On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:15:09 -0700 (PDT), forevernitefan
<fvrnite@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[Various snips for brevity and of items for which I have no comment]]
>> > When did he ever say it was a " hacker" Jonez? Do try to manage to
>> >keep you many lies straight.
>>
>> I've never claimed it was a hacker. I think it was Greg who first
>> made the claim it was a hacker. It may have been tjab, but I'm
>> thinking it was Greg.
>
>They don"t know the distinction between an " inside" job and an
>outsider altering a web site without permision.
>
I think they do.
Greg is unable to be honest. I'm certain tjab can, but has found
he can't win if he is, so he's using deception.
Sadly, tjab still loses every time.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Or the "hacker" that Kent *the lying asswipe* Wills claims
>> >> he hired to "trace" those self-fabricated "threatening" posts
>> >> he made via motz?
>>
>> > First off, the post TRACE was not by a hacker.
>>
>> When has Jonezie ever let the truth factor in?
>
> Never. I doubt he even knows what the truth is.
If he can be honest, it's clear he doesn't want to be.
[...]
>>
>> > It took you a year to create THAT lie, Jonesie? No wonder you can't
>> >make new insults about me. SHEESH!!
>>
>> To be fair, tjab was the first one to make the claim. Like
>> Jonezie, nothing was offered by way of proof.
>> All they have is that I, like many, have an account with Motz.
>> And that's not proof, unless they want to claim everyone who has an
>> account, as Jonezie once did, wrote the posts.
>
> Yeah I rememeber that now. One problem with their claim is that
>ANYONE can use motz-- including Jonez. IOW their accusation does not
>eliminate him. They might as well claim _I_ made those posts.
Anyone with access *could* have done it. This is why the trace
was needed. Everyone who was able to go on-line nation was a
potential suspect at the beginning.
>>
>>
>> > Or would that "hacker" be one of your
>> >> professors at that estemed "college" you claim you not
>> >> only attended, but somehow mananged to graduate from?
>> >> Please, you lying ****, anything but the dreaded "hacker".
>>
>> > Mock all you want, jerk. You mouth off one too many times with your
>> >crap and someone who CAN hack will decide to teach you a lesson. If
>> >Kent's IP friend can trace the white supremacist racist's posts to
>> >your city, someone sure as hell can go a few steps further. Piss off
>> >the wrong person, Jonesie.
>>
>> Sadly, Jonezie is too stupid to understand.
>
>It's only his luck so far that he hasn't pissed one off enugh to be in
>their virtual crosshairs.
>
I can assure him, and every one else, he's safe from me. The
best I could do is some script kitty work, and that would be rather
useless, really.
I am certainly not a hacker.
[...]
>>
>> >not to mention last year under your racist white supremacist nym you
>> >spoke against anyone who is of " mixed race", even saying they should
>> >be killed.
>>
>> He also use anti-Semitic terms against Larry and Doc Savage. Two
>> people known to be Jewish.
>> Judaism isn't a race, of course. It's a religion, but if one is
>> anti-Semitic, one is likely to be racist as well. They go together
>> more often than not.
>
> I thought that Jewish was also an ethinc group as for millenia the
>Jewish people have been a bit isolationistic and choosy in their
>marriages. But I could have been mislead into believing that by years
>of hearing about how the Nazis judged who was Jewsish and who was not.
Some claim it as an ethnic or racial heritage, however it's not
really accurate. One can stop being Jewish. They can convert to
Hinduism, for example.
If they fall under the "white" demographic, they can't stop being
white. If they are Asian, they can't cease being Asian. And so on.
>
> To me bigotry like that is asinine. There are good and bad people in
>every group and if you are going to be prejudiced against someone at
>least be prejudiced on something they can change (( grins)).
One can change their religion. This doesn't make religious
bigotry acceptable.
[...]
>>
>> >> Now go **** yourself you lying ****.
>>
>> > As a woman I don't have the equipment to accomplish that. But I am
>> >glad you understand that a woman doesn't need a man to be ***ually
>> >satisfied.
>>
>> To be fair, men don't need women to be ***ually satisfied.
>
> Yeah, circle jerks and homo***uality come to mind. Also some of you
>guys actually interact with inaimate objects in ways that make
>someone like me scratch our heads.
I was thinking masturbation, but you raise valid examples as
well.
>I heard one sory of a guy who had
>to go to the hospital to get his privates detatched from a wrench. The
>thought occcured to me he was adjusting his nuts.
<Giggle>
>Light bulbs and
>peanut butter jars up the anus is just too dumb for me to comprehend.
>If you can't get it out, don't put it in in the first place.
Why would anyone want to insert anything into their rectum?
Other than a medical exam, which one would hope is being done by a
qualified medical doctor, or a suppository for medical reasons, I
can't think of any reason to want anything inserted.
I realize some people engage in anal ***. I'll never understand
the interest in that.
--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
|
