pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 14 Dec 2008 03:56:32
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
From : Brown V Board of Education



Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high
schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications
solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their
status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way
unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their
educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by
a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro
plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a
detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it
has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is
usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense
of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with
the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational
and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the
benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system



From : Loving V Virginia

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over
the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between
citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people
whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi
v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 100 (1943). At the very least, the
Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially
suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny,"
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 323 U. S. 216 (1944), and, if
they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the
accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the
racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to
eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they

"cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color
of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 379 U. S. 198 (STEWART, J., joined by
DOUGLAS, J., concurring).

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious
racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that
Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons
demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own
justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [Footnote
11] We have consistently denied

Page 388 U. S. 12

the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on
account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry
solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the
Equal Protection Clause.


II

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541
(1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without
due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under
our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another
race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.



***

The SCOTUS has set bad precident before... largely in areas of
discriminatory decisions, rooted in the prejudices of the justices.

When Willie the newsgroup nutbag insists that the matter is "settled"
because in the 70's, the court was prejudiced, it shows what a moron he is.

Establishing a second class of rights for gays inherently establishes them
AS second class. Eventually the court will be made up of people non-biased
enough to understand that.

Open wager : Some time in the next 20 years, gay marriage bans will be found
unconstitutional.

Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028

Amounts to be negotiated.

Rules :

A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
restrictions illegal. I win.



A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
bet.

The timeframe expires and no change. You win.

Logic assures us the SCOTUS eventually deals with this.It's only a matter of
time.

Put up or shut up.




















 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 14:17:41
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
Top posting because this is the relevent point :
This bet offer expires 11:59pm Dec 31, 2008.

Anyone actively interested, speak up.

"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:Qt%0l.1520$c35.1221@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> From : Brown V Board of Education
>
>
>
> Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high
> schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications
> solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to
> their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a
> way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their
> educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case
> by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro
> plaintiffs:
>
> "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a
> detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when
> it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is
> usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A
> sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.
> Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to
> [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to
> deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly]
> integrated school system
>
>
>
> From : Loving V Virginia
>
> There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
> solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
> generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.
> Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions
> between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a
> free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."
> Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 100 (1943). At the
> very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
> classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
> the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 323
> U. S. 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown
> to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective,
> independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the
> Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have
> already stated that they
>
> "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the
> color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal
> offense."
>
> McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 379 U. S. 198 (STEWART, J., joined by
> DOUGLAS, J., concurring).
>
> There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of
> invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The
> fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white
> persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their
> own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
> [Footnote 11] We have consistently denied
>
> Page 388 U. S. 12
>
> the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on
> account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to
> marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central
> meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
>
>
> II
>
> These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
> law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
> rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
>
> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
> very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S.
> 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this
> fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
> classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
> subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
> Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty
> without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the
> freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial
> discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
> marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be
> infringed by the State.
>
>
>
> ***
>
> The SCOTUS has set bad precident before... largely in areas of
> discriminatory decisions, rooted in the prejudices of the justices.
>
> When Willie the newsgroup nutbag insists that the matter is "settled"
> because in the 70's, the court was prejudiced, it shows what a moron he
> is.
>
> Establishing a second class of rights for gays inherently establishes them
> AS second class. Eventually the court will be made up of people non-biased
> enough to understand that.
>
> Open wager : Some time in the next 20 years, gay marriage bans will be
> found unconstitutional.
>
> Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028
>
> Amounts to be negotiated.
>
> Rules :
>
> A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
> restrictions illegal. I win.
>
>
>
> A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
> bet.
>
> The timeframe expires and no change. You win.
>
> Logic assures us the SCOTUS eventually deals with this.It's only a matter
> of time.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




 
Date: 13 Dec 2008 21:00:38
From: DaVoice
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:Qt%0l.1520$c35.1221@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> From : Brown V Board of Education
>
>
>
> Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high
> schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications
> solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to
> their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a
> way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their
> educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case
> by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro
> plaintiffs:
>
> "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a
> detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when
> it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is
> usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A
> sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.
> Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to
> [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to
> deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly]
> integrated school system

Last time I checked "Gay" is not a race.


> From : Loving V Virginia
>
> There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
> solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
> generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.
> Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions
> between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a
> free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."
> Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 100 (1943). At the
> very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
> classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
> the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 323
> U. S. 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown
> to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective,
> independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the
> Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have
> already stated that they
>
> "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the
> color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal
> offense."

Again, last time I checked Gay does not imply a color of skin or an
"ancesrtry"


> McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 379 U. S. 198 (STEWART, J., joined by
> DOUGLAS, J., concurring).
>
> There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of
> invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The
> fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white
> persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their
> own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
> [Footnote 11] We have consistently denied
>
> Page 388 U. S. 12
>
> the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on
> account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to
> marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central
> meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

Again, RACE is the issue. Gay is not a race.


> II
>
> These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
> law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
> rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
>
> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
> very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S.
> 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this
> fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
> classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
> subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
> Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty
> without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the
> freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial
> discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
> marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be
> infringed by the State.

"on the basis of racial classifications" Gay is not a "race".

> ***
>
> The SCOTUS has set bad precident before... largely in areas of
> discriminatory decisions, rooted in the prejudices of the justices.
>
> When Willie the newsgroup nutbag insists that the matter is "settled"
> because in the 70's, the court was prejudiced, it shows what a moron he
> is.
>
> Establishing a second class of rights for gays inherently establishes them
> AS second class. Eventually the court will be made up of people non-biased
> enough to understand that.

None of the case law you cited even comes CLOSE to the rights for gays to
marry (frankly, I've changed my mind and don't think the STATE should
license Marriage, it is a religious thing traditionally) therefore No State
should sanction ANY marriage, IMHO



> Open wager : Some time in the next 20 years, gay marriage bans will be
> found unconstitutional.

Only if under the Equal protection clause, but not due to any of the cites
you quoted, and not as long as the SCOTUS is in present form or anthing like
it. It will depend on Obama's appointments, and any appointments made by
his successors.


> Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028
>
> Amounts to be negotiated.

Ok, still have my attention

> Rules :
>
> A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
> restrictions illegal. I win.

Since you're the one that is so sure, what odds are you offering?


> A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
> bet.

