Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tennessee marches backwards!
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Sid9
Apr 10, 2012, 7:42:44 PM4/10/12
to
April 10, 2012
Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
standards currently taught in Tennessee.
Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
--
Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
solution and its always wrong!"
Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
standards currently taught in Tennessee.
Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
--
Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
solution and its always wrong!"
Nickname unavailable
Apr 10, 2012, 8:54:45 PM4/10/12
to
functioning individuals/but also research shows that low-effort
thought promotes political conservatism:political viewpoints of
patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be
conservative
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-ef...
Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study
The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
Posted: 04/ 9/2012 10:44 am Updated: 04/ 9/2012 2:16 pm
Conservatives and liberals don't seem to agree about much, and they
might not agree about recent studies linking conservatism to low
intelligence and "low-effort" thinking.
As The Huffington Post reported in February, a study published in the
journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on
intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political
views in adulthood--perhaps because conservative ideologies stress
"structure and order" that make it easier to understand a complicated
world.
Ouch.
And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-
effort" thinking.
"People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a
first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of
Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement
released by the university.
Does the finding suggest that conservatives are lazy thinkers?
"Not quite," Dr. Eidelman told The Huffington Post in an email. "Our
research shows that low-effort thought promotes political
conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort
thinking."
For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked
people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory
setting.
Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a
Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons
with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative
than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.
But it wasn't just the alcohol talking, according to the statement.
When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they
found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly
or while distracted were more likely to express conservative
viewpoints.
"Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to
deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact
people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes
political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said in the email.
The study was published online in the journal "Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin."
What do you think? Are conservatives less intelligent than liberals--
or more intelligent? And is conservatism a matter of lazy thinking?
wy
Apr 10, 2012, 9:02:14 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 7:42 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> April 10, 2012
>
> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>
> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
Critical thinking in Tennessee? That's like, kind of an oxymoron.
> April 10, 2012
>
> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>
> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>
> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>
> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
Tennessee themselves as they evolved from stupid to smart and and
then devolved back to stupid, and in such a rapid time too compared to
how long evolution normally takes.
NoBody
Apr 11, 2012, 6:18:51 AM4/11/12
to
political bend. I'm guessing tax dollars paid for it too? It sounds
like something from the Onion. One could draw the conclusion that
sober people lie and drunk people tell the truth. Good grief....
Christopher Helms
Apr 11, 2012, 8:28:37 AM4/11/12
to
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:42:44 PM UTC-5, Sid9 wrote:
> April 10, 2012
>
> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
90 years after Scopes, the teaching of Evolution, and science generally, loses in Tennessee.
> April 10, 2012
>
> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
Old Pif
Apr 11, 2012, 9:10:58 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 7:42 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
Do they have "Earth is flat" bill in pipeline?
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
Message has been deleted
First. Post
Apr 11, 2012, 12:18:53 PM4/11/12
to
Funny how the so called "open minded" liberals don't want to allow anyone else
to question anything.
So you think that a teacher should just forbid students to ask questions if the
questions don't fall in line with what you believe to be politically correct.
Sounds more like you assholes that are bitching so loudly about this are the
ones with the flat earth mentality.
Just look at what you are whinning about. You're pissed over teachers allowing
students to question "THEORY" not scientific facts.
If people had adopted your same mentality 500 years ago then everyone would be
still teaching that the earth is flat.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2012, 12:21:23 PM4/11/12
to
evidence.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2012, 12:23:06 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 11:18 am, First. Post <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net>
wrote:
jews never took the conservative hitler seriously either, look where
it got them. if you see a duck, its a duck.
wrote:
it got them. if you see a duck, its a duck.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 12:31:31 PM4/11/12
to
"First. Post" <OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:d9bbo7h3tjirq4lul...@4ax.com...
.
Perhaps you'd like a redo of the Scopes trial...that made Tennessee look
like a bunch of yokels, too
David Hartung
Apr 11, 2012, 1:19:05 PM4/11/12
to
On 04/10/2012 06:42 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> April 10, 2012
>
> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without
> his signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change
> scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>
> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>
> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>
> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
As he often does, Sid didn't bother to provide a link to the article.
> April 10, 2012
>
> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>
> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without
> his signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change
> scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>
> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>
> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>
> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
Here is that link: http://tinyurl.com/8a33m66
From the article:
[...]
Haslam explained Tuesday why he was letting the bill become law without
his signature. He said he doesn't believe the legislation changes
scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee nor does it
accomplish anything that isn't already acceptable in schools.
"The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and
Senate ... but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion,"
Haslam noted in a statement. "My concern is that this bill has not met
this objective.
[...]
In other words, Students have always been allowed to question what they
are taught. This bill accomplishes nothing. What I find of greater
interest than the bill, is the apparent desire on the part of our left
wing friends to prevent students from asking questions which do not fall
into an "accepted" range.
wy
Apr 11, 2012, 1:48:35 PM4/11/12
to
Man_Of_Mind
Apr 11, 2012, 3:32:21 PM4/11/12
to
David Hartung wrote:
> On 04/10/2012 06:42 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>> April 10, 2012
>>
>> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
>> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
>> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>>
>> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
>> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without
>> his signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change
>> scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>>
>> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>>
>> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
>> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>>
>> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
>> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
>> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
>
> As he often does, Sid didn't bother to provide a link to the article.
*>LOL!<*
> On 04/10/2012 06:42 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>> April 10, 2012
>>
>> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
>> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
>> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>>
>> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
>> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without
>> his signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change
>> scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>>
>> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>>
>> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
>> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>>
>> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
>> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
>> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
>
> As he often does, Sid didn't bother to provide a link to the article.
--Maybe you should practice what you're preachin' there, boy..
B_v_M
Apr 11, 2012, 2:37:08 PM4/11/12
to
Message has been deleted
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 4:01:43 PM4/11/12
to
"B_v_M" <ber...@in1mind.invalid> wrote in message
news:jm4j0i$cnb$3...@dont-email.me...
in less than 1 second on Google.
It's the Associated Press....for starters...it's identified as such.
