Wingers breeding like the animals they are....
Too_Many_Tools
How is this any different than OctaMom?
TMT
Duggar brood keeps growing with No. 19 on the way
By JILL ZEMAN BLEED, Associated Press Writer Jill Zeman Bleed,
Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 1
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – No. 19 caught Michelle Duggar by surprise. The 42-
year-old mom of 18 noticed that she wasn't losing weight — even though
she and husband Jim Bob were on Weight Watchers — and her youngest
child, 8-month-old Jordyn-Grace, was fussing while nursing. In the
past, she found a fussy infant meant a change in breast milk that came
with pregnancy.
So she took a pregnancy test. "And lo and behold, I was just
pleasantly surprised that this was positive," Duggar said Tuesday. "I
was just jumping up and down going, 'Thank you, Lord. Here am I — 42,
thinking my baby days are over — and you've blessed us with another
one.'"
Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar live in Tontitown, Ark., and are featured
with their family on TLC's "18 Kids and Counting."
The announcement of the Duggars' 19th child comes as their oldest, 21-
year-old Josh, is about to become a father himself. Married last year,
Josh and Anna Duggar are expecting their first child, a girl, on Oct.
18.
The grandchild — whom Josh and Anna plan to name Mackynzie — will be
about five months older than her future aunt or uncle, due March 18.
Michelle Duggar said her health is fine and the pregnancy is going
along just like the others — with a decent bout of morning sickness.
"I am just so grateful that I have good health thus far and I'm just
enjoying playing with my kids every day," she said. "I don't take that
for granted one bit. I still have a lot of energy left."
They're soliciting name suggestions for the new baby, who will join
their family of 10 boys and eight girls. The Duggars' 18 children all
have names starting with the letter J and include two sets of twins.
Along with Josh and Jordyn-Grace, the family includes: Jana and John-
David, 19; Jill, 18; Jessa, 16; Jinger, 15; Joseph, 14; Josiah, 13;
Joy-Anna, 11; Jeremiah and Jedidiah, 10; Jason, 9; James, 8; Justin,
6; Jackson, 5; Johannah, 3; and Jennifer, 2.
The Duggars live in a 7,000-square-foot house in northwest Arkansas,
where they manage commercial real estate property. They say they'll
keep welcoming more children as long as Michelle is able to have them.
Michelle Duggar says they're recognized regularly thanks to the TLC
show.
"We feel like it's just an opportunity to encourage families to enjoy
their children, enjoy children while they have them and realize that
they are a gift from God," she said. "That's our prayer. This is an
opportunity to just encourage others to value family and just enjoy
the time you have with them."
___
On the Net: http://www.duggarfamily.com
f.barnes
> And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
Prove they are sucking off the public tit: Prove that they are not
self-reliant. Prove that they don't take care of their own. Stop
lying.
Steven L.
> And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
>
> How is this any different than OctaMom?
>
> TMT
>
> Duggar brood keeps growing with No. 19 on the way
> By JILL ZEMAN BLEED, Associated Press Writer Jill Zeman Bleed,
> Associated Press Writer
> Tue Sep 1
>
> year-old mom of 18 noticed that she wasn't losing weight � even though
> she and husband Jim Bob were on Weight Watchers � and her youngest
> child, 8-month-old Jordyn-Grace, was fussing while nursing. In the
> past, she found a fussy infant meant a change in breast milk that came
> with pregnancy.
>
> So she took a pregnancy test. "And lo and behold, I was just
> pleasantly surprised that this was positive," Duggar said Tuesday. "I
> thinking my baby days are over � and you've blessed us with another
> one.'"
Wait till they all grow up and each one gets their own SUV.
Then you'll REALLY see some serious global warming.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Too_Many_Tools
I will bet that this useless breeder will keep breeding even if she
has a Down's kid like Cut and Run Sarah Palin.
Wingers have no self control...especially in relation to sex.
Betcha that the old man has some action on the side like Sanford.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> > And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
>
> > How is this any different than OctaMom?
>
> > TMT
>
> > Duggar brood keeps growing with No. 19 on the way
> > By JILL ZEMAN BLEED, Associated Press Writer Jill Zeman Bleed,
> > Associated Press Writer
> > Tue Sep 1
>
> > year-old mom of 18 noticed that she wasn't losing weight — even though
> > she and husband Jim Bob were on Weight Watchers — and her youngest
> > child, 8-month-old Jordyn-Grace, was fussing while nursing. In the
> > past, she found a fussy infant meant a change in breast milk that came
> > with pregnancy.
>
> > So she took a pregnancy test. "And lo and behold, I was just
> > pleasantly surprised that this was positive," Duggar said Tuesday. "I
> > thinking my baby days are over — and you've blessed us with another
> > one.'"
>
> Wait till they all grow up and each one gets their own SUV.
>
> Then you'll REALLY see some serious global warming.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just consider that wingers like to do it in the parking lot..and the
airport stall.
TMT
Karl Kleinpaste
> And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
Not that I care to espouse any net.opinion regarding the advisability of
having close to 20 children, but from where exactly does the idea come,
that the Duggars are "sucking off the public tit"? In particular, this
matches what I already had understood about this family:
> The Duggars live in a 7,000-square-foot house in northwest Arkansas,
> where they manage commercial real estate property.
Is this just some random /ad hominem/ on your part, or do you have some
fact source to support the suggestion that their commercial real estate
business is not adequate to support themselves?
Harry Nadds
> > And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
>
> > How is this any different than OctaMom?
>
> > TMT
>
> > Duggar brood keeps growing with No. 19 on the way
> > By JILL ZEMAN BLEED, Associated Press Writer Jill Zeman Bleed,
> > Associated Press Writer
> > Tue Sep 1
>
> > year-old mom of 18 noticed that she wasn't losing weight — even though
> > she and husband Jim Bob were on Weight Watchers — and her youngest
> > child, 8-month-old Jordyn-Grace, was fussing while nursing. In the
> > past, she found a fussy infant meant a change in breast milk that came
> > with pregnancy.
>
> > So she took a pregnancy test. "And lo and behold, I was just
> > pleasantly surprised that this was positive," Duggar said Tuesday. "I
> > thinking my baby days are over — and you've blessed us with another
> > one.'"
>
> Wait till they all grow up and each one gets their own SUV.
>
> Then you'll REALLY see some serious global warming.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
By the time these kids grow up we'll be back in horse drawn covered
wagons and living off the land.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sep 2, 11:04 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>> And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
>>> How is this any different than OctaMom?
>>> TMT
>>> Duggar brood keeps growing with No. 19 on the way
>>> By JILL ZEMAN BLEED, Associated Press Writer Jill Zeman Bleed,
>>> Associated Press Writer
>>> Tue Sep 1
>>> year-old mom of 18 noticed that she wasn't losing weight � even though
>>> she and husband Jim Bob were on Weight Watchers � and her youngest
>>> child, 8-month-old Jordyn-Grace, was fussing while nursing. In the
>>> past, she found a fussy infant meant a change in breast milk that came
>>> with pregnancy.
>>> So she took a pregnancy test. "And lo and behold, I was just
>>> pleasantly surprised that this was positive," Duggar said Tuesday. "I
>>> thinking my baby days are over � and you've blessed us with another
>>> one.'"
>> Wait till they all grow up and each one gets their own SUV.
>>
>> Then you'll REALLY see some serious global warming.
>>
>> --
>> Steven L.
>> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> By the time these kids grow up we'll be back in horse drawn covered
> wagons and living off the land.
"Starving off the land"
Too_Many_Tools
From the Duggar FAQ...
http://www.duggarfamily.com/faq.html
4. How do you support such a large family? Especially with the economy
the way it is these days, tips on how you manage to support so many
people?
We have lived very frugally, and our family motto is to “Buy used
and saved the difference!” We shop at thrift stores and garage sales.
About 19 years ago, I (Jim Bob) went to a bank to inquire about
borrowing a large sum of money to expand my business. A few days
later, a successful businessman invited the men from our church out to
his house every Friday morning for breakfast and to watch the " Jim
Sammon’s Financial Freedom Seminar". I agreed to attend, as well as 50
other men. After just seeing the first session, the truths from God's
Word being taught through Mr. Sammons began to convict me of my need
to "owe no man anything but love." I decided right then to postpone
the loan. I continued to attend the seminar, and after 20 weeks (to my
amazement), God totally changed my view of not only His purposes for
finances, but also how we are to be wise stewards of everything God
entrusts to us. Later that year, this man had the seminar at our
church and Michelle & I were able to attend the seminar together.
After we both heard the testimonies of God's methods for finances,
Michelle & I purposed to become debt-free. As we have chosen to trust
Him, I have seen God provide for our family in ways that are
supernatural. I encourage every family to watch this seminar, the
testimonies Jim Sammons shares are so encouraging that our family
enjoys watching it together. He challenges you to give every area of
your life to God. You can now purchase this seminar on DVD and the
Men's Manual Vol. 2 textbook that goes with it for only $109. This
will be the best investment you have ever made. It has saved us and
made us thousands by applying Biblical principles to every decision of
life. (We do not make anything off this we just want to encourage
others with resources that have helped our family.)
Note that the question is never answered beyond " live very
frugally..shop at thrift stores and garage sales". The rest is a sales
pitch.
And from the about us page..
http://www.duggarfamily.com/aboutus.html
"Jim Bob and Michelle are licensed real estate agents"
Tell me...how is real estate doing lately?
Did you know that they don't pay property taxes because they declared
their 20 acre farm and 7000 sq. ft. house a church?
More to come....
TMT
MB
people whom you do not know, just as Karl described.
We had 7 in my family and 14 in my Mom's family, never on welfare. Are all
frugal people who
have children animals, or just Christians? Are all of my family members
'winger animals'? Can you answer that question in person please? I'm in Paso
Robles, CA.
Do you have any children? What if they ask Jesus to come in to their heart?
Would they then be 'winger animals' too?
Perhaps you should get help with this thought process stuff before turning
on the computer.
MB
Too_Many_Tools
I said more to come.
Technical difficulties on our broadband feed...remember that "little"
fire in CA?
TMT
Gunner Asch
>In other words Tool, it was just a random/ad hominem attack on your part of
>people whom you do not know, just as Karl described.
>
>We had 7 in my family and 14 in my Mom's family, never on welfare. Are all
>frugal people who
>have children animals, or just Christians? Are all of my family members
>'winger animals'? Can you answer that question in person please? I'm in Paso
>Robles, CA.
Hey dude!!
Gunner, in Taft, California
>
>Do you have any children? What if they ask Jesus to come in to their heart?
>Would they then be 'winger animals' too?
>
>Perhaps you should get help with this thought process stuff before turning
>on the computer.
>
>MB
>
>
>
>
>
"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"
NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates
Too_Many_Tools
For you to ask the question tells us that you already know the
answer..whether you will be honest in telling us is another matter.
Any parent who love their children would not and do not place the
family at risk by breeding like rabbits.
The Duggars are placing ALL their children at risk by having such a
large family.
Take some time and read the Duggar site....they are Religious Right
media whores using their children to further their egos.
They are no different than the OctaMom.
I suspect that the Duggar situation is the typical cult...and the
husband would qualify as a rapist in some countries.
The children will end up resenting being used and it will affect them
for life.
It is a form of child abuse...pure and simple.
TMT
Klaus Schadenfreude
>For you to ask the question tells us that you already know the
>answer..whether you will be honest in telling us is another matter.
YOU- worried about others being honest? [chuckle]
___________
"I will be bringing the local cops with me to visit you so be sure you
have enough doughnuts for all of us. ;<)"
-Too Many Tools, 5/30/09
"Try posting your real address just once and I will
guarantee you a visit."
-Too Many Tools, 6/2/09, right before
he scrambled for excuses not to show up.
"Got a valid address yet winger?
I would like to arraign[sic] a visit for you."
-Too Many Tools, 6/19/09, still hoping
someone actually believes him.
"Give us a valid address and we can arraign a playdate with some
friends."
-Too Many Tools 7-1-2009 STILL trying to get
someone to believe him
"Show a picture of your mailbox then...with you in front of it. ;<)"
-Too Many Tools 7-2-2009 changing the conditions in
another desperate attempt to weasel out of visiting
f.barnes
At least the children are being home schooled and not being
conditioned (brainwashed) by all that left-wing PC nonsense such as
multiculturalism that is being taught in schools nowadays.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>The Duggars are placing ALL their children at risk by having such a
>large family.
You've said some pretty stupid shit in your day, but this is right up
there.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, the children are being home schooled and being conditioned
(brainwashed) by all that right-wing Religious Right cult nonsense.
Parents who love their children would never submit their children to
such mental abuse.
I bet the parents spank their kids too...and love doing it.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Sorry turkey, but the religious know that they are more than merely
> animated mud, or self-conscious critters no different than any other
> critter evolved from the primordial soup.
>
> Fact of the matter, I'd say it was the leftards who are the more
> "animal" as they seem to feel that they can have sex with anything,
> anytime, simply because it makes them "feel good."
>
> toodles
> pyotr
> -
> pyotr filipivich
> "When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading"
> tagline for Desperado.
If so then why do so many wingers screw like bunnies?
Is your poster boy Sanford and his mistress the typical example?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The Duggars are placing ALL their children at risk by having such a
> >large family.
>
> You've said some pretty stupid shit in your day, but this is right up
> there.
Got a problem with honesty uh?
I am surprised that you even recognize honesty...a concept alien to
you.
TMT
Compact Adolescent
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecd29f26-ae73-4127...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Tool was taught by his two mommies that "breeders are bad".
Compact Adolescent
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:596u95pc16f4s8i8d...@4ax.com...
Pretty much everything he says is stupid shit.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Sep 2, 8:17�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The Duggars are placing ALL their children at risk by having such a
>> >large family.
>>
>> You've said some pretty stupid shit in your day, but this is right up
>> there.
>
>Got a problem with honesty uh?
Just your complete lack of it. But let's not forget to mention your
cowardice, too!
Klaus Schadenfreude
>No, the children are being home schooled and being conditioned
>(brainwashed) by all that right-wing Religious Right cult nonsense.
