pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 09 Dec 2008 05:30:22
From: FellKnight
Subject: Possible RGP Future
Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.

He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

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






 
Date: 10 Dec 2008 09:06:07
From: RazzO
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
Been there, done that. Thanks.


On Dec 9 2008 5:30 AM, FellKnight wrote:

> Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!


RazzO
"Your all is idiots!" - Mike Matusow

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 09 Dec 2008 11:50:44
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!


I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.




  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 09:53:27
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 9:50=A0am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net > wrote:
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamu=
s,
> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
> I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.

I don't think so. I still think Wuzzy is the most likely candidate.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:

> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >
> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
> >
> > > He is officially killfiled on this end.  Join me!
> >
> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>

Pepe Papon is also Skillz.

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 11 Dec 2008 00:39:35
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
<garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote:

>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>
>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> >
>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>> >
>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end.  Join me!
>> >
>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>
>
>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.

Please tell me you're joking.


     
Date: 11 Dec 2008 14:32:09
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:4dk1k41fq7ur1243gbqh0phcurabe8epj4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >
>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>>> > > Nostradamus,
>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>> >
>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>> >
>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>>
>>
>>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.
>
> Please tell me you're joking.
No, he's insane.




      
Date: 12 Dec 2008 13:11:42
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:32:09 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote:

>
>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:4dk1k41fq7ur1243gbqh0phcurabe8epj4@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
>> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> >
>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>>>> > > Nostradamus,
>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>>> >
>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>>> >
>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.
>>
>> Please tell me you're joking.
>No, he's insane.

So are you, but you never let that stop you.


       
Date: 13 Dec 2008 14:12:03
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:jrk5k4lpmc6f82mkrr4i719h9rcr1h2vj8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:32:09 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:4dk1k41fq7ur1243gbqh0phcurabe8epj4@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
>>> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >
>>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>>>>> > > Nostradamus,
>>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him
>>>>> > > and
>>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.
>>>
>>> Please tell me you're joking.
>>No, he's insane.
>
> So are you, but you never let that stop you.
Pepe, my sanity has never once been brought into question.
For instance, I'm not the one who thinks Irish Mike's list was mostly
democratic.




        
Date: 14 Dec 2008 00:38:27
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:12:03 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote:

>
>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:jrk5k4lpmc6f82mkrr4i719h9rcr1h2vj8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:32:09 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:4dk1k41fq7ur1243gbqh0phcurabe8epj4@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
>>>> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>>>>>> > > Nostradamus,
>>>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him
>>>>>> > > and
>>>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.
>>>>
>>>> Please tell me you're joking.
>>
>>No, he's insane.
>>
>> So are you, but you never let that stop you.
>Pepe, my sanity has never once been brought into question.

Sorry your memory is failing you.

>For instance, I'm not the one who thinks Irish Mike's list was mostly
>democratic.

Neither am I, Mr. Reading Comprehension.


         
Date: 14 Dec 2008 11:37:50
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:m9h9k4ldjrbm8j8qgh9aj6j353tnntb68u@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:12:03 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:jrk5k4lpmc6f82mkrr4i719h9rcr1h2vj8@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:32:09 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:4dk1k41fq7ur1243gbqh0phcurabe8epj4@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
>>>>> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>>>>>>> > > Nostradamus,
>>>>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him
>>>>>>> > > and
>>>>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please tell me you're joking.
>>>
>>>No, he's insane.
>>>
>>> So are you, but you never let that stop you.
>>Pepe, my sanity has never once been brought into question.
>
> Sorry your memory is failing you.
>
>>For instance, I'm not the one who thinks Irish Mike's list was mostly
>>democratic.
>
> Neither am I, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
That WAS your claim
I pointed out it was false and you stopped posting on the topic.




          
Date: 14 Dec 2008 17:29:42
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:37:50 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote:

>
>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:m9h9k4ldjrbm8j8qgh9aj6j353tnntb68u@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:12:03 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:jrk5k4lpmc6f82mkrr4i719h9rcr1h2vj8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:32:09 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>>> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4dk1k41fq7ur1243gbqh0phcurabe8epj4@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
>>>>>> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>>>>>>>> > > Nostradamus,
>>>>>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him
>>>>>>>> > > and
>>>>>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please tell me you're joking.
>>>>
>>>>No, he's insane.
>>>>
>>>> So are you, but you never let that stop you.
>>>Pepe, my sanity has never once been brought into question.
>>
>> Sorry your memory is failing you.
>>
>>>For instance, I'm not the one who thinks Irish Mike's list was mostly
>>>democratic.
>>
>> Neither am I, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
>That WAS your claim
>I pointed out it was false and you stopped posting on the topic.
>

Whatever you say, Mr. Reading Comprehension.


           
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:05:38
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:dncbk4d6hlehte653q47ovafmp0pm4asgd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:37:50 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:m9h9k4ldjrbm8j8qgh9aj6j353tnntb68u@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:12:03 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:jrk5k4lpmc6f82mkrr4i719h9rcr1h2vj8@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:32:09 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>>>> <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:4dk1k41fq7ur1243gbqh0phcurabe8epj4@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:43 -0800, "garycarson"
>>>>>>> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Dec 9 2008 12:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>>>>>>>>> > > Nostradamus,
>>>>>>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling
>>>>>>>>> > > him
>>>>>>>>> > > and
>>>>>>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pepe Papon is also Skillz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please tell me you're joking.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he's insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are you, but you never let that stop you.
>>>>Pepe, my sanity has never once been brought into question.
>>>
>>> Sorry your memory is failing you.
>>>
>>>>For instance, I'm not the one who thinks Irish Mike's list was mostly
>>>>democratic.
>>>
>>> Neither am I, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
>>That WAS your claim
>>I pointed out it was false and you stopped posting on the topic.
>>
>
> Whatever you say, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
I cited you, swiftie.

And Irish.

And then you ran away and hid.




            
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:05:50
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:05:38 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote:

>>>>>For instance, I'm not the one who thinks Irish Mike's list was mostly
>>>>>democratic.
>>>>
>>>> Neither am I, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
>>>That WAS your claim
>>>I pointed out it was false and you stopped posting on the topic.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever you say, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
>I misquoted you, swiftie.

FYP


            
Date: 18 Dec 2008 07:22:43
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 18 2008 9:05 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
> >>>>>>>>> > > Nostradamus,
> >>>>>>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling
> >>>>>>>>> > > him
> >>>>>>>>> > > and
> >>>>>>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
> >>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
> >>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.

Hey is there a hidden message with all those > things up there, or any
particular reason that you two idiots are quoting 15 previous messages to
leave your 2 line insults?

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



             
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:42:34
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:3f6q16xp9s.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 18 2008 9:05 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La
>> >>>>>>>>> > > Cosa
>> >>>>>>>>> > > Nostradamus,
>> >>>>>>>>> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling
>> >>>>>>>>> > > him
>> >>>>>>>>> > > and
>> >>>>>>>>> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the
>> >>>>>>>>> > > Earth.
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>
> Hey is there a hidden message with all those > things up there, or any
> particular reason that you two idiots are quoting 15 previous messages to
> leave your 2 line insults?
>
I pride myself on not taking people out of context.





             
Date: 18 Dec 2008 07:29:27
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
> Hey is there a hidden message with all those > things up there, or any
> particular reason that you two idiots are quoting 15 previous messages to
> leave your 2 line insults?

I am a lazy fuck, but even I am NOT that fucking lazy.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

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




        
Date: 13 Dec 2008 09:01:38
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:ToP0l.1570$7I6.579@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> Pepe, my sanity has never once been brought into question.
>

That's insane.




         
Date: 14 Dec 2008 02:27:45
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:_PR0l.9049$D32.4902@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ToP0l.1570$7I6.579@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>
>> Pepe, my sanity has never once been brought into question.
>>
>
> That's insane.
No, paul.

My grip on reality is quite clear.

Yours isn't, but then, you're a fictional sockpuppet persona.


>
>




          
Date: 13 Dec 2008 18:48:14
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 13 2008 8:27 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:


> No, paul.
>
> My grip on reality is quite clear.
>
> Yours isn't, but then, you're a fictional sockpuppet persona.

This is officially my all-time favorite RGP post.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



           
Date: 14 Dec 2008 02:58:05
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:eo8e16xs4b.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 13 2008 8:27 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>
>> No, paul.
>>
>> My grip on reality is quite clear.
>>
>> Yours isn't, but then, you're a fictional sockpuppet persona.
>
> This is officially my all-time favorite RGP post.
Don't you have a new one every week?




   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 18:10:48
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:38128d9b-2a67-45c7-bb13-f144ac71bea1@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net > wrote:
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
> > Nostradamus,
> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>
> I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.

I don't think so. I still think Wuzzy is the most likely candidate.


William Coleman (ramashiva)




Doesn't sound like Parker; plus, the goofy Highlander sig doesn't seem like
something Parker would do. He could of course be altering his presentation,
but seems like a lot of trouble for no reason.




    
Date: 10 Dec 2008 02:32:14
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5@cox.net > wrote in message
news:dOD%k.60435$5L3.55891@newsfe09.iad...
>
> "ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38128d9b-2a67-45c7-bb13-f144ac71bea1@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>
>> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
>> > Nostradamus,
>> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
>> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>
>> > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>>
>> I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>
> I don't think so. I still think Wuzzy is the most likely candidate.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
>
>
> Doesn't sound like Parker; plus, the goofy Highlander sig doesn't seem
> like something Parker would do. He could of course be altering his
> presentation, but seems like a lot of trouble for no reason.
Doesn't that describe Wuzzy quite well, though?

>




     
Date: 09 Dec 2008 20:41:21
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:OSF%k.832$c35.101@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...


> Doesn't that describe Wuzzy quite well, though?



lol...uh, actually yes.




   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 14:32:09
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:53:27 -0800 (PST), ramashiva
<ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote:

>On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eg8216xqqp.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>
>> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
>> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
>> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>>
>> > He is officially killfiled on this end.  Join me!
>>
>> I think "pokertoker" might be Skillz, too.
>
>I don't think so. I still think Wuzzy is the most likely candidate.

The styles are dissimilar. Wuzzy posts in complete sentences.


 
Date: 09 Dec 2008 07:30:17
From: Porsche_Dan
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 7:30=A0am, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. =A0Be Proud. =A0Be Considerate!
>
> --------=A0
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com

That's funny. You can be a complete nut job on here and be read by
all, but if you welch on a stupid bet you are banned for life. Works
for me.

Next lets ban Canadians that hit 3 outers on me EVERY FUCKING
TIME!!!!!!!!! Karma is going to ATM you man.






