subject of the thread,
by my will, no matter how desperately you try to escape.
>
> LOL

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o00quq$5ma$3...@news.datemas.de:

No,' tard-boy, it doesn't. When you explain your error (and please,
nobody else do so), then we can progress to your next failing.

In the meantime, we'll go back to your pussy threat that you knew
when you made it you weren't man enough to ever act on. You _will_
remain on that subject, and you _will_ continue to lie about it,
until I get bored and let you stop.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o00r10$5ma$4...@news.datemas.de:

Liar.

> Since my statement is about what YOU've posted (or more
> accurately, what you've failed to post) it cannot be a lie about
> what I've posted.

Liar.

>
>>>
>>> ...followed by insults.
>>
>> ...followed by more lying.
>
> You deny your insults, Terry?
>

You lie, Alan? Yes. You do.

[David Mitchell]

"Any reason to"?
How about so that you aren't forever seen as a ranting troll, instead of
the reasonable, occasionally relevant poster who's occasionally worth
reading?

>>
>> Now you're beginning to sound like Shawn.
>
> Imitation, flattery, etc. You must really idolize me.

You consider being compared to Shawn flattery? Wow.

Standards have fallen.

>>
>> And
>>> typical, of Alan Baker, as are the lies. He *knows* what he
>>> intended. He's just not man enough to admit it.
>>
>> So are you saying that he didn't actually say what you've been
>> claiming, but that he "intended" it, when he said something
>> different?
>
> If you want to play word games, you need to be better at it than
> that.

If you want to play at being someone worth reading, you need to be

better at it than that.

And Lord knows, we all know how much you like attention.

>>
>> Insults instead of answers, how very Trump-esque.
>
> Lies instead of questions, how very Clinton-esque.

Lies?

Oops, what a giveaway. I *know* I haven't lied; so your tendency to
claim I have (again, without proof) supports the theory that you're
doing the same about Alan Bakers post.

That'll do for me.

You're boring me.

*PLONK*

[throbbin...@gmail.com]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iLidnVqLVNL5l7nF...@brightview.co.uk:

Why would I want that? I *am* a ranting troll. You must be new
around here.

> instead of the reasonable, occasionally relevant poster who's
> occasionally worth reading?
>
> >>
> >> Now you're beginning to sound like Shawn.
> >
> > Imitation, flattery, etc. You must really idolize me.
>
> You consider being compared to Shawn flattery? Wow.

If you were as stupid and illiterate as you're pretending to be,
you wouldn't be able to post to usenet. But nice attempt for you to
imitate me, even if you did do it poorly.
>
> Standards have fallen.

There's no down from the gutter you're in right now, son.

>
> >>
> >> And
> >>> typical, of Alan Baker, as are the lies. He *knows* what he
> >>> intended. He's just not man enough to admit it.
> >>
> >> So are you saying that he didn't actually say what you've
> >> been claiming, but that he "intended" it, when he said
> >> something different?
> >
> > If you want to play word games, you need to be better at it
> > than that.
>
> If you want to play at being someone worth reading, you need to
> be better at it than that.

What kind of dope are you smoking that you hallucinated that I care
if you, or anyone else, for that matter, care if what I post is
worth reading?

>
> And Lord knows, we all know how much you like attention.

You mean, like, the attention you're giving me? Apparently, I'm
pretty good at getting it.

>
> >>
> >> Insults instead of answers, how very Trump-esque.
> >
> > Lies instead of questions, how very Clinton-esque.
>
> Lies?

Lies and namecalling.

>
> Oops, what a giveaway. I *know* I haven't lied; so your
> tendency to claim I have (again, without proof) supports the
> theory that you're doing the same about Alan Bakers post.
>
> That'll do for me.
>
> You're boring me.
>
> *PLONK*
>

Announcing you're killfiling me just makes you look stupid and
weak. It's a pathetic attempt to get the last word, even though you
know that *only* *you* could possibly see it that way. Sad.

You can't win. The only way to not lose is to not play. And you've
already joined the game. Loser.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As further support for
>my contetion that you are, literally, mentally ill,

In the years I've been here, I've never seen Terry's typing fall apart
like this. Could it be that Alan's actually getting to him? I
wouldn't have believed it.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:

>Now I didn't "imply" it...
>
>...you claim I merely "intended it"...

Grin

[Tom Kratman]

Chapter 2
So Terry wheeled his wheelchair...well, no, that's not right. He was honestly too weak to wheel his own chair so he whined and whined and whined some more until the big boys, sick of him, wheeled him to a computer terminal. He then turned on...no, that's not right either. He couldn't figure out how to turn it on. So Terry whined and whined and whined some more until one of the big boys who remembered when little Terry's asshole was still tight felt sorry for the crud. The big boy, of course, bitch-slapped little Terry, for old time's sake, but he did turn on the computer.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

news:e8iomr...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As further support for
>>my contetion that you are, literally, mentally ill,
>
> In the years I've been here, I've never seen Terry's typing fall
> apart like this. Could it be that Alan's actually getting to
> him? I wouldn't have believed it.

It's hard to type when I'm laughing so hard. But don't let facts stop
you from masturbating furiously while fantasizing about Alan. You two
were made for each other.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Little Tommy, you're getting lazy. You're not keeping up your end of
the bargain. I can't let you suck my dick unless you're _here_, son.
Get with the program! You have responsibilities to my fans! You're
boring them! How can they know to write bad reviews of your shitty
books on Amazon if they never hear about you?

Or maybe you've finally begun to realize how fucking *stupid* and
*weak* you look, dangling on my hook, literally unable to free
yourself from your obsession with me until I allow it.

You know you love the attention.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:e8ior3FnkntU2
@mid.individual.net:

> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>Now I didn't "imply" it...
>>
>>...you claim I merely "intended it"...
>
> Grin

Is that an erection in your pocket or are you just happy to see Alan?