You were public-schooled, I bet.
It shows.
MB
That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
MB
MB
Your message about your difficulties got through fine. So difficult that you
can't answer for yourself?
Try holding your breath for an extended period.
MB
Gunner Asch
>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>
>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
Ill do that. I make it over there once or twice a year. Used to be more
when I had the time and money to go fishing off the piers.
>
>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>
>MB
>
Really? According to the Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kooks, Im
goofier than a box of fried mice.
Thanks!
Gunner
tankfixer
d9a77f...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
says...
> And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
You have some sort of evidence to back up that claim ?
Or are you just talking smack, again >
tankfixer
klausscha...@yahoo.com says...
Until they expelled him...
>
> It shows.
tankfixer
312add...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
says...
Still no cite on how they live off the public tit eh ?
Bama Brian
Utter flaming bullshit.
Large families used to be the norm.
That you don't know this shows how incredibly butt-stupid you are.
--
Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Bama Brian
You got out of my bit bucket when I installed 9.0.4. Back you go.
*PLONK*
--
Cheers,
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...thanks for confirming that large familes are ABNORMAL.
So what purpose do large families serve today other than ego boosters
and fund raising tools?
And why do wingers breed like rabbits at the public's expense? Lack of
self control,
TMT
tankfixer
bd4481...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
says...
It would explain much..
> So what purpose do large families serve today other than ego boosters
> and fund raising tools?
>
> And why do wingers breed like rabbits at the public's expense? Lack of
> self control,
You keep making that claim..
But never backing it up.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
the meantime, here's a link http://tinyurl.com/d7hkkp to a Kern County
(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
his creditor's the finger. Is that sort of thing "normal" to you?
Perhaps you can ask him over lunch how he's always been able to afford
decades of smoking, yet somehow just can't seem to manage a couple
hundred per year in property taxes. Then maybe he can brag about
heading a fandamily that's leeched upwards of a million bucks in
freebies, while at the same time wasting his life on Usenet
complaining about "useless eaters". Of course, if you're like the few
remaining gummer defenders on Usenet, who are bizarrely willing to
pretend that the facts about gummy don't affect their reality, then
*you're* not normal.
Wayne
No Bammer
> And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
>
Are you talking about ignorant left WINGER NUTS like you?
Gray Ghost
news:vxk8wgx...@awol.kleinpaste.org:
> Is this just some random /ad hominem/ on your part, or do you have some
> fact source to support the suggestion that their commercial real estate
> business is not adequate to support themselves?
Oh for Pete's sake! It's TMT. Ad hominem is his middle name.
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too,
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.
f.barnes
> In article <b2b427a1-ada5-4bd1-baaa-
> bd4481cb3...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, too_many_to...@yahoo.com
We now know everything we need to know about TMT: he just makes shit
up. I would suggest that the brainwashed liberal moron be ignored.
Sue
And what would you do without him? What would you do for sport if he
weren't here? Gawd but you spend a lot of time on him.
Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>So what purpose do large families serve today other than ego boosters
>and fund raising tools?
What purpose do YOU serve?
tankfixer
dad4bc...@h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, fre...@centurytel.net
says...
He's too much fun to laugh at..
Compact Adolescent
"f.barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:020eada0-c7ed-49e5...@h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
He was a waste of turkey baster sperm.
Compact Adolescent
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8uk0a55agejkjumue...@4ax.com...
He licks his mommies (both of them) fecal covered dildos clean.
Too_Many_Tools
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:21:48 -0700, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
> >On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:13:06 -0700, "MB" <mb_ae...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>
> >>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
>
> >>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>
> >You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
> >(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
> >claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
> >"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
> >his creditor's the finger. Is that sort of thing "normal" to you?
> >Perhaps you can ask him over lunch how he's always been able to afford
> >decades of smoking, yet somehow just can't seem to manage a couple
> >hundred per year in property taxes. Then maybe he can brag about
> >heading a fandamily that's leeched upwards of a million bucks in
> >freebies, while at the same time wasting his life on Usenet
> >complaining about "useless eaters". Of course, if you're like the few
> >remaining gummer defenders on Usenet, who are bizarrely willing to
> >pretend that the facts about gummy don't affect their reality, then
> >*you're* not normal.
>
> >Wayne
>
> And what would you do without him? What would you do for sport if he
> weren't here? Gawd but you spend a lot of time on him.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shhh Sue....you will give away my devious master plan to distract the
wingers and insure Obama his next election.
It worked the first time. ;<)
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "Compact
> Adolescent" <not_...@bright.duh> reported Elvis on Wed, 2 Sep 2009
> 22:14:54 -0500 in misc.survivalism:
>
> >"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:ii5u951b2hkk57tp7...@4ax.com...
> >> Sorry turkey, but the religious know that they are more than merely
> >> animated mud, or self-conscious critters no different than any other
> >> critter evolved from the primordial soup.
>
> >> Fact of the matter, I'd say it was the leftards who are the more
> >> "animal" as they seem to feel that they can have sex with anything,
> >> anytime, simply because it makes them "feel good."
>
> >This is true. For example, TMT's mommies took turns screwing each other with
> >a fecal covered dildos. When that didn't work, they used a turkey baster
> >filled with sloth sperm. TMT has two mommies and a turkey baster daddy.
>
> "Compact Adolescent" that is uncalled for. Worse, it is truly
> obscene: something which occurs off stage, and is not fit for public
> display.
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
He can't help it...it was his turkey baster.
Laugh...laugh...laugh..
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8uk0a55agejkjumue...@4ax.com...
>
> > In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>So what purpose do large families serve today other than ego boosters
> >>and fund raising tools?
>
> > What purpose do YOU serve?
>
> He licks his mommies (both of them) fecal covered dildos clean.
LOL...you seem to have a number of sexual fetishes.
Does it include kidde porn?
Does your family know of your Usenet fantasies?
The Feds do.
TMT
HH&C
"Luke, I am your Turkey Baster."
Curly Surmudgeon
They still have turnip trucks in your county?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin for President/Vice-President in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact Adolescent
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:574ecbbf-e9de-41bd...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
Your other mommy's (used to be your daddy) name is Luke? How does that work,
do they call him Lucy now?
Compact Adolescent
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33d34958-3bc0-4311...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
TMT's former daddy made me do it.
Compact Adolescent
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c24787d4-ba66-47a1...@y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
Do they know about your peephole?
Gray Ghost
82b7-d9a...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
Actually it's strategy. While the Left aborts it's progeny the Right goes
forth and multiplies. Any clue as to how that might affect voter
demographics?
Curly Surmudgeon
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No, the children are being home schooled and being conditioned
>>(brainwashed) by all that right-wing Religious Right cult nonsense.
>
> You were public-schooled, I bet.
>
> It shows.
Ad homenims are an immediate 10-point penalty.
You just lost this inning.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Keep the kiddie sex stuff coming Compact Adolescent...you seem to
really enjoy it.
It's your ass on the line with the Feds.
http://www.kidsread.net/Report_to_FBI.htm
TMT
Bama Brian
Some seriously example of human depravity made $50 as the sperm donor.
--
Cheers,
wmbjk...@citlink.net
There will never be a shortage of gummer-types to ridicule. Are you
implying that anything I write might wake him up to the
self-destructiveness of his Usenet addiction? Forget it. To him
everything other than Usenet looks too much like work. Apparently his
only ambition is to be a low-hanging fruit loop.
>Gawd but you spend a lot of time on him.
Don't rate the difficulty of my efforts by your own inabilities. Start
by considering that I can well afford to waste as much time as I like.
Meanwhile, gummer outposts me at least a hundred to one, and can't
really afford a single minute of it. So how do you rationalize
criticizing me, but not him? While you're writing up that explanation,
you might as well include the reasons some women cozy up to low-lifes
in lockup, 'cause there's gotta' be some overlap between that and what
you do with gummy.
>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer? Take a hard look at your
position here - you're pissed because I presented the *facts* to a
turnip truck escapee (thanks Curly). You were happy to let that guy
maintain his delusion in order to reinforce your own. I'd have thought
that your experience as a social worker would have taught you that one
of the reasons there are so many gummers in the world is that there
are too many enablers. Not that you'll ever own up to being one of
them. Why not make a little effort to learn how to tell the difference
between the genuinely helpless and the shameless deadbeats?
Wayne
pyotr filipivich
about Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:29:38 -0700 (PDT) did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
LOL. "I don't care who you are, that there is funny."
tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Compact Adolescent
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41a9e893-599e-4658...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Since I'm a minor and make no attempt to hide it, as evidenced by my nym,
tell me again about what you plan to do with my ass. My uncle who's a cop
said that you should be specific, and if you can, please post again about
how you want to visit Sunnyside and why you keep asking for a specific
address. Don't be shy guy. He wants you to know that spying through a
peephole without consent is illegal too, even if you are just spying on your
mommies.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trying to cover your tracks?
Too late.
Give us the name, address and phone number of your uncle the cop.
We have something to tell him about his nephew.
TMT
tankfixer
226e6e...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
says...
You plan on harrssing people
Compact Adolescent
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96a2ecff-ed00-4c77...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Ask your mommies, he's probably giving them his nightstick right now. Go
check the peephole.
Gunner Asch
>On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:13:06 -0700, "MB" <mb_a...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>>
>>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
>>
>>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>
>You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
>the meantime, here's a link http://tinyurl.com/d7hkkp to a Kern County
>(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
>claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
>"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
>his creditor's the finger.
25 yrs? Which creditors are those?
Is that sort of thing "normal" to you?
>Perhaps you can ask him over lunch how he's always been able to afford
>decades of smoking, yet somehow just can't seem to manage a couple
>hundred per year in property taxes.
Actually..I paid those property taxes. Only problem was..I gave the
money to the wrong person to pay. My ex wife. Shrug.
Now Im paying them again. This time to the state. One year at a time.
Shrug.
Then maybe he can brag about
>heading a fandamily that's leeched upwards of a million bucks in
>freebies,
Which freebies are those? Be specific.
while at the same time wasting his life on Usenet
>complaining about "useless eaters". Of course, if you're like the few
>remaining gummer defenders on Usenet, who are bizarrely willing to
>pretend that the facts about gummy don't affect their reality, then
>*you're* not normal.
>
>Wayne
Laugh laugh laugh...looks like Whine is on a role. Toss out a ball and
watch him run after it.
Here Wayne..fetch!
Laugh laugh laugh!!
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Gunner Asch
>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>
>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer? Take a hard look at your
>position here - you're pissed because I presented the *facts* to a
>turnip truck escapee (thanks Curly). You were happy to let that guy
>maintain his delusion in order to reinforce your own. I'd have thought
>that your experience as a social worker would have taught you that one
>of the reasons there are so many gummers in the world is that there
>are too many enablers. Not that you'll ever own up to being one of
>them. Why not make a little effort to learn how to tell the difference
>between the genuinely helpless and the shameless deadbeats?
>
>
>Wayne
Sounds like Whine is looking for a handout.
Sue
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>>
>>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer?
I'm not defending his lifestyle or him. The truth, which you refuse
to believe, is that he doesn't drink alcoholic beverages and he
doesn't do illegal drugs. That's all I said. Period. That is
defending the truth.
> Take a hard look at your
>>position here - you're pissed because I presented the *facts* to a
>>turnip truck escapee (thanks Curly).
I'm not "pissed" at anyone - not you, not him, not Curly, not anyone.
Why would I be? This is Usenet. I have a very few people in RL with
whom to be irate. That's enough. Usenet is for fun.
>> You were happy to let that guy
>>maintain his delusion in order to reinforce your own.
What delusion am I enabling? He doesn't drink and he doesn't do
illegal drugs. That's not a delusion. The delusion is that you
*think* he does. What is *my* delusion? About him? I haven't any. I
would say "Believe me", but I know you won't. I don't drink and I
don't do illegal drugs either. I don't smoke, but taking Atenolol
would be taking drugs so I'll not say I don't take *any* drugs.
>> I'd have thought
>>that your experience as a social worker would have taught you that one
>>of the reasons there are so many gummers in the world is that there
>>are too many enablers. Not that you'll ever own up to being one of
>>them. Why not make a little effort to learn how to tell the difference
>>between the genuinely helpless and the shameless deadbeats?
Yes, in my job capacity one could easily classify me as an enabler. I
have no argument with that (sorry). I can definitely tell between the
helpless and the shameless deadbeats. Did I say that Mark is not a
shameless deadbeat? Nope. I'm not saying one way or the other here
either. All I said was that he doesn't do illegal drugs (now
qualifying with "illegal" because of the smoking) and he doesn't drink
alcoholic beverages. Why do you have such a difficult time
understanding that? How do you know for sure that he does do those
things? You don't. As my mother would say, you assume a lot of
"facts" not in evidence. You presented facts about his property tax
situation (ad infinitum, ad nauseam). Good for you. I have great
respect for facts and the truth. Too bad in your blind animosity
toward the man you don't.
I don't know if these things have come into question, but it is a fact
that he has a CCW (I've seen it), he does carry a gun (I've seen it)
and he does have "several" firearms (I've seen them).
Just an FYI - I can't speak for other states but in California those
that do my job are not classified as social workers. The traditional
term is eligibility worker but with these days of fancy but
meaningless titles in our county we are family services workers. I
determine eligibility for benefits and disperse them. Social workers
are the ones who monitor the welfare of children, the elderly and
disabled among other things.
I don't know about the weather where you are, but it's beautiful here.
I hope you're having a lovely day.
Sue
Too_Many_Tools
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:46:38 -0700, Sue <sebr...@thegrid.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:21:48 -0700, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:13:06 -0700, "MB" <mb_ae...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>
> >>>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
>
> >>>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>
> >>You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
> >>(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
> >>claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
> >>"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
> >>Perhaps you can ask him over lunch how he's always been able to afford
> >>decades of smoking, yet somehow just can't seem to manage a couple
> >>heading a fandamily that's leeched upwards of a million bucks in
> >>complaining about "useless eaters". Of course, if you're like the few
> >>remaining gummer defenders on Usenet, who are bizarrely willing to
> >>pretend that the facts about gummy don't affect their reality, then
> >>*you're* not normal.
