Joshua Slocum
Jim Donohue
Slocum's problems with the law? Perhaps a pedophile is the model you have
in mind but it sounds a little hard to believe.
Jim
"Joe Blow" <j...@blow.com> wrote in message
news:39cfee63...@news.erols.com...
> I believe that most people in this NG know who Joshua Slocum is. Most
> have probably read his book, "Sailing Around the World Alone." For
> those few who might not know the story he was an American and the very
> first person in the world to circumnavigate the globe. I don't have
> the text handy but I believe it was around the last part of the 19th
> Century.
>
> When he was trying to make it around Cape Horn (east to west) by
> passing through the Straits of Magellan he found it necessary to
> anchor at night. Knowing that he was vulnerable to attack by Fuegan
> Indians he devised a brilliant defense system: He spread tacks out on
> deck.
>
> When the Indians crept aboard with the intent of doing poor Josh in
> they began to let out yelps as their feet encountered the sharp points
> of these tacks. Josh was able to grab his shotgun, dash to the
> companionway and let go with a thunderous blast. The Indians beat a
> hasty retreat and did not come back to bother him again leaving him
> with only the elements to face.
>
> The moral of this story should not be lost on these so-called cruisers
> (whimps by my definition) who have been polluting this newsgroup with
> their gun-grabbing prattle.
>
> Joe
>
>
Joe Blow
Paul VandenBosch
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/js/saaw.htm
Voyage of the Liberdade
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/js/liberdade.htm
Voyage of the Destroyer
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/js/destroyer.htm
Please do not involve the Master in petty disputes.
--
Paul VandenBosch
The Guide to Sailing and Cruising Stories: http://cruisenews.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brett Aubrey
> I believe that most people in this NG know who Joshua Slocum is.
> Most have probably read his book, "Sailing Around the World Alone."
> For those few who might not know the story he was an American and
> the very first person in the world to circumnavigate the globe.
"In 1522, Ferdinand Magellan made history as the first man to circum-
navigate the globe." (From my Grade 5 history class, IIRC.) Why, oh
why, do people in newsgroups soooooo frequently write trash on such
generally well known subjects as world history and language? And in
the past few days, an inordinate number seem to be from one group.
What the heck's with that, for crying out loud?
> I don't have the text handy but I believe it was around the last
> part of the 19th Century.
Maybe you meant "the very first American in the world to circumnav-
igate the globe around the last part of the 19th Century"?
> When he was trying to make it around Cape Horn (east to west) by
> passing through the Straits of Magellan [snip]
Yup, it was already named after Magellan for a reason, ya know?
[snip]
> The moral of this story should not be lost on these so-called
> cruisers (whimps by my definition) who have been polluting
> this newsgroup with their gun-grabbing prattle.
Another ad hominem attack... Why do you seem to feel so threatened
by persons who happen to disagree with your stance on guns that you
feel the need to start two threads in as many days, both of your
posts containing (errors and) attacks? Just curious.
And now you've necessitated an update to my stats correcting Jeff's
estimate on the types of people starting these gun-related threads.
My count is now: Pro-Gun - 4 Anti-Gun - 3 Neutral - 2.
Regards, Brett Aubrey.
"Ah yes, the ad hominem attack; the last, desperate resort of
the unskilled". Steven Jay Gould, IIRC (but I could be wrong).
P.S. "Whimps" is not a word, according to www.m-w.com. Perhaps
you meant wimps? ...sigh.
P.P.S. Was he really a pedophile? Great role model. ...sigh.
David
Magellan commanded the mission that first circumnavigated, though he
died en route, and so never personally circumnavigated.
Brett Aubrey wrote:
> Joe Blow wrote [sigh... more errors]:
> > I believe that most people in this NG know who Joshua Slocum is.
> > Most have probably read his book, "Sailing Around the World Alone."
> > For those few who might not know the story he was an American and
> > the very first person in the world to circumnavigate the globe.
>
> "In 1522, Ferdinand Magellan made history as the first man to circum-
> navigate the globe." (From my Grade 5 history class, IIRC.) Why, oh
> why, do people in newsgroups soooooo frequently write trash on such
> generally well known subjects as world history and language? And in
> the past few days, an inordinate number seem to be from one group.
> What the heck's with that, for crying out loud?
