Re: Rex Hunt arrested on terrorism charges
Jeßus
> OK. So the laws only apply when *you* think they should. Interesting
> reflection on your own self importance there.
I'm bored with your twisted interpretations of my comments. you're not
interested in having a reasoned debate.
Your logic is fucked up, most people don't have such a black and white view
of the world like you do.
>> You must use shitty pens.
> You must have shitty eyes.
Brilliant comeback.
So your eyes are not 'shitty' I guess. Why don't we see how your eyes go
with a pen being stabbed into them.
>>>> Slam the end of a rolled up magazine into your face and see if you can
>>>> tell the difference.
>>> Last time I checked, you can't stab someone to death with a newspaper.
>> Ah. So the criteria is limited to stabbing? Okay then, noted.
> What else are you going to do with a knife or fork? Bruise someone to
> death with the flat edge? At least try to display *some* intelligence.
Oh yeah, I'm go fall for your back pedaling... I don't think so.
The argument is about (try to keep up... if you can) not just forks per se,
but the futility of going to such extremes in security. but that doesn't
interest you, I see that now. You are only interested in twisting and
manipulating the meaning of my comments into soemthign else entirely.
>>>> Slap a handbag strap around your neck and pull it tight, see if you
>>>> can tell the difference.
>>> Which would take time to kill someone, by which time you would be
>>> overpowered.
>> I see. But with a fork, theres no risk of being overpowered? I see.
> Not before you had inflicted a mortal wound, stupid.
I does not specifically require a fork to inflict a mortal wound, mongoloid
child. Pity I cant demonstrate that on you.
>>>> So what's your point?
>>> That you haven't the faintest clue about *anything*.
>> Excuse me if I don't respect your limp-wristed opinion.
> But according to you I don't have an opinion and just follow others like a
> sheep.......
Glad we can agree on something at least.
>>> ROFL. Freedom brings responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is
>>> to obey the law,
>> Seig heil. Believe it or not, plenty of us manage to get by using our
>> own judgement
> Based on the lack of anything resembling a brain that you have displayed
> in this thread, I wouldn't rely on what you call your own 'judgement'.
No, a sheep like yourself couldnt possibly understand that.
>>, not blindly accepting law of the day without question.
> You questions laws that have been put in place to help reduce the risk to
> peoples lives, whilst causing minimal inconvenience? Once again,
> displaying an exaggerated sense of self importance and a belief that you
> are above the law.
Again, twisting my words to suit your... whatever the hell it is you are
doing. If you believe that all the changes that have occured due to 911 are
'minimal', well... that just proves my point that you are a brainwashed
sheep.
If it were just the 'beefed up' (hysterical and largely pointless) security
at airports, then I could agree with you. The way the whole issue is being
exploited by the govt for politcal gain, ASIO massively expanding their
powers at the expense of our rights, the many small inconveniences in
eveyday life, most of which are dubious at best in their justification
(i.e: restrictions on fertilisers)... I could be here all day adding to the
list.
It all adds up one big inconvenience, the fork is just representative of
that. Do I really have to spell out all of the above to you in order to
make my real point clear?
>>> dickhead.
>> Wow.
> Based on your disregard for the law, I would say a dangerous dickhead.
Oh yeah. I am a free thinker, that makes me dangerous now. Call the thought
police. just because I think some of the security precautions are over the
top and ultimately ineffective.
I suppose you have the highest regard to the law and have never, ever
broken it. We both know the real answer to that, otherwise you wouldnt be
human. Real life isnt as black and white as you paint it.
>>> No. I mean we do what we can to reduce any risk. Would you be in favour
>>> of just throwing open our borders and allowing all and sundry to carry
>>> whatever weapons they wish on aircraft?
>> Oh yes! Of course, that's what I am advocating.
> I though so.
Yep. So you choose to deliberately ignore obvious sarcasm. Doesn't do a
whole lot for your argument you know.
>> I'm even in favour of allowing those deadly 'Splades' onto aircraft.
> Sounds to me like you were lobotomised by one.
Ouch, that really put me in my place...
> You're the one that raised this as a 'civil rights' issue. Explain to me
> how stopping you from carrying cutlery onto an aircraft is a breach of
> your civil liberties.
I've already commented on this.
Stop being deliberatly selective. You know full well that the fork issue is
just represenative of the wider issue that I was commenting on. Its not
just specifically about forks, as you well know.
You have a pissweak way of trying to win an argument. I'm not interested in
the argument for arguments sake like you do, only to argue my point of view.
>>> You should consider yourself lucky that we have freedom of stupidity in
>>> our society, or it would have been off to the Gulag for you years ago.
>> In your warped (and worthless) opinion maybe, which means exactly bugger
>> all to me.
> *Anything* resembling intelligence would mean bugger all to you.
Given your concept of 'intelligence' you are right.
>>>>>> who can't think for themselves.
>>>>> In your case, that's patently obvious.
>>>> I don't particularly respect your anal opinion.
>>> Tough shit.
>> I don't particularly respect your anal opinion.
> See above.
Jesus christ...
>>>>> PS: Stop snipping the newsgroups
>>>> 'Snipping the newsgroups'? WTF is that, lol..
>>> Get half a clue and you'll figure it out.
>> Why dont *you* get a clue? Go back through the thread, I have not
>> removed any groups.
> That's not what the headers say, stupid:
> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Je=DFus?= <1.@ii.net>
> Newsgroups: *aus.tv,alt.ozdebate,alt.religion.scientology*
> Subject: Re: Rex Hunt arrested on terrorism charges
> Followup-To: *aus.tv*
How can I put this so you'll understand.. I have not /removed/ any groups.
Someone has at some point, I CBF going back through the thread to see who
did right now. Whats the big deal about this anyway? Just something to
argue about for the sake of it?
>>>>> you stupid cunt.
>>>> Heh... got under your skin.
>>> Nope.
>> Oh yes I did.
> Nope.
It really does show, you know.
I wonder just how long you would say 'nope' if I just continued to say
'yes'?
--
/Jeßus/
"Somewhere in Texas, a village is being deprived of its idiot."