These people are such brain vacuums that they put this diversionary shit on
because they can't compose a sane reply
B_v_M
Apr 11, 2012, 4:04:16 PM4/11/12
to
>
> It's the Associated Press....for starters...it's identified as such.
>
> These people are such brain vacuums that they put this diversionary shit
> on because they can't compose a sane reply
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 4:10:27 PM4/11/12
to
"B_v_M" <ber...@in1mind.invalid> wrote in message
Find the article and apologize for your ignorance.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 4:11:20 PM4/11/12
to
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:d3a5b8e2-704f-404c...@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
lsrlts
Apr 11, 2012, 4:28:34 PM4/11/12
to
First. Post
Apr 11, 2012, 4:51:42 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:23:06 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net>
wrote:
When did Hitler allow anyone that was teacher to allow students to question "the
party"?
BTW, Godwyn's law says you lose.
wrote:
party"?
BTW, Godwyn's law says you lose.
First. Post
Apr 11, 2012, 4:56:25 PM4/11/12
to
alternative such as teaching intelligent design instead of evolution. It simply
says that no one can hold the teacher accountable when the students question
some of the junk science they are teaching.
From the responses in theis thread, it certainly appears that the leftists are
pissed at the mere thought of a student questioning any of their sacred cows.
And those are the same folks that have been claiming that conservatives want to
be thought police. RODL.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 5:00:32 PM4/11/12
to
news:eorbo7hjmn9dnimld...@4ax.com...
.
.
.If a Tennessee teacher teaches "junk" science they need to be fired.
Elementary and High Schools science is well established and requires no
debate
.
.If a Tennessee teacher teaches "junk" science they need to be fired.
Elementary and High Schools science is well established and requires no
debate
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 11, 2012, 5:01:16 PM4/11/12
to
On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:19:05 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:19:05 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and
>> Senate ...
>
> IOW, one democrat?
>> Senate ...
>
It worked for ObamaCare.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 11, 2012, 5:32:37 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 5:00 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "First. Post" <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote in message
Junk science? You mean evolution taught as fact?
That's junk science for you.
> "First. Post" <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote in message
That's junk science for you.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 5:42:35 PM4/11/12
to
"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fad79db4-42b9-40fb...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 11, 2012, 5:34:27 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 5:29 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:56:25 -0500, First. Post
>
> Like Equality, Civil RIghts, Civil liberty, old age protection, voting
> rights?
>
> Silly us.
Gary, this thread is about 'evolution'. Natural selection,
Darwin...those sorts of things.
Didn't they teach you anything at LHS?
<snickers>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:56:25 -0500, First. Post
>
> <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>In other words, Students have always been allowed to question what they
> >>are taught. This bill accomplishes nothing. What I find of greater
> >>interest than the bill, is the apparent desire on the part of our left
> >>wing friends to prevent students from asking questions which do not fall
> >>into an "accepted" range.
>
> >Exactly. The bill does not say that the teachers have to teach any kind of
> >alternative such as teaching intelligent design instead of evolution. It simply
> >says that no one can hold the teacher accountable when the students question
> >some of the junk science they are teaching.
>
> >From the responses in theis thread, it certainly appears that the leftists are
> >pissed at the mere thought of a student questioning any of their sacred cows.
>
> "Sacred cows"??
> <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>In other words, Students have always been allowed to question what they
> >>are taught. This bill accomplishes nothing. What I find of greater
> >>interest than the bill, is the apparent desire on the part of our left
> >>wing friends to prevent students from asking questions which do not fall
> >>into an "accepted" range.
>
> >Exactly. The bill does not say that the teachers have to teach any kind of
> >alternative such as teaching intelligent design instead of evolution. It simply
> >says that no one can hold the teacher accountable when the students question
> >some of the junk science they are teaching.
>
> >From the responses in theis thread, it certainly appears that the leftists are
> >pissed at the mere thought of a student questioning any of their sacred cows.
>
>
> Like Equality, Civil RIghts, Civil liberty, old age protection, voting
> rights?
>
> Silly us.
Gary, this thread is about 'evolution'. Natural selection,
Darwin...those sorts of things.
Didn't they teach you anything at LHS?
<snickers>
David Hartung
Apr 11, 2012, 6:00:17 PM4/11/12
to
link to said article.
David Hartung
Apr 11, 2012, 6:02:06 PM4/11/12
to
in his kill file, yet he cannot resist responding to posts I mat
directly to him?
First. Post
Apr 11, 2012, 6:02:07 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas <kurtn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Once again Sid shows everyone just how stupid he is.
The law does not allow teachers to teach outside of the curriculum, it simply
keeps the teacher from being held responsible for any of their students
questioning the logic of a THEORY.
But then if Sid never twisted words around in his responses then he'd never have
anything to really bitch about.
wrote:
The law does not allow teachers to teach outside of the curriculum, it simply
keeps the teacher from being held responsible for any of their students
questioning the logic of a THEORY.
But then if Sid never twisted words around in his responses then he'd never have
anything to really bitch about.
David Hartung
Apr 11, 2012, 6:04:23 PM4/11/12
to
teacher says?
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 6:12:33 PM4/11/12
to
news:dlvbo7huectn01m52...@4ax.com...
I propose that a Tennessee teacher fail a student who fails a science exam
on evolution.
Then I suggest coo-coos who got this law passed work to get the teacher
fired.
Tennessee became a spectacle all over the United States in Scopes.
Lets do it again!
on evolution.
Then I suggest coo-coos who got this law passed work to get the teacher
fired.
Tennessee became a spectacle all over the United States in Scopes.
Lets do it again!
First. Post
Apr 11, 2012, 6:19:00 PM4/11/12
to
Funny that the so called "free thinkers" aren't as big on their own "question
authority" ideaology as they claim no?
And, as stated in another response, Sid doesn't even understand what the bill
actually does. It does not allow a teacher to start teaching creationism
instead of Darwinism or any such nonsense. It simply allows the teacher to
discuss such debatable subjects when a student questions it without the fear of
losing their job over it.