Huh? If the Constitution is changed to make gay marriage legal, no bet?
I'm liking this better than surrender in single-deck 21

> The timeframe expires and no change. You win.

20 years from now Who will collect if one or both of the parties is DEAD?
Will this be put in escrow somewher

> Logic assures us the SCOTUS eventually deals with this.It's only a matter
> of time.

That is not necessarily true, although it *may* well be decided, but what if
SCOTUS doesn't grant any cases certiari in this matter? Who wins then?

> Put up or shut up.

Still waiting to see what odds you're laying.

--
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles




  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 09:33:57
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd
On Dec 14, 8:11=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5db55fd2-1202-45a7-82dd-50fec7363021@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 6:52 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:

> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:857e3b00-4261-471a-8bb5-4f9a1239c05e@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 14, 3:37 "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.
>
> > > You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
> > > whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
> > > a complete nutcase.
>
> > > ***
> > > No, shithead.
> > > The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.
>
> > Depends on what you mean by overwhelming likelihood.
>
> > ***
> > If you give me
> > your age, I can give you the probability to four significant digits
> > that you will live at least 20 more years. Do you know how to
> > calculate this? You should. You claim to know more about life
> > expectancy than the Social Security actuaries.
>
> Gee, you didn't answer my question. =A0I take that to mean you don't
> know how to calculate the probability that a man of a given age will
> live at least 20 more years.
>
> ***
> I ignored it.
> Shithead, given only my age, you won't get a meaningful number.

Of course I would. You think you are superman? There is no reason to
think your life expectancy is any greater than the average man your
age.

In fact, given the fact that you are clearly insane and could not pass
a sanity test, I would say you have a greater than average chance of
committing suicide in the next 20 years.

Meanwhile, I see you are still dodging the question of whether you
know how to calculate the probability that a man of a given age will
live at least 20 more years.

Kind of makes your claim that you know more about life expectancies
than the Social Security actuaries even more absurd than it already
was.

> > > > If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the =
US,
> > > > you'd win.
>
> > > Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.
>
> > > ***
> > > Shithead, that wasn't the offer.
>
> > > The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.
>
> > Yes, the offer was quite explicit. Immediately above you said --
>
> > "If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
> > US, you'd win."
>
> > Are you going to stand by that offer or not?
> > ***
> > That's a typo, nutbag.
>
> Well, you should be more careful about typographical errors when
> specifying the terms of a bet.
> ***
> Shitheat, the INITIAL post specified the terms of the bet.
>
> Voice asked questions, I answered them (generally) on the fly.
>
> I realize you're a lying scuzzball, but surely you aren't that stupid.
>
> THESE were the terms of the bet :
> Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028
>
> Amounts to be negotiated.
>
> Rules :
>
> A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
> restrictions illegal. I win.
>
> A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, n=
o
> bet.
>
> The timeframe expires and no change. You win.
>
> > 2029 is the end of the term.
>
> Oh, well. =A0I have already told you I have no interest in making a bet
> that I have to wait 20 years to win.
> ***
> And less interest in making one you know you'll lose.

Of course I don't know that I would lose the bet, nor do you. Is
there no limit to your delusional grandiosity? You do not KNOW what
the future holds. As William Shakespeare said, what's yet to come is
still unsure.

> Scumbag.
>
> ***
>
> > > Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a th=
ird
> > > party, fully documented.
>
> > > I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare
> > > word."
>
> > I couldn't trust you for even $1, since you are an anonymous troll
> > with a well established history of lying. If you care to establish
> > your identity, with a verifiable address and phone number, I will
> > trust you on your word for a bet of $100 on the terms I quoted
> > immediately above.
>
> I see you are not willing to give your real name, address, and phone
> number. =A0In other words, you are an anonymous internet coward.
>
> ***
> Shit, no, Willie.
> I've given my real name to any number of posters here, to whom I've sent
> e-mails.

Big fucking deal. You don't have the balls to post your real name,
address, and phone number on the newsgroup, as I have.

> YOU I don't trust at all.

If you don't trust me at all, then why are you trying to make a bet
with me?

> > So you're dealing with 8 days>
> > Gee, how brave of you.
>
> > 20 years, idiot boy.
>
> > > Nice to see you're still you're
>
> > "Your" not "you're".
>
> > > lying, whacked idiot sel
>
> > Where did I lie about anything??? I just quoted what you said.
>
> Still waiting to hear what I lied about.
> ***
> You lied when you said it was settled law.

First of all, you said "Nice to see you're still you're lying, whacked
idiot self." That implies that something I said in the post to which
you are replying is a lie. Nothing is. You lied again.

Second of all, it is settled law. The Baker v. Nelson precedent has
not been seriously challenged for 36 years. During those 36 years
numerous state and federal courts have cited it as binding precedent.
That makes it settled law.

> History shows A) The court can and does reverse itself and B) It does it
> mostly on cases involving discrimination.

The fact that a precedent MIGHT eventually be reversed doesn't mean it
isn't settled law right now. Your claims to the contrary are
preposterous.

> Take Paul's dick out of your ass, it's distracting you.

Still another homosexual insult. You have made dozens of comments
suggesting I am a homosexual. Yet you claim that you don't think I am
a homosexual. What's up with that?

> Let's leave your whole issue of Paul alone for now.

There is no issue about Paul. I don't know why you keep bringing him
up.

> > As far as my being whacked or an idiot, you are clearly projecting. I
> > noticed in another thread you claimed your sanity had never been
> > questioned.
>
> > I have characterized your posts on same sex marriage as hysterical,
> > irrational rants. You don't consider that questioning your sanity?
> > ***
> > They aren't rants. That's you lying.
>
> Once again, numbnuts. =A0It is my opinion that your posts are rants.
> The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I am lying. =A0I
> notice that you do not contest that your rants are hysterical and
> irrational.
> ***
> Shithead, as soon as I state they aren't rants, that eliminates hysterica=
l
> and irrational.

No it doesn't. A post could clearly be hysterical and irrational
without being a rant. The post could be a single hysterical,
irrational sentence.

Are you going to address the fact that my calling your posts rants is
not a lie?

> You're lack of logic continues unabated.

You just pegged my irony meter and broke it.

