Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is Secret Service 'above the law'? Supreme Court hears protest case.
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Keith Olbermann
Apr 4, 2014, 1:20:55 AM4/4/14
to
It is not often US Supreme Court justices have occasion to
consider the logistics of being within grenade-tossing distance
of the president of the United States.
But that became a main point of discussion during oral argument
at the high court on Wednesday in a case testing whether Secret
Service agents can be held personally responsible for allegedly
violating the free speech rights of more than 200 would-be
presidential protesters.
The issue arises in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union on behalf of a group of demonstrators who sought
to confront then-President George W. Bush during a visit to
Jacksonville, Ore., in 2004.
The protesters wanted to express their displeasure with Mr.
Bush, but they say federal agents ordered them to move farther
away from the president because of the anti-Bush nature of their
intended message. The relocation placed them farther from Bush
than a group of the president’s supporters that had also staked
out a position nearby in Jacksonville.
In their suit, the protesters charge unconstitutional viewpoint
discrimination by Secret Service agents. They say such behavior
was consistent with a pattern in the Bush White House of
suppressing dissent at presidential appearances. The suit says
there were as many as 12 other instances of Secret Service
agents muzzling anti-Bush demonstrations.
The government moved to dismiss the case, but a federal appeals
court upheld the litigation.
On Wednesday, the case arrived at the Supreme Court to a chilly
reception from the justices.
During an hour-long argument session, several justices appeared
to readily agree with a government lawyer who said the Secret
Service agents took action to move the protesters as a result of
valid security concerns.
“I think it is important in this context to remember that what
we have are Secret Service agents who are making on-the-spot
judgments while protecting high-level officials,” Deputy
Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn told the justices.
Steven Wilker, a Portland, Ore., lawyer arguing on behalf of the
ACLU, said the federal agents were not concerned with potential
security threats. He said they ordered the protesters to be
relocated solely because of the nature of the protesters' anti-
Bush message.
Initially, the protesters were located on the sidewalk at the
entrance to an alley that passed beside a patio restaurant where
the president was dining. The government maintains that the
outdoor restaurant and proximity to the protesters created a
valid security issue for the Secret Service, justifying the
order to move the protesters back.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the question directly to Mr.
Wilker. “Would you say that you would have no tenable case if
they moved [the protesters] just the one street over so they
wouldn’t be in a position to throw a hand grenade to the patio,”
she asked.
Wilker responded that it would make it a more difficult case for
the plaintiffs to win.
Justice Elena Kagan asked Wilker if he conceded that in
hindsight the agents had an objective security rationale for
moving the protesters. That rationale: “They are standing at the
foot of the alleyway, [and] that you could throw a grenade into
the patio area.”
Wilker said the entrance to the alleyway was blocked by police
in riot gear and that the more simple solution would have been
to move the protesters “slightly to the east or west where they
had buildings between them and the president.”
Later in the argument, Wilker made a more direct concession.
“Could there be a security interest? Yes, there could
hypothetically be one,” he said. “Was there one? We say there
was not.”
In his rebuttal argument, Deputy Solicitor General Gershengorn
told the justices that agents protecting the president must
engage in rapid decisionmaking and should not be second-guessed
without clear evidence that they weren’t responding to a
perceived security issue.
“The concession that in hindsight there may have been a valid
security rationale ends this case,” he said. “If it was true in
hindsight, it was certainly true at the time of the kind of
rapid decisionmaking that was called for.”
Gershengorn added: “I think at that point the case is over in
our favor.”
During Bush’s brief visit to Jacksonville, the president ate a
meal at the outdoor restaurant and then proceeded by motorcade
to his lodging for the night.
The itinerary allowed for two possible opportunities for
supporters and protesters to communicate their messages to Bush.
One was during his meal at the outdoor patio. The second was to
be positioned along the expected motorcade route.
The Secret Service prevented any access to the patio restaurant,
and after moving the protesters, only the pro-Bush demonstrators
had access to the motorcade route.
The Secret Service is charged with protecting the president from
threats – including the very real possibility of assassination
and terror attacks. But the Secret Service is not charged with
surrounding the nation’s chief executive in an artificial bubble
of praise and adulation, while protecting him from members of
the public who might be prone to express criticism or
disagreement.