And Sid, Rozelles amd the usual crowd all have a big problem with a teacher
answering a question posed by a student.
Liberalism: You are free to think what you want as long as it is what we want
you to think.
B_v_M
Apr 11, 2012, 6:20:03 PM4/11/12
to
David Hartung
Apr 11, 2012, 6:25:30 PM4/11/12
to
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 6:30:06 PM4/11/12
to
news:ve0co7d7la1pb5gm0...@4ax.com...
.
.
.
See if you can understand this:
"Elementary and High Schools science is well established and requires no
debate."
.
.
See if you can understand this:
"Elementary and High Schools science is well established and requires no
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 6:33:24 PM4/11/12
to
"B_v_M" <ber...@in1mind.invalid> wrote in message
Yes, Hartung is in my Bozo Bin. He'll stay there as long as his email
address is compatible with my Bozo Bin.
lsrlts
Apr 11, 2012, 6:35:30 PM4/11/12
to
First. Post
Apr 11, 2012, 6:55:07 PM4/11/12
to
They'll probably appoint or elect another over priced jackass though.
MCS, the most costly least effective school system in the state.
The only schools in the system that are worth a shit are the vocation specific
charter schools and the public "optional" schools where most of the best
students go.
But the run of the mill average neighborhood public school barely teaches the
kids to read. Every single day of the school week the high school just two
blocks from me has several police cars present during the beginning and the end
of the school day. There are city police officers stationed at virtually every
high school in the city full time.
And all of that started when liberal democrats got elected or appointed to the
higher positions of authority in the city government.
At least the present mayor is not so much a liberal democrat. A.C. is closer to
center than the last piece of trash we had for 14 or so years.
I know I don't hear gun shots all over in the evening like I did just a couple
of years ago. So he's at least kept that promise.
Old Pif
Apr 11, 2012, 7:00:37 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 12:18 pm, First. Post <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net>
wrote:
>
> God forbid students be allowed to question anything yes?
..........................................................................................................
> Sounds more like you assholes ...
#1. The bill targets teachers not the students.
#2. I don't live in Tennessee.
wrote:
>
> God forbid students be allowed to question anything yes?
> Sounds more like you assholes ...
#1. The bill targets teachers not the students.
#2. I don't live in Tennessee.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2012, 8:50:36 PM4/11/12
to
"Old Pif" <old...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:97a53192-a570-4da5...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
NOTHING
...I mean the state legislature
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 11, 2012, 9:21:56 PM4/11/12
to
On 4/11/2012 5:30 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> Republican party, and was blessed when Romney used it in MA.
>
> You have no "point", you loon
ObamaCare was "NEVER" supported by me or any Republican or Libertarians
that "I" know and NONE of them voted for ObamaCare.
Those That did vote for ObamaCare are being voted out as fast as we can
get rid of them, I guess you learned nothing in the election 2 years ago.
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:01:16 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:19:05 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and
>>>> Senate ...
>>>
>>> IOW, one democrat?
>>
>>
>> It worked for ObamaCare.
>
> "Obamacare" came from your Heritage Foundation, was supported by the
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:19:05 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and
>>>> Senate ...
>>>
>>> IOW, one democrat?
>>
>>
>> It worked for ObamaCare.
>
> Republican party, and was blessed when Romney used it in MA.
>
> You have no "point", you loon
ObamaCare was "NEVER" supported by me or any Republican or Libertarians
that "I" know and NONE of them voted for ObamaCare.
Those That did vote for ObamaCare are being voted out as fast as we can
get rid of them, I guess you learned nothing in the election 2 years ago.
Old Pif
Apr 11, 2012, 10:05:40 PM4/11/12
to
emoneyjoe
Apr 11, 2012, 10:17:58 PM4/11/12
to
Falstaff
Apr 12, 2012, 12:39:47 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11, 5:04 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 04:00 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "First. Post" <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> On 04/11/2012 04:00 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"christian" teachers taught them?
Message has been deleted
NoBody
Apr 12, 2012, 6:31:02 AM4/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:21:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 5:18 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>>
>>
>> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> >> Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
>> >> solution and its always wrong!"
>>
>> >i am shocked:not only has conservatism been tied to low I.Q./low
>> >functioning individuals/but also research shows that low-effort
>> >thought promotes political conservatism:political viewpoints of
>> >patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be
>> >conservative
>>
>> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-ef...
>>
>> >Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study
>> >The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
>> >Posted: 04/ 9/2012 10:44 am Updated: 04/ 9/2012 2:16 pm
>>
>> >Conservatives and liberals don't seem to agree about much, and they
>> >might not agree about recent studies linking conservatism to low
>> >intelligence and "low-effort" thinking.
>> >As The Huffington Post reported in February, a study published in the
>> >journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on
>> >intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political
>> >views in adulthood--perhaps because conservative ideologies stress
>> >"structure and order" that make it easier to understand a complicated
>> >world.
>> >Ouch.
>> >And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-
>> >effort" thinking.
>> >"People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a
>> >first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of
>> >Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement
>> >released by the university.
>> >Does the finding suggest that conservatives are lazy thinkers?
>> >"Not quite," Dr. Eidelman told The Huffington Post in an email. "Our
>> >research shows that low-effort thought promotes political
>> >conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort
>> >thinking."
>>
>> >For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked
>> >people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory
>> >setting.
>> >Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a
>> >Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons
>> >with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative
>> >than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.
>> >But it wasn't just the alcohol talking, according to the statement.
>> >When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they
>> >found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly
>> >or while distracted were more likely to express conservative
>> >viewpoints.
>> >"Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to
>> >deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact
>> >people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes
>> >political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said in the email.
>> >The study was published online in the journal "Personality and Social
>> >Psychology Bulletin."
>> >What do you think? Are conservatives less intelligent than liberals--
>> >or more intelligent? And is conservatism a matter of lazy thinking?
>>
>> That is the most ridiculous test I've ever heard of with an obvious
>> political bend. I'm guessing tax dollars paid for it too? It sounds
>> like something from the Onion. One could draw the conclusion that
>> sober people lie and drunk people tell the truth. Good grief....