> > I have told you that you are hopelessly confused about the difference
> > between your opinions and objective reality. You don't consider that
> > questioning your sanity?
>
> You are very non-responsive today. =A0Meds not kick in yet? =A0Care to
> answer my question? =A0Do you consider it questioning your sanity to
> state that you are hopelessly confused about the difference between
> your opinions and objective reality?
>
> ***
> Shit for brains, opinions are unverifiable. Facts are.

You are still non-responsive. I have asked you the question twice,
and you have refused to answer --

Do you consider it questioning your sanity to state that you are
hopelessly confused about the difference between your opinions and
objective reality?


> It's a fact that, following the logic previously laid down, gay marriage
> bans are clearly unconstitutional.

No it is not a fact, it is your uninformed opinion. Thanks for
providing another example of your confusing your opinions with
objective reality.



William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:51:33
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:caa08765-711f-4b79-9025-e6d2c78f7f2a@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 8:11 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5db55fd2-1202-45a7-82dd-50fec7363021@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 6:52 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:

> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:857e3b00-4261-471a-8bb5-4f9a1239c05e@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 14, 3:37 "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.
>
> > > You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
> > > whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
> > > a complete nutcase.
>
> > > ***
> > > No, shithead.
> > > The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.
>
> > Depends on what you mean by overwhelming likelihood.
>
> > ***
> > If you give me
> > your age, I can give you the probability to four significant digits
> > that you will live at least 20 more years. Do you know how to
> > calculate this? You should. You claim to know more about life
> > expectancy than the Social Security actuaries.
>
> Gee, you didn't answer my question. I take that to mean you don't
> know how to calculate the probability that a man of a given age will
> live at least 20 more years.
>
> ***
> I ignored it.
> Shithead, given only my age, you won't get a meaningful number.

Of course I would. You think you are superman? There is no reason to
think your life expectancy is any greater than the average man your
age.

***
Goddamn, you ARE an idiot.

It could be much less, if I have health issues.
It could be much greater, if I have very good health.

Actuarial tables are statistical likelihoods for large groups of people, not
probabilities for any specific person, you dumb fuck.

***

In fact, given the fact that you are clearly insane and could not pass
a sanity test, I would say you have a greater than average chance of
committing suicide in the next 20 years.

***
Since you're a total whack job, you may well believe that.
My risk of suicide is very close to zero.

***


Meanwhile, I see you are still dodging the question of whether you
know how to calculate the probability that a man of a given age will
live at least 20 more years.
***
A man at random, you use the actuarial tables. Then you can use standard
deviations from the statistical average.

It's meaningless to any specific person, of course.

***


Kind of makes your claim that you know more about life expectancies
than the Social Security actuaries even more absurd than it already
was.

***
Yep, you're a total shithead.
The lifespan is increasing faster than the actuarial tables predict. And
there's a reason for that.... most of the time, erring on the side of
caution favors the company doing the predicting.

In THIS case, the government already has a problem, and admitting it's worse
isn't in their best interest.

***

> > > > If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
> > > > US,
> > > > you'd win.
>
> > > Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.
>
> > > ***
> > > Shithead, that wasn't the offer.
>
> > > The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.
>
> > Yes, the offer was quite explicit. Immediately above you said --
>
> > "If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
> > US, you'd win."
>
> > Are you going to stand by that offer or not?
> > ***
> > That's a typo, nutbag.
>
> Well, you should be more careful about typographical errors when
> specifying the terms of a bet.
> ***
> Shitheat, the INITIAL post specified the terms of the bet.
>
> Voice asked questions, I answered them (generally) on the fly.
>
> I realize you're a lying scuzzball, but surely you aren't that stupid.
>
> THESE were the terms of the bet :
> Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028
>
> Amounts to be negotiated.
>
> Rules :
>
> A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
> restrictions illegal. I win.
>
> A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
> bet.
>
> The timeframe expires and no change. You win.
>
> > 2029 is the end of the term.
>
> Oh, well. I have already told you I have no interest in making a bet
> that I have to wait 20 years to win.
> ***
> And less interest in making one you know you'll lose.

Of course I don't know that I would lose the bet, nor do you. Is
there no limit to your delusional grandiosity? You do not KNOW what
the future holds. As William Shakespeare said, what's yet to come is
still unsure.
***
Shithead, you STATED in your arrogant, dumbshit post, that the matter of
constitutionality WAS DECIDED.

If you actually BELIEVED that, asshole, you'd jump at this, because you'd
consider it a freeroll.

Your caution demonstrates catagorically you DON'T believe this is decided
yet, and indeed you FEAR the rationale I claim could easily be applied.

If not, why not take a no-risk bet?

I KNOW the decision goes this way eventually.... 20 years might be a little
off, but I'm willing to wager on it. I have no doubt they get it right
eventually.... we are not, ultimately, a nation forever of bigoted assholes
like yourself.

***


> Scumbag.
>
> ***
>
> > > Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a
> > > third
> > > party, fully documented.
>
> > > I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare
> > > word."
>
> > I couldn't trust you for even $1, since you are an anonymous troll
> > with a well established history of lying. If you care to establish
> > your identity, with a verifiable address and phone number, I will
> > trust you on your word for a bet of $100 on the terms I quoted
> > immediately above.
>
> I see you are not willing to give your real name, address, and phone
> number. In other words, you are an anonymous internet coward.
>
> ***
> Shit, no, Willie.
> I've given my real name to any number of posters here, to whom I've sent
> e-mails.

Big fucking deal. You don't have the balls to post your real name,
address, and phone number on the newsgroup, as I have.
***
Well, you're a shithead.
There are whackjobs usenet... granted, you're president of the nutbag
coalition yourself, but I have no desire to see them appear at my doorstep.

***


> YOU I don't trust at all.

If you don't trust me at all, then why are you trying to make a bet
with me?

***
It should be obvious. I know you're too chickenshit to take it.
The fact that you refuse something that, if you actually BELIEVED your
claim, would be a complete freeroll, helps my case quite a bit.

***



> > So you're dealing with 8 days>
> > Gee, how brave of you.
>
> > 20 years, idiot boy.
>
> > > Nice to see you're still you're
>
> > "Your" not "you're".
>
> > > lying, whacked idiot sel
>
> > Where did I lie about anything??? I just quoted what you said.
>
> Still waiting to hear what I lied about.
> ***
> You lied when you said it was settled law.

First of all, you said "Nice to see you're still you're lying, whacked
idiot self." That implies that something I said in the post to which
you are replying is a lie. Nothing is. You lied again.