The problem with a case that pits the security of the president
against free speech rights of protesters is that the Supreme
Court has a history of siding with federal agents in such
matters. The danger is that if the line is drawn too brightly,
an agent may hesitate at exactly the wrong moment.
It is not the only issue, however.
“Everyone understands the importance of guarding the president
in this country,” Justice Stephen Breyer said at one point
during the argument. “Everyone understands the danger. You can’t
run a risk,” he said.
“At the same time, no one wants a Praetorian Guard that is above
the law, and we have examples in history of what happens when
you do that,” Breyer said. “So everyone is looking for some kind
of line that permits the protection but denies the Praetorian
Guard.”
The case is Wood v. Moss (13-115). A decision is expected by
late June.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0326/Is-Secret-Service-
above-the-law-Supreme-Court-hears-protest-case
consider the logistics of being within grenade-tossing distance
of the president of the United States.
But that became a main point of discussion during oral argument
at the high court on Wednesday in a case testing whether Secret
Service agents can be held personally responsible for allegedly
violating the free speech rights of more than 200 would-be
presidential protesters.
The issue arises in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union on behalf of a group of demonstrators who sought
to confront then-President George W. Bush during a visit to
Jacksonville, Ore., in 2004.
The protesters wanted to express their displeasure with Mr.
Bush, but they say federal agents ordered them to move farther
away from the president because of the anti-Bush nature of their
intended message. The relocation placed them farther from Bush
than a group of the president’s supporters that had also staked
out a position nearby in Jacksonville.
In their suit, the protesters charge unconstitutional viewpoint
discrimination by Secret Service agents. They say such behavior
was consistent with a pattern in the Bush White House of
suppressing dissent at presidential appearances. The suit says
there were as many as 12 other instances of Secret Service
agents muzzling anti-Bush demonstrations.
The government moved to dismiss the case, but a federal appeals
court upheld the litigation.
On Wednesday, the case arrived at the Supreme Court to a chilly
reception from the justices.
During an hour-long argument session, several justices appeared
to readily agree with a government lawyer who said the Secret
Service agents took action to move the protesters as a result of
valid security concerns.
“I think it is important in this context to remember that what
we have are Secret Service agents who are making on-the-spot
judgments while protecting high-level officials,” Deputy
Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn told the justices.
Steven Wilker, a Portland, Ore., lawyer arguing on behalf of the
ACLU, said the federal agents were not concerned with potential
security threats. He said they ordered the protesters to be
relocated solely because of the nature of the protesters' anti-
Bush message.
Initially, the protesters were located on the sidewalk at the
entrance to an alley that passed beside a patio restaurant where
the president was dining. The government maintains that the
outdoor restaurant and proximity to the protesters created a
valid security issue for the Secret Service, justifying the
order to move the protesters back.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the question directly to Mr.
Wilker. “Would you say that you would have no tenable case if
they moved [the protesters] just the one street over so they
wouldn’t be in a position to throw a hand grenade to the patio,”
she asked.
Wilker responded that it would make it a more difficult case for
the plaintiffs to win.
Justice Elena Kagan asked Wilker if he conceded that in
hindsight the agents had an objective security rationale for
moving the protesters. That rationale: “They are standing at the
foot of the alleyway, [and] that you could throw a grenade into
the patio area.”
Wilker said the entrance to the alleyway was blocked by police
in riot gear and that the more simple solution would have been
to move the protesters “slightly to the east or west where they
had buildings between them and the president.”
Later in the argument, Wilker made a more direct concession.
“Could there be a security interest? Yes, there could
hypothetically be one,” he said. “Was there one? We say there
was not.”
In his rebuttal argument, Deputy Solicitor General Gershengorn
told the justices that agents protecting the president must
engage in rapid decisionmaking and should not be second-guessed
without clear evidence that they weren’t responding to a
perceived security issue.
“The concession that in hindsight there may have been a valid
security rationale ends this case,” he said. “If it was true in
hindsight, it was certainly true at the time of the kind of
rapid decisionmaking that was called for.”
Gershengorn added: “I think at that point the case is over in
our favor.”
During Bush’s brief visit to Jacksonville, the president ate a
meal at the outdoor restaurant and then proceeded by motorcade
to his lodging for the night.