>
> >>Wayne
>
> >Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>
>
> __
>
> The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...if we are so easy then why are you failing so miserably keeping
up with us?
TMT
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>>
>>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer? Take a hard look at your
>>position here - you're pissed because I presented the *facts* to a
>>turnip truck escapee (thanks Curly). You were happy to let that guy
>>maintain his delusion in order to reinforce your own. I'd have thought
>>that your experience as a social worker would have taught you that one
>>of the reasons there are so many gummers in the world is that there
>>are too many enablers. Not that you'll ever own up to being one of
>>them. Why not make a little effort to learn how to tell the difference
>>between the genuinely helpless and the shameless deadbeats?
>>
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
>Sounds like Whine is looking for a handout.
Hey gummer, you forgot again about all the times you've claimed to
have plonked me. It must be more than a half-dozen by now. Your little
trainee Sue has even done a monkey-see monkey-do of your technique.
You must be so proud!
Way to go both of you. It never gets old watching feebs contradict
themselves.
Wayne
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still waiting for the name, address and phone number of your uncle the
cop.
Please also include his badge number.
And as for being a "minor", they are prosecuted as adults for kiddie
porn all the time.
Like I said, it is your ass on the line.
TMT
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:12:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>>>
>>>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>>>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer?
>
>I'm not defending his lifestyle or him. The truth, which you refuse
>to believe, is that he doesn't drink alcoholic beverages and he
>doesn't do illegal drugs. That's all I said. Period. That is
>defending the truth.
In addition to the phony killfile technique, I see that you've adopted
another of gummy's debate tactics. Are you confusing me with someone
else by accident, or on purpose? It would seem to be the latter, since
I've never said that he drinks or takes drugs. Heck, all of the
drugees and drunks I've ever met are better off than he is! I'm
thinking that for your next trick you'll demonstrate another of
gummy's failings: refusing to admit a blatant error.
>> Take a hard look at your
>>>position here - you're pissed because I presented the *facts* to a
>>>turnip truck escapee (thanks Curly).
>
>I'm not "pissed" at anyone - not you, not him, not Curly, not anyone.
>Why would I be? This is Usenet. I have a very few people in RL with
>whom to be irate. That's enough. Usenet is for fun.
I don't believe you.
>>> You were happy to let that guy
>>>maintain his delusion in order to reinforce your own.
>What delusion am I enabling?
His delusion that gummy's "normal". D'uh.
> He doesn't drink and he doesn't do
>illegal drugs. That's not a delusion. The delusion is that you
>*think* he does. What is *my* delusion?
1. That I ever said anything about drugs or alcohol.
2. That gummy is anything near normal.
3. That attacking the messenger doesn't constitute a defense.
4. That you can win an argument when you're on the wrong side of the
facts.
> About him? I haven't any. I
>would say "Believe me", but I know you won't.
Why would I believe you? You can't even keep straight who you're
responding to! You pretend to understand that gummer's a reprobate,
yet you sought him out in person, and you write goofy moon-walking
defenses of him.
> I don't drink and I
>don't do illegal drugs either. I don't smoke, but taking Atenolol
>would be taking drugs so I'll not say I don't take *any* drugs.
Now you're just babbling. Who said anything about you doing drugs? Why
would it matter to this discussion whether you do or don't?
>>> I'd have thought
>>>that your experience as a social worker would have taught you that one
>>>of the reasons there are so many gummers in the world is that there
>>>are too many enablers. Not that you'll ever own up to being one of
>>>them. Why not make a little effort to learn how to tell the difference
>>>between the genuinely helpless and the shameless deadbeats?
>
>Yes, in my job capacity one could easily classify me as an enabler. I
>have no argument with that (sorry). I can definitely tell between the
>helpless and the shameless deadbeats. Did I say that Mark is not a
>shameless deadbeat? Nope.
Writing backhanded defenses says it for you, as does following up the
posting of facts with claims that you don't dispute the facts.
> I'm not saying one way or the other here
>either.
You can tell the difference but you can't say? What are you shooting
for here, some kind of plausible deniability? You know, if you see a
dog laying still on the interstate, you might need a little time to
figure out if it's dead or alive. But if it's 2 inches think with a
big ol' tire track up the middle, it's probably dead. In gummer's
case, he's just a wet splat spread out over 4 lanes. Here's a
paraphrasing of your position in that analogy: "I'm quite capable of
telling if the dog is dead, and I'm not saying he is or he isn't, I
just want to keep my options open in hopes of getting a free dog that
won't be insulted because I made a judgment call".
> All I said was that he doesn't do illegal drugs (now
>qualifying with "illegal" because of the smoking) and he doesn't drink
>alcoholic beverages. Why do you have such a difficult time
>understanding that? How do you know for sure that he does do those
>things? You don't. As my mother would say, you assume a lot of
>"facts" not in evidence.
You're the one making the erroneous assumptions. Where you came up
with them I don't know, but the blunder says a lot about your
judgment.
> You presented facts about his property tax
>situation (ad infinitum, ad nauseam). Good for you. I have great
>respect for facts and the truth.
Despite what you say, you've made it clear that you *don't* want to
accept the facts. Which are that gummy has been wasting his life on
Usenet for a decade. You don't want to talk about that, or about his
being a BS artist who can hardly go a day without making threats and
blurting out his fantasy of killing all the "dems", or about how you
enjoyed watching him do it, or that you encouraged him. If you had
half the respect for facts that you claim, you never would have gone
near him.
> Too bad in your blind animosity
>toward the man you don't.
I'm not the one who's been trying to deflect the facts by talking in
circles and making wild assumptions that you can't possibly support.
>I don't know if these things have come into question, but it is a fact
>that he has a CCW (I've seen it), he does carry a gun (I've seen it)
>and he does have "several" firearms (I've seen them).
Perhaps you weren't paying attention back when gummer had his first
medical event, so let me give you another fact. People told him to
hawk his gun collection to help pay some of his bills. So he promptly
claimed he didn't hardly have any guns anymore. But that's just one of
who-knows-how-many lies he spouts here day after day, so what's one
more, eh?
>Just an FYI - I can't speak for other states but in California those
>that do my job are not classified as social workers. The traditional
>term is eligibility worker but with these days of fancy but
>meaningless titles in our county we are family services workers. I
>determine eligibility for benefits and disperse them. Social workers
>are the ones who monitor the welfare of children, the elderly and
>disabled among other things.
Whatever your experience is, it should have taught you not to cozy up
to shameless deadbeats.
>I don't know about the weather where you are, but it's beautiful here.
>I hope you're having a lovely day.
Oh please!
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:21:48 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:13:06 -0700, "MB" <mb_a...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>>>
>>>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
>>>
>>>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>>
>>You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
>>the meantime, here's a link http://tinyurl.com/d7hkkp to a Kern County
>>(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
>>claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
>>"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
>>his creditor's the finger.
>
>25 yrs? Which creditors are those?
You're not going to fool anyone by pretending. Link to 25 year old
lien from above list http://tinyurl.com/l9vmum. Link to a several more
liens filed without your middle initial http://tinyurl.com/l68gh3,
including one that's 27 years old.
> Is that sort of thing "normal" to you?
>>Perhaps you can ask him over lunch how he's always been able to afford
>>decades of smoking, yet somehow just can't seem to manage a couple
>>hundred per year in property taxes.
>
>Actually..I paid those property taxes. Only problem was..I gave the
>money to the wrong person to pay.
That's a funny but hopelessly witless excuse. Exactly how many times
in the last couple of decades have you given your property taxes to
your wife, and how times did you manage to avoid seeing all the
dunning notices? What are you claiming to be here, the world's slowest
learner?
And too bad for the veracity of that story that you originally
pretended that you lived at a different address, and that the liens
weren't yours at all. How dumb would a reader have to be to believe
*any* of your stories now?
>My ex wife. Shrug.
LOL So now she's your "ex" yet again, eh? You seem to alternate
between ex and wife, even on the same day! But she just happens to be
co-owner of your home, co-debtor on all your liens, lives at the same
address, and has dragged your sorry ass to the emergency room multiple
times. Not to mention that you already posted that you were never
divorced. What kind of weasel "man" tries to blame decades of every
damned thing on his wife?
>Now Im paying them again. This time to the state. One year at a time.
Ah, *another* new story! Yet here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/40259307dfb8e486
you claimed that you had a deal with the *county* for what you
hilariously called a "reverse mortgage". No matter, if you *were*
paying anything at all, then why wouldn't the records reflect that?
Don't tell me... you gave the money to your wife to give to the state?
Here are the latest bills
http://www.kcttc.co.kern.ca.us/Payment/ATNDetails.aspx?NUMBER=03946026002&NUM_TYPE=AT&YR=C.
When can we expect to see that one paid? It's only about a dollar per
day, probably about half of what smoking costs you. But a man's gotta'
have priorities, right, gummy? IIRC, your oldest property tax bills
were for about $200, but are now more like $1000 with interest and
penalties. Let me guess, in your vernacular, those are "investments"!
In light of all this, what ever possessed you to post a single word
about economics? And what the hell are you doing here at all when you
have so many obligations that ought to be a higher priority than BSing
on Usenet?
>Shrug.
We need a term for that tick of yours. Perhaps shruggitis...
>Then maybe he can brag about
>>heading a fandamily that's leeched upwards of a million bucks in
>>freebies,
>
>Which freebies are those? Be specific.
Let's see... all according to you: your medical bills are >$400k, and
your wife's are >$250k. Those are all old numbers though, and don't
include interest, right? Then years ago you told us how you were
trying to get the "cunt" on SS disability. Plus the "lazy" kid who
"can't" work, but amazingly can afford to have a "fat" wife and a
couple kiddies. Nobody works, but everybody has cell phones, perhaps
because they all want to look cool while communicating which channel
Jerry Springer is on to the other end of the trailer. Meanwhile, again
according to you, you only make a few thousand per year. Which means
that virtually all of the above is paid for with handouts from various
public agencies. What is it that *you* call people like that? Oh yeah,
"useless eaters". I'll add, hypocrite beyond compare.
Wayne
Gunner Asch
Oh this is gonna be good. Pretty soon Whine will be calling Sue all
sorts of names and bad mouthing her.
At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
Usenet.
Shrug...hey Whine...care to post your physical address so we can do this
with as little effort as possible?
Gunner, who's kill file is now missing, damnit. Agent 1.95 tends to do
this if one leaves too many files in the download section without saving
them. 674 megs....sigh...I think I waited too long.....
Gunner Asch
Yes Whine..yes. Oh fuck yes. Now you are attacking a Democrat welfare
department worker.
You are just full of hate and bile arnt you?
I think Im going to leave you out of the new kill file for a while, just
to play with you.
This is going to be fun!!!
Gunner Asch
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:10:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:21:48 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:13:06 -0700, "MB" <mb_a...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>>>>
>>>>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
>>>>
>>>>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>>>
>>>You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
>>>the meantime, here's a link http://tinyurl.com/d7hkkp to a Kern County
>>>(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
>>>claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
>>>"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
>>>his creditor's the finger.
>>
>>25 yrs? Which creditors are those?
>
>You're not going to fool anyone by pretending. Link to 25 year old
>lien from above list http://tinyurl.com/l9vmum. Link to a several more
>liens filed without your middle initial http://tinyurl.com/l68gh3,
>including one that's 27 years old.
Gee Whine...what part of earth do you live on that allows one to live in
a home for 27 yrs without paying their property taxes? Are you sure
those numbers are right? Care to put some money on your claim?
<VBG>
>
>> Is that sort of thing "normal" to you?
>>>Perhaps you can ask him over lunch how he's always been able to afford
>>>decades of smoking, yet somehow just can't seem to manage a couple
>>>hundred per year in property taxes.
>>
>>Actually..I paid those property taxes. Only problem was..I gave the
>>money to the wrong person to pay.
>
>That's a funny but hopelessly witless excuse. Exactly how many times
>in the last couple of decades have you given your property taxes to
>your wife, and how times did you manage to avoid seeing all the
>dunning notices? What are you claiming to be here, the world's slowest
>learner?
Which dunning notices are those? Be specific. Say..dates of delivery,
and so forth?
>
>And too bad for the veracity of that story that you originally
>pretended that you lived at a different address, and that the liens
>weren't yours at all. How dumb would a reader have to be to believe
>*any* of your stories now?
>
What did I pretend to? I left it up to your imagination. <VBG> which
you bit like a starving sucker on a hook. Its been fun to reel you in,
let you play out for a while, even go back to the truck and take a nap,
and come back and find out you are still hooked.
>>My ex wife. Shrug.
>
>LOL So now she's your "ex" yet again, eh? You seem to alternate
>between ex and wife, even on the same day! But she just happens to be
>co-owner of your home, co-debtor on all your liens, lives at the same
>address, and has dragged your sorry ass to the emergency room multiple
>times. Not to mention that you already posted that you were never
>divorced. What kind of weasel "man" tries to blame decades of every
>damned thing on his wife?
>
Shrug..after 34 yrs..wife and ex wife are the same. Ive only married
once. As for her owning any of the place...sorry..she signed off on it
in 2000. Im sole owner. We dont live far apart and she does take care
of the house and the critters while Im gone. And of course, she cant
work..is medically disabled, and I pay for nearly everything she
needs..except of course her medical. Which is somewhere up near 3
million or so.
They asked me if I wanted to go on disability as well. I told them no,
but probably should have, and then made sure you knew about it..that you
were paying our way. <G> Must feel like a real son of a bitch knowing
you are supporting me, wouldnt it? <VBG>
>>Now Im paying them again. This time to the state. One year at a time.
>
>Ah, *another* new story! Yet here
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/40259307dfb8e486
>you claimed that you had a deal with the *county* for what you
>hilariously called a "reverse mortgage". No matter, if you *were*
>paying anything at all, then why wouldn't the records reflect that?
>Don't tell me... you gave the money to your wife to give to the state?