>
> yet, its backed and and peer reviewed. which means its empirical
>evidence.
Backed and peer reviewed by whom? I've found very little on the study
other than the endless repeating of the original story.
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 5:18 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>>
>>
>> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> >On Apr 10, 6:42 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> April 10, 2012
>>
>> >> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>>
>> >> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> >> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
>> >> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
>> >> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>>
>> >> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
>> >> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
>> >> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
>> >> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>>
>> >> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>>
>> >> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
>> >> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>>
>> >> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
>> >> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
>> >> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> April 10, 2012
>>
>> >> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>>
>> >> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> >> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
>> >> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
>> >> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>>
>> >> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
>> >> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
>> >> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
>> >> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>>
>> >> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>>
>> >> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
>> >> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>>
>> >> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
>> >> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
>> >> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
>>
>> >> Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
>> >> solution and its always wrong!"
>>
>> >i am shocked:not only has conservatism been tied to low I.Q./low
>> >functioning individuals/but also research shows that low-effort
>> >thought promotes political conservatism:political viewpoints of
>> >patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be
>> >conservative
>>
>> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-ef...
>>
>> >Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study
>> >The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
>> >Posted: 04/ 9/2012 10:44 am Updated: 04/ 9/2012 2:16 pm
>>
>> >Conservatives and liberals don't seem to agree about much, and they
>> >might not agree about recent studies linking conservatism to low
>> >intelligence and "low-effort" thinking.
>> >As The Huffington Post reported in February, a study published in the
>> >journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on
>> >intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political
>> >views in adulthood--perhaps because conservative ideologies stress
>> >"structure and order" that make it easier to understand a complicated
>> >world.
>> >Ouch.
>> >And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-
>> >effort" thinking.
>> >"People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a
>> >first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of
>> >Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement
>> >released by the university.
>> >Does the finding suggest that conservatives are lazy thinkers?
>> >"Not quite," Dr. Eidelman told The Huffington Post in an email. "Our
>> >research shows that low-effort thought promotes political
>> >conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort
>> >thinking."
>>
>> >For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked
>> >people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory
>> >setting.
>> >Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a
>> >Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons
>> >with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative
>> >than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.
>> >But it wasn't just the alcohol talking, according to the statement.
>> >When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they
>> >found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly
>> >or while distracted were more likely to express conservative
>> >viewpoints.
>> >"Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to
>> >deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact
>> >people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes
>> >political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said in the email.
>> >The study was published online in the journal "Personality and Social
>> >Psychology Bulletin."
>> >What do you think? Are conservatives less intelligent than liberals--
>> >or more intelligent? And is conservatism a matter of lazy thinking?
>>
>> That is the most ridiculous test I've ever heard of with an obvious
>> political bend. I'm guessing tax dollars paid for it too? It sounds
>> like something from the Onion. One could draw the conclusion that
>> sober people lie and drunk people tell the truth. Good grief....
>
> yet, its backed and and peer reviewed. which means its empirical
>evidence.
Backed and peer reviewed by whom? I've found very little on the study
other than the endless repeating of the original story.
David Hartung
Apr 12, 2012, 6:48:00 AM4/12/12
to
David Hartung
Apr 12, 2012, 6:49:50 AM4/12/12
to
Read what is written, not what you think was written.
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 12, 2012, 7:25:16 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 12:52 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:34:27 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
> phone calls?
You never "caught" me making any sort of phone calls, crank or
otherwise, Gary,
because I never made them. You have no proof that I did.
You, on the other hand, posted my home address repeatedly and I have
the proof.
That really fries you, doesn't it?
Probably thought that hiding your posts would save you from
embarrassment, huh?
> Those sorts of things?
Gary, did I ever mention how STUUUPID you are?
<snickers>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:34:27 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Sacred cows"??
>
> >> Like Equality, Civil RIghts, Civil liberty, old age protection, voting
> >> rights?
>
> >> Silly us.
>
> >Gary, this thread is about 'evolution'. Natural selection,
> >Darwin...those sorts of things.
>
> Does that include Caller ID that caught you making crank, hang-up
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Sacred cows"??
>
> >> Like Equality, Civil RIghts, Civil liberty, old age protection, voting
> >> rights?
>
> >> Silly us.
>
> >Gary, this thread is about 'evolution'. Natural selection,
> >Darwin...those sorts of things.
>
> phone calls?
You never "caught" me making any sort of phone calls, crank or
otherwise, Gary,
because I never made them. You have no proof that I did.
You, on the other hand, posted my home address repeatedly and I have
the proof.
That really fries you, doesn't it?
Probably thought that hiding your posts would save you from
embarrassment, huh?
> Those sorts of things?
Gary, did I ever mention how STUUUPID you are?
<snickers>
Steve
Apr 12, 2012, 8:00:44 AM4/12/12
to
liberal.
Message has been deleted
Billary
Apr 12, 2012, 10:07:51 AM4/12/12
to
busted sucking off & exploiting the illegal Mexican day laborers. So
they shit canned his ass back in the 90's. THAT'S HOW STUPID HE IS.
Steve
Apr 12, 2012, 10:19:12 AM4/12/12
to
bozo. A "shop steward" is simply the guy that whines the loudest and
most often, so he's not just a whiner, he's a professional whiner.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sid9
Apr 12, 2012, 10:33:23 AM4/12/12
to
"Falstaff" <jaxfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ebfaa3d1-2724-4b2b...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Science is not a religious issue.
As usual, Hartung is confused.
Hartung wont let Galileo sleep in peace.
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 12, 2012, 11:27:29 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 10:31 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> BWHAHAHAHA
You sound hysterical, Gare. Seek help.
> I KNEW it would be a matter of time before you couldn't keep your
> mouth shut, you pathetic little slob.
And yet it was you who got outed for publishing my home address and I
have the proof.
> Get yer cheap wine out, get slobbering drunk again, and start making
> those crank calls again.
Never made 'em. You have no proof I did. On the other hand, I have
your posts, Gare.