>
> [snip]
>
Douglas S. King
> What an odd hero to pick for your cause. You are of course aware of
> Slocum's problems with the law? Perhaps a pedophile is the model you have
> in mind but it sounds a little hard to believe.
You obviously either know little about Captain Slocum or his "problems with
the law," or else you wish to use deliberate falsehoods to support your
cause. So please leave Joshua Slocum out of it.
The incident often referred to as showing him as a pedophile was a simple
mistake and a result of the rather prudish laws of that era. There was
certainly no pedophilia involved. if you wanted to make anything of it,
"accidental indecent exposure" is the worst that could realistically be
stated. This was one very brief and unimportant interlude in a long and
turbulent life.
Douglas S. King
--
This is what we look like when we're at our best:
http://recboats.hsh.com/45.htm
Joe Blow
wrote:
Aubrey,
Your ignorance of history is as transparent in your postings as is
your knowledge of the 2nd amendment.
And, by the way, "ad hominem", from Latin, means "to the man." In
other words, attacking the individual rather than the position the
individual is propounding.
What is much more vile and craven is your gratuitous slander of Joshua
Slocum, the FIRST solo circumnavigator. The man is long dead but he
was once a minor celebrity of his day and vulnerable to the random
accusations that status incurs. He was accused of kissing a teen-age
girl who was visiting his boat in Annapolis. I don't believe he was
ever officially charged. I know he was never convicted. That you
would slander this dead hero to the cruising world really reveals the
sort person (you do not fit my definition of man) you are.
As far as I am concerned you are a sniveling whimp (Yes, this IS an
"ad hominem" attack) who would do well to take your puerile prattle
off to some other newsgroup--i.e., "Fags for Gun Grabbing." No
serious cruising man could possibly want to hear anything you have to
say.
Joe
Brett Aubrey
Brett Aubrey
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:20:20 GMT, Brett Aubrey <Brett....@Home.com>
> wrote:
> Aubrey,
>
> Your ignorance of history is as transparent in your postings as is
> your knowledge of the 2nd amendment.
Well now, I admit Magellan never made it, but I'd say my answer
was certainly closer to the truth (Magellan's crew in 1522, often
attributed to Magellen) was FAR closer than Slocum, who wasn't
yet near to birth.
> And, by the way, "ad hominem", from Latin, means "to the man." In
> other words, attacking the individual rather than the position the
> individual is propounding.
Touche. You're quite correct.
> What is much more vile and craven is your gratuitous slander of Joshua
> Slocum,
Say what? Whatever are you talking about? I recall no such slander,
even after re-reading my post.
> the FIRST solo circumnavigator. The man is long dead but he
> was once a minor celebrity of his day and vulnerable to the random
> accusations that status incurs. He was accused of kissing a teen-age
> girl who was visiting his boat in Annapolis. I don't believe he was
> ever officially charged. I know he was never convicted. That you
> would slander this dead hero to the cruising world really reveals the
> sort person (you do not fit my definition of man) you are.
Duh. Except that you somehow failed to say "SOLO" in your first post.
> As far as I am concerned you are a sniveling whimp (Yes, this IS an
> "ad hominem" attack) who would do well to take your puerile prattle
> off to some other newsgroup--i.e., "Fags for Gun Grabbing." No
> serious cruising man could possibly want to hear anything you have to
> say.
Sorry, but your opinion doesn't mean too, too much to me, and I don't
believe this is *your* newsgroup. Regards, Brett Aubrey.
P.S. "Whimp" is not a word, according to www.m-w.com. Perhaps
you meant wimp? ...sigh.
hkr...@capu.net
> you meant wimp? ...sigh.
One of you guys is Rush Limbaugh, right?
--
Harry Krause
------------
If money could talk, it would say goodbye
Brett Aubrey
> ------------
> If money could talk, it would say goodbye
Who's she?
Skipper
> Magellan commanded the mission that first circumnavigated, though he died
> en route, and so never personally circumnavigated.
Magellan (Fernao De Magalhaes) *was* the first person to circumnavigate
but he did it in two parts. While he died in 1521 at Zebu in the
Philippines commanding the first circumnavigation of the planet, he was
also the first circumnavigator as he had voyaged East to the Philippines
on an earlier expedition. Or so I've been told...
--
Skipper
Steven Shelikoff
>
> David wrote:
>
> > Magellan commanded the mission that first circumnavigated, though he died
> > en route, and so never personally circumnavigated.