Odd..I didnt see anything about a reverse mortage. I did however see you
trying to commit welfare fraud. Is that still your desire?
>Here are the latest bills
>http://www.kcttc.co.kern.ca.us/Payment/ATNDetails.aspx?NUMBER=03946026002&NUM_TYPE=AT&YR=C.
>When can we expect to see that one paid? It's only about a dollar per
>day, probably about half of what smoking costs you. But a man's gotta'
>have priorities, right, gummy? IIRC, your oldest property tax bills
>were for about $200, but are now more like $1000 with interest and
>penalties. Let me guess, in your vernacular, those are "investments"!
>In light of all this, what ever possessed you to post a single word
>about economics? And what the hell are you doing here at all when you
>have so many obligations that ought to be a higher priority than BSing
>on Usenet?
>
>>Shrug.
>
>We need a term for that tick of yours. Perhaps shruggitis...
>
>>Then maybe he can brag about
>>>heading a fandamily that's leeched upwards of a million bucks in
>>>freebies,
>>
>>Which freebies are those? Be specific.
>
>Let's see... all according to you: your medical bills are >$400k, and
>your wife's are >$250k.
Tsk tsk...you lie so badly. And so often.
My wifes medical bills are somewhere around $3 million dollars, all paid
by the state, and mine are around $275ish, 000,00
My goodness Whine..your mental illness is getting far worse. Perhaps
you should check yourself in for a physical?
Those are all old numbers though, and don't
>include interest, right? Then years ago you told us how you were
>trying to get the "cunt" on SS disability
Still trying.
. Plus the "lazy" kid who
>"can't" work, but amazingly can afford to have a "fat" wife and a
>couple kiddies. Nobody works, but everybody has cell phones, perhaps
>because they all want to look cool while communicating which channel
>Jerry Springer is on to the other end of the trailer.
Springer? Who watches Springer? My son is disabled, is on Social
Security. His wife is off disability, is working part time and he is
rasing the 2 grand children. Not a good thing..but..shrug.. Dont believe
me? Feel free to contact the State of California. In fact..if you want
to take care of them, give me an address and Ill send all 4 of them to
you. Btw..have you had any experience dealing with an ex Tweak addict
who is bipolar, schitzophrenic and has periods of manic/depression? If
he starts talking about demons...just ignore him. Shrug.
Meanwhile, again
>according to you, you only make a few thousand per year. Which means
>that virtually all of the above is paid for with handouts from various
>public agencies. What is it that *you* call people like that? Oh yeah,
>"useless eaters"
Well..this year Ive made a smidge less than $9k. Last year, was about
$34k, the year before..almost $50k as I recall. Course between vehicle
expenses, fuel, tools, 65,000 miles a year business driving, the ex
wifes care, money for the grand children and so forth...shrug....
Now I notice you keep blithering about me..but would you care to fill
all the readers in, on your income, expenses and so forth? Be specific.
Use as much white space as possible. Perhaps even giving us YOUR
address?
<G> Double dog dare you, Whine....
>. I'll add, hypocrite beyond compare.
>
>Wayne
So you are admitting to being a hypocrit beyone compare?
Yes..Indeed...post some verifyable info on you. Oh..and Im a Liberal.
<G> This makes it all better,doesnt it?
Tim Miller
> At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
> Usenet.
How are you going to do THAT, coward? And by "us", just whom do
you mean??
> Shrug...hey Whine...care to post your physical address so we can do this
> with as little effort as possible?
Heh heh, are you STILL pretending you've got the guts to
actually get your fat, unemployed ass off your lazyboy and
DO something, you lying sack of shit??
ROFLMAO!!!
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools in a valiant effort to keep up with Compact Adolescent,
> wrote:
>
> >And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
>
> >How is this any different than OctaMom?
>
> >TMT
> >The Duggars live in a 7,000-square-foot house in northwest Arkansas,
> >where they manage commercial real estate property.
>
> The difference is that the Duggars are actually earning a living and
> paying their own way.
>
> Did the article mention they were wingers (left or right) or did your
> voices just tell you that?
>
> I suppose you also got the part about "the public tit" from your
> voices since it's not in the article.
The heck they are...
TMT
Welfare: OK If You’re Christian!
posted by Erica C. Barnett on May 14 at 16:41 PM
Just in time to exploit that all-important Mother’s Day angle, Jim Bob
and Michelle Duggar—the publicity-seeking right-wing Arkansas
Christian couple whose giant family inspired the “Vagina: It’s Not a
Clown Car” poster—have announced they’re having their 18th kid. If the
Duggars were black, of course—or immigrants, or Muslims, or lesbians—
such profligate breeding would be roundly condemned as lousy family
planning, a strain on society, and a bad, neglectful home environment
for the kids. But because they’re good, all-American evangelical nut
jobs, the national press treats every new baby Michelle squeezes out
as a God-sanctioned miracle worthy of lavish, slobbering praise. The
Discovery Channel has even given them their own TV show and web site
(on its “Discovery Health” page, ironically), currently headlined “The
Duggars’ Big Announcement: Baby #18!”
Check out this fawning piece from the Today Show (which also reported—
uncritically—the Duggars’ unfounded theory that the eeevil birth
control pill caused Michelle’s first miscarriage):
Michelle and Jim Bob decided to pray for as many children as God would
give them. Within a year, Michelle was pregnant with the first of
their two sets of twins.
Their large number of offspring has meant other large numbers for the
Duggars. Michelle has been pregnant for 135 months of her life, with
an average of 18 months between births. The family estimates it has
used 90,000 diapers and launders 200 loads of clothes each month in a
row of industrial-size washers and dryers.
Most importantly, there is a unique dedication to serve the greater
good of the home and family. An older child will take on the
responsibility of a younger sibling throughout the day. The children
help prepare meals and keep to a steady home-schooling schedule. Group
studies include materials from Advanced Training Institute
International, a Bible-based education program for families.
To celebrate the latest addition to the Duggar clan, the TODAY Show
planned their own surprise for Michelle by sending her children out to
either shop or make new gifts for their busy mother.
The main gifts, picked by all the kids, included a ring Michelle saw
and liked in a used jewelry store two weeks ago, as well as a pearl
necklace and matching earrings. The older girls, Jana, Jill, Jessa and
Jinger, picked out an outfit for their mom designed for “in-between”
stages of pregnancy.[…]
“They thought they’d give their a mom surprise,” Jim Bob said. “But
she gave them a surprise.”
Memo to the Today Show’s producers: Somehow I doubt that kids savvy
enough to buy their mom a dress for the next time she’s in those pesky
in between stages” of pregnancy—hell, kids savvy enough to look around
and count—are too fucking surprised that the human incubator they call
Mom is knocked up again.
Many of the stories on the Duggars have focused on their supposed
frugality, noting admiringly that they live “debt free.” From an old
CBS News story on Michelle Duggar, titled “What a Mother!: A Young Mom
With 14 Kids Knows the Meaning of Family”:
Duggar is like any mom — multiplied several times over.
Michelle Duggar, 37, and her husband, former state Rep. Jim Bob
Duggar, have 14 kids. All of their names start with the letter “J,”
and number 15 is due this month.
“I’m either expecting or nursing,” Michelle Duggar says with a laugh.
“We actually didn’t set out to have a large number of children. I
don’t think that was our intention when we were first married. But I
think we realized children are a gift.”
The Duggars are a very religious, Southern Baptist family.
[…] Michelle Duggar homeschools all 14 children. Sometimes, they study
as a group or on their own. They use workbooks, computers and each
other to study.
[…]That may be hard to do in the modest house of only 2,400 square
feet.
Dad and the two oldest boys are building a 7,000-square-foot house.
The Duggar dream house will have bathrooms galore, a commercial
kitchen and one heck of a laundry room.
“We’ll have four washers and eight dryers,” says Jim Bob Duggar. “Yes,
a laundromat.”
How do they afford it? Jim Bob Duggar made some smart investments, and
they’re pretty frugal. The Duggars shop in bulk, basketfuls at a time.
“We spend about $1,500 a month on food,” say Jim Bob.
When they do splurge, they go in style — the family bus. But the bus
has a couple of extra seats.
“I would like more,” says Michelle Duggar.
Jim Bob Duggar says he has something very special planned for Mother’s
Day. Michelle says if that means he’s cooking, she’ll have quite a
mess to clean up when he’s done.
Another example from the Dallas Morning News, printed shortly after
Baby No. 16:
Inquiring minds want to know: How do they make it work? The answer:
It’s all about faith, finances and family. It’s a system developed
over their two decades together, and still evolving today.The Houston
Chronicle, which stuck the story about the Duggars’ 18th lil’ miracle
in its “Bizarre News” section , does note that the Duggar patriarch
“has not been specific when asked how he supports such a big family”
but adds that Jim Bob’s mysterious accounting system “blends finance
and religion.”
And, they fail to mention, donations. No family of 20 could get by on
a single income—something any reporter who’s ever collected a paycheck
ought to be able to surmise. In truth, the Duggars subsist on food
donations from Sysco; supplement their bank accounts with
contributions from other evangelical Christians and their church; and
built their 7,000-square-foot “dream house” with donated supplies and
decked it out with appliances donated by the Discovery Channel. Once
it was built, the Discovery Channel sent the whole family on a trip to
Disneyland. They also reportedly pay the Duggars for their
participation. That’s not frugality—it’s welfare. The more babies
Michelle Duggar has, the more free stuff she and her family get. The
Republicans had a name for that… if only I could remember what it was.
The really sick thing about the Duggars’ whole setup is that they
actually believe that God wants women to be pregnant all the time (to
the extent that Michelle reportedly stops breast feeding as soon as
possible after each birth, the better to ensure a quick pregnancy)—an
unnatural setup that renders Michelle Duggar routinely incapacitated,
makes her permanently dependent on her husband (would you hire a non-
college-educated housewife who hasn’t worked since she got married at
17?), and puts her at serious risk of early death and other health
problems later in life. But Michelle, of course, doesn’t matter. Her
job is to keep pumping out the precious little babies—to keep the
family’s quiver full. Her value is functional, not intrinsic.
Curly Surmudgeon
Be careful, if you annoy Gummer too much he might hang another dog to
death off his front porch.
Gunner Asch
<replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
>> Usenet.
>
>How are you going to do THAT, coward? And by "us", just whom do
>you mean??
<VBG> Id bet you would really like to know, wouldnt you? Sorry
asshat..you are simply going to have to stay ignorant as a dead
rutabega.
>
>> Shrug...hey Whine...care to post your physical address so we can do this
>> with as little effort as possible?
>
>Heh heh, are you STILL pretending you've got the guts to
>actually get your fat, unemployed ass off your lazyboy and
>DO something, you lying sack of shit??
>
>ROFLMAO!!!
Unemployed? ROFLMAO indeed. I own my own company.
<G>
So bite me, fagboi.
Gunner
Sue
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:25:14 -0700, Sue <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:12:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
>><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>>>>
>>>>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>>>>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer?
>>
>>I'm not defending his lifestyle or him. The truth, which you refuse
>>to believe, is that he doesn't drink alcoholic beverages and he
>>doesn't do illegal drugs. That's all I said. Period. That is
>>defending the truth.
>
>In addition to the phony killfile technique, I see that you've adopted
>another of gummy's debate tactics. Are you confusing me with someone
>else by accident, or on purpose? It would seem to be the latter, since
>I've never said that he drinks or takes drugs. Heck, all of the
>drugees and drunks I've ever met are better off than he is! I'm
>thinking that for your next trick you'll demonstrate another of
>gummy's failings: refusing to admit a blatant error.
What error would that be? You talked about my silly defenses. Those
(the fact that he doesn't drink or take drugs) are the *only* defenses
I've made except verifying his address. If those were not the
defenses you were talking about then please be specific.
>
>>> Take a hard look at your
>>>>position here - you're pissed because I presented the *facts* to a
>>>>turnip truck escapee (thanks Curly).
>>
>>I'm not "pissed" at anyone - not you, not him, not Curly, not anyone.
>>Why would I be? This is Usenet. I have a very few people in RL with
>>whom to be irate. That's enough. Usenet is for fun.
>
>I don't believe you.
I don't particularly care. You're funny.
>
>>>> You were happy to let that guy
>>>>maintain his delusion in order to reinforce your own.
>
>>What delusion am I enabling?
>
>His delusion that gummy's "normal". D'uh.
All I said was that he doesn't do drugs or drink. That has nothing to
do with whether he's normal. You're just having fun making stuff up.
>
>> He doesn't drink and he doesn't do
>>illegal drugs. That's not a delusion. The delusion is that you
>>*think* he does. What is *my* delusion?
>
>1. That I ever said anything about drugs or alcohol.
You said I defended something. What was it then? Whether you were
the one who said that he drinks and does drugs doesn't matter. You
*did* ask "Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer?"
>2. That gummy is anything near normal.
Please show somewhere where I *ever* said that.
>3. That attacking the messenger doesn't constitute a defense.
I attacked you? Poor thing. Please quote me on that.
>4. That you can win an argument when you're on the wrong side of the
>facts.
The facts are he doesn't drink or do drugs. You said you've never
said he did. Are you now saying it as fact? How do you know?
>
>> About him? I haven't any. I
>>would say "Believe me", but I know you won't.
>
>Why would I believe you? You can't even keep straight who you're
>responding to! You pretend to understand that gummer's a reprobate,
>yet you sought him out in person, and you write goofy moon-walking
>defenses of him.
LOL Now *that's* funny. I repeat - I am *not* defending the person.
I am defending the truth. You can't seem to get a grip on that. I
never said he's a reprobate. You're just silly.
>
>> I don't drink and I
>>don't do illegal drugs either. I don't smoke, but taking Atenolol
>>would be taking drugs so I'll not say I don't take *any* drugs.
>
>Now you're just babbling. Who said anything about you doing drugs? Why
>would it matter to this discussion whether you do or don't?
Just thought I'd throw that in.