And you stupidly thought you could hide 'em, didn't you?
<snickers>
> BWHAHAHAHA
You sound hysterical, Gare. Seek help.
> I KNEW it would be a matter of time before you couldn't keep your
> mouth shut, you pathetic little slob.
And yet it was you who got outed for publishing my home address and I
have the proof.
> Get yer cheap wine out, get slobbering drunk again, and start making
> those crank calls again.
Never made 'em. You have no proof I did. On the other hand, I have
your posts, Gare.
And you stupidly thought you could hide 'em, didn't you?
<snickers>
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 12, 2012, 11:28:45 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 8:00 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
Guess we'll never know.
Steve
Apr 12, 2012, 12:15:09 PM4/12/12
to
stupider, the more left they are.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
First. Post
Apr 12, 2012, 12:37:46 PM4/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Falstaff <jaxfa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It's just so obvious that you idiots have no real argument to present as the law
does not say teachers can teach outside of the curriculum, it simply states that
the teachers won't lose their job for answering any questions about the topics
mentioned. Try reading what the article actually states instead of just making
up your own "facts" to suit your own warped outlook.
Do you work at being so stupid or does it just come naturally?
wrote:
does not say teachers can teach outside of the curriculum, it simply states that
the teachers won't lose their job for answering any questions about the topics
mentioned. Try reading what the article actually states instead of just making
up your own "facts" to suit your own warped outlook.
Do you work at being so stupid or does it just come naturally?
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 12, 2012, 5:14:27 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 12:29 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
> next day--from Elon?
When? Prove that you did. Go ahead.
I can PROVE you posted my address. MOF, you've ADMITTED that
you did.
So post your proof right here ------------ >>>
> Caller ID, knickkkers
>
> THink you can now lie about this too?
Anyone can claim anything on Usenet, Gare. In fact, anyone
can look up phone prefixes and *claim* to have gotten it from "Caller
ID".
So prove you did what you say you did.
Very few people here are as STOOPID as you, Gare Bare.
<snickers>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Does that include Caller ID that caught you making crank, hang-up
> >> >> phone calls?
>
> >> >You never "caught" me making any sort of phone calls, crank or
> >> >otherwise, Gary,
> >> >because I never made them. You have no proof that I did.
>
> Then how would I have known your phone prefix which I did post the
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Does that include Caller ID that caught you making crank, hang-up
> >> >> phone calls?
>
> >> >You never "caught" me making any sort of phone calls, crank or
> >> >otherwise, Gary,
> >> >because I never made them. You have no proof that I did.
>
> next day--from Elon?
When? Prove that you did. Go ahead.
I can PROVE you posted my address. MOF, you've ADMITTED that
you did.
So post your proof right here ------------ >>>
> Caller ID, knickkkers
>
> THink you can now lie about this too?
Anyone can claim anything on Usenet, Gare. In fact, anyone
can look up phone prefixes and *claim* to have gotten it from "Caller
ID".
So prove you did what you say you did.
Very few people here are as STOOPID as you, Gare Bare.
<snickers>
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 12, 2012, 5:18:09 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 12:27 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:27:29 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> How is "outed" relevant?
If it gets you into "Run, Hide and Distract" mode it *must be
relevant.
> You spent years writing my ISP (and others) to stop us from kicking
> your ass.
I certainly got you kicked off your ISP when you posted threats.
> What's your home address
>
> I'll publish it again it that will make you feel better.
Publish it again and see what happens, Gare.
Are you really *that* stupid?
<snickers>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:27:29 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I KNEW it would be a matter of time before you couldn't keep your
> >> mouth shut, you pathetic little slob.
>
> >And yet it was you who got outed for publishing my home address and I
> >have the proof.
>
> "Outed"
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I KNEW it would be a matter of time before you couldn't keep your
> >> mouth shut, you pathetic little slob.
>
> >And yet it was you who got outed for publishing my home address and I
> >have the proof.
>
>
> How is "outed" relevant?
If it gets you into "Run, Hide and Distract" mode it *must be
relevant.
> You spent years writing my ISP (and others) to stop us from kicking
> your ass.
I certainly got you kicked off your ISP when you posted threats.
> What's your home address
>
> I'll publish it again it that will make you feel better.
Publish it again and see what happens, Gare.
Are you really *that* stupid?
<snickers>
Message has been deleted
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 12, 2012, 5:57:49 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 5:53 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
So, when are you going to present your "proof" that you
posted my area code, Gare?
You never did it and that's why you're into "Run, Hide and Distract"
mode.
And who was it that made you stop posting my address exactly?
You're not going to run away from the tough questions are you?
<snickers>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If it gets you into "Run, Hide and Distract" mode it *must be
> >relevant.
>
> I've never left here
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If it gets you into "Run, Hide and Distract" mode it *must be
> >relevant.
>
So, when are you going to present your "proof" that you
posted my area code, Gare?
You never did it and that's why you're into "Run, Hide and Distract"
mode.
And who was it that made you stop posting my address exactly?
You're not going to run away from the tough questions are you?
<snickers>
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 12, 2012, 6:02:31 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 5:49 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> Did that russian "wife' of yours dump you yet, Knickkkers?
>
> Go back to her subway?
You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
my address?
Just how stupid are you? Shall we find out?
> Did that russian "wife' of yours dump you yet, Knickkkers?
>
> Go back to her subway?
You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
my address?
Just how stupid are you? Shall we find out?
lsrlts
Apr 12, 2012, 8:43:38 PM4/12/12
to
On 4/12/2012 2:49 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> Go back to her subway?
>
> SNICKER
> Go back to her subway?
>
Any more threats to blow up Mt. Rushmore from you lately?
lsrlts
Apr 12, 2012, 8:52:38 PM4/12/12
to
linuxgal
Apr 12, 2012, 10:03:36 PM4/12/12
to
Steve wrote:
>
> I've always assumed stupid people gravitated toward leftism.. the
> stupider, the more left they are.
What do you call a zit on a liberal's ass? A brain tumor.
>
> I've always assumed stupid people gravitated toward leftism.. the
> stupider, the more left they are.