>
> Magellan (Fernao De Magalhaes) *was* the first person to circumnavigate
> but he did it in two parts. While he died in 1521 at Zebu in the
Yeah, the part where he was alive and the part where he was dead.:)
Steve
myst...@mindspring.com
"Skipper" <Ski...@kscable.com> wrote in message
> Magellan (Fernao De Magalhaes) *was* the first person to circumnavigate
> but he did it in two parts. While he died in 1521 at Zebu in the
Magellan is dead?? Why didn't someone tell me?
Jeff
Jim Donohue
Whaddaya mean my cause. I have no side in this particular discussion - if
anything I think a well concealed rod on board may be wise for a cruiser.
Just a practical position - I could not care less about the
constitutionalityc or legality - that is why I would keep it well concealed.
Jim
"Douglas S. King" <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39D0BA1E...@mindspring.com...
Joe Blow
wrote:
snip snip
>
>
>Duh. Except that you somehow failed to say "SOLO" in your first post.
>
> Regards, Brett Aubrey.
>
Duh, eh?
"Sailing Around the World A-l-o-n-e" (emphasis added) was the title I
quoted.
Tell me, Brett, what part of the word "Alone" in the title confuses
you. If you believe that "alone" does not mean "solo" then I can
understand why you are having so much trouble grasping the meaning of
the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. constitution. Your flawed reasoning is
becoming more understandable.
Just out of curiousty please tell us if you were you taught to read
using one of the modern, liberal methods ("whole word" for example) or
were you actually taught phonics and just slept thought it all.
Joe
Rich Hampel
uh-oh
he was killed.....
on a boat......
was the weapon .......
........
uh-huh...... you knew it was coming .... a g - u - n ?????
I'd be much happier to know if he was killed by stoning, boiled alive, being eaten, being thrown out
a window, etc.
But hopefully not ..... a g - u - n !!!!
Slocum (born a Canadian???) disappeared in the Carribean..... could it have been ..... a g - u
- n ??????
:-o
Douglas S. King
> Ahhh - He was convicted.
Not true.
Got any references?
-DSK
Jim Donohue
"
In 1901, Slocum took the Spray to the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo and
finally was able to buy a farm in West Tisbury, a town on the island of
Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. He sailed the Spray to the Caribbean. In
1906, on the way back, in Riverton, New Jersey, he was convicted of what we
would term indecent assault on a 12-year-old girl and discharged without
further action.
"
That is at -
http://www.eldritchpress.org/js/slocum.htm#toc
"Douglas S. King" <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39D21BCF...@mindspring.com...
Maguire
Douglas S. King
> Your too easy. Try his biography at the Slocum Society -
>
> "
> .... In 1906, on the way back, in Riverton, New Jersey, he was convicted of
> what we would term indecent assault on a 12-year-old girl and discharged
> without further action.
> "
>
> That is at -
>
> http://www.eldritchpress.org/js/slocum.htm#toc
Well, you learn something every day. I wonder if there are still court records.
Every biography (about five or six) that I have read previously which mentions
this incident said that his case was dismissed as a misunderstanding, with the
agreement of the girls parents. Other accounts of Slocum's life don't even
mention it.
In any event, why do you choose to characterize Joshua Slocum as "a child
molester"?
Jim Donohue
way - vanished at sea.
I merely noted that the crime of which he was convicted would likely have
made him a felon and a registered sex offender and thus unable to possess
firearms under our present laws. Thus an unlikely hero for the gunnies.
I did not, by the way, suggest he was a child molester - just a pedophile.
My view of an older guy compromised with a 12 year old girl.
Jim
"Douglas S. King" <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39D36B73...@mindspring.com...
Joe Blow
<doug...@mindspring.com> wrote:
snip
>
>Well, you learn something every day. I wonder if there are still court records.
snip
>Douglas S. King
Doug,
Haven't you yet realized that honesty and factuality have no place in
the lexicon of the gun-grabbers. Theses poor, misguided whimps will
do anything to undermine the 2nd Amendment. There is absolutely
decency in these people. I'm just surprised to find so many of them in
a cruising newsgroup, an interest that heretofore has always attracted
a more self-reliant, independent type of individual. I suspect,
though I have no proof, that few of these gun grabbers have ventured
more than a few miles off shore. That they would malign someone like
Joshua Slocum shows that sort of people they are.