>
>>>> I'd have thought
>>>>that your experience as a social worker would have taught you that one
>>>>of the reasons there are so many gummers in the world is that there
>>>>are too many enablers. Not that you'll ever own up to being one of
>>>>them. Why not make a little effort to learn how to tell the difference
>>>>between the genuinely helpless and the shameless deadbeats?
>>
>>Yes, in my job capacity one could easily classify me as an enabler. I
>>have no argument with that (sorry). I can definitely tell between the
>>helpless and the shameless deadbeats. Did I say that Mark is not a
>>shameless deadbeat? Nope.
>
>Writing backhanded defenses says it for you, as does following up the
>posting of facts with claims that you don't dispute the facts.
I'll worry about my facts and you worry about yours. Because you just
don't seem to understand I will say once again - the only thing I'm
commenting on is the issues of drinking and drugs. Those are the only
defenses I have made. The *only* ones. And they are defense of the
truth. I did not say that Mark is not a shameless deadbeat but I
didn't say that he is either. I believe you're disappointed.
>
>> I'm not saying one way or the other here
>>either.
>
>You can tell the difference but you can't say?
Why would I? Are your friends all perfect? Absolutely perfect? If
not, do you attack them in public? Hmmm?
> What are you shooting
>for here, some kind of plausible deniability?
Absolutely nothing. I'm just having fun. Aren't you?
> You know, if you see a
>dog laying still on the interstate, you might need a little time to
>figure out if it's dead or alive. But if it's 2 inches think with a
>big ol' tire track up the middle, it's probably dead. In gummer's
>case, he's just a wet splat spread out over 4 lanes. Here's a
>paraphrasing of your position in that analogy: "I'm quite capable of
>telling if the dog is dead, and I'm not saying he is or he isn't, I
>just want to keep my options open in hopes of getting a free dog that
>won't be insulted because I made a judgment call".
LOL. What you seem to be going for here is some negative comment on
my part. You won't accept the positive so why should I give you any
negative. He's my friend. Why would I condemn him here to you or
anyone else?
>
>> All I said was that he doesn't do illegal drugs (now
>>qualifying with "illegal" because of the smoking) and he doesn't drink
>>alcoholic beverages. Why do you have such a difficult time
>>understanding that? How do you know for sure that he does do those
>>things? You don't. As my mother would say, you assume a lot of
>>"facts" not in evidence.
>
>You're the one making the erroneous assumptions. Where you came up
>with them I don't know, but the blunder says a lot about your
>judgment.
So, you're willing to accept my statement that he doesn't do illegal
drugs and he doesn't drink? If you do then we're pretty much done.
>
>> You presented facts about his property tax
>>situation (ad infinitum, ad nauseam). Good for you. I have great
>>respect for facts and the truth.
>
>Despite what you say, you've made it clear that you *don't* want to
>accept the facts. Which are that gummy has been wasting his life on
>Usenet for a decade. You don't want to talk about that, or about his
>being a BS artist who can hardly go a day without making threats and
>blurting out his fantasy of killing all the "dems", or about how you
>enjoyed watching him do it, or that you encouraged him.
LOL I don't quite see what you think I encouraged him to do. Could
you please find a quote on that? I've never encouraged him to do
anything. And, I'm a "dem" as are my 4 adult children. You don't
know what facts I accept and what I don't. Tain't none of your
business, Toots.
> If you had
>half the respect for facts that you claim, you never would have gone
>near him.
That, too, is in the realm of none of your business. I don't choose
your friends for you.
>
>> Too bad in your blind animosity
>>toward the man you don't.
>
>I'm not the one who's been trying to deflect the facts by talking in
>circles and making wild assumptions that you can't possibly support.
What facts am I trying to deflect? I'm just not commenting. Seems to
irritate you. Your problem, not mine. What wild assumptions have I
made?
>
>>I don't know if these things have come into question, but it is a fact
>>that he has a CCW (I've seen it), he does carry a gun (I've seen it)
>>and he does have "several" firearms (I've seen them).
>
>Perhaps you weren't paying attention back when gummer had his first
>medical event, so let me give you another fact. People told him to
>hawk his gun collection to help pay some of his bills. So he promptly
>claimed he didn't hardly have any guns anymore. But that's just one of
>who-knows-how-many lies he spouts here day after day, so what's one
>more, eh?
I saw them before him "medical event".
He really gets your goat, doesn't he? You just go on and on about
someone who shouldn't mean a thing to you. He's not your neighbor,
your co-worker or your relative, but you sure do care. LOL. You're
funny.
>
>>Just an FYI - I can't speak for other states but in California those
>>that do my job are not classified as social workers. The traditional
>>term is eligibility worker but with these days of fancy but
>>meaningless titles in our county we are family services workers. I
>>determine eligibility for benefits and disperse them. Social workers
>>are the ones who monitor the welfare of children, the elderly and
>>disabled among other things.
>
>Whatever your experience is, it should have taught you not to cozy up
>to shameless deadbeats.
I have friends who have filed for bankruptcy. So, they can be
considered to be deadbeats. They're my friends anyway.
>
>>I don't know about the weather where you are, but it's beautiful here.
>>I hope you're having a lovely day.
>
>Oh please!
Okie dokes. Then have a crappy weekend. Personally, I'm having quite
a nice one. And you're providing some of the fun.
Sue - enjoying the humor
>
>Wayne
Sue
Actually, I had you killfiled because every post you made was a rerun
of the property tax situation. You were/are tedious. When I
responded to you (via piggyback) I took you out.
>
>Way to go both of you. It never gets old watching feebs contradict
>themselves.
How am I contradicting myself? Feebs? Is that feeble minded? In my
case you are probably correct.
Sue
>
>Wayne
Sue
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:10:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:21:48 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:13:06 -0700, "MB" <mb_a...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>>>>
>>>>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
>>>>
>>>>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>>>
>>>You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
>>>the meantime, here's a link http://tinyurl.com/d7hkkp to a Kern County
>>>(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
>>>claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
>>>"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
>>>his creditor's the finger.
>>
>>25 yrs? Which creditors are those?
>
>You're not going to fool anyone by pretending. Link to 25 year old
>lien from above list http://tinyurl.com/l9vmum. Link to a several more
>liens filed without your middle initial http://tinyurl.com/l68gh3,
>including one that's 27 years old.
I rest my case. Toots, you are a Johnny one-note. Tedious as hell.
>
>Let's see... all according to you: your medical bills are >$400k, and
>your wife's are >$250k. Those are all old numbers though, and don't
>include interest, right? Then years ago you told us how you were
>trying to get the "cunt" on SS disability. Plus the "lazy" kid who
>"can't" work, but amazingly can afford to have a "fat" wife and a
>couple kiddies. Nobody works, but everybody has cell phones, perhaps
>because they all want to look cool while communicating which channel
>Jerry Springer is on to the other end of the trailer. Meanwhile, again
>according to you, you only make a few thousand per year. Which means
>that virtually all of the above is paid for with handouts from various
>public agencies. What is it that *you* call people like that? Oh yeah,
>"useless eaters". I'll add, hypocrite beyond compare.
Your obsession with this man is almost an illness. It is beyond me
why you care so much. Mark must be really special to you.
Sue
Gunner Asch
ROFLMAO!...Whine simply cant win. He is so doltish that he trips over
his own tiny brain.
Gunner Asch
>>
>>Hey gummer, you forgot again about all the times you've claimed to
>>have plonked me. It must be more than a half-dozen by now. Your little
>>trainee Sue has even done a monkey-see monkey-do of your technique.
>>You must be so proud!
>
>Actually, I had you killfiled because every post you made was a rerun
>of the property tax situation. You were/are tedious. When I
>responded to you (via piggyback) I took you out.
>
>>
>>Way to go both of you. It never gets old watching feebs contradict
>>themselves.
>
>How am I contradicting myself? Feebs? Is that feeble minded? In my
>case you are probably correct.
>Sue
>
>>
>>Wayne
You see Sue..its all due to that nasty mental health problem Whine has.
Unless one sides with him...you Must be against him (paranoia) and as
such, are as low as he consideres me to be. (MegaEgo)
He simply wont leave you alone now that he knows you know me. If he
cannot take out his anger and mental health issues on me, he will reach
out to everyone around him who is not part of his parade and try to drag
them into the muck with him.
Thats the reason Ive had the stupid bastard and whiny little fuck kill
filed for a number of years. I had far too many files downloaded and it
killed (damnit) my killfile listing and the lil peckerwood started
showing up, and I held his pointed little head underwater a couple
times..as others should have been doing. The mistake I made was I let
him breath again. Shrug
Unless you are against me..he believes that you must be For me.
Shrug..his mental illness is hardly unique though..many Far Leftwing
Extremist Fringe Kooks suffer from it. They simply cannot fathom
"neutral". Whine is one of the worst, as he is both stupid and venial
and rather ignorant as well. While he may be in his 50s, his mental
state is that of a 9 or 10 yr old..and moderately retarded as well.
Shrug...so simply ignore him, jerk his chain, or kill file him as you
wish. Me..Im going to ride him around the block a few times, then stuff
him back into the kill file along with a few dozen other flakes, fat
assed leftwingers and the droningly stupid.
Have a nice day!
Gunner Asch
>>
>>Let's see... all according to you: your medical bills are >$400k, and
>>your wife's are >$250k. Those are all old numbers though, and don't
>>include interest, right? Then years ago you told us how you were
>>trying to get the "cunt" on SS disability. Plus the "lazy" kid who
>>"can't" work, but amazingly can afford to have a "fat" wife and a
>>couple kiddies. Nobody works, but everybody has cell phones, perhaps
>>because they all want to look cool while communicating which channel
>>Jerry Springer is on to the other end of the trailer. Meanwhile, again
>>according to you, you only make a few thousand per year. Which means
>>that virtually all of the above is paid for with handouts from various
>>public agencies. What is it that *you* call people like that? Oh yeah,
>>"useless eaters". I'll add, hypocrite beyond compare.
>
>Your obsession with this man is almost an illness. It is beyond me
>why you care so much. Mark must be really special to you.
>Sue
He offered to have sex with me..be my sub, and I turned him down in
horror. I was a bit harsh on him, which is evidently what he was
wanting, and now he is pissed off that I really didnt beat his sorry ass
with a board as I promised to do.
Shrug..me and my big mouth..and my inexperince with dealing with that
sort of pervert. Sorry about that.
Shrug
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:55:41 -0400, Tim Miller
><replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
>>> Usenet.
>>
>>How are you going to do THAT, coward? And by "us", just whom do
>>you mean??
>
><VBG> Id bet you would really like to know, wouldnt you?
TRANSLATION: "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
Gunner Asch
Really. The guy is as dumb as a rock.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:45:12 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:55:41 -0400, Tim Miller
>>><replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>
>>>>How are you going to do THAT, coward? And by "us", just whom do
>>>>you mean??
>>>
>>><VBG> Id bet you would really like to know, wouldnt you?
>>
>>TRANSLATION: "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
>
>
>Really. The guy is as dumb as a rock.
I was referring to you, moron.
Gunner Asch
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:45:12 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:55:41 -0400, Tim Miller
>>>><replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
>>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>>How are you going to do THAT, coward? And by "us", just whom do
>>>>>you mean??
>>>>
>>>><VBG> Id bet you would really like to know, wouldnt you?
>>>
>>>TRANSLATION: "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
>>
>>
>>Really. The guy is as dumb as a rock.
>
>I was referring to you, moron.
Why? And what is your problem with what I wrote. Be specific. Use as
much whitespace as necessary.
"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"
NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:54:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:45:12 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:55:41 -0400, Tim Miller
>>>>><replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
>>>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How are you going to do THAT, coward? And by "us", just whom do
>>>>>>you mean??
>>>>>
>>>>><VBG> Id bet you would really like to know, wouldnt you?
>>>>
>>>>TRANSLATION: "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
>>>
>>>
>>>Really. The guy is as dumb as a rock.
>>
>>I was referring to you, moron.
>
>
>Why?
Why was I referring to you? Because you're dumb as a rock.
Why are you as dumb as a rock? Many theories exist. Drug abuse,
dropped on your head as a child, industrial accidents, too much TV,
who knows?
>And what is your problem with what I wrote. Be specific.
:At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
:Usenet.
Typical usenet blowhardism. All hat and no cowboy. Everybody knows it.
Yet you persist. Ergo, you're stupid.
Any questions?
Gunner Asch
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes. Its obvious that your ignorance of me is still pathetic. Shrug...
But then..you are a Son oF Nazi..so its not surprising.
Say..hows that Jewish Question working out for you?
Gunner
Tim Miller
> In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:54:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:45:12 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:55:41 -0400, Tim Miller
>>>>>> <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At which point several of us are going to decide to end his career on
>>>>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>>>> How are you going to do THAT, coward? And by "us", just whom do
>>>>>>> you mean??
>>>>>> <VBG> Id bet you would really like to know, wouldnt you?
>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
>>>>
>>>> Really. The guy is as dumb as a rock.
>>> I was referring to you, moron.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Why was I referring to you? Because you're dumb as a rock.
> Why are you as dumb as a rock? Many theories exist. Drug abuse,
> dropped on your head as a child, industrial accidents, too much TV,
> who knows?
>
I think that statement is an insult to rocks everywhere. He IS
dumb as a rock. But rocks aren't COWARDLY LYING GOAT FUCKERS.
He is.
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 5, 8:47 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >> Too_Many_Tools in a valiant effort to keep up with Compact Adolescent,
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >And sucking off the public tit while doing it...
>
> >> >How is this any different than OctaMom?
>
> >> >TMT
> >> >The Duggars live in a 7,000-square-foot house in northwest Arkansas,
> >> >where they manage commercial real estate property.
>
> >> The difference is that the Duggars are actually earning a living and
> >> paying their own way.
>
> >> Did the article mention they were wingers (left or right) or did your
> >> voices just tell you that?
>
> >> I suppose you also got the part about "the public tit" from your
> >> voices since it's not in the article.
>
> >The heck they are...
>
> >TMT
>
> now come up with. NOTHING about them being on welfare. In fact,
> your own post (fragment below) paints a picture of a financially
> successful family.