The itinerary allowed for two possible opportunities for
supporters and protesters to communicate their messages to Bush.
One was during his meal at the outdoor patio. The second was to
be positioned along the expected motorcade route.
The Secret Service prevented any access to the patio restaurant,
and after moving the protesters, only the pro-Bush demonstrators
had access to the motorcade route.
The Secret Service is charged with protecting the president from
threats – including the very real possibility of assassination
and terror attacks. But the Secret Service is not charged with
surrounding the nation’s chief executive in an artificial bubble
of praise and adulation, while protecting him from members of
the public who might be prone to express criticism or
disagreement.
The problem with a case that pits the security of the president
against free speech rights of protesters is that the Supreme
Court has a history of siding with federal agents in such
matters. The danger is that if the line is drawn too brightly,
an agent may hesitate at exactly the wrong moment.
It is not the only issue, however.
“Everyone understands the importance of guarding the president
in this country,” Justice Stephen Breyer said at one point
during the argument. “Everyone understands the danger. You can’t
run a risk,” he said.
“At the same time, no one wants a Praetorian Guard that is above
the law, and we have examples in history of what happens when
you do that,” Breyer said. “So everyone is looking for some kind
of line that permits the protection but denies the Praetorian
Guard.”
The case is Wood v. Moss (13-115). A decision is expected by
late June.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0326/Is-Secret-Service-
above-the-law-Supreme-Court-hears-protest-case
benj
Apr 4, 2014, 2:31:27 AM4/4/14
to
On 04/04/2014 01:20 AM, Keith Olbermann wrote:
> “At the same time, no one wants a Praetorian Guard that is above
> the law, and we have examples in history of what happens when
> you do that,” Breyer said. “So everyone is looking for some kind
> of line that permits the protection but denies the Praetorian
> Guard.”
>
> The case is Wood v. Moss (13-115). A decision is expected by
> late June.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0326/Is-Secret-Service-
> above-the-law-Supreme-Court-hears-protest-case
Why not a secret police above the law? U.S. Marshalls are already above
> “At the same time, no one wants a Praetorian Guard that is above
> the law, and we have examples in history of what happens when
> you do that,” Breyer said. “So everyone is looking for some kind
> of line that permits the protection but denies the Praetorian
> Guard.”
>
> The case is Wood v. Moss (13-115). A decision is expected by
> late June.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0326/Is-Secret-Service-
> above-the-law-Supreme-Court-hears-protest-case
the law. They do not swear an oath to the constitution, they are under
the jurisdiction of interpol and now all have diplomatic immunity.
Pretty much a Praetorian Guard if you ask me. So why shouldn't the
secret police be above the law as well? If someone "needs killing" those
protecting the president or other important leaders have to be free to
do it.
Murff
Apr 4, 2014, 4:35:25 AM4/4/14
to
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:20:55 +0200, Keith Olbermann wrote:
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0326/Is-Secret-Service-
> above-the-law-Supreme-Court-hears-protest-case
And the moral of this story is, if you want to throw a grenade at the
president, pretend you like him. Or join the secret service.
--
Murff...
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0326/Is-Secret-Service-
> above-the-law-Supreme-Court-hears-protest-case
And the moral of this story is, if you want to throw a grenade at the
president, pretend you like him. Or join the secret service.
--
Murff...
Bert
Apr 4, 2014, 11:00:09 AM4/4/14
to
In news:4ls%u.144939$bK2...@fx18.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> U.S. Marshalls are already above the law. They do not swear an oath to
> the constitution, they are under the jurisdiction of interpol and now
> all have diplomatic immunity.
Fascinating. I'm sure you can provide ample evidence for each of these
> U.S. Marshalls are already above the law. They do not swear an oath to
> the constitution, they are under the jurisdiction of interpol and now
> all have diplomatic immunity.
claims.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
benj
Apr 4, 2014, 12:33:09 PM4/4/14
to
was changed because the old one (to the constitution) was "out of date"
and "irrelevant to modern service"? Go check on their relationship to
Interpol. Did you ignore the uproar when Obama gave Interpol diplomatic
immunity. I don't know if he gave them all "double oh" numbers at the
same time. Perhaps you could tell us.
But probably the real worries start when BATFE is given diplomatic
immunity...if they don't already have it.