Joe
Skipper
> Haven't you yet realized that honesty and factuality have no place in
> the lexicon of the gun-grabbers... ... ... That they would malign someone like
> Joshua Slocum shows that sort of people they are.
And your inability to contribute on-topic posts to this boating NG shows
the sort of person *you* are. As they say, just blow, Joe.
--
Skipper
Joe Blow
wrote:
>And your inability to contribute on-topic posts to this boating NG shows
>the sort of person *you* are. As they say, just blow, Joe.
No. 1. Carrying a weapon on a boat is not exactly off topic.
No. 2. You are not the moderator of this NG.
No. 3. "Skipper" must be a moniker you have bestowed upon yourself
because, for the life of me, I can't imagine any sailor I've ever
known, ever calling a whimp like you "skipper."
No. 4. How do I know you are a whimp? Well . . . . .
Joe
Brett Aubrey
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:02:02 -0500, "Douglas S. King"
> <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > Douglas S. King
> Doug,
> Haven't you yet realized that honesty and factuality have no place
Would that be the Slocum Society? (i.e. the source stating that
he was convicted.) Or do you figure the gun-grabbers hacked into
the site and changed the text just to make your statement "I know
he was never convicted" wrong?
> [snip] There is absolutely decency in these people.
Can't argue with you there. Inconsistent with the rest, but true
not only of these people, but most people in my experience.
> I'm just surprised to find so many of them in
> a cruising newsgroup, an interest that heretofore has always
> attracted a more self-reliant, independent type of individual.
This is a troll, right? While it ties in with your earlier mythical
connection of those "so totally lacking in self reliance" with "gun
control" people, you're kidding, huh?. No one could seriously think
that there's actually a connection between independence, resourseful-
ness and self-reliance while cruising, and one's stance on guns. That
would make most of the world incompetent as sailors, even those who
have recently cleaned house in the America's Cup in all probability.
You're certainly stretching credibility a bit here, Mr. Blow.
> That they would malign someone like Joshua Slocum shows that sort
> of people they are.
Would that be the Slocum Society again? Or are you getting things
mixed up a bit? Kindest regards, Brett.
P.S. I'm still curious what you considered "vile and craven" as
well as "gratuitous slander".
P.P.S. "Whimp" is not a word, according to www.m-w.com. Perhaps
you meant wimp? ...sigh.
trash
goes, no morals, no standards, no ethics, no values. The only comment to
this thread should have been a deafening "So What?"
"Brett Aubrey" <Brett....@Home.com> wrote in message
news:39D42FE7...@Home.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Rosalie B.
>Actually I am rather fond of JS. Interesting sailor and went out the right
>way - vanished at sea.
>
>I merely noted that the crime of which he was convicted would likely have
>made him a felon and a registered sex offender and thus unable to possess
>firearms under our present laws. Thus an unlikely hero for the gunnies.
>
>I did not, by the way, suggest he was a child molester - just a pedophile.
>My view of an older guy compromised with a 12 year old girl.
When I was 12, I was often thought to be my father's wife. He looked very
young (was carded when he was 40) and I looked very mature. Many 12 yo
girls are physically indistinguishable from older girls - unlike boys who
often take much longer to mature physically.
>"Douglas S. King" <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:39D36B73...@mindspring.com...
>> Jim Donohue wrote:
>>
>> > Your too easy. Try his biography at the Slocum Society -
>> >
>> > " .... In 1906, on the way back, in Riverton, New Jersey, he was convicted of
>> > what we would term indecent assault on a 12-year-old girl and discharged
>> > without further action. "
>> >
>> > That is at -
>> >
>> > http://www.eldritchpress.org/js/slocum.htm#toc
>> Well, you learn something every day. I wonder if there are still court
>records.
>>
>> Every biography (about five or six) that I have read previously which
>mentions
>> this incident said that his case was dismissed as a misunderstanding, with
>the
>> agreement of the girls parents. Other accounts of Slocum's life don't even
>> mention it.
grandma Rosalie
myst...@mindspring.com
"Douglas S. King" <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Jim Donohue wrote:
>
> > Your too easy. Try his biography at the Slocum Society -
> >
> > "
> > .... In 1906, on the way back, in Riverton, New Jersey, he was
convicted of
> > what we would term indecent assault on a 12-year-old girl and discharged
> > without further action.