>
> Let's have some documentation of the welfare (public tit) charge or we
> will just have to dismiss it as something your voices told you.
> WS
>
> >Welfare: OK If You’re Christian!
> >posted by Erica C. Barnett on May 14 at 16:41 PM
>
>
>
>
> >[…]That may be hard to do in the modest house of only 2,400 square
> >feet.
>
> >Dad and the two oldest boys are building a 7,000-square-foot house.
> >The Duggar dream house will have bathrooms galore, a commercial
> >kitchen and one heck of a laundry room.
>
> >“We’ll have four washers and eight dryers,” says Jim Bob Duggar. “Yes,
> >a laundromat.”
>
> >How do they afford it? Jim Bob Duggar made some smart investments, and
> >they’re pretty frugal. The Duggars shop in bulk, basketfuls at a time.
>
> >“We spend about $1,500 a month on food,” say Jim Bob.
>
> >When they do splurge, they go in style — the family bus. But the bus
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Google for the link.
The Duggars are not paying their way...not even close.
TMT
tankfixer
1ebd60...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
says...
> > >posted by Erica C. Barnett on May 14 at 16:41 PM
> >
> > without a link to the source.
> >
> >
> >
> > >feet.
> >
> > >Dad and the two oldest boys are building a 7,000-square-foot house.
> > >The Duggar dream house will have bathrooms galore, a commercial
> > >kitchen and one heck of a laundry room.
> >
> > >a laundromat.?
> >
> > >How do they afford it? Jim Bob Duggar made some smart investments, and
> >
> > >?We spend about $1,500 a month on food,? say Jim Bob.
> >
> > >When they do splurge, they go in style ? the family bus. But the bus
> > >has a couple of extra seats.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Google for the link.
>
> The Duggars are not paying their way...not even close.
What concern is it of yours ?
wmbjk...@citlink.net
You've been doing this phony killfile thing for at least 6 years that
I can remember. I can't count how many times you've been busted for
it, and blaming software is just one more of your ridiculous excuses.
But let's imagine for a moment that the software let you down. Did it
hide names from you? Did it make you respond? Too bad for you that
there isn't a market for weak-excuse making. Oh well, it least
there's finally one thing you didn't try to blame on your wife.
But it all begs a simple question: why do you spend even a single
minute on Usenet in the first place? You are absolutely *the* brokest
person I know, and yet I see that you blasted out probably 400 posts
the last couple days. If you'd earned even $5 instead, and paid it to
your creditors, then perhaps you could reclaim a shred of dignity. Get
off your ass, you lazy, lying, leeching windbag!
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:53:24 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:10:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
>><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:21:48 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:13:06 -0700, "MB" <mb_a...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hey Gunner in Taft,
>>>>>
>>>>>That 'aint too far! Email when you're gonna be over here and I'll get lunch.
>>>>>
>>>>>Reading your posts for awhile, you seem like a normal person ...
>>>>
>>>>You might wanna' take your reading comprehension in for tune-up. In
>>>>the meantime, here's a link http://tinyurl.com/d7hkkp to a Kern County
>>>>(Taft) search of gummer's liens that came about when he hilariously
>>>>claimed to have a leg up over other survivalists on account of his
>>>>"paid for" home. It's also his 25 (twenty-five) year! record of giving
>>>>his creditor's the finger.
>>>
>>>25 yrs? Which creditors are those?
>>
>>You're not going to fool anyone by pretending. Link to 25 year old
>>lien from above list http://tinyurl.com/l9vmum. Link to a several more
>>liens filed without your middle initial http://tinyurl.com/l68gh3,
>>including one that's 27 years old.
>
>
>Gee Whine...what part of earth do you live on that allows one to live in
>a home for 27 yrs without paying their property taxes? Are you sure
>those numbers are right?
Oh, I take it for granted that one or two of them might be out of
date. Considering the volume of work you've created for the county
staff, one could hardly blame them for dropping the ball now and then.
But the bulk will be correct, and the trend is undeniable - you only
pay what you can be forced to pay. Knowing the pity-party crap you
post here, one can only imagine the sob stories you've laid on those
creditors over the years. One thing's for sure, you don't tell them
that your financial obligations rate way down your list, far behind
your Usenet addiction, toys, and ammo.
><VBG>
The grinning and shrugging are a large part of your problem. A normal
person would be mortified to have accumulated such a record of
deadbeatitis, and wouldn't be giving lectures on Usenet, much less
become the biggest hypocrite there.
>>> Is that sort of thing "normal" to you?
>>>>Perhaps you can ask him over lunch how he's always been able to afford
>>>>decades of smoking, yet somehow just can't seem to manage a couple
>>>>hundred per year in property taxes.
>>>
>>>Actually..I paid those property taxes. Only problem was..I gave the
>>>money to the wrong person to pay.
>>
>>That's a funny but hopelessly witless excuse. Exactly how many times
>>in the last couple of decades have you given your property taxes to
>>your wife, and how times did you manage to avoid seeing all the
>>dunning notices? What are you claiming to be here, the world's slowest
>>learner?
>
>Which dunning notices are those? Be specific. Say..dates of delivery,
>and so forth?
<sigh> You know gummy, any rock in my yard could hold up its end of a
debate better than you.
>>And too bad for the veracity of that story that you originally
>>pretended that you lived at a different address, and that the liens
>>weren't yours at all. How dumb would a reader have to be to believe
>>*any* of your stories now?
>What did I pretend to? I left it up to your imagination. <VBG>
Whatdaya' know, yet another story of what happened! Were you leaving
it up to readers' imagination when you claimed that the place was
"free and clear"?
>>>My ex wife. Shrug.
>>LOL So now she's your "ex" yet again, eh? You seem to alternate
>>between ex and wife, even on the same day! But she just happens to be
>>co-owner of your home, co-debtor on all your liens, lives at the same
>>address, and has dragged your sorry ass to the emergency room multiple
>>times. Not to mention that you already posted that you were never
>>divorced. What kind of weasel "man" tries to blame decades of every
>>damned thing on his wife?
>Shrug..after 34 yrs..wife and ex wife are the same. Ive only married
>once. As for her owning any of the place...sorry..she signed off on it
>in 2000. Im sole owner.
Neither of you "own" anything. You've both insolvent, and probably
have been since '82 if not earlier. Other counties sell houses a lot
nicer than yours and in better neighborhoods for a dollar just so that
they can get a tax*payer* into it.
> We dont live far apart and she does take care
>of the house and the critters while Im gone. And of course, she cant
>work..is medically disabled, and I pay for nearly everything she
>needs..
"Nearly" everything? Who pays the rest? What percentage of the total
do you and this unknown person pay? Can you even do fractions under
1%? Who's buying her the cigarettes, the smoking of which supposedly
is preventing you from quitting? Your clan of leechers only has two
sources of income - your imaginary "business" earnings, and government
handouts. Anybody who believes that taxpayers aren't paying for your
smokes must have ridden the short bus.
>except of course her medical. Which is somewhere up near 3
>million or so.
As far as I know, that 3 million number is a new one, and sure to be
quoted. Anyway, boy howdy I can certainly see why you chafed at my
suggesting that your entire family had leeched "upwards of a million".
>They asked me if I wanted to go on disability as well. I told them
no,
That's as believable as the time you wrote that you'd probably die
rather than have a second free rescue from the emergency room.
Remember when you pretended that it wasn't even your choice to accept
all the charity? Man, those were the good ol' days, eh, when you were
only being ragged on for mooching a few tens of thousands.
>but probably should have, and then made sure you knew about it..that you
>were paying our way. <G> Must feel like a real son of a bitch knowing
>you are supporting me, wouldnt it? <VBG>
Everybody knows that it costs a lot to support shameless deadbeats
like you. The thing is though, I haven't seen any of the other
recipients dumb enough to go on Usenet self-painted as a 10 story
target. You seem to be unique.
>>>Now Im paying them again. This time to the state. One year at a time.
>>Ah, *another* new story! Yet here
>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/40259307dfb8e486
>>you claimed that you had a deal with the *county* for what you
>>hilariously called a "reverse mortgage". No matter, if you *were*
>>paying anything at all, then why wouldn't the records reflect that?
>>Don't tell me... you gave the money to your wife to give to the state?
>Odd..I didnt see anything about a reverse mortage.
The only thing that would be "odd" is if you could remember even a
tiny fraction of the literary flatulence that you've stunk up Usenet
with. Look again, feeb: "So the County adds them together and will
delete them from the sale of my home when its time, if ever, to sell
it. Think of it as a "reverse mortgage"." Translation from gummertalk
into English: "I have no intention of paying so long as contradictory
excuses are cheaper". Not that it matters, since the place probably
isn't worth but a small portion of what you owe on it, and most likely
the county would only get pennies on the dollar at best.
>>Here are the latest bills
>>http://www.kcttc.co.kern.ca.us/Payment/ATNDetails.aspx?NUMBER=03946026002&NUM_TYPE=AT&YR=C.
>>When can we expect to see that one paid? It's only about a dollar per
>>day, probably about half of what smoking costs you. But a man's gotta'
>>have priorities, right, gummy? IIRC, your oldest property tax bills
>>were for about $200, but are now more like $1000 with interest and
>>penalties. Let me guess, in your vernacular, those are "investments"!
>>In light of all this, what ever possessed you to post a single word
>>about economics? And what the hell are you doing here at all when you
>>have so many obligations that ought to be a higher priority than BSing
>>on Usenet?
>>
>>>Shrug.
>>
>>We need a term for that tick of yours. Perhaps shruggitis...
>>
>>>Then maybe he can brag about
>>>>heading a fandamily that's leeched upwards of a million bucks in
>>>>freebies,
>>>
>>>Which freebies are those? Be specific.
>>
>>Let's see... all according to you: your medical bills are >$400k, and
>>your wife's are >$250k.
>
>Tsk tsk...you lie so badly. And so often.
>
>My wifes medical bills are somewhere around $3 million dollars, all paid
>by the state, and mine are around $275ish, 000,00
Let's disregard your painful attempts at getting the number of zeros
correct, since to you it doesn't matter if it's one or a trillion.
I'll just round off the subtotal to $3.3 million for now.
>. Plus the "lazy" kid who
>>"can't" work, but amazingly can afford to have a "fat" wife and a
>>couple kiddies. Nobody works, but everybody has cell phones, perhaps
>>because they all want to look cool while communicating which channel
>>Jerry Springer is on to the other end of the trailer.
>
>Springer? Who watches Springer? My son is disabled, is on Social
>Security. His wife is off disability, is working part time and he is
>rasing the 2 grand children. Not a good thing..but..shrug.. Dont believe
>me? Feel free to contact the State of California.
No need, everyone reading assumed as much years ago. Let's make some
rough estimates - $100k in healthcare so far for the lot of
gummerleech generations 2 and 3, and $15k a year in payouts for 5
years so far. That's another $165k added to the total, which is now
very close to $3.5 million... and counting! Let's further assume that
you're only responsible for a really low interest cost, and call it
150 grand in interest per year that CA governments will take out of
school budgets until you get back, er, on your feet. <snorf> Gosh, I
can see why you'd want to wriggle out of that 400 bucks per year in
county taxes. Those bastards! They, and readers of this newsgroup,
have some nerve to think that a hard-posting Usenet asshat should get
off his butt and mow lawns or something, right, gummy? But you're too
busy to care about any of it. Not enough hours in the day, what with
all the blaming of everybody else for the fact that CA is broke. The
infamous $3.5 million dollar family hasn't a thing to do with it!
>Btw..have you had any experience dealing with an ex Tweak addict
>who is bipolar, schitzophrenic and has periods of manic/depression?
First of all, you know him better than anyone, and you're the one who
called him lazy. Second, you obviously pawned him off on taxpayers a
long time ago. Third, you haven't done a thing to disabuse anyone of
the notion that you're exactly the trailer trash you appear. Every
last one of you has your hand out, you're all smoking to make sure the
costs to the taxpayers are as high as you can make them, and the
patriarch is here day after day to explain what all the rest of us are
doing wrong! Not to mention the even more astonishing hypocrisy of
criticizing lesser deadbeats!
>Well..this year Ive made a smidge less than $9k. Last year, was about
>$34k, the year before..almost $50k as I recall. Course between vehicle
>expenses, fuel, tools, 65,000 miles a year business driving, the ex
>wifes care, money for the grand children and so forth...shrug....
Responsible readers did you a favor years ago by telling you to get a
proper job. You didn't do it because 1. You prefer to have the freedom
to sit on your ass BSing on Usenet day after day, and 2. Nobody would
knowingly hire you if they know about your history of 1. There are
only two hopeful thing to come out of your mess: one is that between
the time you spend shuffling doctor's appointments and the paperwork
required for all the handouts, your posting frequency might finally
drop out of the top three. The other is that CA might get so broke
that your next ambulance will lose a wheel on the way to the emergency
room.
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:39:44 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:25:14 -0700, Sue <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:12:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>>>>>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer?
>>>
>>>I'm not defending his lifestyle or him. The truth, which you refuse
>>>to believe, is that he doesn't drink alcoholic beverages and he
>>>doesn't do illegal drugs. That's all I said. Period. That is
>>>defending the truth.
>>
>>In addition to the phony killfile technique, I see that you've adopted
>>another of gummy's debate tactics. Are you confusing me with someone
>>else by accident, or on purpose? It would seem to be the latter, since
>>I've never said that he drinks or takes drugs. Heck, all of the
>>drugees and drunks I've ever met are better off than he is! I'm
>>thinking that for your next trick you'll demonstrate another of
>>gummy's failings: refusing to admit a blatant error.
>
>What error would that be?
Besides being too feeble to follow the conversation, or pretending not
to follow it so that you can pretend not to need to admit the mistake?
>You talked about my silly defenses. Those
>(the fact that he doesn't drink or take drugs) are the *only* defenses
>I've made except verifying his address. If those were not the
>defenses you were talking about then please be specific.
*Several* times when I've posted the facts about gummy, you've
followed with your silly cracks. Those are indirect defenses of your
"friend", whose lifestyle you imply that you perhaps abhor, but you
won't say for sure, as if nobody can figure it out.
>>>What delusion am I enabling?
>>
>>His delusion that gummy's "normal". D'uh.
>
>All I said was that he doesn't do drugs or drink. That has nothing to
>do with whether he's normal.
Hmm, so you went to visit the proverbial dog you met on Usenet, even
though you *didn't* think he was normal? Who does that, other than
women who cozy up to penitentiary residents?
>>> He doesn't drink and he doesn't do
>>>illegal drugs. That's not a delusion. The delusion is that you
>>>*think* he does. What is *my* delusion?
>>
>>1. That I ever said anything about drugs or alcohol.
>
>You said I defended something. What was it then? Whether you were
>the one who said that he drinks and does drugs doesn't matter.
It matters in that you've based a lot of your opinion on something you
were dead-wrong about. You made the same mistake with gummy, but
you're not going to admit that either.
>>4. That you can win an argument when you're on the wrong side of the
>>facts.
>
>The facts are he doesn't drink or do drugs. You said you've never
>said he did. Are you now saying it as fact? How do you know?
The latest fact is that it's your habit to pretend that repetitious
non-sequiturs are a substitute for logical thinking.
> I did not say that Mark is not a shameless deadbeat but I
>didn't say that he is either.
Your judgment of character is plainly deficient, but even you are not
so blind that you can't see that he *is* a shameless deadbeat, which
is putting it mildly. Who do you think you're fooling? Are you afraid
that if you say what we all know in plain English, that gummy will put
you on his shit-list? Wise up, that would be a badge of honor.
>>You can tell the difference but you can't say?
>
>Why would I? Are your friends all perfect? Absolutely perfect? If
>not, do you attack them in public? Hmmm?
Disregarding your logical fallacy for a moment, none of my friends are
perfect. I do have had friends with gummer's propensities, but if they
cross the line, then I cut them loose. That line can be hard to define
sometimes, and I admit to hanging on to some friends longer than I
should have. But I would *never* seek out a deadbeat Usenet BS artist
as a friend. I can't for the life of me understand why you did it. I
could understand some past naivety on your part, but holy crap, the
facts have long since been clear. For example, how many "dems" does
gummer have to fantasize about killing before even Mother Teresa would
realize that he's pathological? Isn't he up to 100 million? Are you
waiting for a higher number? Jeez Louise.
> He's my friend. Why would I condemn him here to you or
>anyone else?
First of all, you have condemned him to various degrees, and there are
several good reasons to do that. The best is to do make him understand
that his behavior is unacceptable to normal people. But the only
reason you do it is to try to convince readers that you're not as
weird as you seem.
>So, you're willing to accept my statement that he doesn't do illegal
>drugs and he doesn't drink?
I took him at his word for that a long time ago. It's not like those
things could make him look any worse, is it? Personally, I'd take a
alcoholic any day over somebody who repeatedly calls his wife a "cunt"
on Usenet. It's especially worse in gummer's case because he tries to
manipulate people into believing that he's a chivalrous type. Of
course, few would fall for it, but that's his target audience: the
dumbest of the dumb.
> If you do then we're pretty much done.
Oh, I doubt that. People who announce a plonking and then respond a
whole bunch are driven. I expect you'll announce yet another
killfiling, you'll continue reading everything I write, and then
you'll return to piggybacking your comments onto other responders...
until you slip up again.
>I don't choose
>your friends for you.
Hey, be friends with whoever you like! Better yet, write about it so
others can understand what drives people who seek out and keep Usenet
crackpots as friends.
>>>I don't know if these things have come into question, but it is a fact
>>>that he has a CCW (I've seen it), he does carry a gun (I've seen it)
>>>and he does have "several" firearms (I've seen them).
>>
>>Perhaps you weren't paying attention back when gummer had his first
>>medical event, so let me give you another fact. People told him to
>>hawk his gun collection to help pay some of his bills. So he promptly
>>claimed he didn't hardly have any guns anymore. But that's just one of
>>who-knows-how-many lies he spouts here day after day, so what's one
>>more, eh?
>
>I saw them before him "medical event".
It doesn't matter when you saw them. Normal people told him to sell
all of his toys to show that he's serious about making good on his
obligations. He won't do it, which is one of the things that makes him
shameless. Which brings up another thing you should have learned from
your work experience - that people like gummy will ignore a thousand
protests of their behavior in favor of one positive signal, no matter
how weak. The irony here is that you probably believe that you're
helping him. You're not. You're encouraging him, and I don't believe
that you're too feeble to understand that.
>I have friends who have filed for bankruptcy. So, they can be
>considered to be deadbeats. They're my friends anyway.
Filing for bankruptcy doesn't come close to necessarily making one a
deadbeat in my book. And being merely a deadbeat doesn't qualify one
for a Usenet bashing, at least not from me anyway. What does make the
grade is someone whiling away their life hypocritically giving
lectures to others when the time is undeniably better spent elsewhere.
Not to mention all the bloody lying, and blaming everything on his
wife, and scapegoating anyone and everyone when he knows full well
that he's far more responsible than most for CA's economic mess. His
shtick is so far beyond pathetic that only someone with a loose screw
would go along with it.
Wayne
Sue
>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:10:01 -0700, Sue <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:39:44 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:25:14 -0700, Sue <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:12:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>>><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>>>>>>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not defending his lifestyle or him. The truth, which you refuse
>>>>to believe, is that he doesn't drink alcoholic beverages and he
>>>>doesn't do illegal drugs. That's all I said. Period. That is
>>>>defending the truth.
>>>
>>>In addition to the phony killfile technique, I see that you've adopted
>>>another of gummy's debate tactics. Are you confusing me with someone
>>>else by accident, or on purpose? It would seem to be the latter, since
>>>I've never said that he drinks or takes drugs. Heck, all of the
>>>drugees and drunks I've ever met are better off than he is! I'm
>>>thinking that for your next trick you'll demonstrate another of
>>>gummy's failings: refusing to admit a blatant error.
>>
>>What error would that be?
>
>Besides being too feeble to follow the conversation,
I readily admit to being a bit feeble.
> or pretending not
>to follow it so that you can pretend not to need to admit the mistake?
I did not make a mistake. You said (geeze, how many times do I have
to tell you what *you* said?) that I have made silly defenses. You
really need to quote me on those since they apparently are not the
drinking and drugs, which, I repeat, was not a defense of him but of
the truth.
>
>>You talked about my silly defenses. Those
>>(the fact that he doesn't drink or take drugs) are the *only* defenses
>>I've made except verifying his address. If those were not the
>>defenses you were talking about then please be specific.
>
>*Several* times when I've posted the facts about gummy, you've
>followed with your silly cracks. Those are indirect defenses of your
>"friend", whose lifestyle you imply that you perhaps abhor, but you
>won't say for sure, as if nobody can figure it out.
Please quote the "silly cracks". You are obviously quite good at
tracking things down so please do so. I do like to make "silly
cracks" but I have no idea of any I made to you.
>
>>>>What delusion am I enabling?
>>>
>>>His delusion that gummy's "normal". D'uh.
>>
>>All I said was that he doesn't do drugs or drink. That has nothing to
>>do with whether he's normal.
>
>Hmm, so you went to visit the proverbial dog you met on Usenet, even
>though you *didn't* think he was normal? Who does that, other than
>women who cozy up to penitentiary residents?
Where did I say what I think about his normalcy? I didn't. You are,
once again, making things up.
>
>>>> He doesn't drink and he doesn't do
>>>>illegal drugs. That's not a delusion. The delusion is that you
>>>>*think* he does. What is *my* delusion?
>>>
>>>1. That I ever said anything about drugs or alcohol.
>>
>>You said I defended something. What was it then? Whether you were
>>the one who said that he drinks and does drugs doesn't matter.
>
>It matters in that you've based a lot of your opinion on something you
>were dead-wrong about.
What opinion is that? Please quote my opinion.
>You made the same mistake with gummy, but
>you're not going to admit that either.
*If* that's the case why would I admit it to you? Are you someone
special? Father confessor?
>
>>>4. That you can win an argument when you're on the wrong side of the
>>>facts.
>>
>>The facts are he doesn't drink or do drugs. You said you've never
>>said he did. Are you now saying it as fact? How do you know?
>
>The latest fact is that it's your habit to pretend that repetitious
>non-sequiturs are a substitute for logical thinking.
This whole thing is about your stating something about my "silly
defenses". That's what started this whole long and tedious thread.
Now you can't seem to come up with these "silly defenses". C'mon. Out
with it. What are they?
>
>> I did not say that Mark is not a shameless deadbeat but I
>>didn't say that he is either.
>
>Your judgment of character is plainly deficient, but even you are not
>so blind that you can't see that he *is* a shameless deadbeat, which
>is putting it mildly. Who do you think you're fooling? Are you afraid
>that if you say what we all know in plain English, that gummy will put
>you on his shit-list? Wise up, that would be a badge of honor.
<chuckle> My opinion is mine, whether good or bad. I don't really
see why you should care? Are you trying to protect my honor or
something? Darn decent of ya, but I can take care of myself.
>
>>>You can tell the difference but you can't say?
>>
>>Why would I? Are your friends all perfect? Absolutely perfect? If
>>not, do you attack them in public? Hmmm?
>
>Disregarding your logical fallacy for a moment, none of my friends are
>perfect. I do have had friends with gummer's propensities, but if they
>cross the line, then I cut them loose. That line can be hard to define
>sometimes, and I admit to hanging on to some friends longer than I
>should have. But I would *never* seek out a deadbeat Usenet BS artist
>as a friend. I can't for the life of me understand why you did it. I
>could understand some past naivety on your part, but holy crap, the
>facts have long since been clear. For example, how many "dems" does
>gummer have to fantasize about killing before even Mother Teresa would
>realize that he's pathological? Isn't he up to 100 million? Are you
>waiting for a higher number? Jeez Louise.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just having fun at your
expense? I don't know this, but it could be. He's got you and so
many others so damned riled up it's kind of interesting and definitely
amusing. You take all this as though it's life and death.
>
>> He's my friend. Why would I condemn him here to you or
>>anyone else?
>
>First of all, you have condemned him to various degrees, and there are
>several good reasons to do that. The best is to do make him understand
>that his behavior is unacceptable to normal people. But the only
>reason you do it is to try to convince readers that you're not as
>weird as you seem.
How have I condemned him? How do you know what his behavior is? I
mean his RL behavior. You don't.
>
>>So, you're willing to accept my statement that he doesn't do illegal
>>drugs and he doesn't drink?
>
>I took him at his word for that a long time ago.
Good. Then what are those"silly defenses" to which you referred?
> It's not like those
>things could make him look any worse, is it? Personally, I'd take a
>alcoholic any day over somebody who repeatedly calls his wife a "cunt"
>on Usenet. It's especially worse in gummer's case because he tries to
>manipulate people into believing that he's a chivalrous type. Of
>course, few would fall for it, but that's his target audience: the
>dumbest of the dumb.
Are you referring to me? LOL. You don't know what I've "fallen for"
or if I've "fallen for" anything.
>
>> If you do then we're pretty much done.
>
>Oh, I doubt that. People who announce a plonking and then respond a
>whole bunch are driven. I expect you'll announce yet another
>killfiling, you'll continue reading everything I write, and then
>you'll return to piggybacking your comments onto other responders...
>until you slip up again.
What announcement? I don't believe I have ever announced that I'm
killfiling anyone. Prior to my piggyback response did you know I had
you killfiled? Did you take "we're pretty much done" as a killfile
announcement. If you did then you were wrong. I'm not going to
killfile you. This is with the specific intent of finding *some* post
of yours that isn't related to Mark. However, I read very little here
(MS) - probably only about 5% of the posts if even that - so I may
miss something.
>>I don't choose
>>your friends for you.
>
>Hey, be friends with whoever you like!
Thanks. I'm so glad I have your permission.
> Better yet, write about it so
>others can understand what drives people who seek out and keep Usenet
>crackpots as friends.
Sorry, I haven't anything to say on that. No writing will be
forthcoming.
>
>>>>I don't know if these things have come into question, but it is a fact
>>>>that he has a CCW (I've seen it), he does carry a gun (I've seen it)
>>>>and he does have "several" firearms (I've seen them).
>>>
>>>Perhaps you weren't paying attention back when gummer had his first
>>>medical event, so let me give you another fact. People told him to
>>>hawk his gun collection to help pay some of his bills. So he promptly
>>>claimed he didn't hardly have any guns anymore. But that's just one of
>>>who-knows-how-many lies he spouts here day after day, so what's one
>>>more, eh?
>>
>>I saw them before him "medical event".
>
>It doesn't matter when you saw them. Normal people told him to sell
>all of his toys to show that he's serious about making good on his
>obligations. He won't do it, which is one of the things that makes him
>shameless. Which brings up another thing you should have learned from
>your work experience - that people like gummy will ignore a thousand
>protests of their behavior in favor of one positive signal, no matter
>how weak. The irony here is that you probably believe that you're
>helping him. You're not. You're encouraging him, and I don't believe
>that you're too feeble to understand that.
Helping him do what? Encouraging him to do what? You have no idea
what I may have said to him in e-mail. For all you know I may be
ripping him a new one.
>
>>I have friends who have filed for bankruptcy. So, they can be
>>considered to be deadbeats. They're my friends anyway.
>
>Filing for bankruptcy doesn't come close to necessarily making one a
>deadbeat in my book. And being merely a deadbeat doesn't qualify one
>for a Usenet bashing, at least not from me anyway. What does make the
>grade is someone whiling away their life hypocritically giving
>lectures to others when the time is undeniably better spent elsewhere.
>Not to mention all the bloody lying, and blaming everything on his
>wife, and scapegoating anyone and everyone when he knows full well
>that he's far more responsible than most for CA's economic mess. His
>shtick is so far beyond pathetic that only someone with a loose screw
>would go along with it.
Well, Toots, you don't know if I "go along" with it or not, do ya? No
you don't. <chuckle>
Have a crappy day.