  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 18:57:32
From: MZB
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
Nut jobs are acceptable.

Welching on a bet is not.

Mel
"Porsche_Dan" <Porsche.Dan@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:3a940ad1-738d-4bc7-8f4e-04524ba092c5@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 7:30 am, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
>
> --------
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com

That's funny. You can be a complete nut job on here and be read by
all, but if you welch on a stupid bet you are banned for life. Works
for me.

Next lets ban Canadians that hit 3 outers on me EVERY FUCKING
TIME!!!!!!!!! Karma is going to ATM you man.







  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 07:47:52
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9 2008 10:30 AM, Porsche_Dan wrote:

> On Dec 9, 7:30 am, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
> >
> > He is officially killfiled on this end.  Join me!
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Be Loud.  Be Proud.  Be Considerate!
> >
> That's funny. You can be a complete nut job on here and be read by
> all, but if you welch on a stupid bet you are banned for life. Works
> for me.
>
> Next lets ban Canadians that hit 3 outers on me EVERY FUCKING
> TIME!!!!!!!!! Karma is going to ATM you man.

Karma has already raped your in the A. Next home game, I'll make it my
goal to share the wealth with your M.

o0o0o0o!

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 09:02:09
From: DonkeyBanAA
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
i say live and let live-- hell everyone knows what happen --like Fell and
the hand history deal for
the next 100 years we will know to double check his hand history :)




On Dec 9 2008 9:47 AM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Dec 9 2008 10:30 AM, Porsche_Dan wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 7:30 am, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
> > >
> > > He is officially killfiled on this end.  Join me!
> > >
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Be Loud.  Be Proud.  Be Considerate!
> > >
> > That's funny. You can be a complete nut job on here and be read by
> > all, but if you welch on a stupid bet you are banned for life. Works
> > for me.
> >
> > Next lets ban Canadians that hit 3 outers on me EVERY FUCKING
> > TIME!!!!!!!!! Karma is going to ATM you man.
>
> Karma has already raped your in the A. Next home game, I'll make it my
> goal to share the wealth with your M.
>
> o0o0o0o!
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

---- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 09 Dec 2008 07:13:37
From: FangBanger
Subject: RGP FUTURE OLD LADIES.. lets not talk to ...
YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF OLD LADIES AT A CANASTA CLATCH!!

if you dont want to respond .. then dont respond ... but rallying like old
women who have been offended is about as childish as it gets !


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 07:53:32
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10, 7:55=A0am, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

> **YAWN **

Thanks for not changing the thread title. I am going to nag you until
I get you housebroken.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 03:32:51
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10, 12:19=A0am, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

> On Dec 9 2008 10:26 PM, ramashiva wrote:

> > STOP CHANGING THE TITLE OF THREADS. =A0SAY WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN YOUR
> > POST.
>
> damn man .. whats with the caps ?
>
>
>
> > I had to look for five minutes to find this thread, because I use
> > Google Groups, and you changed the thread title.
>
> well get with the program

LOL. You are using recgroups, and you are telling me to get with the
program??? The point is, you are being extremely rude to people who
use Google Groups when you change the title of a thread. There are
over 6000 people registered to post to RGP with Google Groups, and you
don't have to be registered to use Google Groups to read RGP.

> > It is also extremely childish and rude to start a new thread on a
> > topic which is already being discussed in an active thread. =A0You do
> > this just to highlight your opinion and give it prominence. =A0If you
> > have something to say on a topic which is already being actively
> > discussed, post your comments in the active thread, like everyone else
> > but Irish Mike does.
>
> > You have been told repeatedly to prefix your off-topic threads with
> > "OT:". =A0You fail to do so, just like Irish Mike.
>
> nobody cares about that anymore

Yes, people do care. People who use newsreaders and don't want to
read OT threads use the tag "OT:" to filter out OT threads. You are
being extremely rude to these people by not following the usenet
convention.

> > If you ever expect to get any respect at all from this newsgroup,
> > which you most certainly don't have now, you need to start following
> > basic usenet etiquette.
>
> trust me .. i get read 10 times more than you do !!

Oh, please. You are completely delusional. Most people with killfile
capability have you killfiled, and you know it. That's why you keep
changing your posting handle.

Maybe you haven't noticed but most people who reply to you think you
are a complete idiot.

The only people who read your posts are people who like watching
trainwrecks, and people like Morphy, Fell Knight, and myself who enjoy
exposing you for the pretentious, ignorant idiot that you most
obviously are.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 07:55:08
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10 2008 5:32 AM, ramashiva wrote:

> On Dec 10, 12:19 am, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9 2008 10:26 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>
> > > STOP CHANGING THE TITLE OF THREADS.  SAY WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN YOUR
> > > POST.
> >
> > damn man .. whats with the caps ?
> >
> >
> >
> > > I had to look for five minutes to find this thread, because I use
> > > Google Groups, and you changed the thread title.
> >
> > well get with the program
>
> LOL. You are using recgroups, and you are telling me to get with the
> program??? The point is, you are being extremely rude to people who
> use Google Groups when you change the title of a thread. There are
> over 6000 people registered to post to RGP with Google Groups, and you
> don't have to be registered to use Google Groups to read RGP.
>
> > > It is also extremely childish and rude to start a new thread on a
> > > topic which is already being discussed in an active thread.  You do
> > > this just to highlight your opinion and give it prominence.  If you
> > > have something to say on a topic which is already being actively
> > > discussed, post your comments in the active thread, like everyone else
> > > but Irish Mike does.
> >
> > > You have been told repeatedly to prefix your off-topic threads with
> > > "OT:".  You fail to do so, just like Irish Mike.
> >
> > nobody cares about that anymore
>
> Yes, people do care. People who use newsreaders and don't want to
> read OT threads use the tag "OT:" to filter out OT threads. You are
> being extremely rude to these people by not following the usenet
> convention.
>
> > > If you ever expect to get any respect at all from this newsgroup,
> > > which you most certainly don't have now, you need to start following
> > > basic usenet etiquette.
> >
> > trust me .. i get read 10 times more than you do !!
>
> Oh, please. You are completely delusional. Most people with killfile
> capability have you killfiled, and you know it. That's why you keep
> changing your posting handle.
>
> Maybe you haven't noticed but most people who reply to you think you
> are a complete idiot.
>
> The only people who read your posts are people who like watching
> trainwrecks, and people like Morphy, Fell Knight, and myself who enjoy
> exposing you for the pretentious, ignorant idiot that you most
> obviously are.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

**YAWN **


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 20:26:17
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: .Possible RGP Future Options
On Dec 9, 8:15=A0pm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Dec 9 2008 6:44 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9 2008 4:01 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9 2008 9:45 AM, Susan wrote:
>
> > > > "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > >news:1ie216xmgq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > > YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF OLD LADIES AT A =A0CANASTA CLATC=
H!!
>
> > > > > if you dont want to respond .. then dont respond ... but rallying=
like
> > old
> > > > > women who have been offended is about as childish as it gets !
>
> > > > I agree. =A0There have been welchers (welshers?) on money bets but =
no
> where
> > > > near this uproar.
>
> > > The whole "lets gang up and make Johnny pay because he didnt eat a BU=
G"
> > > mentality is sooooo childish .. and this comes from ME!!!
>
> > This is scary. =A0I'm finding that I agree with you on too many things.
>
> ty .. but it fairly easy to agree on 'common sense" issues. only one thin=
g
> worse than having ONE moderator, and that would be a whole GANG of them

STOP CHANGING THE TITLE OF THREADS. SAY WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN YOUR
POST.

I had to look for five minutes to find this thread, because I use
Google Groups, and you changed the thread title.

This is childish, rude behavior.

It is also extremely childish and rude to start a new thread on a
topic which is already being discussed in an active thread. You do
this just to highlight your opinion and give it prominence. If you
have something to say on a topic which is already being actively
discussed, post your comments in the active thread, like everyone else
but Irish Mike does.

You have been told repeatedly to prefix your off-topic threads with
"OT:". You fail to do so, just like Irish Mike.

If you ever expect to get any respect at all from this newsgroup,
which you most certainly don't have now, you need to start following
basic usenet etiquette.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 09:45:02
From: Susan
Subject: Re: RGP FUTURE OLD LADIES.. lets not talk to ...

"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:1ie216xmgq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF OLD LADIES AT A CANASTA CLATCH!!
>
> if you dont want to respond .. then dont respond ... but rallying like old
> women who have been offended is about as childish as it gets !
>

I agree. There have been welchers (welshers?) on money bets but no where
near this uproar.




   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 16:01:14
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: RGP FUTURE OLD LADIES.. lets not talk to ...
On Dec 9 2008 9:45 AM, Susan wrote:

> "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ie216xmgq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF OLD LADIES AT A CANASTA CLATCH!!
> >
> > if you dont want to respond .. then dont respond ... but rallying like old
> > women who have been offended is about as childish as it gets !
> >
>
> I agree. There have been welchers (welshers?) on money bets but no where
> near this uproar.

The whole "lets gang up and make Johnny pay because he didnt eat a BUG"
mentality is sooooo childish .. and this comes from ME!!!


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

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




    
Date: 09 Dec 2008 16:44:11
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: RGP FUTURE OLD LADIES.. lets not talk to ...
On Dec 9 2008 4:01 PM, FangBanger wrote:

> On Dec 9 2008 9:45 AM, Susan wrote:
>
> > "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:1ie216xmgq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF OLD LADIES AT A CANASTA CLATCH!!
> > >
> > > if you dont want to respond .. then dont respond ... but rallying like
old
> > > women who have been offended is about as childish as it gets !
> > >
> >
> > I agree. There have been welchers (welshers?) on money bets but no where
> > near this uproar.
>
> The whole "lets gang up and make Johnny pay because he didnt eat a BUG"
> mentality is sooooo childish .. and this comes from ME!!!

This is scary. I'm finding that I agree with you on too many things.

>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire


Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 09 Dec 2008 20:15:28
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: RGP FUTURE OLD LADIES.. lets not talk to ...
On Dec 9 2008 6:44 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 9 2008 4:01 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9 2008 9:45 AM, Susan wrote:
> >
> > > "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:1ie216xmgq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF OLD LADIES AT A CANASTA CLATCH!!
> > > >
> > > > if you dont want to respond .. then dont respond ... but rallying like
> old
> > > > women who have been offended is about as childish as it gets !
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree. There have been welchers (welshers?) on money bets but no
where
> > > near this uproar.
> >
> > The whole "lets gang up and make Johnny pay because he didnt eat a BUG"
> > mentality is sooooo childish .. and this comes from ME!!!
>
> This is scary. I'm finding that I agree with you on too many things.

ty .. but it fairly easy to agree on 'common sense" issues. only one thing
worse than having ONE moderator, and that would be a whole GANG of them
>
> >
> >
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> > Voltaire
>
>
> Brew
> --
> Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 08:03:52
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: RGP FUTURE OLD LADIES.. lets not talk to ...
> I agree. There have been welchers (welshers?) on money bets but no where
> near this uproar.

It should not be tolerated. That is another big difference between us
TVSM and the BROKES of this group. The BROKES tolerate it as acceptable
behavior. The TVSM do NOT except it and will not stand for it.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 09 Dec 2008 15:59:47
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: RGP FUTURE OLD LADIES.. lets not talk to ...
On Dec 9 2008 10:03 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > I agree. There have been welchers (welshers?) on money bets but no where
> > near this uproar.
>
> It should not be tolerated. That is another big difference between us
> TVSM and the BROKES of this group. The BROKES tolerate it as acceptable
> behavior. The TVSM do NOT except it and will not stand for it.

I could buy you and sell you with just ONE of my 401k's .. or at least I
could have in July !!

I got your "broke " hangin right here!! :)
>
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

_______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 09 Dec 2008 07:04:46
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
> He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>
> Fell

o0o

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

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




 
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:40:26
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 8:30=A0am, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
I have often defended Skillz and I don't use a killfile. However,
welching in this newsgroup cannot be tolerated. So I will not
communicate with him while he is under the ban.

--
Will in New Haven


  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 22:34:30
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9 2008 9:40 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
!
> >
> I have often defended Skillz and I don't use a killfile. However,
> welching in this newsgroup cannot be tolerated. So I will not
> communicate with him while he is under the ban.
>


One thing I know for sure. He did not have a bet with "the newsgroup".

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:52:53
From:
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 8:40=A0am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com >
wrote:
> On Dec 9, 8:30=A0am, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:> E=
veryone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
> I have often defended Skillz and I don't use a killfile. However,
> welching in this newsgroup cannot be tolerated. So I will not
> communicate with him while he is under the ban.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

I also don't use a kilfile, but I will not communicate with him while
he is under the ban.


  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:52:47
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 6:48=A0am, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
>
> > =A0However,
> > welching in this newsgroup cannot be tolerated. So I will not
> > communicate with him while he is under the ban.
>
> I too will join in the ban, and Skillz will NOT be allowed to read my pos=
ts.
>
Will you be able to block him if he reads them under an assumed
identity?

- Bob T.

> -PP



  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:48:02
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message

> However,
> welching in this newsgroup cannot be tolerated. So I will not
> communicate with him while he is under the ban.


I too will join in the ban, and Skillz will NOT be allowed to read my posts.

-PP





   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 18:08:36
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:_yv%k.9105$x%.836@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
>
>> However,
>> welching in this newsgroup cannot be tolerated. So I will not
>> communicate with him while he is under the ban.
>
>
> I too will join in the ban, and Skillz will NOT be allowed to read my
> posts.
>
> -PP



I think we need a decision by the floor. Where is Welchy the Welcher?




   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 07:02:57
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
> I too will join in the ban, and Skillz will NOT be allowed to read my posts.
>
> -PP

What posts?

Fucking slacker!

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

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




 
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:04:26
From: bgadams
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9 2008 9:30 AM, FellKnight wrote:

> Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

Done.

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




 
Date: 09 Dec 2008 05:37:49
From:
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 5:30=A0pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. =A0Be Proud. =A0Be Considerate!
>
> --------=A0
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com

Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.


  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 08:39:22
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10, 8:37=A0am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net > wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0eeb5889-4848-43ad-9c76-385a249e4eb1@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether state bans
> >on same sex marriage are constitutional.
>
> It doesn't decide the issue, but I'm not so sure that you can say it has
> nothing to do with the state ban question.

I am sure.


William Coleman (ramashiva)




   
Date: 11 Dec 2008 14:01:03
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:e377969b-f8f1-4c89-a351-ccf7903b3eea@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 10, 8:37 am, "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net > wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0eeb5889-4848-43ad-9c76-385a249e4eb1@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether state bans
> >on same sex marriage are constitutional.
>
> It doesn't decide the issue, but I'm not so sure that you can say it has
> nothing to do with the state ban question.

I am sure.
***
You're surely a moron.

Retards like you were 'sure' SbE would stand forever.
Retards like you were 'sure' mixed race marriage would never be allowed in
Virginia.

Retards like you seem not to see the truth often.





  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 07:16:44
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10, 6:56=A0am, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:00a5258a-e23a-444f-a158-
>
> > Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
> > I suggest you research the issue.
>
> Is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to make a bigger fool out of themselves th=
an
> Beldin already has?

Yes. With Bell Dingbat, all things are possible. There is no limit
to the enormity of his foolishness. Continue reading the thread, and
you will see that Bell Dingbat dug himself into a deeper and deeper
hole. At the appropriate moment, I shoveled all the dirt back into
the hole. He is buried on this issue, although he will never admit
it.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 15:39:49
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:cc264f4e-4200-4809-a4ce-2adbabd47b66@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 10, 6:56 am, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:00a5258a-e23a-444f-a158-
>
> > Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
> > I suggest you research the issue.
>
> Is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to make a bigger fool out of themselves
> than
> Beldin already has?

Yes. With Bell Dingbat, all things are possible. There is no limit
to the enormity of his foolishness. Continue reading the thread, and
you will see that Bell Dingbat dug himself into a deeper and deeper
hole. At the appropriate moment, I shoveled all the dirt back into
the hole. He is buried on this issue, although he will never admit
it.


***
Willie, do you have Paul's dick in your ass as you type?

You buried yourself on this.

Money talks, and your bullshit runs away.




  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 06:16:09
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10, 5:56=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:

> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> I have twice given you a chance to dispute the following statements,
> and you have not. =A0But you will not concede that the statements are
> correct. =A0I will give you one more chance.

Once again, you snip the statements which have exploded all your
arguments about same sex marriage. I will repeat them once more --

It has been a settled matter of federal constitutional law for 36
years that --

Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
Constituion.

> They are not correct; nothing is settled,

Oh, good. You finally committed to saying the statements are not
correct. Now I get to give my link that shows that you are full of
shit and do not know what you are talking about. Unlike you, I deal
in facts, not opinions. The following are facts --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Baker v. Nelson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was
a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law
limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did
not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed,
and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed
the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That
dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a
decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the
controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the
issue of same-sex marriage.

Facts

On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists,
Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied to Gerald R.
Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County District Court in
Minneapolis, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on the
sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell
then sued Nelson, contending that Minnesota law permitted same-sex
marriages, and arguing against Nelson's interpretation that it did not
violate their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not
required to issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and
specifically directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal,
the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and
specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-
sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution".

Later that year, the couple applied for and were awarded a marriage
license by the Blue Earth County Commissioner in Mankato, Minnesota.
Because of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the license was
deemed invalid. The couple still claims it is valid to this day, and
attempted to file a joint tax return in 2004. After the IRS rejected
the joint return, McConnell filed an action in Federal District Court,
seeking a federal income tax refund in the amount of $793.28 and a
declaration that he is "a full citizen who is lawfully married and, by
that fact, entitled to be treated the same as every other married
Minnesotan, similarly situated". McConnell's action was rejected by
the Court.[1]


Opinion of the court

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)=97in which the Court ruled that
a statute prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional=97was
not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court
acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state
restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in
a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital
restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental
difference in sex".


Review by the United States Supreme Court

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and
McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial
federal question."

Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal
courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a
question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt
reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of
jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower
Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way
inconsistent with binding precedent. "[Summary decisions] prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v.
Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme
Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. "[L]ower courts
are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the
Court informs [them] that [they] are not". Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d
537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States
Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a
State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the
United States Constitution.


Precedential Value of Baker v. Nelson

Numerous courts have recognized the precedential value of the United
States Supreme Court's summary decision in 1972. These Courts have
specifically stated that Baker is the controlling case as it relates
to same-sex marriage as it pertains to the United States Constitution.


Lockyer v. San Francisco

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the
precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion
in Lockyer v. San Francisco:

"[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court,
binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law
restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the
federal Constitution=92s guarantees of equal protection and due process
of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws
preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate
the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the
decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal
law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former =A7 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as
amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal
=93for want of substantial federal question.=94 (Baker v. Nelson (1972)
409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a
dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal
question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that
the lower court=92s decision on the issues of federal law was correct.
(Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975)
422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind =93prevent lower
courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions.=94 (Mandel v.
Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court=92s summary decision in
Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public
officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring
marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection
or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. The
binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the
high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at
p. 344.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect
of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling
that decision or through =93 =91doctrinal developments=92 =94 that are
necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The
United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain
doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that
decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise,
which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal
constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex
couples the right to marry." Lockyer V San Francisco (Kennard, J.
Concurring and Dissenting)


Wilson v. Ake

Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v.
Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two
Florida women, married the previous summer in Massachusetts, sued
Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to
recognize their marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States
Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the
U.S. Supreme Court's Summary disposition in Baker was binding on the
district court=97which meant that the District Court was required to
uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional.


Morrison v. Sadler

The Indiana Court of Appeals noted the precedential value of Baker in
an opinion upholding Indiana's Marriage Laws:

"In Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), the Minnesota
Supreme Court held that a ban on same-sex marriages did not violate
the Fourteenth Amendment. In so holding, the court rejected the same-
sex couple plaintiffs=92 principal argument that Loving v. Virginia, 388
U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967), required that they be issued a marriage
license. The court stated that Loving, which held bans on interracial
marriages violated the Fourteenth Amendment, was decided solely on the
grounds of the patent racial discrimination of such statutes. Baker,
191 N.W.2d at 187. It also stated, =93in commonsense and in a
constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital
restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental
difference in sex.=94 Id. The couple appealed to the United States
Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal without opinion =93for want of
a substantial federal question.=94 Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.
Ct. 37 (1972). Under procedural rules in effect at the time, the
Plaintiffs do not contest that, unlike a denial of certiorari, such a
dismissal represented a decision by the Supreme Court on the merits
that the constitutional challenge presented was insubstantial, and
which decision is binding on lower courts. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422
U.S. 332, 344, 95 S. Ct. 2281, 2289 (1975). Thus, the Supreme Court,
five years after it decided Loving, determined that that case did not
support an argument by same-sex couples that precluding them from
marrying violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In light of this
precedent, the Plaintiffs have not made a Fourteenth Amendment
argument in this case." Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005)


In re Kandu

By contrast with Wilson, The Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Washington in In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004),
ruled that because summary decisions such as that of the Supreme Court
in Baker are to be narrowly construed and limited to the facts, it did
not apply to a challenge to DOMA. The court instead believed Baker to
only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a
state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state
law. It is of note however, that a bankruptcy Court is not an Article
III Court, and so can not make judicial determination.


Hernandez v Robles

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division also noted the
precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the controlling
opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection claims on this
issue.

Plaintiffs' equal protection claim is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court's summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct.
37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme
Court considered a broad-based federal constitutional challenge to a
statute which, as interpreted by the trial court and the state supreme
court, did not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971). In that case, plaintiffs argued,
inter alia, that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples
discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause. Id. at 186 (noting plaintiffs' argument that "restricting
marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and
invidiously discriminatory"). The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected
this argument along with plaintiffs' other claims. Id. at 187.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same federal
constitutional claims. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for
want of a substantial federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810.
Under well-established precedent, the dismissal of the appeal in Baker
for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a holding that
the challenge was considered by the Court and was rejected as
insubstantial. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 343-45, 95 S.Ct.
2281, 2289, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 235 (1975). The dismissal of the appeal is
an adjudication on the merits of the federal constitutional claims
raised, including due process and equal protection, which lower courts
are bound to follow... Id. The summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson
controls the disposition of the state equal protection claim brought
herein. Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 (Catterson, J.,
concurring).


Citizens For Equal Protection v Bruning

In an opinion upholding Nebraska's Marriage Amendment, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit mentioned Baker v
Nelson and the authority of States on Marriage Law.

"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution. Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), when
faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex
couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed =93for want of a
substantial federal question.=94 (Emphasis added.) There is good reason
for this restraint. As Judge Posner has observed: This is not to say
that courts should refuse to recognize a constitutional right merely
because to do so would make them unpopular. Constitutional rights are,
after all, rights against the democratic majority. But public opinion
is not irrelevant to the task of deciding whether a constitutional
right exists. . . . If it is truly a new right, as a right to same-sex
marriage would be . . . . [judges] will have to go beyond the
technical legal materials of decision and consider moral, political,
empirical, prudential, and institutional issues, including the public
acceptability of a decision recognizing the new right. Richard A.
Posner, Should There Be Homosexual Marriage? And If So, Who Should
Decide?, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1578, 1585 (1997). As we have explained,
Appellees=92 attempt to isolate =A7 29 from laws prohibiting same-sex
marriage because it is a state constitutional amendment fails. If
there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that is, if a
statutory prohibition satisfies rational-basis review, then =A7 29
likewise survives rational-basis review. We hold that =A7 29 and other
laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to
heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state
interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United
States." Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th
Cir. 2006)


Hernandez v Robles

Upon appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (The Supreme Court in NY
State), the State Supreme Court also recognized the controlling nature
of Baker, as to the Federal Constitution.

Four years after Loving, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld
Minnesota's marriage laws in the face of a challenge brought by same-
sex couples (Baker v Nelson, 291 Minn 310 [1971], app dismissed 409 US
810 [1972]). The Court rejected the argument that the Federal Due
Process Clause encompassed a right to marry that extended to same-sex
couples, noting that in Loving and its other privacy cases the U.S.
Supreme Court had recognized that "[t]he institution of marriage as a
union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing
of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis" (id. at
312). The U.S. Supreme Court summarily dismissed the appeal "for want
of a substantial federal question" (409 US 810 [1972]). Under Supreme
Court decisional law, as far as lower courts are concerned, "summary
dismissals are . . . to be taken as rulings on the merits . . . in the
sense that they rejected the specific challenges presented in the
statement of jurisdiction and left undisturbed the judgment appealed
from" (Washington v Confed. Bands & Tribes of Yakim Indian Nation, 439
US 463, 477 n 20 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]
[1979]) and "lower courts are bound by summary decisions . . . until
such time as the [Supreme] Court informs them that they are
not" (Hicks v Miranda, 422 US 332, 344-345 [1975] [internal quotation
marks and citations omitted]). Thus, with respect to the Federal Due
Process Clause, we must presume that Loving did not expand the
fundamental right to marry in the manner suggested by plaintiffs in
the cases before us.


Anderson v King County

Justices Johnson and Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court noted the
precedential value of Baker in their opinion in Anderson v King
County:

"The United States Supreme Court has directly rejected the argument
that a fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex unions. In Baker
v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), appeal dismissed, 409
U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1972), the Supreme Court
dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question an appeal of a
Minnesota State Supreme Court decision that rejected the claim made
here that "the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties
is a fundamental right of all persons." Baker, 291 Minn. at 312-15.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and held the state's marriage
statute did not violate the due process clause or the equal protection
clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Thus, the same-sex
union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous as to merit
dismissal without further argument by the Supreme Court. A similar
result is required today... Courts have specifically held that Baker
is binding precedent in challenges to state marriage statutes. See,
e.g., Sadler, 821 N.E.2d at 19 (describing Baker as 'binding United
States Supreme Court precedent indicating state bans on same-sex
marriage do not violate the United States Constitution'). See also,
e.g., Hernandez v. Robles, 2006 N.Y. slip op. 5239, at *15 n.4, 2006
N.Y. LEXIS 1836, at *36 n.4 (Ct. App. July 6, 2006) (Graffeo, J.,
concurring)." Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006)
(JOHNSON, J. Concurring.)

I really am done with you now in this thread. You can trot out all
the hysterical, irrational rants you want. Nothing you can say will
change the validity of the FACTS I have cited.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 15:45:36
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:66ad27d8-061d-4698-887d-464dfb531b04@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 10, 5:56 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:

> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> I have twice given you a chance to dispute the following statements,
> and you have not. But you will not concede that the statements are
> correct. I will give you one more chance.

Once again, you snip the statements which have exploded all your
arguments about same sex marriage. I will repeat them once more --
***
Shithead, why do you keep reposting the irrelevent?


> They are not correct; nothing is settled,

Oh, good. You finally committed to saying the statements are not
correct. Now I get to give my link that shows that you are full of
shit and do not know what you are talking about. Unlike you, I deal
in facts, not opinions. The following are facts --

***
No, shit for brains.
You post bigoted cites that will be overturned.
Like SbE was overturned.
Like the interracial marriage bans being constitutional was overturned.
CHRIST alFUCKINGmighty, shithead, how fucked in the head are you to even
ATTEMPT to use bigotry as precident unalterable?
***
I really am done with you now in this thread. You can trot out all
the hysterical, irrational rants you want. Nothing you can say will
change the validity of the FACTS I have cited.
***
Shithead, the FACT is a bigoted and WRONG opinion is the current precident.
And the fact is ALL PREVIOUS bigoted and WRONG precidents were eventually
overturned. This one will be too. And I put an offer to back that up with
CASH, in the next 20 years.
You, either being smarter than you let on, and knowing you'd lose, or merely
being a chickenshit, have run away screaming from it.

Go let Paulie fuck your ass some more.




  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 05:37:57
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10, 5:10=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> Nice snip of my statements which I asked you if you disputed.
> ***
> I fully dispute that anything is settled.

When a precedent has stood for 36 years and has not been seriously
challenged, yes it is settled. Even the California Supreme Court
acknowledges that this is settled federal constitutional law.

> As obvious precidence, I cite prior discussion on SbE.
>
> Your stupidity makes me have to repeat myself.
>
> ***
>
> > They're irrelevent.
>
> That is your uninformed opinion.
>
> ***
> No, it's fact.

Every time you assert that your uniformed opinion is fact, you just
provide further evidence that you are hopelessly confused about the
difference between your opinion and objective facts.

> Historical evidence is hard for a shithead like you to counter.
> ***
>
> > Since you're a shithead, spouting off bad precident is all you got.
>
> It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad. =A0The
> precedent has stood for 36 years, and the Supreme Court has never
> given any indication to lower courts that they have any interest in
> revisiting the issue.
> ***
> Shithead, sure they have.
> They ruled last year that bans on gay sex are unconstitutional.

Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether state bans
on same sex marriage are constitutional.

> Go reread that thread, fucknuts.
> You might get a clue by accident.
> ***
>
> > If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am done
> > with you in this thread. I have no interest in debating a howling
> > satanic demon. Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
> > your hysterical, irrational rants.
>
> > ***
> > Willie, the irrational rants are yours.
> > The stupidity of your post is laughable.
>
> > Go have someone with a brain explain to you that bigotry in rulings is
> > corrected, and bad precident reversed, all throughout our history.
>
> It is your uninformed opinion that the ruling in question was
> bigoted. =A0It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad.
> ***
> Wrong on both counts.
> It is fundamentally fact that the ruling is bigoted.

No, it is not fact. It is your uninformed opinion. Again, you are
hopelessly confused about the difference between your opinion and
objective fact.

> Just as all the bullshit prior to Loving v Virginia was.
> Ditto the ruling.
>
> Now shit for brains, I offered you a bet, and,. in your usual cowardice, =
you
> snipped it and hid.

I am not a coward. I am ten times the man you are or ever will be. I
snipped your offer of a bet because I have no interest in it.

> If you're too scared to take it,

I am not scared. I have no interest in making a bet which I will have
to wait 20 years to win. There is a difference between "scared" and
"not interested".

> then it's OBVIOUS you know I'm right,

No, it's not obvious. Your conclusion does not follow.

I have twice given you a chance to dispute the following statements,
and you have not. But you will not concede that the statements are
correct. I will give you one more chance.

Since you have not contested the following statements, I assume you
concede they are correct --

It has been a settled matter of federal constitutional law for 36
years that --

Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
Constitution.

If you dispute the accuracy of these statements, I will be happy to
give you an authoritative reference showing that you are 100% wrong,
as usual.

If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am done
with you in this thread. I have no interest in debating a howling
satanic demon. Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
your hysterical, irrational rants.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 10:37:13
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:0eeb5889-4848-43ad-9c76-385a249e4eb1@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...



>Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether state bans
>on same sex marriage are constitutional.


It doesn't decide the issue, but I'm not so sure that you can say it has
nothing to do with the state ban question.




   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 13:56:36
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:0eeb5889-4848-43ad-9c76-385a249e4eb1@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 10, 5:10 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> Nice snip of my statements which I asked you if you disputed.
> ***
> I fully dispute that anything is settled.

When a precedent has stood for 36 years and has not been seriously
challenged, yes it is settled. Even the California Supreme Court
acknowledges that this is settled federal constitutional law.
***
Patently false, shithead.
SbE stood for a lot longer and was STRUCK DOWN.
What a DUMB fuck you are.
I tell you my play, I SHOW you my hand, and you STILL bet into me.
***

> As obvious precidence, I cite prior discussion on SbE.
>
> Your stupidity makes me have to repeat myself.
>
> ***
>
> > They're irrelevent.
>
> That is your uninformed opinion.
>
> ***
> No, it's fact.

Every time you assert that your uniformed opinion is fact, you just
provide further evidence that you are hopelessly confused about the
difference between your opinion and objective facts.
***
No, assgapper.
It's a fact. It's demonstrated historically that the court corrects bigotry
in their rulings.
Even when shitheads like you claim "it's settled", it ain't.

***

> Historical evidence is hard for a shithead like you to counter.
> ***
>
> > Since you're a shithead, spouting off bad precident is all you got.
>
> It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad. The
> precedent has stood for 36 years, and the Supreme Court has never
> given any indication to lower courts that they have any interest in
> revisiting the issue.
> ***
> Shithead, sure they have.
> They ruled last year that bans on gay sex are unconstitutional.

Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether state bans
on same sex marriage are constitutional.
***
Goddamned, retard.
They had previously ruled that such bans WERE constitutional.
AGAIN, fuckface, they admitted that the precident was flawed, and it failed
because it was based on bigotry, not reason.
Like YOUR position... grab your ankles now.

***


> Go reread that thread, fucknuts.
> You might get a clue by accident.
> ***
>
> > If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am done
> > with you in this thread. I have no interest in debating a howling
> > satanic demon. Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
> > your hysterical, irrational rants.
>
> > ***
> > Willie, the irrational rants are yours.
> > The stupidity of your post is laughable.
>
> > Go have someone with a brain explain to you that bigotry in rulings is
> > corrected, and bad precident reversed, all throughout our history.
>
> It is your uninformed opinion that the ruling in question was
> bigoted. It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad.
> ***
> Wrong on both counts.
> It is fundamentally fact that the ruling is bigoted.

No, it is not fact. It is your uninformed opinion. Again, you are
hopelessly confused about the difference between your opinion and
objective fact.
***
Shit for brains, is the ruling clearly and undisputedly disadvantaging one
class of people? YES.
THAT'S the test for 'bigotry'. It passes it with flying colors.
It's a fact. Take paul's dick out of your ass and think.
***


> Just as all the bullshit prior to Loving v Virginia was.
> Ditto the ruling.
>
> Now shit for brains, I offered you a bet, and,. in your usual cowardice,
> you
> snipped it and hid.

I am not a coward. I am ten times the man you are or ever will be. I
snipped your offer of a bet because I have no interest in it.
***
You're a chickenshit.
You're 1 1/00'th the man I am, and you probably couldn't give a woman a
climax without help from battery operated devices.


> If you're too scared to take it,

I am not scared. I have no interest in making a bet which I will have
to wait 20 years to win. There is a difference between "scared" and
"not interested".
***
Yeah, being a chickenshit, and ADMITTING being a chickenshit.
***

> then it's OBVIOUS you know I'm right,

No, it's not obvious. Your conclusion does not follow.
***
Put up or shut up, fuck nut.
***


I have twice given you a chance to dispute the following statements,
and you have not. But you will not concede that the statements are
correct. I will give you one more chance.
***
They are not correct; nothing is settled, based on all previous rulings with
obvious bigotry issues being reversed.

And said reversal is coming in the relatively near future.

And, shithead, I'm willing to back that prediction up with cash.

All you have is your moronic bluster.




  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 04:25:41
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10, 3:54=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:

<snip hysterical, irrational rant >

> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

Nice snip of my statements which I asked you if you disputed.

> They're irrelevent.

That is your uninformed opinion.

> Since you're a shithead, spouting off bad precident is all you got.

It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad. The
precedent has stood for 36 years, and the Supreme Court has never
given any indication to lower courts that they have any interest in
revisiting the issue.

> If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am done
> with you in this thread. =A0I have no interest in debating a howling
> satanic demon. =A0Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
> your hysterical, irrational rants.
>
> ***
> Willie, the irrational rants are yours.
> The stupidity of your post is laughable.
>
> Go have someone with a brain explain to you that bigotry in rulings is
> corrected, and bad precident reversed, all throughout our history.

It is your uninformed opinion that the ruling in question was
bigoted. It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad.

Since you have not contested the following statements, I assume you
concede they are correct --

It has been a settled matter of federal constitutional law for 36
years that --

Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
Constituion.

If you dispute the accuracy of these statements, I will be happy to
give you an authoritative reference showing that you are 100% wrong,
as usual.

If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am
done
with you in this thread. I have no interest in debating a howling
satanic demon. Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
your hysterical, irrational rants.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 06:57:24
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
> It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad. The
> precedent has stood for 36 years, and the Supreme Court has never
> given any indication to lower courts that they have any interest in
> revisiting the issue.

Public opinion is what has changed. For 36 years bigots ruled. Now there
is a potential windfall to be made in some market by some bigot somewhere
who changed his tune and now things are being revisited.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

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




   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 13:10:24
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:76edf991-2969-4bd8-8165-11e430a621ca@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 10, 3:54 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:

<snip hysterical, irrational rant >
***
You snipped a lot more than your own idiotic bullshit.
You snipped my brilliance, which as usual, cocklicker, you cannot counter.

***

> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

Nice snip of my statements which I asked you if you disputed.
***
I fully dispute that anything is settled.

As obvious precidence, I cite prior discussion on SbE.

Your stupidity makes me have to repeat myself.

***


> They're irrelevent.

That is your uninformed opinion.

***
No, it's fact.
Historical evidence is hard for a shithead like you to counter.
***

> Since you're a shithead, spouting off bad precident is all you got.

It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad. The
precedent has stood for 36 years, and the Supreme Court has never
given any indication to lower courts that they have any interest in
revisiting the issue.
***
Shithead, sure they have.
They ruled last year that bans on gay sex are unconstitutional.
Go reread that thread, fucknuts.
You might get a clue by accident.
***

> If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am done
> with you in this thread. I have no interest in debating a howling
> satanic demon. Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
> your hysterical, irrational rants.
>
> ***
> Willie, the irrational rants are yours.
> The stupidity of your post is laughable.
>
> Go have someone with a brain explain to you that bigotry in rulings is
> corrected, and bad precident reversed, all throughout our history.

It is your uninformed opinion that the ruling in question was
bigoted. It is your uninformed opinion that the precedent is bad.
***
Wrong on both counts.
It is fundamentally fact that the ruling is bigoted.
Just as all the bullshit prior to Loving v Virginia was.
Ditto the ruling.

Now shit for brains, I offered you a bet, and,. in your usual cowardice, you
snipped it and hid.

If you're too scared to take it, then it's OBVIOUS you know I'm right, and
you're just waving your dick around for one last harrah before it gets
shoved up your ass.





  
Date: 10 Dec 2008 03:19:55
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 11:25=A0pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:00a5258a-e23a-444f-a158-9b025392d5b7@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 9, 7:10 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Whether it affects me personally is completely irrelevant to the issue
> > of whether same sex marriage is moral. This is a complete red herring
> > frequently trotted out by weak thinkers like you.
>
> > ***
> > Coming from the weakest thinker here, that's funny.
>
> Despite what you think, insults are not arguments.
> ***
> How so?
> You made a comment about weak thinkers. I merely pointed out your own
> weakness in the area.

No, you insulted me based on your uninformed opinion.

> > Retards like you thought interracial marriage was 'immoral'.
>
> First of all, I am not a retard. =A0Second of all, I never thought
> interracial marriage was immoral.
> ***
> A) Yeah, you are.
> B) retards LIKE you did.
> ***
>
> > Retards like you were bigoted idiots.
>
> We have already established that you are the bigoted idiot here.
> ***
> Nope.
> I have no prejudice against anything but abject stupidity.

As I have explained to you, you are intolerant of the beliefs and
opinions of others. That makes you a bigot.

> Yeah, that';s why I beat you up.

Reality check. You have never beaten me up. You have been crushed
everytime you have tried to argue with me about anything.

> > The issue isn't one of "moral".
>
> It is for many who oppose legalizing same sex marriage.
> ***
> No, it isn't, shithead.

Listen, numbnuts. This is the core of your problem. You have your
opinion. Other people have their opinions. Your opinion is no more
valid than anyone elses, yet you proceed on the assumption that your
opinion is always right, and anyone who disagrees with you is a
retarded bigot. That makes you retarded and a bigot.

> The law and marraige have nothing to do with your moral code.

It most certainly does. You don't get to decide what is relevant to
my moral code, nor anyone else's moral code.

> > The issue is one of "legal fairness".
>
> That is your uninformed opinion. =A0You have a bad habit of confusing
> your opinions with objective reality.
> ***
> No, that's the fact, shithead.

NO IT IS NOT A FACT. IT IS YOUR OPINION.

NO IT IS NOT A FACT. IT IS YOUR OPINION.

NO IT IS NOT A FACT. IT IS YOUR OPINION.

I wrote that three times in caps because you simply cannot get it
through your head, that, not only is your opinion not the same thing
as objective fact, your opinions are almost always exactly the
opposite of objective fact.

> You have no idea what reality is.

Please. My awareness of reality exceeds yours by orders of magnitude.

> > Retards like you thought slavery was moral. It surely wasn't legally fa=
ir
> > to the slaves.
>
> I never thought slavery was moral.
>
> ***
> retards LIKE you. Christ, Willie, we know you failed math , history, and
> poli-sci.

No, you don't know that. I have over 400 units of college credits
with close to a straight A average, plus numerous academic honors.

> Did you fail English too?

I get the point, but you are trying to associate me with people who
thought slavery was moral. I just wanted to make clear that I do not
agree with those people and have nothing to do with them.

> > Same sex marraige is REQUIRED for marriage to be legally fair,
>
> Of course that is complete nonsense. =A0It has been a settled matter of
> federal constitutional law for 36 years that --

> No, you incredible shit for brains, the 14'th amendment is quite clear.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying before I crush you.
Are you saying that state prohibitions on same sex marriage violate
the Fourteenth Amendment?

> Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.
>
> ***
> Yes, shit for brains, it does.

No it doesn't. Just as I expected, you are so supremely arrogant, you
just assume that your uninformed opinion is correct, without bothering
to research the matter.

Unlike you, when I make a flat statement of fact like the above, I am
ready to back up my statement with authoritative references.

> State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
> Amendment.
>
> State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
> Constituion.
>
> Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
> I suggest you research the issue.
>
> ***
> Shit for brains retard, I suggest you go reread the Loving decision.
> Pay particular attention, moronic imbecile,

Let's see. According to you, I am a moron, an imbecile, a retard, an
idiot, etc. You obviously have a deep need to continually insult my
intelligence. Deep down inside you realize that I am MUCH more
intellgent than you are.

> to the tap-dancing bullshit done
> by the State Supreme court of VA.
>
> Then, cocklicker,

Again with the homosexual insults. You have suggested several times
recently that I am a homosexual. What's up with that?

> I suggest you read everything written about the phrase
> "Separate but equal" and what the EVENTUAL correct ruling was.

Again, it has been a settled matter of federal constitutional law for
36 years that Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex
marriages. I can back this up with authoritative references.

> Here's a hint, shit for brains :
> The repeal of "separate but equal" laws was a key focus of the civil righ=
ts
> movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 4=
83
> (1954), attorneys for the NAACP referred to the phrase "equal but separat=
e"
> used in Plessy v. Ferguson as a custom de jure racial segregation enacted
> into law. The NAACP, led by the soon-to-be first black Supreme Court Just=
ice
> Thurgood Marshall, was successful in challenging the constitutional
> viability of the separate but equal doctrine, and the court voted to
> overturn sixty years of law that had developed under Plessy.

You keep bringing up slavery, segregation, and laws against
interracial marriage. None of these have anything to do with same sex
marriage.

> Let'a try this in simple language, so even a shithead like you gets it.
> The court is made up of human beings, with idiotic prejudices, some almos=
t
> as retarded as the ones you espouse.
> This means they will (more than occasionally) fuck up the ruling on
> something simple and obvious, in the case of prejudice being evaluated..
> They fuck up because the judges are influenced by their own bias.
>
> They eventually fix the problem... or another set of judges LESS prejudic=
ed
> do.
>
> Willie, I understand you're a fucking moron.

No, you don't understand that. My IQ exceeds your claimed IQ of 136
by MANY standard deviations.

> DON'T think the fact that some
> judges just barely over racial prejudice COULDN'T get over sexual
> orientation prejudice changes the logic of the constitution.

Oh, so now you are arguing that what is settled federal constitutional
law for 36 years is incorrect, and you understand the Constitution
better than the Justices of the Supreme Court? This reminds me of the
Social Security debate, where, after I had repeatedly stomped you into
the ground, you were reduced to claiming that you knew more about
future life expectancies than the Social Security actuaries.

You are on this incredible, unjustified ego trip that you know more
about everything than anyone else. When you start claiming that your
opinion in a subject area in which you have no expertise trumps the
opinions of the leading experts in the world in that subject area, you
just reveal what a pathetic fool you are. You do not know more about
future life expectancies than the Social Security actuaries. You do
not know more about the Constitution and its interpretation than the
Justices of the Supreme Court.

> > and therefore constitutional
>
> I am not claiming that legalizing same sex marriage is
> unconstitutional.
> ***
> Shithead, failing to allow it is unconstitutional.

That is patently false, since it has been a settled matter of federal
constitutional law for 36 years that state prohibitions of same sex
marriage ARE constitutional.

Your ignorant, uninformed opinion has no standing in the matter.

Now, there is only one thing that I have any interest in discussing
with you further. Do you contest that the following statements I
previously made are accurate?

It has been a settled matter of federal constitutional law for 36
years that --

Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
Constituion.

If you dispute the accuracy of these statements, I will be happy to
give you an authoritative reference showing that you are 100% wrong,
as usual.

If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am done
with you in this thread. I have no interest in debating a howling
satanic demon. Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
your hysterical, irrational rants.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 11:54:08
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:88754ea6-24c6-4ccd-bb68-8de2d9ce6371@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 11:25 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:00a5258a-e23a-444f-a158-9b025392d5b7@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 9, 7:10 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Whether it affects me personally is completely irrelevant to the issue
> > of whether same sex marriage is moral. This is a complete red herring
> > frequently trotted out by weak thinkers like you.
>
> > ***
> > Coming from the weakest thinker here, that's funny.
>
> Despite what you think, insults are not arguments.
> ***
> How so?
> You made a comment about weak thinkers. I merely pointed out your own
> weakness in the area.

No, you insulted me based on your uninformed opinion.
***
No, I stated an observation based on the stupidity of your posts.

***

> > Retards like you thought interracial marriage was 'immoral'.
>
> First of all, I am not a retard. Second of all, I never thought
> interracial marriage was immoral.
> ***
> A) Yeah, you are.
> B) retards LIKE you did.
> ***
>
> > Retards like you were bigoted idiots.
>
> We have already established that you are the bigoted idiot here.
> ***
> Nope.
> I have no prejudice against anything but abject stupidity.

As I have explained to you, you are intolerant of the beliefs and
opinions of others. That makes you a bigot.
***
As you have gotten wrong before, this has nothing to do with opinion.

***

> Yeah, that';s why I beat you up.

Reality check. You have never beaten me up. You have been crushed
everytime you have tried to argue with me about anything.

***
Shithead,
You bleed after every post.
I'd say I raped your ass, but you'd probably like it.

***


> > The issue isn't one of "moral".
>
> It is for many who oppose legalizing same sex marriage.
> ***
> No, it isn't, shithead.

Listen, numbnuts. This is the core of your problem. You have your
opinion. Other people have their opinions. Your opinion is no more
valid than anyone elses, yet you proceed on the assumption that your
opinion is always right, and anyone who disagrees with you is a
retarded bigot. That makes you retarded and a bigot.

***
No, fucknit.

Civil rights are not an opinion.
They're a fact. For everyone or noone.

Now I REALIZE you're a pathetic piece of shit, used to getting his own way.
Civil rights don't work that way, long term.
They occasionally start that way, due to prejudice. They don't end that way.
Nor should they.
***
> The law and marraige have nothing to do with your moral code.

It most certainly does. You don't get to decide what is relevant to
my moral code, nor anyone else's moral code.
***
Go have someone smarter than you (like nearly anyone) explain the first
amendment to you.
***

> > The issue is one of "legal fairness".
>
> That is your uninformed opinion. You have a bad habit of confusing
> your opinions with objective reality.
> ***
> No, that's the fact, shithead.

NO IT IS NOT A FACT. IT IS YOUR OPINION.
***
Shithead, it's a fact.
Really, grow a fucking brain.

***

NO IT IS NOT A FACT. IT IS YOUR OPINION.

NO IT IS NOT A FACT. IT IS YOUR OPINION.

I wrote that three times in caps because you simply cannot get it
through your head, that, not only is your opinion not the same thing
as objective fact, your opinions are almost always exactly the
opposite of objective fact.

> You have no idea what reality is.

Please. My awareness of reality exceeds yours by orders of magnitude.

***
Put down the crackpipe.
***
> > Retards like you thought slavery was moral. It surely wasn't legally
> > fair
> > to the slaves.
>
> I never thought slavery was moral.
>
> ***
> retards LIKE you. Christ, Willie, we know you failed math , history, and
> poli-sci.

No, you don't know that. I have over 400 units of college credits
with close to a straight A average, plus numerous academic honors.
***
In the alternate reality of your mind, perhaps.

Not in the real world.
***


> Did you fail English too?

I get the point, but you are trying to associate me with people who
thought slavery was moral. I just wanted to make clear that I do not
agree with those people and have nothing to do with them.
***
But pissing on fags is fine with you.
Gotcha.

***


> > Same sex marraige is REQUIRED for marriage to be legally fair,
>
> Of course that is complete nonsense. It has been a settled matter of
> federal constitutional law for 36 years that --

> No, you incredible shit for brains, the 14'th amendment is quite clear.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying before I crush you.
Are you saying that state prohibitions on same sex marriage violate
the Fourteenth Amendment?
***
Yep. In the same manner those against interracial marriage did.

And they did EVEN when the court hadn't said so yet.

You fucking imbecile.

***


> Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.
>
> ***
> Yes, shit for brains, it does.

No it doesn't. Just as I expected, you are so supremely arrogant, you
just assume that your uninformed opinion is correct, without bothering
to research the matter.
***
Shithead, you must have read the rest of the post.

You couldn't scroll back up and delete this obvious stupidity?

***



Unlike you, when I make a flat statement of fact like the above, I am
ready to back up my statement with authoritative references.

***
Ok, go cite all the opinions pre-Loving v Virgina supporting bans on
interracial marriage. That's about the same worth here, idiot boy.

***

> State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
> Amendment.
>
> State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
> Constituion.
>
> Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
> I suggest you research the issue.
>
> ***
> Shit for brains retard, I suggest you go reread the Loving decision.
> Pay particular attention, moronic imbecile,

Let's see. According to you, I am a moron, an imbecile, a retard, an
idiot, etc. You obviously have a deep need to continually insult my
intelligence. Deep down inside you realize that I am MUCH more
intellgent than you are.
***
Fuck, Willie, I think RISKY is more intelligent than you.
TRAVEL may be smarter than you.

***


> to the tap-dancing bullshit done
> by the State Supreme court of VA.
>
> Then, cocklicker,

Again with the homosexual insults. You have suggested several times
recently that I am a homosexual. What's up with that?
***
I've stated any number of times I do not think you're gay.
***



> I suggest you read everything written about the phrase
> "Separate but equal" and what the EVENTUAL correct ruling was.

Again, it has been a settled matter of federal constitutional law for
36 years that Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex
marriages. I can back this up with authoritative references.
***
No, shithead.
It's case history. Wrongly decided case history. Case history that gets
thrown out like the idiocy that justified the interracial marriage bans did.
***


> Here's a hint, shit for brains :
> The repeal of "separate but equal" laws was a key focus of the civil
> rights
> movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
> 483
> (1954), attorneys for the NAACP referred to the phrase "equal but
> separate"
> used in Plessy v. Ferguson as a custom de jure racial segregation enacted
> into law. The NAACP, led by the soon-to-be first black Supreme Court
> Justice
> Thurgood Marshall, was successful in challenging the constitutional
> viability of the separate but equal doctrine, and the court voted to
> overturn sixty years of law that had developed under Plessy.

You keep bringing up slavery, segregation, and laws against
interracial marriage. None of these have anything to do with same sex
marriage.
***
SEE how retarded you are, assjammer?
Of COURSE they do.
This is bigotry. Institutionalized.
As such, it is wrong. And as such, it will be determined as wrong,
eventually.

***
> Let'a try this in simple language, so even a shithead like you gets it.
> The court is made up of human beings, with idiotic prejudices, some almost
> as retarded as the ones you espouse.
> This means they will (more than occasionally) fuck up the ruling on
> something simple and obvious, in the case of prejudice being evaluated..
> They fuck up because the judges are influenced by their own bias.
>
> They eventually fix the problem... or another set of judges LESS
> prejudiced
> do.
>
> Willie, I understand you're a fucking moron.

No, you don't understand that. My IQ exceeds your claimed IQ of 136
by MANY standard deviations.

***
Your IQ is in low single digits
***


> DON'T think the fact that some
> judges just barely over racial prejudice COULDN'T get over sexual
> orientation prejudice changes the logic of the constitution.

Oh, so now you are arguing that what is settled federal constitutional
law for 36 years is incorrect, and you understand the Constitution
better than the Justices of the Supreme Court? This reminds me of the
Social Security debate, where, after I had repeatedly stomped you into
the ground, you were reduced to claiming that you knew more about
future life expectancies than the Social Security actuaries.

***
Asshole, you were crucified in that debate.
And, years later, all kinds of economic pros agree with me and have no idea
why idiots thought SSI was stable.

***

You are on this incredible, unjustified ego trip that you know more
about everything than anyone else.

***
Fuck no!
MOST intelligent people already understand this.

Morons and bigots don't. You, of course, are twice damned.

***
When you start claiming that your
opinion in a subject area in which you have no expertise trumps the
opinions of the leading experts in the world in that subject area, you
just reveal what a pathetic fool you are.

***
Shithead, was SbE wrong?
Yes it WAS, retard.

And people of unbiased intelligence knew it then. And eventually it was
repealed.

Damn, you're eyes are bursting out of your idiot skull, aren't they.


***

You do not know more about
future life expectancies than the Social Security actuaries. You do
not know more about the Constitution and its interpretation than the
Justices of the Supreme Court.
***
Shithead, about 40% of this country knows exactly that the ruling made was
incorrect, and will be eventually fixed.
Bigots like you die off, you see.

***

> > and therefore constitutional
>
> I am not claiming that legalizing same sex marriage is
> unconstitutional.
> ***
> Shithead, failing to allow it is unconstitutional.

That is patently false, since it has been a settled matter of federal
constitutional law for 36 years that state prohibitions of same sex
marriage ARE constitutional.
***
Nope.
But it will take a little more time for the judges to realize it.

***

Your ignorant, uninformed opinion has no standing in the matter.

***
My informed one does, though.

Wanna wager on said ruling coming down in the next 20 years?
***

Now, there is only one thing that I have any interest in discussing
with you further. Do you contest that the following statements I
previously made are accurate?
***
They're irrelevent.
Since you're a shithead, spouting off bad precident is all you got.
***]


If you do not dispute the accuracy of these statements, then I am done
with you in this thread. I have no interest in debating a howling
satanic demon. Nor do I have any interest in further deconstructing
your hysterical, irrational rants.

***
Willie, the irrational rants are yours.
The stupidity of your post is laughable.

Go have someone with a brain explain to you that bigotry in rulings is
corrected, and bad precident reversed, all throughout our history.

I offered you a wager, shithead. Got any balls?
You gonna be alive in 20 years?




    
Date: 10 Dec 2008 06:59:14
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"Beldin the Sorcerer"

>> > and therefore constitutional
>>
>> I am not claiming that legalizing same sex marriage is
>> unconstitutional.
>> ***
>> Shithead, failing to allow it is unconstitutional.
>
> That is patently false, since it has been a settled matter of federal
> constitutional law for 36 years that state prohibitions of same sex
> marriage ARE constitutional.

This is the only part that is even vaguely interesting.

I also get to provide a small correction to the otherwise proper
explanations given by ramashiva.

The "issue" is NOT that states prohibit same sex marriage, it is that they
define marriage in a specific way and that way is quite "constitutional."
If they change their definition, they are free to do that as well.

"Failing to redefine" in way you suggest is a strange, and in my opinion,
unsupported constitutional argument.

You are, of course, free to continue to spout weak constitutional arguments
and I am sure you will.

On the more practical side, I proffer a difficult that came up just last
week. I do not practice family law and I do not know if this particular
difficulty has been presented much (I suspect it has but I do not know the
results).

Man and woman are married for a long time ... two kids in grade school.
Woman has been leaving and returning to the family home on and off for a few
months. She says she wants to leave.

Husband visits a local family lawyer to discuss a possible divorce. Wife
has just quit her job and is likely to want almost all of his meager wages
and the family home. Usually, she will get it, whether it is her "fault" of
not. Husband suspects "another" is the problem ... wants to explore an
immediate divorce. Jurisdiction allows no fault divorce, but wife can get
alimony if no fault. If wife is at fault, she might get child support but
no alimony.

Husband does not want the divorce, but if it is "another," he wants an
immediate divorce ... grounds would be adultery. (This is still a
"constitutional" grounds for divorce.) Desertion might be a grounds, but
wife wants husband to leave the family home.

Private "dicks" are hired and follow wife ... turns out that wife is
spending her nights with another woman. Oops. The usual method of
"proving" adultery is to have indisputable proof that the spouse "spends the
night" alone with an "other sex" person in a unique location (a motel room
or the other person's abode) ... there is a "presumption of adultery."

There has never been any such presumption if two men or two women are having
difficulties with their spouses and have sleepovers. Two women can go on a
shopping trip together for a few days and two men can go hunting or fishing
for a few days and there is no presumption of "adultery."

How would you "judge" this problem? If adultery is having "sexual
relations" with someone not your spouse (and if oral sex is NOT "sexual
relations") then how would you prove adultery?




  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 19:29:03
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 7:10=A0pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:

> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Whether it affects me personally is completely irrelevant to the issue
> of whether same sex marriage is moral. =A0This is a complete red herring
> frequently trotted out by weak thinkers like you.
>
> ***
> Coming from the weakest thinker here, that's funny.

Despite what you think, insults are not arguments.

> Retards like you thought interracial marriage was 'immoral'.

First of all, I am not a retard. Second of all, I never thought
interracial marriage was immoral.

> Retards like you were bigoted idiots.

We have already established that you are the bigoted idiot here.

> The issue isn't one of "moral".

It is for many who oppose legalizing same sex marriage.

> The issue is one of "legal fairness".

That is your uninformed opinion. You have a bad habit of confusing
your opinions with objective reality.

> Retards like you thought slavery was moral. It surely wasn't legally fair=
to
> the slaves.

I never thought slavery was moral.

> Same sex marraige is REQUIRED for marriage to be legally fair,

Of course that is complete nonsense. It has been a settled matter of
federal constitutional law for 36 years that --

Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
Constituion.

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
I suggest you research the issue.

> and therefore constitutional

I am not claiming that legalizing same sex marriage is
unconstitutional.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 06:56:38
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:00a5258a-e23a-444f-a158-

> Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
> I suggest you research the issue.



Is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to make a bigger fool out of themselves than
Beldin already has?





    
Date: 10 Dec 2008 15:40:50
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:zMQ%k.9339$Ei5.6743@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
> "ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:00a5258a-e23a-444f-a158-
>
>> Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
>> I suggest you research the issue.
>
>
>
> Is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to make a bigger fool out of themselves
> than Beldin already has?
>
>
Willie, talking to yourself like this is really bad form.

We all know Paulie is your inflate-a-date.


>




     
Date: 10 Dec 2008 08:07:57
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:6qR%k.894$c35.784@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

> Willie, talking to yourself like this is really bad form.
>
> We all know Paulie is your inflate-a-date.
>

No, what we all know, is that Ramashiva continuously and quite handily
bitch-slaps the ever-loving fuck out of you on this newsgroup. Go ahead and
keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, shithead, and pretty
soon you'll also be making a fool out of yourself in China.

-PP






      
Date: 11 Dec 2008 14:01:47
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"Paul Popinjay" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:YPR%k.9767$c45.627@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:6qR%k.894$c35.784@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>> Willie, talking to yourself like this is really bad form.
>>
>> We all know Paulie is your inflate-a-date.
>>
>
> No, what we all know, is that Ramashiva continuously and quite handily
> bitch-slaps the ever-loving fuck out of you on this newsgroup. Go ahead
> and
> keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, shithead, and pretty
> soon you'll also be making a fool out of yourself in China.
>
> -PP
>
Paulie boy.

Stop being delusional. Go back in the closet until Willie calls for you
again.




      
Date: 10 Dec 2008 18:53:58
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:07:57 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
<ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote:

>"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:6qR%k.894$c35.784@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>> Willie, talking to yourself like this is really bad form.
>>
>> We all know Paulie is your inflate-a-date.
>>
>
>No, what we all know, is that Ramashiva continuously and quite handily
>bitch-slaps the ever-loving fuck out of you on this newsgroup. Go ahead and
>keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, shithead, and pretty
>soon you'll also be making a fool out of yourself in China.
>

Do you suppose that Beldin has enough sense to stop digging even when
he hears voices speaking Cantonese?

I doubt it.
I am looking forward to some posts going 1000 + lines in this thread.



       
Date: 11 Dec 2008 14:03:17
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message
news:0ko0k4dj0f743qgno5b079oi4gl5akuiad@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:07:57 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
> <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:6qR%k.894$c35.784@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>>> Willie, talking to yourself like this is really bad form.
>>>
>>> We all know Paulie is your inflate-a-date.
>>>
>>
>>No, what we all know, is that Ramashiva continuously and quite handily
>>bitch-slaps the ever-loving fuck out of you on this newsgroup. Go ahead
>>and
>>keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, shithead, and pretty
>>soon you'll also be making a fool out of yourself in China.
>>
>
> Do you suppose that Beldin has enough sense to stop digging even when
> he hears voices speaking Cantonese?
>
> I doubt it.
> I am looking forward to some posts going 1000 + lines in this thread.
>
Turbo, I only keep it up when I'm right.

I'll note you bailed on this when I reminded you again of history.

Bet's open to you too.

Or anyone else. 20 year term.

Full agreement to be negotiated in good faith once someone really wants to
back their view up with a few dollars.





    
Date: 10 Dec 2008 07:22:36
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
> Is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to make a bigger fool out of themselves than
> Beldin already has?

Hey PeePee! What is 1000 x .0001?

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 07:25:30
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:00a5258a-e23a-444f-a158-9b025392d5b7@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 7:10 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net >
wrote:

> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Whether it affects me personally is completely irrelevant to the issue
> of whether same sex marriage is moral. This is a complete red herring
> frequently trotted out by weak thinkers like you.
>
> ***
> Coming from the weakest thinker here, that's funny.

Despite what you think, insults are not arguments.
***
How so?
You made a comment about weak thinkers. I merely pointed out your own
weakness in the area.

***

> Retards like you thought interracial marriage was 'immoral'.