What's the difference between a smart liberal and Bigfoot? Bigfoot has
been spotted.
How do you occupy a liberal for hours? Write 'Important Message From
President Obama Please Turn Over' on both sides of a piece of paper.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sid9
Apr 13, 2012, 12:24:02 AM4/13/12
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:bm8fo717cjd4p17mm...@4ax.com...
>
> a) Reagan face not there
>
> b) REagan face impossible to put there
>
> c) Issue is Nickkkers "katherine Harris" fiasco all over.
>
.
.
.
Republicans gave her a thorough fucking for the great service she did for
them.
lsrlts
Apr 13, 2012, 12:52:15 AM4/13/12
to
On 4/12/2012 8:52 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:43:38 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:43:38 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> Never threatened anything of the sort.
>
>
Liar.
>
>
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 13, 2012, 1:05:58 AM4/13/12
to
On Apr 12, 11:48 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:52:38 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
> >> when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
> >> my address?
>
> >> Just how stupid are you? Shall we find out?
>
> Stupid, Knickkkers knows real well
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
> >> when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
> >> my address?
>
> >> Just how stupid are you? Shall we find out?
>
>
> Poor drunken slob, after being smacked around for months, started
> makng hang-up phone calls
Nope, never called you even once. You have no proof that I did, Gare.
> Trouble is he was doing it from his home phone
Easy to make claims, Gare-boy. But you can't back them up with proof,
can you?
> Took all of 1 week before he was so shamed--left here before dumbya
> was sworn in.
Also not true and easily provable in the google archive.
On the other hand, I have PROOF that you stalked me and published my
address.
Heck, you've even admitted that you did it.
Why did you stop and who made you stop, Gare?
Is it just too, too embarrassing to admit?
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 13, 2012, 1:10:28 AM4/13/12
to
On Apr 12, 11:40 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
You tell us.
> WHo the fuck is they?
You tell us, Gare. Who is the "they" who made you stop posting my
address.
> Take it up with whomever posted it originally
Is that what you told them when they said you had to stop posting my
address?
How long did they laugh at you?
> Tweren't me, stupid.
Really? Prove it.
I have proof you posted my home address. Does it matter if you were
the first to post it?
Tell us who *was the first.
Make us laugh at you again.
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 12, 5:49 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> Did that russian "wife' of yours dump you yet, Knickkkers?
>
> >> Go back to her subway?
>
> >You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
> >when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
> >my address?
>
> "They"?
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 12, 5:49 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> Did that russian "wife' of yours dump you yet, Knickkkers?
>
> >> Go back to her subway?
>
> >You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
> >when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
> >my address?
>
You tell us.
> WHo the fuck is they?
You tell us, Gare. Who is the "they" who made you stop posting my
address.
> Take it up with whomever posted it originally
Is that what you told them when they said you had to stop posting my
address?
How long did they laugh at you?
> Tweren't me, stupid.
Really? Prove it.
I have proof you posted my home address. Does it matter if you were
the first to post it?
Tell us who *was the first.
Make us laugh at you again.
NoBody
Apr 13, 2012, 5:52:08 AM4/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:48:00 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:
>On 04/12/2012 05:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:21:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>> <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 5:18 am, NoBody<NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
>>>>>> solution and its always wrong!"
>>>>
>>>>> i am shocked:not only has conservatism been tied to low I.Q./low
>>>>> functioning individuals/but also research shows that low-effort
>>>>> thought promotes political conservatism:political viewpoints of
>>>>> patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be
>>>>> conservative
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-ef...
>>>>
>>>>> Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study
>>>>> The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
>>>>> Posted: 04/ 9/2012 10:44 am Updated: 04/ 9/2012 2:16 pm
>>>>
>>>>> Conservatives and liberals don't seem to agree about much, and they
>>>>> might not agree about recent studies linking conservatism to low
>>>>> intelligence and "low-effort" thinking.
>>>>> As The Huffington Post reported in February, a study published in the
>>>>> journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on
>>>>> intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political
>>>>> views in adulthood--perhaps because conservative ideologies stress
>>>>> "structure and order" that make it easier to understand a complicated
>>>>> world.
>>>>> Ouch.
>>>>> And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-
>>>>> effort" thinking.
>>>>> "People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a
>>>>> first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of
>>>>> Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement
>>>>> released by the university.
>>>>> Does the finding suggest that conservatives are lazy thinkers?
>>>>> "Not quite," Dr. Eidelman told The Huffington Post in an email. "Our
>>>>> research shows that low-effort thought promotes political
>>>>> conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort
>>>>> thinking."
>>>>
>>>>> For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked
>>>>> people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory
>>>>> setting.
>>>>> Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a
>>>>> Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons
>>>>> with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative
>>>>> than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.
>>>>> But it wasn't just the alcohol talking, according to the statement.
>>>>> When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they
>>>>> found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly
>>>>> or while distracted were more likely to express conservative
>>>>> viewpoints.
>>>>> "Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to
>>>>> deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact
>>>>> people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes
>>>>> political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said in the email.
>>>>> The study was published online in the journal "Personality and Social
>>>>> Psychology Bulletin."
>>>>> What do you think? Are conservatives less intelligent than liberals--
>>>>> or more intelligent? And is conservatism a matter of lazy thinking?
>>>>
>>>> That is the most ridiculous test I've ever heard of with an obvious
>>>> political bend. I'm guessing tax dollars paid for it too? It sounds
>>>> like something from the Onion. One could draw the conclusion that
>>>> sober people lie and drunk people tell the truth. Good grief....
>>>
>>> yet, its backed and and peer reviewed. which means its empirical
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Backed and peer reviewed by whom? I've found very little on the study
>> other than the endless repeating of the original story.