***
No, shithead.
You also lied when you claimed the bet was 8 days.
You aren't a complete illiterate. You can tell the terms of the bet.
Instead, you took a typo and tried to weasel a bet, if I wasn't paying
attention.
That makes you an ass-fucking scumbag.

***



Second of all, it is settled law. The Baker v. Nelson precedent has
not been seriously challenged for 36 years. During those 36 years
numerous state and federal courts have cited it as binding precedent.
That makes it settled law.
***
No, shit for brains.
SbE wasn't settled law. It was a bad decision, that took around 60 years to
get fixed.
The issues about mixed race marriages weren't settled law. THAT took a good
long time before the court saw the errors of their decision.

This is clear bigotry. The fact that it stands is an indicator of that
bigotry, not 'settled law'. You shit for brains.
***


> History shows A) The court can and does reverse itself and B) It does it
> mostly on cases involving discrimination.

The fact that a precedent MIGHT eventually be reversed doesn't mean it
isn't settled law right now. Your claims to the contrary are
preposterous.

***
No, fuckface, my claims are fully justified by historical precident.
***

> Take Paul's dick out of your ass, it's distracting you.

Still another homosexual insult. You have made dozens of comments
suggesting I am a homosexual. Yet you claim that you don't think I am
a homosexual. What's up with that?
***
Paul, er Willie, er, Ramsitintheass.... tell me something.

Why is referring to you in a homosexual manner an insult?

Hm?
****


> Let's leave your whole issue of Paul alone for now.

There is no issue about Paul. I don't know why you keep bringing him
up.

***
I thought YOU brought him up.....
***

> > As far as my being whacked or an idiot, you are clearly projecting. I
> > noticed in another thread you claimed your sanity had never been
> > questioned.
>
> > I have characterized your posts on same sex marriage as hysterical,
> > irrational rants. You don't consider that questioning your sanity?
> > ***
> > They aren't rants. That's you lying.
>
> Once again, numbnuts. It is my opinion that your posts are rants.
> The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I am lying. I
> notice that you do not contest that your rants are hysterical and
> irrational.
> ***
> Shithead, as soon as I state they aren't rants, that eliminates hysterical
> and irrational.

No it doesn't. A post could clearly be hysterical and irrational
without being a rant. The post could be a single hysterical,
irrational sentence.
***
Since all my posts are rational and logically consistent, you're clearly a
fucking moron .

***


Are you going to address the fact that my calling your posts rants is
not a lie?
***
Of course it's a lie. "Rant" has an impartial definition. My posts don't
come anywhere near it.

***

> You're lack of logic continues unabated.

You just pegged my irony meter and broke it.
***
You confuse irony with your lack of reasoning.

***

> > I have told you that you are hopelessly confused about the difference
> > between your opinions and objective reality. You don't consider that
> > questioning your sanity?
>
> You are very non-responsive today. Meds not kick in yet? Care to
> answer my question? Do you consider it questioning your sanity to
> state that you are hopelessly confused about the difference between
> your opinions and objective reality?
>
> ***
> Shit for brains, opinions are unverifiable. Facts are.

You are still non-responsive. I have asked you the question twice,
and you have refused to answer --
***
When you answer any question I give you, I'll do the same, cocksucker.

***

Do you consider it questioning your sanity to state that you are
hopelessly confused about the difference between your opinions and
objective reality?
***
No, I consider it slander.
***



> It's a fact that, following the logic previously laid down, gay marriage
> bans are clearly unconstitutional.

No it is not a fact, it is your uninformed opinion. Thanks for
providing another example of your confusing your opinions with
objective reality.
***
No, shit for brains, it's a fact..
Logic is a very simple system to understand.
It follows from the premise.
There's an easy, step by step process to arrive at the conclusion.
A bigoted moron such as yourself would deny it, of course. This is evidence
of you being a bigoted moron.

***





  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 07:15:05
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd
On Dec 14, 6:52=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:857e3b00-4261-471a-8bb5-4f9a1239c05e@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 3:37 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.
>
> > You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
> > whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
> > a complete nutcase.
>
> > ***
> > No, shithead.
> > The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.
>
> Depends on what you mean by overwhelming likelihood.
>
> ***
> =A0If you give me
> your age, I can give you the probability to four significant digits
> that you will live at least 20 more years. =A0Do you know how to
> calculate this? =A0You should. =A0You claim to know more about life
> expectancy than the Social Security actuaries.

Gee, you didn't answer my question. I take that to mean you don't
know how to calculate the probability that a man of a given age will
live at least 20 more years.

> > > If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US=
,
> > > you'd win.
>
> > Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.
>
> > ***
> > Shithead, that wasn't the offer.
>
> > The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.
>
> Yes, the offer was quite explicit. =A0Immediately above you said --
>
> "If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
> US, you'd =A0win."
>
> Are you going to stand by that offer or not?
> ***
> That's a typo, nutbag.

Well, you should be more careful about typographical errors when
specifying the terms of a bet.

> 2029 is the end of the term.

Oh, well. I have already told you I have no interest in making a bet
that I have to wait 20 years to win.

> > Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a thir=
d
> > party, fully documented.
>
> > I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare word=
."
>
> I couldn't trust you for even $1, since you are an anonymous troll
> with a well established history of lying. =A0If you care to establish
> your identity, with a verifiable address and phone number, I will
> trust you on your word for a bet of $100 on the terms I quoted
> immediately above.

I see you are not willing to give your real name, address, and phone
number. In other words, you are an anonymous internet coward.

> So you're dealing with 8 days>
> Gee, how brave of you.
>
> 20 years, idiot boy.
>
> > Nice to see you're still you're
>
> "Your" not "you're".
>
> > lying, whacked idiot sel
>
> Where did I lie about anything??? =A0I just quoted what you said.

Still waiting to hear what I lied about.

> As far as my being whacked or an idiot, you are clearly projecting. =A0I
> noticed in another thread you claimed your sanity had never been
> questioned.
>
> I have characterized your posts on same sex marriage as hysterical,
> irrational rants. =A0You don't consider that questioning your sanity?
> ***
> They aren't rants. That's you lying.

Once again, numbnuts. It is my opinion that your posts are rants.
The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I am lying. I
notice that you do not contest that your rants are hysterical and
irrational.