Wayne
Apr 4, 2014, 12:39:13 PM4/4/14
to
"benj" wrote in message news:Z9B%u.32178$7m1....@fx16.iad...
On 04/04/2014 11:00 AM, Bert wrote:
> In news:4ls%u.144939$bK2...@fx18.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> U.S. Marshalls are already above the law. They do not swear an oath to
>> the constitution, they are under the jurisdiction of interpol and now
>> all have diplomatic immunity.
>
> Fascinating. I'm sure you can provide ample evidence for each of these
> claims.
# was changed because the old one (to the constitution) was "out of date"
# and "irrelevant to modern service"? Go check on their relationship to
# Interpol. Did you ignore the uproar when Obama gave Interpol diplomatic
# immunity. I don't know if he gave them all "double oh" numbers at the
# same time. Perhaps you could tell us.
# But probably the real worries start when BATFE is given diplomatic
# immunity...if they don't already have it.
But, but, but....if Obama did it, it's OK.
Bert
Apr 4, 2014, 2:29:16 PM4/4/14
to
In news:Z9B%u.32178$7m1....@fx16.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2014 11:00 AM, Bert wrote:
>> In news:4ls%u.144939$bK2...@fx18.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> U.S. Marshalls are already above the law. They do not swear an oath
>>> to the constitution, they are under the jurisdiction of interpol and
>>> now all have diplomatic immunity.
>>
>> Fascinating. I'm sure you can provide ample evidence for each of
>> these claims.
>
> Don't watch the news much I take it?
I take it then that your answer is "No, I can't provide ample evidence."
>
> On 04/04/2014 11:00 AM, Bert wrote:
>> In news:4ls%u.144939$bK2...@fx18.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> U.S. Marshalls are already above the law. They do not swear an oath
>>> to the constitution, they are under the jurisdiction of interpol and
>>> now all have diplomatic immunity.
>>
>> Fascinating. I'm sure you can provide ample evidence for each of
>> these claims.
>
> Don't watch the news much I take it?
benj
Apr 4, 2014, 3:51:44 PM4/4/14
to
computers are are smart enough to look things up for ourselves.
Bert
Apr 5, 2014, 11:30:56 AM4/5/14
to
In news:k3E%u.28752$h61....@fx06.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course that is what you were trying to say. The rest of us own
> computers are are smart enough to look things up for ourselves.
You make the claim, you provide the proof.
> Of course that is what you were trying to say. The rest of us own
> computers are are smart enough to look things up for ourselves.
I'm not doing your homework for you.
benj
Apr 5, 2014, 9:32:22 PM4/5/14
to
On 04/05/2014 11:30 AM, Bert wrote:
> In news:k3E%u.28752$h61....@fx06.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course that is what you were trying to say. The rest of us own
>> computers are are smart enough to look things up for ourselves.
>
> You make the claim, you provide the proof.
>
> I'm not doing your homework for you.
Cute turn-around. I simply made a statement. If you doubt it then that
> In news:k3E%u.28752$h61....@fx06.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course that is what you were trying to say. The rest of us own
>> computers are are smart enough to look things up for ourselves.
>
> You make the claim, you provide the proof.
>
> I'm not doing your homework for you.
is your right. If you want proof you can look it up. Your arrogance is
showing in that I'm not one of your students or staff members. Order
someone else around.
Of course it is also obvious that your true purpose is an agenda to
deflect public attention from the troublesome facts. Someone could rub
your nose right in your own turds and you'd still claim you smell roses.
You aren't worth the effort.
Dechucka
Apr 5, 2014, 11:59:56 PM4/5/14
to
"benj" <no...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:G820v.63492$MG6....@fx04.iad...
> On 04/05/2014 11:30 AM, Bert wrote:
>> In news:k3E%u.28752$h61....@fx06.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course that is what you were trying to say. The rest of us own
>>> computers are are smart enough to look things up for ourselves.
>>
>> You make the claim, you provide the proof.
>>
>> I'm not doing your homework for you.
>
> Cute turn-around. I simply made a statement.
please back it up
>> In news:k3E%u.28752$h61....@fx06.iad benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course that is what you were trying to say. The rest of us own
>>> computers are are smart enough to look things up for ourselves.
>>
>> You make the claim, you provide the proof.