Sue - having fun as always.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Your admission is redundant. Your ability to write in circles and
repeat non-sequitors is so bad now that your posts could just as
easily have been written by gummer.
>
>> or pretending not
>>to follow it so that you can pretend not to need to admit the mistake?
>
>I did not make a mistake.
BS You claimed that I believed that gummy was into drugs and alcohol.
I'd quote it for other readers but I doubt that there are any besides
you who need that much help.
You said (geeze, how many times do I have
>to tell you what *you* said?) that I have made silly defenses. You
>really need to quote me on those since they apparently are not the
>drinking and drugs, which, I repeat, was not a defense of him but of
>the truth.
>
>>
>>>You talked about my silly defenses. Those
>>>(the fact that he doesn't drink or take drugs) are the *only* defenses
>>>I've made except verifying his address. If those were not the
>>>defenses you were talking about then please be specific.
>>
>>*Several* times when I've posted the facts about gummy, you've
>>followed with your silly cracks. Those are indirect defenses of your
>>"friend", whose lifestyle you imply that you perhaps abhor, but you
>>won't say for sure, as if nobody can figure it out.
>
>Please quote the "silly cracks". You are obviously quite good at
>tracking things down so please do so. I do like to make "silly
>cracks" but I have no idea of any I made to you.
>
>>
>>>>>What delusion am I enabling?
>>>>
>>>>His delusion that gummy's "normal". D'uh.
>>>
>>>All I said was that he doesn't do drugs or drink. That has nothing to
>>>do with whether he's normal.
>>
>>Hmm, so you went to visit the proverbial dog you met on Usenet, even
>>though you *didn't* think he was normal? Who does that, other than
>>women who cozy up to penitentiary residents?
>
>Where did I say what I think about his normalcy?
<sigh> Normal people would assume that since you sought gummy out in
person, then you must have believed he was normal. Of course, that
logic only applies if you're normal, which is obviously seriously in
doubt. I gave you some credit for past naivete, but it seems most
likely now from what you continue to write, that you knew all along
that he was a crackpot. Perhaps that's exactly what attracted you to
him.
I didn't. You are,
>once again, making things up.
>
>>
>>>>> He doesn't drink and he doesn't do
>>>>>illegal drugs. That's not a delusion. The delusion is that you
>>>>>*think* he does. What is *my* delusion?
>>>>
>>>>1. That I ever said anything about drugs or alcohol.
>>>
>>>You said I defended something. What was it then? Whether you were
>>>the one who said that he drinks and does drugs doesn't matter.
>>
>>It matters in that you've based a lot of your opinion on something you
>>were dead-wrong about.
>
>What opinion is that? Please quote my opinion.
>
>>You made the same mistake with gummy, but
>>you're not going to admit that either.
>
>*If* that's the case why would I admit it to you? Are you someone
>special? Father confessor?
You needn't admit anything to me or anyone. But you're writing in a
public forum, about a infamous hypocrite who makes threats day in and
day out. If you want people to believe that you're not as whacked as
he is, then you'd be wise to quit the silliness.
>
>>
>>>>4. That you can win an argument when you're on the wrong side of the
>>>>facts.
>>>
>>>The facts are he doesn't drink or do drugs. You said you've never
>>>said he did. Are you now saying it as fact? How do you know?
>>
>>The latest fact is that it's your habit to pretend that repetitious
>>non-sequiturs are a substitute for logical thinking.
>
>This whole thing is about your stating something about my "silly
>defenses". That's what started this whole long and tedious thread.
>Now you can't seem to come up with these "silly defenses". C'mon. Out
>with it. What are they?
>
>>
>>> I did not say that Mark is not a shameless deadbeat but I
>>>didn't say that he is either.
>>
>>Your judgment of character is plainly deficient, but even you are not
>>so blind that you can't see that he *is* a shameless deadbeat, which
>>is putting it mildly. Who do you think you're fooling? Are you afraid
>>that if you say what we all know in plain English, that gummy will put
>>you on his shit-list? Wise up, that would be a badge of honor.
>
><chuckle> My opinion is mine, whether good or bad. I don't really
>see why you should care? Are you trying to protect my honor or
>something?
Not hardly, particularly since I no longer believe that you have any.
>Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just having fun at your
>expense?
Well then, let me ask you - how many normal people do you think would
consider it "fun" to humiliate their entire family on Usenet? What do
you think of anyone who'd have "fun" by repeatedly calling his wife a
"cunt" in public, or by posting something like this:
> I don't know this, but it could be.
Anything's possible, he could be writing your posts for you for
example. But normal readers will assume that if gummer was just
"having fun", then he wouldn't bust his own stories on purpose, or
contradict himself, or write thousands of posts trying to rehabilate
his phony persona.
But let's explore your latest weak speculation a little further, and
imagine that gummy wastes his life on Usenet to "have fun". What do
you think of anyone in his shoes who'd do something like that? Let me
guess.. "I'm not saying it's bad, I'm not saying it's good yada yada".
> He's got you and so
>many others so damned riled up it's kind of interesting and definitely
>amusing.
If that amuses you, then it makes your position even more clear.
>You take all this as though it's life and death.
Again, your exagerations sound just like gummy's.
>How do you know what his behavior is? I mean his RL behavior. You don't.
You're kidding, right? I thought you said that you respected facts?
Now you seem to be implying that gummer's real life is something other
than what the facts have told us. Again, that's the same kind of BS
that gummer tried by insisting that those records weren't his, because
his mailbox had a different number. And it's another thing you have in
common - believing that if you try some cute backhanded implication,
that your audience will be dumb enough to take it as reasonable doubt
of reality.
>> Of
>>course, few would fall for it, but that's his target audience: the
>>dumbest of the dumb.
>
>Are you referring to me?
Absolutely. Every new post from demonstrates more dimness.
You seem less bright with each post.
LOL. You don't know what I've "fallen for"
>or if I've "fallen for" anything.
>
>>
>>> If you do then we're pretty much done.
>>
>>Oh, I doubt that. People who announce a plonking and then respond a
>>whole bunch are driven. I expect you'll announce yet another
>>killfiling, you'll continue reading everything I write, and then
>>you'll return to piggybacking your comments onto other responders...
>>until you slip up again.
>
>What announcement? I don't believe I have ever announced that I'm
>killfiling anyone.
Again, just like gummy, you're blurting out so much trash without
thinking that you can't keep track of it.
> Prior to my piggyback response did you know I had
>you killfiled?
S Did you take "we're pretty much done" as a killfile
Sue
caused you to comment about my "silly defense". You can't seem to
come up with anything. I have asked you several other questions which
you have failed to answer. I've asked you for quotes by me to back up
your fantasy assertions about me. Again you have failed. You've been
talking in circles so much and making so many unsubstantiated claims
about me - assuming so much without knowing me at all - that
continuing on with this is an exercise in futility. I am not going to
state any of the opinions that you seem to require to bring myself up
to your standards of normalcy because I don't really care about your
opinion. I'm not going to help you in your crusade against Mark.
Therefore, it would appear that this whole exchange has been an
exercise in futility for you, too, Toots. I give you the last word if
you care to take it.
Ta ta
Sue - getting bored with you
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Sorry about the incomplete post, my wireless mouse decided to have a
hissy fit, then the finished post refused to leave until I rebooted.
Here's a complete copy with all unnecessary quoting removed.
>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:05:48 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:10:01 -0700, Sue <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:39:44 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:25:14 -0700, Sue <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:12:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>>>><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sue - defends the truth, not the person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who do you think you're fooling with all your silly
>>>>>>>beat-around-the-bush defenses of gummer?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not defending his lifestyle or him. The truth, which you refuse
>>>>>to believe, is that he doesn't drink alcoholic beverages and he
>>>>>doesn't do illegal drugs. That's all I said. Period. That is
>>>>>defending the truth.
>>>>
>>>>In addition to the phony killfile technique, I see that you've adopted
>>>>another of gummy's debate tactics. Are you confusing me with someone
>>>>else by accident, or on purpose? It would seem to be the latter, since
>>>>I've never said that he drinks or takes drugs. Heck, all of the
>>>>drugees and drunks I've ever met are better off than he is! I'm
>>>>thinking that for your next trick you'll demonstrate another of
>>>>gummy's failings: refusing to admit a blatant error.
>>>
>>>What error would that be?
>>
>>Besides being too feeble to follow the conversation,
>
>I readily admit to being a bit feeble.
Your admission is redundant. Your ability to write in circles and
repeat non-sequiturs is so bad now that your posts could just as
easily have been written by gummer.
>> or pretending not
>>to follow it so that you can pretend not to need to admit the mistake?
>
>I did not make a mistake.
BS You claimed that I believed that gummy was into drugs and alcohol.
I'd quote it for other readers but I doubt that there are any besides
you who need that much help.
>Where did I say what I think about his normalcy?
<sigh> Normal people would assume that since you sought gummy out in
person, then you must have believed he was normal. Of course, that
logic only applies if you're normal, which is obviously seriously in
doubt. I gave you some credit for past naivety, but it seems most
likely now from what you continue to write, that you knew all along
that he was a crackpot. Perhaps that's exactly what attracted you to
him.
>>You made the same mistake with gummy, but
>>you're not going to admit that either.
>
>*If* that's the case why would I admit it to you? Are you someone
>special? Father confessor?
You needn't admit anything to me or anyone. But you're writing in a
public forum, about an infamous hypocrite who makes threats day in and
day out. If you want people to believe that you're not as whacked as
he is, then you'd be wise to quit the silliness.
><chuckle> My opinion is mine, whether good or bad. I don't really
>see why you should care? Are you trying to protect my honor or
>something?
Not hardly, particularly since I no longer believe that you have any.
>Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just having fun at your
>expense?
Well then, let me ask you - how many normal people do you think would
consider it "fun" to humiliate their entire family on Usenet? What do
you think of anyone who'd have "fun" by repeatedly calling his wife a
"cunt" in public, or by posting something like this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.machines.cnc/msg/7f8dc0540354ade1.
> I don't know this, but it could be.
Anything's possible, he could be writing your posts for you for
example. But normal readers will assume that if gummer was just
"having fun", then he wouldn't bust his own stories on purpose, or
contradict himself, or write thousands of posts trying to rehabilitate
his phony persona.
But let's explore your latest weak speculation a little further, and
imagine that gummy wastes his life on Usenet to "have fun". What do
you think of anyone in his shoes who'd do something like that? Let me
guess: "I'm not saying it's bad, I'm not saying it's good yada yada".
> He's got you and so
>many others so damned riled up it's kind of interesting and definitely
>amusing.
If that amuses you, then it makes your position even more clear.
>You take all this as though it's life and death.
Again, your exaggerations sound just like gummy's.
>How do you know what his behavior is? I mean his RL behavior. You don't.
You're kidding, right? I thought you said that you respected facts?
Now you seem to be implying that gummer's real life is something other
than what the facts have told us. Again, that's the same kind of BS
that gummer tried by insisting that those records weren't his, because
his mailbox had a different number. And it's another thing you have in
common - believing that if you try some cute backhanded implication,
that your audience will be dumb enough to take it as reasonable doubt
of reality.
>> Of
>>course, few would fall for it, but that's his target audience: the
>>dumbest of the dumb.
>
>Are you referring to me?
Absolutely. Every new post from you demonstrates more dimness.
>>> If you do then we're pretty much done.
>>Oh, I doubt that. People who announce a plonking and then respond a
>>whole bunch are driven. I expect you'll announce yet another
>>killfiling, you'll continue reading everything I write, and then
>>you'll return to piggybacking your comments onto other responders...
>>until you slip up again.
>
>What announcement? I don't believe I have ever announced that I'm
>killfiling anyone.
Again, just like gummy, you're blurting out so much trash without
thinking that you can't keep track of it.
> Prior to my piggyback response did you know I had
>you killfiled?
Sure, and this quote confirmed it: "Actually, I had you killfiled".
> Did you take "we're pretty much done" as a killfile
>announcement.
Please try harder to keep up.
> I'm not going to
>killfile you.
That should be "I'm not going to killfile you again". But it doesn't
matter, I expect you make a habit of the phony plonking just like
gummy.
>>Hey, be friends with whoever you like!
>
>Thanks. I'm so glad I have your permission.
>
>> Better yet, write about it so
>>others can understand what drives people who seek out and keep Usenet
>>crackpots as friends.
>
>Sorry, I haven't anything to say on that.
Yeah, no kidding. Doesn't much matter, I expect that most of us have
figured it out by now anyway.
>For all you know I may be
>ripping him a new one.
Not very likely considering what you've posted here. I don't think his
antics bother you in the slightest, and I bet you're afraid to say boo
to him anyway. You *know* the kind of rhetoric he'd be using on you if
you did.
>>>I have friends who have filed for bankruptcy. So, they can be
>>>considered to be deadbeats. They're my friends anyway.
>>
>>Filing for bankruptcy doesn't come close to necessarily making one a
>>deadbeat in my book. And being merely a deadbeat doesn't qualify one
>>for a Usenet bashing, at least not from me anyway. What does make the
>>grade is someone whiling away their life hypocritically giving
>>lectures to others when the time is undeniably better spent elsewhere.
>>Not to mention all the bloody lying, and blaming everything on his
>>wife, and scapegoating anyone and everyone when he knows full well
>>that he's far more responsible than most for CA's economic mess. His
>>shtick is so far beyond pathetic that only someone with a loose screw
>>would go along with it.
>
>Well, Toots, you don't know if I "go along" with it or not, do ya?
Again, it's likely that most sensible readers have you pretty much
figured you out, no matter how hard you try to beat around the bush.
Wayne
Gunner Asch
> For example, how many "dems" does
>>gummer have to fantasize about killing before even Mother Teresa would
>>realize that he's pathological? Isn't he up to 100 million? Are you
>>waiting for a higher number? Jeez Louise.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just having fun at your
>expense? I don't know this, but it could be. He's got you and so
>many others so damned riled up it's kind of interesting and definitely
>amusing. You take all this as though it's life and death.
<VBG>
Sue gets a big Gold Star!