>
>http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213.abstract
That's the only thing I found but that doesn't really answer my
question.
wrote:
>On 04/12/2012 05:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:21:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>> <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 5:18 am, NoBody<NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 10, 6:42 pm, "Sid9"<sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>> April 10, 2012
>>>>
>>>>>> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>>>>
>>>>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>>>
>>>>>> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
>>>>>> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
>>>>>> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>>>>
>>>>>> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
>>>>>> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
>>>>>> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
>>>>>> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>>>>
>>>>>> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>>>>
>>>>>> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
>>>>>> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>>>>
>>>>>> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
>>>>>> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
>>>>>> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> April 10, 2012
>>>>
>>>>>> Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law
>>>>
>>>>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>>>
>>>>>> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee's governor says he will let a law take
>>>>>> effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize
>>>>>> evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.
>>>>
>>>>>> Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the
>>>>>> bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his
>>>>>> signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn't change scientific
>>>>>> standards currently taught in Tennessee.
>>>>
>>>>>> Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.
>>>>
>>>>>> Tennessee was the state where the nation's first big legal battle over
>>>>>> evolution was fought nearly 90 years ago.
>>>>
>>>>>> Critics derided the legislation as the "monkey bill" for attacking
>>>>>> evolution. The state held the famous Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 in
>>>>>> Dayton. In 1967, Tennessee's anti-evolution law was revoked.
>>>>
>>>>>> Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
>>>>>> solution and its always wrong!"
>>>>
>>>>> i am shocked:not only has conservatism been tied to low I.Q./low
>>>>> functioning individuals/but also research shows that low-effort
>>>>> thought promotes political conservatism:political viewpoints of
>>>>> patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be
>>>>> conservative
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-ef...
>>>>
>>>>> Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study
>>>>> The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
>>>>> Posted: 04/ 9/2012 10:44 am Updated: 04/ 9/2012 2:16 pm
>>>>
>>>>> Conservatives and liberals don't seem to agree about much, and they
>>>>> might not agree about recent studies linking conservatism to low
>>>>> intelligence and "low-effort" thinking.
>>>>> As The Huffington Post reported in February, a study published in the
>>>>> journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on
>>>>> intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political
>>>>> views in adulthood--perhaps because conservative ideologies stress
>>>>> "structure and order" that make it easier to understand a complicated
>>>>> world.
>>>>> Ouch.
>>>>> And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-
>>>>> effort" thinking.
>>>>> "People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a
>>>>> first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of
>>>>> Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement
>>>>> released by the university.
>>>>> Does the finding suggest that conservatives are lazy thinkers?
>>>>> "Not quite," Dr. Eidelman told The Huffington Post in an email. "Our
>>>>> research shows that low-effort thought promotes political
>>>>> conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort
>>>>> thinking."
>>>>
>>>>> For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked
>>>>> people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory
>>>>> setting.
>>>>> Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a
>>>>> Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons
>>>>> with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative
>>>>> than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.
>>>>> But it wasn't just the alcohol talking, according to the statement.
>>>>> When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they
>>>>> found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly
>>>>> or while distracted were more likely to express conservative
>>>>> viewpoints.
>>>>> "Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to
>>>>> deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact
>>>>> people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes
>>>>> political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said in the email.
>>>>> The study was published online in the journal "Personality and Social
>>>>> Psychology Bulletin."
>>>>> What do you think? Are conservatives less intelligent than liberals--
>>>>> or more intelligent? And is conservatism a matter of lazy thinking?
>>>>
>>>> That is the most ridiculous test I've ever heard of with an obvious
>>>> political bend. I'm guessing tax dollars paid for it too? It sounds
>>>> like something from the Onion. One could draw the conclusion that
>>>> sober people lie and drunk people tell the truth. Good grief....
>>>
>>> yet, its backed and and peer reviewed. which means its empirical
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Backed and peer reviewed by whom? I've found very little on the study
>> other than the endless repeating of the original story.
>
>http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213.abstract
That's the only thing I found but that doesn't really answer my
question.
NoBody
Apr 13, 2012, 5:53:06 AM4/13/12
to
David Hartung
Apr 13, 2012, 7:08:10 AM4/13/12
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
lsrlts
Apr 13, 2012, 12:00:07 PM4/13/12
to
On 4/13/2012 8:22 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:52:15 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
FBI.
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:52:15 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:43:38 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2012 2:49 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> Go back to her subway?
>>>>>
>>>>> SNICKER
>>>>
>>>> Any more threats to blow up Mt. Rushmore from you lately?
>>>
>>> Never threatened anything of the sort.
>>>
>>>
>> Liar.
>
> a) Reagan's face
>
>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:43:38 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2012 2:49 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> Go back to her subway?
>>>>>
>>>>> SNICKER
>>>>
>>>> Any more threats to blow up Mt. Rushmore from you lately?
>>>
>>> Never threatened anything of the sort.
>>>
>>>
>> Liar.
>
FBI.
lsrlts
Apr 13, 2012, 12:11:45 PM4/13/12
to
On 4/12/2012 8:48 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
Yes, you are stupid.
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:52:38 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
>>> when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
>>> my address?
>>>
>>> Just how stupid are you? Shall we find out?
>>>
>
> Stupid,
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You're a stalker, aren't you, Gare. Is that what they said
>>> when they "reminded" you that you needed to stop posting
>>> my address?
>>>
>>> Just how stupid are you? Shall we find out?
>>>
>
Yes, you are stupid.
lsrlts
Apr 13, 2012, 12:20:04 PM4/13/12
to
Sid9
Apr 13, 2012, 12:59:23 PM4/13/12
to
"lsrlts" <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote in message
news:jm9j9k$v8d$1...@dont-email.me...
lsrlts
Apr 13, 2012, 1:28:46 PM4/13/12
to
BillyBobMarley
Apr 13, 2012, 5:11:39 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 12, 8:43 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
FBI that he would rather not talk about concerning that nasty little
insane outburst.
Hint: People should not post on usenet when drunk or when bested by a
worthy opponent , hence Gary's quandry.
> On 4/12/2012 2:49 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> > Go back to her subway?
>
> > SNICKER
>
> Any more threats to blow up Mt. Rushmore from you lately?
I would suppose not ,Gary got kicked off his ISP and a visit from the
>
> > Go back to her subway?