> I have told you that you are hopelessly confused about the difference
> between your opinions and objective reality. =A0You don't consider that
> questioning your sanity?

You are very non-responsive today. Meds not kick in yet? Care to
answer my question? Do you consider it questioning your sanity to
state that you are hopelessly confused about the difference between
your opinions and objective reality?


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 17 Dec 2008 03:10:11
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
I posted a reply to this three days ago... and it seems to have not shown
up.

Here's the copy of it from my sent file.
"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:5db55fd2-1202-45a7-82dd-50fec7363021@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 6:52 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:857e3b00-4261-471a-8bb5-4f9a1239c05e@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 3:37 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.
>
> > You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
> > whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
> > a complete nutcase.
>
> > ***
> > No, shithead.
> > The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.
>
> Depends on what you mean by overwhelming likelihood.
>
> ***
> If you give me
> your age, I can give you the probability to four significant digits
> that you will live at least 20 more years. Do you know how to
> calculate this? You should. You claim to know more about life
> expectancy than the Social Security actuaries.

Gee, you didn't answer my question. I take that to mean you don't
know how to calculate the probability that a man of a given age will
live at least 20 more years.

***
I ignored it.
Shithead, given only my age, you won't get a meaningful number.
***

> > > If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US,
> > > you'd win.
>
> > Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.
>
> > ***
> > Shithead, that wasn't the offer.
>
> > The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.
>
> Yes, the offer was quite explicit. Immediately above you said --
>
> "If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
> US, you'd win."
>
> Are you going to stand by that offer or not?
> ***
> That's a typo, nutbag.

Well, you should be more careful about typographical errors when
specifying the terms of a bet.
***
Shitheat, the INITIAL post specified the terms of the bet.

Voice asked questions, I answered them (generally) on the fly.

I realize you're a lying scuzzball, but surely you aren't that stupid.

THESE were the terms of the bet :
Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028

Amounts to be negotiated.

Rules :

A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
restrictions illegal. I win.



A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
bet.

The timeframe expires and no change. You win.



> 2029 is the end of the term.

Oh, well. I have already told you I have no interest in making a bet
that I have to wait 20 years to win.
***
And less interest in making one you know you'll lose.

Scumbag.

***

> > Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a third
> > party, fully documented.
>
> > I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare
> > word."
>
> I couldn't trust you for even $1, since you are an anonymous troll
> with a well established history of lying. If you care to establish
> your identity, with a verifiable address and phone number, I will
> trust you on your word for a bet of $100 on the terms I quoted
> immediately above.

I see you are not willing to give your real name, address, and phone
number. In other words, you are an anonymous internet coward.

***
Shit, no, Willie.
I've given my real name to any number of posters here, to whom I've sent
e-mails.

YOU I don't trust at all.

***


> So you're dealing with 8 days>
> Gee, how brave of you.
>
> 20 years, idiot boy.
>
> > Nice to see you're still you're
>
> "Your" not "you're".
>
> > lying, whacked idiot sel
>
> Where did I lie about anything??? I just quoted what you said.

Still waiting to hear what I lied about.
***
You lied when you said it was settled law.
History shows A) The court can and does reverse itself and B) It does it
mostly on cases involving discrimination.

Take Paul's dick out of your ass, it's distracting you.

Let's leave your whole issue of Paul alone for now.

***


> As far as my being whacked or an idiot, you are clearly projecting. I
> noticed in another thread you claimed your sanity had never been
> questioned.


>
> I have characterized your posts on same sex marriage as hysterical,
> irrational rants. You don't consider that questioning your sanity?
> ***
> They aren't rants. That's you lying.

Once again, numbnuts. It is my opinion that your posts are rants.
The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I am lying. I
notice that you do not contest that your rants are hysterical and
irrational.
***
Shithead, as soon as I state they aren't rants, that eliminates hysterical
and irrational.

You're lack of logic continues unabated.
***

> I have told you that you are hopelessly confused about the difference
> between your opinions and objective reality. You don't consider that
> questioning your sanity?

You are very non-responsive today. Meds not kick in yet? Care to
answer my question? Do you consider it questioning your sanity to
state that you are hopelessly confused about the difference between
your opinions and objective reality?

***
Shit for brains, opinions are unverifiable. Facts are.
It's a fact that, following the logic previously laid down, gay marriage
bans are clearly unconstitutional.
If you accept the premise that Marriage is a fundamental right, it's not
even a tough call.

But you're a fag bashing homophobe.





   
Date: 14 Dec 2008 16:11:00
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:5db55fd2-1202-45a7-82dd-50fec7363021@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 6:52 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:857e3b00-4261-471a-8bb5-4f9a1239c05e@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 3:37 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.
>
> > You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
> > whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
> > a complete nutcase.
>
> > ***
> > No, shithead.
> > The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.
>
> Depends on what you mean by overwhelming likelihood.
>
> ***
> If you give me
> your age, I can give you the probability to four significant digits
> that you will live at least 20 more years. Do you know how to
> calculate this? You should. You claim to know more about life
> expectancy than the Social Security actuaries.

Gee, you didn't answer my question. I take that to mean you don't
know how to calculate the probability that a man of a given age will
live at least 20 more years.

***
I ignored it.
Shithead, given only my age, you won't get a meaningful number.
***

> > > If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US,
> > > you'd win.
>
> > Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.
>
> > ***
> > Shithead, that wasn't the offer.
>
> > The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.
>
> Yes, the offer was quite explicit. Immediately above you said --
>
> "If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
> US, you'd win."
>
> Are you going to stand by that offer or not?
> ***
> That's a typo, nutbag.

Well, you should be more careful about typographical errors when
specifying the terms of a bet.
***
Shitheat, the INITIAL post specified the terms of the bet.

Voice asked questions, I answered them (generally) on the fly.

I realize you're a lying scuzzball, but surely you aren't that stupid.

THESE were the terms of the bet :
Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028

Amounts to be negotiated.

Rules :

A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
restrictions illegal. I win.



A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
bet.

The timeframe expires and no change. You win.



> 2029 is the end of the term.

Oh, well. I have already told you I have no interest in making a bet
that I have to wait 20 years to win.
***
And less interest in making one you know you'll lose.

Scumbag.

***

> > Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a third
> > party, fully documented.
>
> > I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare
> > word."
>
> I couldn't trust you for even $1, since you are an anonymous troll
> with a well established history of lying. If you care to establish
> your identity, with a verifiable address and phone number, I will
> trust you on your word for a bet of $100 on the terms I quoted
> immediately above.

I see you are not willing to give your real name, address, and phone
number. In other words, you are an anonymous internet coward.

***
Shit, no, Willie.
I've given my real name to any number of posters here, to whom I've sent
e-mails.

YOU I don't trust at all.

***


> So you're dealing with 8 days>
> Gee, how brave of you.
>
> 20 years, idiot boy.
>
> > Nice to see you're still you're
>
> "Your" not "you're".
>
> > lying, whacked idiot sel
>
> Where did I lie about anything??? I just quoted what you said.

Still waiting to hear what I lied about.
***
You lied when you said it was settled law.
History shows A) The court can and does reverse itself and B) It does it
mostly on cases involving discrimination.

Take Paul's dick out of your ass, it's distracting you.

Let's leave your whole issue of Paul alone for now.

***


> As far as my being whacked or an idiot, you are clearly projecting. I
> noticed in another thread you claimed your sanity had never been
> questioned.


>
> I have characterized your posts on same sex marriage as hysterical,
> irrational rants. You don't consider that questioning your sanity?
> ***
> They aren't rants. That's you lying.

Once again, numbnuts. It is my opinion that your posts are rants.
The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I am lying. I
notice that you do not contest that your rants are hysterical and
irrational.
***
Shithead, as soon as I state they aren't rants, that eliminates hysterical
and irrational.

You're lack of logic continues unabated.
***

> I have told you that you are hopelessly confused about the difference
> between your opinions and objective reality. You don't consider that
> questioning your sanity?

You are very non-responsive today. Meds not kick in yet? Care to
answer my question? Do you consider it questioning your sanity to
state that you are hopelessly confused about the difference between
your opinions and objective reality?

***
Shit for brains, opinions are unverifiable. Facts are.
It's a fact that, following the logic previously laid down, gay marriage
bans are clearly unconstitutional.
If you accept the premise that Marriage is a fundamental right, it's not
even a tough call.

But you're a fag bashing homophobe.




  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 06:42:34
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd
On Dec 14, 3:37=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.
>
> You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
> whether you will be alive in 20 years. =A0Further evidence that you are
> a complete nutcase.
>
> ***
> No, shithead.
> The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.

Depends on what you mean by overwhelming likelihood. If you give me
your age, I can give you the probability to four significant digits
that you will live at least 20 more years. Do you know how to
calculate this? You should. You claim to know more about life
expectancy than the Social Security actuaries.

> > If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US,
> > you'd =A0win.
>
> Fine. =A0I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.
>
> ***
> Shithead, that wasn't the offer.
>
> The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.

Yes, the offer was quite explicit. Immediately above you said --

"If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
US, you'd win."

Are you going to stand by that offer or not?

> Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a third
> party, fully documented.
>
> I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare word."

I couldn't trust you for even $1, since you are an anonymous troll
with a well established history of lying. If you care to establish
your identity, with a verifiable address and phone number, I will
trust you on your word for a bet of $100 on the terms I quoted
immediately above.

> Nice to see you're still you're

"Your" not "you're".

> lying, whacked idiot self.

Where did I lie about anything??? I just quoted what you said.

As far as my being whacked or an idiot, you are clearly projecting. I
noticed in another thread you claimed your sanity had never been
questioned.

I have characterized your posts on same sex marriage as hysterical,
irrational rants. You don't consider that questioning your sanity?

I have told you that you are hopelessly confused about the difference
between your opinions and objective reality. You don't consider that
questioning your sanity?


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 14 Dec 2008 14:52:45
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:857e3b00-4261-471a-8bb5-4f9a1239c05e@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 3:37 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.
>
> You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
> whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
> a complete nutcase.
>
> ***
> No, shithead.
> The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.

Depends on what you mean by overwhelming likelihood.


***
If you give me
your age, I can give you the probability to four significant digits
that you will live at least 20 more years. Do you know how to
calculate this? You should. You claim to know more about life
expectancy than the Social Security actuaries.

> > If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US,
> > you'd win.
>
> Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.
>
> ***
> Shithead, that wasn't the offer.
>
> The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.

Yes, the offer was quite explicit. Immediately above you said --

"If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the
US, you'd win."

Are you going to stand by that offer or not?
***
That's a typo, nutbag.
2029 is the end of the term.

***


> Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a third
> party, fully documented.
>
> I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare word."

I couldn't trust you for even $1, since you are an anonymous troll
with a well established history of lying. If you care to establish
your identity, with a verifiable address and phone number, I will
trust you on your word for a bet of $100 on the terms I quoted
immediately above.

***
So you're dealing with 8 days >
Gee, how brave of you.

20 years, idiot boy.


> Nice to see you're still you're

"Your" not "you're".

> lying, whacked idiot sel

Where did I lie about anything??? I just quoted what you said.

As far as my being whacked or an idiot, you are clearly projecting. I
noticed in another thread you claimed your sanity had never been
questioned.

I have characterized your posts on same sex marriage as hysterical,
irrational rants. You don't consider that questioning your sanity?
***
They aren't rants. That's you lying.
***


I have told you that you are hopelessly confused about the difference
between your opinions and objective reality. You don't consider that
questioning your sanity?

***
You're a fucked up nutbag.
***




  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 00:50:44
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd
On Dec 13, 10:50=A0pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.

You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
a complete nutcase.


> If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US, yo=
u'd win.

Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000. You
have made an offer and I have accepted your offer. We now have a
legally binding contract.

Prepare to send $100,000 to my Paypal account on January 10, 2009.


William Coleman (ramashiva)



   
Date: 14 Dec 2008 11:37:07
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:1f2e98df-a4e2-41d0-a3e6-3c1a56afff81@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 13, 10:50 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> I'm not going to be dead in 20 years.

You don't know whether you will see the sun rise tomorrow, much less
whether you will be alive in 20 years. Further evidence that you are
a complete nutcase.

***
No, shithead.
The vast overwhelming likelihood is that I'll be alive.
***

> If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US,
> you'd win.

Fine. I accept your offer of a bet in the amount of $100,000.

***
Shithead, that wasn't the offer.

The offer was quite explicit, that the amount was to be negotiated.

Clearly, for an amount that large, I'd want the money secured by a third
party, fully documented.

I think $100 is about as much as I can trust you with on your bare word."

Nice to see you're still you're lying, whacked idiot self.

Did you visit here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbfChTPZsno&feature=channel_page




  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 06:50:42
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"DaVoice" <davoicergp@cox.net > wrote in message
news:Xp01l.2782$iY3.2451@newsfe14.iad...
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Qt%0l.1520$c35.1221@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> From : Brown V Board of Education
>>
>>
>>
>> Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high
>> schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications
>> solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to
>> their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a
>> way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their
>> educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case
>> by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro
>> plaintiffs:
>>
>> "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a
>> detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when
>> it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is
>> usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A
>> sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.
>> Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to
>> [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to
>> deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly]
>> integrated school system
>
> Last time I checked "Gay" is not a race.
>
The context is of the courts getting an issue wrong the first time due to
prejudice.
This case specifically is the concept of Separate but Equal... one junked by
a later supreme court.


>
>> From : Loving V Virginia
>>
>> There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
>> solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
>> generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.
>> Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions
>> between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a
>> free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of
>> equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 100
>> (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that
>> racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be
>> subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323
>> U. S. 214, 323 U. S. 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they
>> must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible
>> state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was
>> the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members
>> of this Court have already stated that they
>>
>> "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the
>> color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal
>> offense."
>
> Again, last time I checked Gay does not imply a color of skin or an
> "ancesrtry"
>

And again, the concept being explained is the court junking a previous
ruling made by a more biased court.

>
>> McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 379 U. S. 198 (STEWART, J., joined by
>> DOUGLAS, J., concurring).
>>
>> There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of
>> invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The
>> fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white
>> persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their
>> own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
>> [Footnote 11] We have consistently denied
>>
>> Page 388 U. S. 12
>>
>> the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens
>> on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to
>> marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central
>> meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
>
> Again, RACE is the issue. Gay is not a race.
Gay is a discrimination factor.
Race is not the ONLY way people could be discriminated against.

>
>
>> II
>>
>> These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
>> law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
>> The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
>> personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
>> men.
>>
>> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
>> very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U.
>> S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny
>> this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
>> classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
>> subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
>> Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty
>> without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the
>> freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial
>> discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
>> marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot
>> be infringed by the State.
>
> "on the basis of racial classifications" Gay is not a "race".
On the basis of religion as well.
Or any other discriminatory factor..read this line again.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival


>
>> ***
>>
>> The SCOTUS has set bad precident before... largely in areas of
>> discriminatory decisions, rooted in the prejudices of the justices.
>>
>> When Willie the newsgroup nutbag insists that the matter is "settled"
>> because in the 70's, the court was prejudiced, it shows what a moron he
>> is.
>>
>> Establishing a second class of rights for gays inherently establishes
>> them AS second class. Eventually the court will be made up of people
>> non-biased enough to understand that.
>
> None of the case law you cited even comes CLOSE to the rights for gays to
> marry (frankly, I've changed my mind and don't think the STATE should
> license Marriage, it is a religious thing traditionally) therefore No
> State should sanction ANY marriage, IMHO

Yeah, they do.
They establish the right to marry as fundamental, and they say you can't use
arbitrary discrimination.
While they don't say it explicitly, they do say it.
And moreover, they will...

If you want to give up all the rights and responsiblities and priviliges you
get from being married, to avoid gays sharing them, fine.

>
>
>
>> Open wager : Some time in the next 20 years, gay marriage bans will be
>> found unconstitutional.
>
> Only if under the Equal protection clause, but not due to any of the cites
> you quoted, and not as long as the SCOTUS is in present form or anthing
> like it. It will depend on Obama's appointments, and any appointments
> made by his successors.
The cites were there to show the court reverses itself.
Of course, under the EPQ.

>
>
>> Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028
>>
>> Amounts to be negotiated.
>
> Ok, still have my attention
>
>> Rules :
>>
>> A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
>> restrictions illegal. I win.
>
> Since you're the one that is so sure, what odds are you offering?
>
>
>> A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push,
>> no bet.
>
> Huh? If the Constitution is changed to make gay marriage legal, no bet?
Constitutional amendments aren't federal laws.
If Obama gets the DOMA repealed and gets it defined as between two legal
adults, for instance, it's a push.

> I'm liking this better than surrender in single-deck 21
>
>> The timeframe expires and no change. You win.
>
> 20 years from now Who will collect if one or both of the parties is DEAD?
> Will this be put in escrow somewher
Terms to be negotiated.
I'm not going to be dead in 20 years. I'm happy with Will stipulations, or
third party holdings.

>
>> Logic assures us the SCOTUS eventually deals with this.It's only a matter
>> of time.
>
> That is not necessarily true, although it *may* well be decided, but what
> if SCOTUS doesn't grant any cases certiari in this matter? Who wins then?
If, on Jan 9, 2009 it's gays cannot marry in some state within the US, you'd
win.


>
>> Put up or shut up.
>
> Still waiting to see what odds you're laying.
Even money. This is targeted at Willie and Joey mostly, but I'll be fair and
offer it to anyone.




 
Date: 13 Dec 2008 20:57:04
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd
Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> Rules :
>
> A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
> restrictions illegal. I win.
>
>
>
> A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
> bet.
>
> The timeframe expires and no change. You win.
>
> Logic assures us the SCOTUS eventually deals with this.It's only a matter of
> time.
>
> Put up or shut up.

Interstate commerce, or some deeper extension of Equality?

A gay man and a gay woman are totally allowed to become married to each
other. And while fidelity is ground for dissolution in many states (in
some states it was the ONLY ground, no fault, is the new norm).

This distinction compared to say brown, is going to be at the heart of
the discussion.

I think it will come down to this. Initially, there will be the
question of the interstate commerce question of "civil unions". Then
some day a civil union will be written into law somewhere that all
benefits and privelidges in the state provided to a married couple
because they are married will be so granted to the members of the civil
union.

And then the license will become the marriage/civil union license. And
then finally all verbal ambiguity to be erased.

And then a bunch of greenies will have put a generator on the remains of
PP, ex RGP whatever, and get a solid 10 megawatts from his spinning.