>>
>> I'm not doing your homework for you.
>
> Cute turn-around. I simply made a statement.
snip
Sarah Tonen
Apr 6, 2014, 4:10:24 AM4/6/14
to
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:20:55 +0200 (CEST), "Keith Olbermann"
<msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>It is not often US Supreme Court justices have occasion to
>consider the logistics of being within grenade-tossing distance
>of the president of the United States.
This is aus.politics.guns. That means AUSTRALIA.politics.guns.
<msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>It is not often US Supreme Court justices have occasion to
>consider the logistics of being within grenade-tossing distance
>of the president of the United States.
Take your shit elsewhere, you terminal mongoloid.
Dechucka
Apr 6, 2014, 5:10:32 AM4/6/14
to
"Sarah Tonen" <sa...@zyk.org> wrote in message
news:3s22k9dc6rfap2uqo...@4ax.com...
the group fascist?
Sarah Tonen
Apr 9, 2014, 8:43:08 PM4/9/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:10:32 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dechu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
LOL. Who in the fuck do you think you are? Certainly not who you
actually are, that's for certain.
wrote:
actually are, that's for certain.
Dechucka
Apr 10, 2014, 5:16:13 PM4/10/14
to
news:r4qbk95qtk8k9ilan...@4ax.com...
me
>Certainly not who you
> actually are, that's for certain.
I am what I am but you are a net Nazi who I haven't seen post on the rather
dead A.G.P ng before your recent appearance
>Certainly not who you
> actually are, that's for certain.
dead A.G.P ng before your recent appearance
Sarah Tonen
Apr 10, 2014, 10:55:18 PM4/10/14
to
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:16:13 +1000, "Dechucka"
post here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
<Dechu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Sarah Tonen" <sa...@zyk.org> wrote in message
>news:r4qbk95qtk8k9ilan...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:10:32 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dechu...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Tonen" <sa...@zyk.org> wrote in message
>>>news:3s22k9dc6rfap2uqo...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:20:55 +0200 (CEST), "Keith Olbermann"
>>>> <msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is not often US Supreme Court justices have occasion to
>>>>>consider the logistics of being within grenade-tossing distance
>>>>>of the president of the United States.
>>>>
>>>> This is aus.politics.guns. That means AUSTRALIA.politics.guns.
>>>> Take your shit elsewhere, you terminal mongoloid.
>>>
>>>never seen any of your posts in AGP before so what gives you the right to
>>>be
>>>the group fascist?
>>
>> LOL. Who in the fuck do you think you are?
>
>me
>
>>Certainly not who you
>> actually are, that's for certain.
>
>I am what I am but you are a net Nazi who I haven't seen post on the rather
>dead A.G.P ng before your recent appearance
What's your point? if you don't recognise a poster then they can't
>
>"Sarah Tonen" <sa...@zyk.org> wrote in message
>news:r4qbk95qtk8k9ilan...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:10:32 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dechu...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Tonen" <sa...@zyk.org> wrote in message
>>>news:3s22k9dc6rfap2uqo...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:20:55 +0200 (CEST), "Keith Olbermann"
>>>> <msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is not often US Supreme Court justices have occasion to
>>>>>consider the logistics of being within grenade-tossing distance
>>>>>of the president of the United States.
>>>>
>>>> This is aus.politics.guns. That means AUSTRALIA.politics.guns.
>>>> Take your shit elsewhere, you terminal mongoloid.
>>>
>>>never seen any of your posts in AGP before so what gives you the right to
>>>be
>>>the group fascist?
>>
>> LOL. Who in the fuck do you think you are?
>
>me
>
>>Certainly not who you
>> actually are, that's for certain.
>
>I am what I am but you are a net Nazi who I haven't seen post on the rather
>dead A.G.P ng before your recent appearance
post here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
Murff
Apr 11, 2014, 11:41:20 AM4/11/14
to
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:55:18 +1000, Sarah Tonen wrote:
> What's your point? if you don't recognise a poster then they can't post
> here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No wonder
> What's your point? if you don't recognise a poster then they can't post
> here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
Usenet is pretty much dead. People got bored paging through all the
quotes - and to find one or two lines of rubbish undermines the whole
point.
--
Murff...