>
> > SNICKER
>
> Any more threats to blow up Mt. Rushmore from you lately?
FBI that he would rather not talk about concerning that nasty little
insane outburst.
Hint: People should not post on usenet when drunk or when bested by a
worthy opponent , hence Gary's quandry.
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 13, 2012, 5:59:01 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 12, 12:29 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Does that include Caller ID that caught you making crank, hang-up
> >> >> phone calls?
>
> >> >You never "caught" me making any sort of phone calls, crank or
> >> >otherwise, Gary,
> >> >because I never made them. You have no proof that I did.
>
> Then how would I have known your phone prefix which I did post the
> next day--from Elon?
You did? That's a new claim. Can you back it up? When did you say
you posted my phone prefix? We can find that in the google archive,
you know.
Or are you expecting us to simply take your word for it?
Are you starting to sweat yet?
> Caller ID, knickkkers
>
> THink you can now lie about this too?
I have proof of my claims, Gare. You don't.
Poor lil you, huh?
<snickers>
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 13, 2012, 6:00:18 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 11:11 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Gary's my pet. Has been for decades.
>
> Except that don't explain why you still hear laughter as you left here
It "don't explain"?
You really don't have much of a command of the English language, do
you?
> Does it Knickkers/
In the rest of the world, Gare, an interogative sentence ends with a
'?'.
Use the <Shift> key. That's why it's there.
<snickers>
> How did I get your phone number, town and state, Knickkkers?
I don't know, Gare. You're the stalker. You tell me.
You tell US how you work that and then why you thought you could get
away with posting it on Usenet. Sheeesh. What a stupe you are!
It is nice to see that you've dropped your claim that you've ever
posted my
area code. You really have no proof of any claim.
But then I suppose you're accustomed to feeling silly in front of
others, right?
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 13, 2012, 9:27:50 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 8:57 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
It was in the google archive, Gare boy. You didn't know that, did you?
See how stupid you are: you think that cowardly X-No-Archive: yes
protects you from people seeing your past posts.
But I digress:
Here's a teaser, Gare. Just enough of the full headers to let you know
just
how stupid you are:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-
in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-
nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cry...@rightwing.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.air-america,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.i-
think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.rush-
limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Kurtis T. Nicklas of 1293 Wes
Now, you'll get to see the rest when you tell us just who it was who
made you stop posting my home address.
Ya know, it's pretty ironic - you and your friends whine about me
stalking them and yet here you are doing it yourself.
You're stupid, Gary. Everyone here knows it. Even your leftwing
buddies know it. You're posts are semi-literate, ungrammatical BS.
They're laughable. Even your friends laugh at you.
Next?
----------------------------------------
Re: Annual update on Weasel group
Posted by: "rose...@enetis.net" rose...@enetis.net
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:30 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>What other essential actions must we not mention on this list?
> It's important to cover them all. We would not want to miss the best
of the worst for inattention.
The point is that "someone" is feeding the bad guys
with information they in turn use against all of us.
Those they feed are not interested in discourse, or
argument ---or any of the things this group originally
represented---but merely to sabotege.
Years ago this group was able to talk about personal
things of interest.
Now it's merely a conduit of pissing and moaning and
those that are disagreed with are punished by using
outsiders.
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Then how would I have known your phone prefix which I did post the
> >> next day--from Elon?
>
> >You did? That's a new claim. Can you back it up?
>
> Well, lets see you back up claim I posted your home address.
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Then how would I have known your phone prefix which I did post the
> >> next day--from Elon?
>
> >You did? That's a new claim. Can you back it up?
>
It was in the google archive, Gare boy. You didn't know that, did you?
See how stupid you are: you think that cowardly X-No-Archive: yes
protects you from people seeing your past posts.
But I digress:
Here's a teaser, Gare. Just enough of the full headers to let you know
just
how stupid you are:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-
in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-
nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cry...@rightwing.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.air-america,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.i-
think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.rush-
limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Kurtis T. Nicklas of 1293 Wes
Now, you'll get to see the rest when you tell us just who it was who
made you stop posting my home address.
Ya know, it's pretty ironic - you and your friends whine about me
stalking them and yet here you are doing it yourself.
You're stupid, Gary. Everyone here knows it. Even your leftwing
buddies know it. You're posts are semi-literate, ungrammatical BS.
They're laughable. Even your friends laugh at you.
Next?
----------------------------------------
Re: Annual update on Weasel group
Posted by: "rose...@enetis.net" rose...@enetis.net
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:30 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>What other essential actions must we not mention on this list?
> It's important to cover them all. We would not want to miss the best
of the worst for inattention.
The point is that "someone" is feeding the bad guys
with information they in turn use against all of us.
Those they feed are not interested in discourse, or
argument ---or any of the things this group originally
represented---but merely to sabotege.
Years ago this group was able to talk about personal
things of interest.
Now it's merely a conduit of pissing and moaning and
those that are disagreed with are punished by using
outsiders.
Kurt Nicklas
Apr 14, 2012, 12:05:11 AM4/14/12
to
On Apr 13, 10:49 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
Prove I made any.
> Was it?
>
> Or those 33 Complaints filed to stop the entire usenet laughing once
> they found out.
Prove I filed them.
You can't do it, Gare.
On the other hand, I can prove you stalked me and posted my home
address.
That really rips you to pieces, doesn't it?
<snickers>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You're stupid, Gary. Everyone here knows it. Even your leftwing
> >buddies know it. You're posts are semi-literate, ungrammatical BS.
> >They're laughable. Even your friends laugh at you.
>
> Crank calls from a home phone wasn't smart
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You're stupid, Gary. Everyone here knows it. Even your leftwing
> >buddies know it. You're posts are semi-literate, ungrammatical BS.
> >They're laughable. Even your friends laugh at you.
>
Prove I made any.
> Was it?
>
> Or those 33 Complaints filed to stop the entire usenet laughing once
> they found out.
Prove I filed them.
You can't do it, Gare.
On the other hand, I can prove you stalked me and posted my home
address.
That really rips you to pieces, doesn't it?
<snickers>
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages