Re: => 17 Catholic High School ****s in Pregnancy Pact <= Christian Family Values !

Larry wrote:
> In article <g44oj7$k73@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tjab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (tjab)
> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <x-9479B6.20485027062008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Larry
>> <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> In article <g42s86$741@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tjab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (tjab)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <x-C464C3.21083926062008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Larry
>>>> <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> In article <g4061i$3n7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tjab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (tjab)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <x-91465C.23272025062008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>> Larry  <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ptv5641rvapmhoksmrsp9gee6rq52i8ff5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>>> Kent Wills <compuelf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2008 13:21:38 -0400, tjab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (tjab) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked you:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Do you claim that Jonez has authored posts which include
>>>>>>>>>>> hateful
>>>>>>>>>>> comments based on others' religion, race, perceived ***ual
>>>>>>>>>>> orientation,
>>>>>>>>>>> and the like, in which he has called for death and/or
>>>>>>>>>>> serious injuries
>>>>>>>>>>> to befall those people?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't it obvious from my question to you that I do make that
>>>>>>>>>> claim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is that a yes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's obvious from your question that you're trying to make
>>>>>>>>> that claim
>>>>>>>>> without coming out and saying it. Why? Because then you might
>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>> defend your claim with an example. And apparently you can't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let me help: an example would be, say, Jonez saying that our
>>>>>>>>> mission
>>>>>>>>> is to "crush the Sunnis and ****ites" in Iraq. Of course
>>>>>>>>> that's just an
>>>>>>>>> example -- he didn't say it, you did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Larry never said that.  Post the MID for any message where
>>>>>>>>     he did.
>>>>>>>> Bar your lying, you'll be able.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your turn: where do you see Jonez calling for death and/or
>>>>>>>>> serious injuries to befall a group of people based on their
>>>>>>>>> religion, race, or ***ual orientation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      Would his post under the nym UltraMan do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Witch arrested during new moon ritual <= get the stake and
>>>>>>>> kerosene ready"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <5iieliF3pnbpnU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    How will you spin it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oooh, that's a good one.  I can't wait to see tjab's linguistic
>>>>>>> gymnastics to explain his way out of this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry, are you truly as sarcasm-impaired as Kent? Who ties your
>>>>>> shoes for you in the morning?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarcasm, Kent!  Tjab went the sarcasm route!  I didn't see that
>>>>> one coming.... I expected him to go for some strange
>>>>> rationalization.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now you have it.  Jonez doesn't call for death or injury to
>>>>> anyone, he's just being sarcastic.
>>>>
>>>> Only a moron could look at that post and think that UltraMan was
>>>> calling for witches to be killed.
>>>
>>> He said to get the stake and kerosene ready.  Certainly you know
>>> that in the past, witches were burned at the stake.  If you don't
>>> see this as a call to do the same to this accused witch, I don't
>>> know what you see it as.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah.  Sarcasm.
>>>
>>>
>>>>  I don't think you're a moron, for which you
>>>> would bear no moral responsibility, so I can only conclude that
>>>> you're a liar,
>>>> for which you do.
>>>
>>> What am I lying about?  You asked if he's called for death or
>>> injury to people based on, among other categories, their religious
>>> views.  Kent responded to the challenge, to which the best you can
>>> muster is to defend it as sarcasm.
>>>
>>> So I guess you would have to admit that Jonez sarcastically called
>>> for the death of a woman based on her religious views?  It's so
>>> half-hearted as to be laughable, but its a start.
>>
>> I see you've lost any remaining shred of self-respect. With good
>> reason.
>
> You're defending the racist bigot by bru****ng off his comments as
> sarcastic when not even he tried to justify them with that excuse, and
> you accuse others of not having self-respect.
>
> That's a joke.
>
> You're a joke.

"Having private savings accounts comprise a part of social security
is not the same as privatizing social security."
     -- Larry Glasser, stammering imbecile

"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is?  There is no such thing."
              -- Larry the legal stooge

" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in
fact
innocent."
                      --  Larry the idiot

"The jury was hung.  Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
            -- Larry the legal imbecile

" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
                    -- Larry the moron

"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
                        -- Larry the eponymous fool

" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
                      -- Larry Glasser

 "Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
 crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
              -- Lyin' Larry, the legal jackass


>>>> Kent Wills:  "I'm just the guy who can travel without restriction to
>>>> several Latin American countries."

>>>> UM: "Why not all the Latin American countries then, eh Kent?"

>>>> Larry the imbecile Glasser: "Federal law, dumbass.  No citizen can go
>>>> to some of the nations from the US."


Larry the Imbecile claims that 0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster" when pushed off a cliff.


>>>> Q: And just what does a moron like you think a Townhouse is, eh
jackass ?
>>>> Larry the Ignoramus: "A dwelling, which is a type of structure or
building.
>>>>                                      It is not, however, real
property."


"I never mentioned New York?  That's so demonstrably false I'm still
laughing.  Anytime I speak in anything resembling a specific, I make it
clear that I'm referring to NY statutes.  I've never claimed to know the
details of criminal statutes in other jurisdictions."
      -- Larry Glasser the Pathological Liar

Q: "So people who suffer from a medical/mental disability don't have
the "right" to defend their homes, eh comrade ?"

Larry the Legal Imbecile:  "No, they don't."