> > "
> >
> > That is at -
> >
> > http://www.eldritchpress.org/js/slocum.htm#toc
>
> Well, you learn something every day. I wonder if there are still court
records.
>
> Every biography (about five or six) that I have read previously which
mentions
> this incident said that his case was dismissed as a misunderstanding, with
the
> agreement of the girls parents. Other accounts of Slocum's life don't even
> mention it.
Well, there's a huge difference between being convicted of a crime, and
having the case dismissed. Which is it????
Jeff
myst...@mindspring.com
"trash" <sloop...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> You are all missing the main point. This is the Age of Clinton. Anything
> goes, no morals, no standards, no ethics, no values. The only comment to
> this thread should have been a deafening "So What?"
So how do you define "morals, standards, and ethics?" <G>
Jeff
trash
citizen of the US only of course).
For the record I am both a Libertarian with occasional lapses in support of
a few local friends and belong to the eighth or ninth largest religion in
the world. I have my own set of values. Can't help you there - you have to
find your own. . . .or just accept Clintonista ethics - which means of
course . . .none.
To get this back on subject - The amusing part of all this is reading posts
which tear down those who have done something, by those who will never do
anything. Slocum, Tristan Jones et. al.
<myst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8r7cln$ppk$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Joe Blow
wrote:
snip snip
>
>P.P.S. "Whimp" is not a word, according to www.m-w.com. Perhaps
> you meant wimp? ...sigh.
Fact is, Brett, the "h" is added in your case to connote hysteria. In
other words you are not only a wimp but you are an hysterical wimp.
Thus, you are a whimp. It also connotes whimpering--an unmanly act
of crying with low, plaintive, broken sounds as a child or a dog.
This is the impression I get from your many hysterical, plaintive,
unmanly postings .
Why don't you trot yourself over to "alt.gaysex." Your pathetic
posturing is likely to find more sympathetic ears in that milieu
though you might even find some opposition there to your hysterical
need to chuck the 2nd Amendment.
Go ahead, you'll be a lot more comfortable there. People will
appreciate you more.
Joe
John Cairns
Joe Blow wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The moral of this story should not be lost on these so-called cruisers
> (whimps by my definition) who have been polluting this newsgroup with
> their gun-grabbing prattle.
>
> Joe
Wimp: a person who posts using an alias ;) John Cairns
Brett Aubrey
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:59:09 GMT, Brett Aubrey <Brett....@Home.com>
> wrote:
> Fact is, Brett, the "h" is added in your case to connote hysteria.
Geez, here ya are being inconsistent again, Joe. You started out
with the incorrect spelling in your double posted rant by attributing
your term to people in a group unrelated to me. But nice try...
> In other words you are not only a wimp but you are an hysterical
> wimp. Thus, you are a whimp. It also connotes whimpering--an
> unmanly act of crying with low, plaintive, broken sounds as
> a child or a dog. This is the impression I get from your many
> hysterical, plaintive, unmanly postings.
Well you're improving! Good one. This is the cleverest thing
you've written. Got a chuckle out of me, anyway. But I assume
you didn't quite mean it that way. Just curious... d'ya figure
your posting are "manly"? (never heard postings referred to that
way.) Please elaborate on what's "manly" about your postings?
I doubt you will, but it'd likely be a hoot to hear you try.
> Why don't you trot yourself over to "alt.gaysex." Your pathetic
> posturing is likely to find more sympathetic ears in that milieu
> though you might even find some opposition there to your hysterical
> need to chuck the 2nd Amendment.
Wow, you can figure out sexual preference from a post! I'm impressed.
Or is this just wishful thinking on your part? 'Course it's as wrong
as most of what you post. And you're wrong about my need to chuck the
2nd Amendment. In fact, you're wrong about a whole lot of things you
write. Is this a pattern? Seems so. My favorite is that you seem
to think that only people who are pro-guns can be competent. Does
one become magically self-reliant when one first buys a gun? Or is
it that first shot? What happens to someone who's done some shooting
and then stops - is it back to wimpdom? (And you call me hysterical?)
For the record, I've never cared too much one way or t'other about
the 2nd Amendmant, since you've said that a couple of times now.
If it was scrapped, it might improve your country, but I'm not
sure about that and besides, it's your country, not mine. It's
a very nice place to visit, but there aren't too many places in
the States I'd consider living (I like Boulder and much of Colorado,
Wyoming, Utah and the West Coast... especially San Francisco). Hey,
Joe, there's an opening for ya!
