Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bill Maher: "Who's your daddy?"
4 views
Skip to first unread message
J
May 19, 2013, 1:02:48 AM5/19/13
to
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967.jpeg
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com
Honesty. Decency. Integrity
SkyEyes
May 19, 2013, 5:23:55 AM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 10:02 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
And your point would be...what, exactly?
-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-
> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
And your point would be...what, exactly?
-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-
Syd M.
May 19, 2013, 10:38:31 AM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 1:02 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
>
> J Young
> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
>
> jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> Honesty. Decency. Integrity
What are three things IBen lacks, Alex?
PDW
J
May 19, 2013, 1:26:08 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:23:55 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:
>On May 18, 10:02�pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
>
>And your point would be...what, exactly?
>
That one of your top liberal icons is in total agreement with me that
Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James Hewitt;
which would mean he has no right to live off the British taxpayer's
tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues the charade of
being a member of the Royal family if he knows he is not the son of
Charles.
wrote:
>On May 18, 10:02�pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
>
>And your point would be...what, exactly?
>
Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James Hewitt;
which would mean he has no right to live off the British taxpayer's
tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues the charade of
being a member of the Royal family if he knows he is not the son of
Charles.
SkyEyes
May 19, 2013, 5:41:34 PM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 10:26 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:23:55 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
the royal family's. And don't tell me the British taxpayers care;
they adore Harry.
If Charles and LIz accept him as Charles' son, then it's none of your
fucking beeswax.
But then again, butting into other people's business is what you live
for.
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:23:55 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 18, 10:02 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
>
> >And your point would be...what, exactly?
>
> That one of your top liberal icons is in total agreement with me that
> Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James Hewitt;
> which would mean he has no right to live off the British taxpayer's
> tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues the charade of
> being a member of the Royal family if he knows he is not the son of
> Charles.
And this is important...why? It's essentially nobody's business but
>
> >On May 18, 10:02 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-52990577967...
>
> >And your point would be...what, exactly?
>
> That one of your top liberal icons is in total agreement with me that
> Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James Hewitt;
> which would mean he has no right to live off the British taxpayer's
> tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues the charade of
> being a member of the Royal family if he knows he is not the son of
> Charles.
the royal family's. And don't tell me the British taxpayers care;
they adore Harry.
If Charles and LIz accept him as Charles' son, then it's none of your
fucking beeswax.
But then again, butting into other people's business is what you live
for.
dave
May 19, 2013, 10:15:29 PM5/19/13
to
<snipped>
There is a old English tradition of women married to
faulty aristocrats practicing what is now referred to
as genetic enhancement.
There is a old English tradition of women married to
faulty aristocrats practicing what is now referred to
as genetic enhancement.
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 2:09:15 PM5/20/13
to
is by blood or not. Unless the mother says otherwise...
Mason Barge
May 20, 2013, 5:21:07 PM5/20/13
to
can disavow paternity, but the burden is on him to prove it.
Not having had sex with the mother was the primary means of proof
until modern times. A very early case: Joseph was going to divorce
Mary (sort of, they were about half married) until an angel showed up
and convinced him not to.
Dakota
May 20, 2013, 5:42:37 PM5/20/13
to
else's child.
If Charles wanted to end delusional J's imagined 'charade', he'd have
had the DNA tests performed.
Mason Barge
May 20, 2013, 6:18:47 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:42:37 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:
How do you know he hasn't?
wrote:
linuxgal
May 20, 2013, 9:25:12 PM5/20/13
to
Mason Barge wrote:
> Joseph was going to divorce
> Mary (sort of, they were about half married) until an angel showed up
> and convinced him not to.
Except there's no such thing as angels.
> Joseph was going to divorce
> Mary (sort of, they were about half married) until an angel showed up
> and convinced him not to.
Mason Barge
May 21, 2013, 9:46:29 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:25:12 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
Opinion appears to be divided on the issue :)
At any rate, whether you believe in angels or not is beside the point.
I was recounting the story as it is written.
wrote:
At any rate, whether you believe in angels or not is beside the point.
I was recounting the story as it is written.
YHVH
May 22, 2013, 9:55:59 AM5/22/13
to
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote in
news:c76ebdf0-bdb7-400d...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 19, 10:26�am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:23:55 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 18, 10:02�pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >>http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-5299057796
>> >>7..
> .
>>
>> >And your point would be...what, exactly?
>>
>> That one of your top liberal icons is in total agreement with me that
>> Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James Hewitt;
>> which would mean he has no right to live off the British taxpayer's
>> tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues the charade of
>> being a member of the Royal family if he knows he is not the son of
>> Charles.
>
> And this is important...why? It's essentially nobody's business but
> the royal family's. And don't tell me the British taxpayers care;
> they adore Harry.
SOME of them adore Harry; others would just as well stop paying for him
and the rest of the welfare queens that are the royal family. They
deserve a voice.
news:c76ebdf0-bdb7-400d...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 19, 10:26�am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:23:55 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 18, 10:02�pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >>http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/0/8/1/jhc-5299057796
>> >>7..
> .
>>
>> >And your point would be...what, exactly?
>>
>> That one of your top liberal icons is in total agreement with me that
>> Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James Hewitt;
>> which would mean he has no right to live off the British taxpayer's
>> tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues the charade of
>> being a member of the Royal family if he knows he is not the son of
>> Charles.
>
> And this is important...why? It's essentially nobody's business but
> the royal family's. And don't tell me the British taxpayers care;
> they adore Harry.
and the rest of the welfare queens that are the royal family. They
deserve a voice.
William December Starr
May 22, 2013, 9:29:48 PM5/22/13
to
In article <hj1ip8liskqktvb0r...@4ax.com>,
J <jdyo...@ymail.com> said:
> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> And your point would be...what, exactly?
>
> That one of your top liberal icons is in total agreement with me
> that Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James
> Hewitt; which would mean he has no right to live off the British
> taxpayer's tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues
> the charade of being a member of the Royal family if he knows he
> is not the son of Charles.
You worry about the weirdest stuff.
-- wds
J <jdyo...@ymail.com> said:
> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> And your point would be...what, exactly?
>
> That one of your top liberal icons is in total agreement with me
> that Harry Hewitt is probably the bastard child of Diana and James
> Hewitt; which would mean he has no right to live off the British
> taxpayer's tit. He is likely perpetrating fraud if he continues
> the charade of being a member of the Royal family if he knows he
> is not the son of Charles.
-- wds
0 new messages