Sarah Tonen
Apr 12, 2014, 12:40:23 AM4/12/14
to
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:41:20 +0000 (UTC), Murff <mu...@warlock.org>
wrote:
refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
>People got bored paging through all the
>quotes - and to find one or two lines of rubbish undermines the whole
>point.
No it doesnt.
wrote:
>What's your point? if you don't recognise a poster then they can't
>post here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
>
>> What's your point? if you don't recognise a poster then they can't post
>> here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
>
>Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No wonder
>Usenet is pretty much dead.
Yes. Excessive quoting is responsible for Usenet's decline. It's
>post here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
>
>> What's your point? if you don't recognise a poster then they can't post
>> here? Go fuck yourself you faggot.
>
>Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No wonder
>Usenet is pretty much dead.
refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
>People got bored paging through all the
>quotes - and to find one or two lines of rubbish undermines the whole
>point.
Dechucka
Apr 13, 2014, 8:26:55 PM4/13/14
to
snip
nazi
>>Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No wonder
>>Usenet is pretty much dead.
>
> Yes. Excessive quoting is responsible for Usenet's decline. It's
> refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
> perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
and it is exciting to have a newbie like you who will take on the role of ng
>>Usenet is pretty much dead.
>
> Yes. Excessive quoting is responsible for Usenet's decline. It's
> refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
> perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
nazi
Sarah Tonen
Apr 16, 2014, 9:16:37 PM4/16/14
to
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:55 +1000, "Dechucka"
<Dechu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>snip
>>>Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No wonder
>>>Usenet is pretty much dead.
>>
>> Yes. Excessive quoting is responsible for Usenet's decline. It's
>> refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
>> perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
>
>and it is exciting to have a newbie like you who will take on the role of ng
>nazi
All it takes is somebody you think is a newbie to excite you..........
<Dechu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>snip
>>>Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No wonder
>>>Usenet is pretty much dead.
>>
>> Yes. Excessive quoting is responsible for Usenet's decline. It's
>> refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
>> perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
>
>and it is exciting to have a newbie like you who will take on the role of ng
>nazi
you must be a real tiger with the ladies. Oh, and sieg heil, just for
you.
Dechucka
Apr 16, 2014, 10:03:44 PM4/16/14
to
news:mlauk9tsq5uhldc5q...@4ax.com...
sockpuppet
> you must be a real tiger with the ladies.
but of course ;-)
>Oh, and sieg heil, just for
> you.
thankyou my little ng nazi I will claim the victory and look after your
welfare
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:55 +1000, "Dechucka"
> <Dechu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>snip
>>>>Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No
>>>>wonder
>>>>Usenet is pretty much dead.
>>>
>>> Yes. Excessive quoting is responsible for Usenet's decline. It's
>>> refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
>>> perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
>>
>>and it is exciting to have a newbie like you who will take on the role of
>>ng
>>nazi
>
> All it takes is somebody you think is a newbie to excite you..........
You're not, haven't seen you post before or did you do so under another
> <Dechu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>snip
>>>>Nearly 40 lines of quoted text just to add this vacuous drivel. No
>>>>wonder
>>>>Usenet is pretty much dead.
>>>
>>> Yes. Excessive quoting is responsible for Usenet's decline. It's
>>> refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself who are
>>> perceptive enough to get to the core of the problem like that.
>>
>>and it is exciting to have a newbie like you who will take on the role of
>>ng
>>nazi
>
> All it takes is somebody you think is a newbie to excite you..........
sockpuppet
> you must be a real tiger with the ladies.
>Oh, and sieg heil, just for
> you.
welfare
Sarah Tonen
Apr 20, 2014, 2:27:18 AM4/20/14
to
Auschwitz another workout. Well, it's really just a hook-nose's fibula
lovingly modified, but it sure does the job and much more entertaining
than this joint. I wonder if there are any more on ebay now?
Dechucka
Apr 20, 2014, 3:17:49 AM4/20/14
to
Dechucka
Apr 20, 2014, 3:19:13 AM4/20/14
to
news:esp6l956foq3ubhl1...@4ax.com...
Oscar Pistorious' ?
> but it sure does the job and much more entertaining
> than this joint.
Knee?
> but it sure does the job and much more entertaining
> than this joint.
0 new messages