> Go ahead, you'll be a lot more comfortable there. People will
> appreciate you more. Joe
Thanks, Joe, but you're making me feel sooooo welcome here. Kisses!
- Kindest regards, Brett.
Brett Aubrey
There's an old saying: "When you argue with a fool, chances are
he is doing just the same". I confess to being a fool. While I
was right about "Joe 'Frog Butt' Blow" when I asked last Thursday
"This is a troll, right?", I didn't have time to look at his work.
This is a *small* representative sampling, most of which are the
entire post. I only looked at a few groups, and not even close
to all messages.
alt.swingers
Fuck off, Rainstupid.
We are sick of your type.
What the hell do you know.
The three bitch stages are:...
Female faggots are just cowards.
Have a nice day, swinging losers.
Oh look, it's the fat faggots again.
This is for you women who are inferior...
Apeface, Ha! That's a good one, Fat Faggot.
And most lard-ass female faggots are self-deceving.
Only IDIOT here is you ASSHOLE. Get a life FAGGOT.
Stay stupid and fat and you will have many ex-husbands. Wake Up!
Yes, Age does make a difference stupid. Open eyes, see world.
Yuckky, Don't listen to these jerks. Clueless and anti-social.
Yuck, French! A country of rude people. What a bunch of
self-hating losers.
Your a faggot and a coward. Open your eyes and you'll see that
it's the women who are jerks.
alt.troll
I DEFFENETLY pissed them off :-).
Most of the groups that you troll will not have much of
a sense of humor, ...
Welcome to the club. What groups are you trolling and what
names are you using?
A few of those idiots are using kill files, so use a different
name each time you post there. Them people are fun to fuck with.
Which group should we hit? I have been looking at tv goups and
most of the ones about old shows have very few posts. Hardley
worth a gang troll.
it's still a blast to go to the games, drink too much beer and hope
for a good fight.
I will be the drunk passed out at the bar. I have lots of
experience in that area.
Presumabley, Oddjob's one of your buds, huh Mr. Blow? You're a sadder
case than I believed. Even "wf3h" (BOBBY J. PUHARIC) at least believes
in what he's saying. Nah, maybe he's a troll too. Try to get a life,
will ya? I mean, being a teen in Berkley can't be all THAT bad, can it?
- Sayonnara, and all the best in your future endeavours, Brett Aubrey.
TROLL TROLL TROLL your post, gently down the net,
I know plenty of real cruisers, but you haven't met one yet.
(from someone in this group, I think.)
Joe Blow
wrote:
snip
> Fuck off, Rainstupid.
> We are sick of your type.
> What the hell do you know.
> The three bitch stages are:...
> Female faggots are just cowards.
> Have a nice day, swinging losers.
> Oh look, it's the fat faggots again.
> This is for you women who are inferior...
> Apeface, Ha! That's a good one, Fat Faggot.
> And most lard-ass female faggots are self-deceving.
> Only IDIOT here is you ASSHOLE. Get a life FAGGOT.
> Stay stupid and fat and you will have many ex-husbands. Wake Up!
> Yes, Age does make a difference stupid. Open eyes, see world.
> Yuckky, Don't listen to these jerks. Clueless and anti-social.
> Yuck, French! A country of rude people. What a bunch of
> self-hating losers.
> Your a faggot and a coward. Open your eyes and you'll see that
> it's the women who are jerks.
>
snip
Wow! Brett, I am really impressed by your erudition and the power of
your vocabulary. Is all of the above your own creation or is there a
bit of plagarism involved?
Sooo, you're a Canadian and you actually live in what used to be a
free country. Sad that today it has become known as the Socialist
Republic of Canada. You didn't have anything to do with that, did
you, Brett? True to form, socialists always see the first step in
establishing their socialist paradises as the necessity of disarming
the population. Is that why you are in this group? Do you want the
U.S. to follow you down that wonderful socialist path?
Or, as your Quebec neighbors would say:
Puisque tu es canadien je peux te dire, dans les paroles de tes
concitoyens, que tu restes toujours un petit con. Tu sais ce que
c'est "un petit con," non? Eh bien, un petit con c'est ce qu'on appel
un "whimp" en anglais. Bien, je t'ai deja explique pourquoi tu es un
"whimp."
Joe
stef
stef
montreal quebec