  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 06:39:03
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
I don't care much about "gay marriage" one way or the other. To me, it's
just another goofy lunatic liberal left issue like the whole global warming
scam. Seems to me there are a lot more important things to worry about in
the world today. However, I will provide my opinion, which I believe is
shared by about 75% of the American people:

1. When did "gay" become a synonym for queer? Gay is a fine word in its
own right and doesn't belong to fags exclusively.

2. Marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman.

3. If two butt banging cocksuckers or two dykes want to get "married" then
allow them to have a civil union.

4. Any time a group of fags invade a church, disrupt the service, disrespect
the pastor and parishioners and throw their propaganda literature all over
the place, they should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law.

Any of you queers, fags, dykes, butt bangers or cocksuckers that disagree
with my opinions can kiss my Irish ass. (On second thought, given the
nature of the audience, make that free to go fuck yourselves.) If any of
you are offended by comments I can only say, with all sincerity, that I
truly don't give a flying fuck what you think.

Irish Mike


"johnny_t" <nobodyis@home.com > wrote in message
news:00495500$0$23804$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> Rules :
>>
>> A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
>> restrictions illegal. I win.
>>
>>
>>
>> A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push,
>> no bet.
>>
>> The timeframe expires and no change. You win.
>>
>> Logic assures us the SCOTUS eventually deals with this.It's only a matter
>> of time.
>>
>> Put up or shut up.
>
> Interstate commerce, or some deeper extension of Equality?
>
> A gay man and a gay woman are totally allowed to become married to each
> other. And while fidelity is ground for dissolution in many states (in
> some states it was the ONLY ground, no fault, is the new norm).
>
> This distinction compared to say brown, is going to be at the heart of the
> discussion.
>
> I think it will come down to this. Initially, there will be the question
> of the interstate commerce question of "civil unions". Then some day a
> civil union will be written into law somewhere that all benefits and
> privelidges in the state provided to a married couple because they are
> married will be so granted to the members of the civil union.
>
> And then the license will become the marriage/civil union license. And
> then finally all verbal ambiguity to be erased.
>
> And then a bunch of greenies will have put a generator on the remains of
> PP, ex RGP whatever, and get a solid 10 megawatts from his spinning.




   
Date: 14 Dec 2008 13:17:36
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:Ij61l.6688$pr6.2622@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
>I don't care much about "gay marriage" one way or the other. To me, it's
>just another goofy lunatic liberal left issue like the whole global warming
>scam. Seems to me there are a lot more important things to worry about in
>the world today. However, I will provide my opinion, which I believe is
>shared by about 75% of the American people:
>
> 1. When did "gay" become a synonym for queer? Gay is a fine word in its
> own right and doesn't belong to fags exclusively.
>
Well, it's good the drunken mick coalition has spoken.

> 2. Marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman.
>
Why?


> 3. If two butt banging cocksuckers or two dykes want to get "married" then
> allow them to have a civil union.
Mike, when you sober up, go have someone read and explain to you Brovwn v
Board of education, and the concept of second class citizens.


>
> 4. Any time a group of fags invade a church, disrupt the service,
> disrespect the pastor and parishioners and throw their propaganda
> literature all over the place, they should be arrested and prosecuted to
> the fullest extent of the law.
Sure, if every time a parish molester ... I mean priest gets in the way of
women trying to enter planned parenthood clinics get the same treatment.


>
> Any of you queers, fags, dykes, butt bangers or cocksuckers that disagree
> with my opinions can kiss my Irish ass.

Those of us who aren't gay? Can we kick it, or are we shit out of luck?

(On second thought, given the
> nature of the audience, make that free to go fuck yourselves.) If any of
> you are offended by comments I can only say, with all sincerity, that I
> truly don't give a flying fuck what you think.

Irish, calling those comments "thoughts" is like calling Lyndon LaRouche
'Presidential"




 
Date: 13 Dec 2008 22:30:21
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
Thank you for your idiocy, but we know quite well from your previous
posts what a complete idiot thinks.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 04:34:25
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1229229923.97061@pokermagazine.com...
> Thank you for your proposition, but we know quite well from my previous
> responses what a complete idiot thinks.
>
FYP




   
Date: 14 Dec 2008 14:40:01
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
Anyone who trusts Beldonk seriously lacks the necessary knowledge of
Beldonk's background and chatacter. When Beldonk is caught being
unquestionably wrong or lying, Beldonk will argue for days that he's
right. The fact that Beldonk is offering bets demonstrates that certain
irony of the pathological weasel.

Now watch, he'll start arguing that he's not an untrustworthy weasel,
while everyone knows that he is.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


    
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:33:26
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1229288137.75820@pokermagazine.com...
> Anyone who trusts Beldonk seriously lacks the necessary knowledge of
> Beldonk's background and chatacter. When Beldonk is caught being
> unquestionably wrong or lying, Beldonk will argue for days that he's
> right. The fact that Beldonk is offering bets demonstrates that certain
> irony of the pathological weasel.
>
> Now watch, he'll start arguing that he's not an untrustworthy weasel,
> while everyone knows that he is.

Travel the shit for brains, ladies and gentlemen!

I don't lie. I am not responsible for shitheads not understanding what I
said the first time, however.




    
Date: 14 Dec 2008 21:01:39
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
On Dec 14 2008 3:40 PM, Travel wrote:

> Anyone who trusts Beldonk seriously lacks the necessary knowledge of
> Beldonk's background and chatacter. When Beldonk is caught being
> unquestionably wrong or lying, Beldonk will argue for days that he's
> right. The fact that Beldonk is offering bets demonstrates that certain
> irony of the pathological weasel.

Hmmmm, this trait sounds vaguely familiar. I wonder where we've seen it
before, Mr. Expert-on-the-Economy?

------- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 15 Dec 2008 15:39:59
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
Lol, C. Parrot is still mad after the ass-kicking he recieved when I
humiliated him on his cluelessness about the financial crisis.

This of course is typical of all babbling by C. Parrot on all topics.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


      
Date: 16 Dec 2008 22:49:49
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
Beldonk's the expert on retarded posts; it comes natural.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


       
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:33:56
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1229490083.52013@pokermagazine.com...
> Beldonk's the expert on retarded posts; he reads mine.>
FYP




      
Date: 15 Dec 2008 15:50:15
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
"received"

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


       
Date: 17 Dec 2008 03:09:09
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)

"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1229378579.14722@pokermagazine.com...
> "received"
Travel's the expert on being on the receiving end of things....