First of all, I am not a retard. Second of all, I never thought
interracial marriage was immoral.
***
A) Yeah, you are.
B) retards LIKE you did.
***

> Retards like you were bigoted idiots.

We have already established that you are the bigoted idiot here.
***
Nope.
I have no prejudice against anything but abject stupidity.
Yeah, that';s why I beat you up.

***


> The issue isn't one of "moral".

It is for many who oppose legalizing same sex marriage.
***
No, it isn't, shithead.
The law and marraige have nothing to do with your moral code.

***

> The issue is one of "legal fairness".

That is your uninformed opinion. You have a bad habit of confusing
your opinions with objective reality.
***
No, that's the fact, shithead.
You have no idea what reality is.
***


> Retards like you thought slavery was moral. It surely wasn't legally fair
> to
> the slaves.

I never thought slavery was moral.

***
retards LIKE you. Christ, Willie, we know you failed math , history, and
poli-sci. Did you fail English too?

> Same sex marraige is REQUIRED for marriage to be legally fair,

Of course that is complete nonsense. It has been a settled matter of
federal constitutional law for 36 years that --

***
No, you incredible shit for brains, the 14'th amendment is quite clear.
***


Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage.

***
Yes, shit for brains, it does.
***


State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.

State prohibitions on same sex marriage do not violate the U.S.
Constituion.

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have,
I suggest you research the issue.

***
Shit for brains retard, I suggest you go reread the Loving decision.
Pay particular attention, moronic imbecile, to the tap-dancing bullshit done
by the State Supreme court of VA.

Then, cocklicker, I suggest you read everything written about the phrase
"Separate but equal" and what the EVENTUAL correct ruling was.

Here's a hint, shit for brains :
The repeal of "separate but equal" laws was a key focus of the civil rights
movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
(1954), attorneys for the NAACP referred to the phrase "equal but separate"
used in Plessy v. Ferguson as a custom de jure racial segregation enacted
into law. The NAACP, led by the soon-to-be first black Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall, was successful in challenging the constitutional
viability of the separate but equal doctrine, and the court voted to
overturn sixty years of law that had developed under Plessy.

Let'a try this in simple language, so even a shithead like you gets it.
The court is made up of human beings, with idiotic prejudices, some almost
as retarded as the ones you espouse.
This means they will (more than occasionally) fuck up the ruling on
something simple and obvious, in the case of prejudice being evaluated..
They fuck up because the judges are influenced by their own bias.

They eventually fix the problem... or another set of judges LESS prejudiced
do.

Willie, I understand you're a fucking moron. DON'T think the fact that some
judges just barely over racial prejudice COULDN'T get over sexual
orientation prejudice changes the logic of the constitution.


> and therefore constitutional

I am not claiming that legalizing same sex marriage is
unconstitutional.
***
Shithead, failing to allow it is unconstitutional.
***




  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 18:36:16
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 4:18=A0pm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Dec 9 2008 9:57 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 6:26=A0am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 5:37=A0am, murray.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 9, 5:30=A0pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
> Nostradamus,
> > > > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him a=
nd
> > > > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > > > > He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
> > > > > Fell
> > > > > --
> > > > > Be Loud. =A0Be Proud. =A0Be Considerate!
>
> > Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
> > > > to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.
>
> > > In terms of karma, I think this is a perfect response. =A0Skillz brok=
e
> > > the ethical code of the group
>
> > The ethical code of the group? =A0You have a future in standup comedy.
>
> > Most of you are howling satanic demons who favor legalizing same sex
> > marriage. =A0Please do not talk to me about ethical codes.
>
> > William Coleman =A0(ramashiva)
>
> What bugs you so much about that ? Are you afraid they wouldnt be able to
> find a dress to fit you for your wedding ?
>
> Please give me one example of how that issue could affect you in any way
> . ever ?

Whether it affects me personally is completely irrelevant to the issue
of whether same sex marriage is moral. This is a complete red herring
frequently trotted out by weak thinkers like you.

If a murder is committed in a distant country, it clearly doesn't
affect me personally. It is also clearly immoral.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 10 Dec 2008 03:10:30
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"ramashiva" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:d7386891-49fe-4ba1-87d8-b3c4fc497cae@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 4:18 pm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Dec 9 2008 9:57 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 6:26 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 5:37 am, murray.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 9, 5:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
> Nostradamus,
> > > > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him
> > > > > and
> > > > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > > > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>
> > > > > Fell
> > > > > --
> > > > > Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
>
> > Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
> > > > to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.
>
> > > In terms of karma, I think this is a perfect response. Skillz broke
> > > the ethical code of the group
>
> > The ethical code of the group? You have a future in standup comedy.
>
> > Most of you are howling satanic demons who favor legalizing same sex
> > marriage. Please do not talk to me about ethical codes.
>
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> What bugs you so much about that ? Are you afraid they wouldnt be able to
> find a dress to fit you for your wedding ?
>
> Please give me one example of how that issue could affect you in any way
> . ever ?

Whether it affects me personally is completely irrelevant to the issue
of whether same sex marriage is moral. This is a complete red herring
frequently trotted out by weak thinkers like you.

***
Coming from the weakest thinker here, that's funny.

Retards like you thought interracial marriage was 'immoral'.
Retards like you were bigoted idiots.

The issue isn't one of "moral". The issue is one of "legal fairness".
Retards like you thought slavery was moral. It surely wasn't legally fair to
the slaves.

Same sex marraige is REQUIRED for marriage to be legally fair, and therefore
constitutional.






  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 08:54:24
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 8:46=A0am, "da pickle" <jcpick...@NOSPAMhotmail.com > wrote:
> "John_Brian_K"
>
> > YOU are talking about 'ethical codes'? =A0You are a first class scumbag=
who
> > enjoys degradation and humiliation.
>
> That is just a kink!

I met her in a club down in old soho
Where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry-cola
C-o-l-a cola
She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said lola
L-o-l-a lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

Well Im not the worlds most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
Oh my lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
Well Im not dumb but I cant understand
Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man
Oh my lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

Well we drank champagne and danced all night
Under electric candlelight
She picked me up and sat me on her knee
And said dear boy wont you come home with me
Well Im not the worlds most passionate guy
But when I looked in her eyes well I almost fell for my lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
Lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

I pushed her away
I walked to the door
I fell to the floor
I got down on my knees
Then I looked at her and she at me

Well thats the way that I want it to stay
And I always want it to be that way for my lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo lola
Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
Its a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo lola

Well I left home just a week before
And Id never ever kissed a woman before
But lola smiled and took me by the hand
And said dear boy Im gonna make you a man

Well Im not the worlds most masculine man
But I know what I am and Im glad Im a man
And so is lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
Lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

-- "Lola" by the Kinks


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 11:04:03
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"ramashiva"

> > YOU are talking about 'ethical codes'? You are a first class scumbag who
> > enjoys degradation and humiliation.
>
> That is just a kink!

I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said lola
=========================

kinky




    
Date: 09 Dec 2008 11:51:37
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"da pickle" <jcpickels@NOSPAMhotmail.com > wrote in message
news:9--dnZRsf7wPOaPUnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@giganews.com...
> "ramashiva"
>
>> > YOU are talking about 'ethical codes'? You are a first class scumbag
>> > who
>> > enjoys degradation and humiliation.
>>
>> That is just a kink!
>
> I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said lola
> =========================
>
> kinky



Kinkalicious!




  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 07:57:19
From: ramashiva
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 6:26=A0am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 5:37=A0am, murray.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 5:30=A0pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostrada=
mus,
> > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > > He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Be Loud. =A0Be Proud. =A0Be Considerate!
>
> > > --------=A0
> > > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
>
> > Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
> > to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.
>
> In terms of karma, I think this is a perfect response. =A0Skillz broke
> the ethical code of the group

The ethical code of the group? You have a future in standup comedy.

Most of you are howling satanic demons who favor legalizing same sex
marriage. Please do not talk to me about ethical codes.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 16:18:04
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9 2008 9:57 AM, ramashiva wrote:

> On Dec 9, 6:26 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 5:37 am, murray.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 9, 5:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
Nostradamus,
> > > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
> >
> > > > He is officially killfiled on this end.  Join me!
> >
> > > > Fell
> > > > --
> > > > Be Loud.  Be Proud.  Be Considerate!
> >
> Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
> > > to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.
> >
> > In terms of karma, I think this is a perfect response.  Skillz broke
> > the ethical code of the group
>
> The ethical code of the group? You have a future in standup comedy.
>
> Most of you are howling satanic demons who favor legalizing same sex
> marriage. Please do not talk to me about ethical codes.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

What bugs you so much about that ? Are you afraid they wouldnt be able to
find a dress to fit you for your wedding ?

Please give me one example of how that issue could affect you in any way
. ever ?


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

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




    
Date: 10 Dec 2008 02:30:35
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future

"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:see316xofu.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 9 2008 9:57 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>
>> On Dec 9, 6:26 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 9, 5:37 am, murray.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Dec 9, 5:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
> Nostradamus,
>> > > > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
>> > > > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>> >
>> > > > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>> >
>> > > > Fell
>> > > > --
>> > > > Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
>> >
>> Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
>> > > to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.
>> >
>> > In terms of karma, I think this is a perfect response. Skillz broke
>> > the ethical code of the group
>>
>> The ethical code of the group? You have a future in standup comedy.
>>
>> Most of you are howling satanic demons who favor legalizing same sex
>> marriage. Please do not talk to me about ethical codes.
>>
>>
>> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> What bugs you so much about that ? Are you afraid they wouldnt be able to
> find a dress to fit you for your wedding ?
>
> Please give me one example of how that issue could affect you in any way
> . ever ?
>
When he dresses up his inflate a date, "Paul", he'd have to choose a wedding
outfit.





   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 08:12:53
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
> Most of you are howling satanic demons who favor legalizing same sex
> marriage. Please do not talk to me about ethical codes.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

YOU are talking about 'ethical codes'? You are a first class scumbag who
enjoys degradation and humiliation.

WTF are YOU talking about?

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 09 Dec 2008 10:46:41
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"John_Brian_K"

> YOU are talking about 'ethical codes'? You are a first class scumbag who
> enjoys degradation and humiliation.

That is just a kink!




  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:26:15
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9, 5:37=A0am, murray.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 9, 5:30=A0pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamu=
s,
> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > He is officially killfiled on this end. =A0Join me!
>
> > Fell
> > --
> > Be Loud. =A0Be Proud. =A0Be Considerate!
>
> > --------=A0
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
>
> Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
> to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.

In terms of karma, I think this is a perfect response. Skillz broke
the ethical code of the group - we can show our disdain for that
behavior by shunning him.

- Bob T.


   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 10:30:41
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"Bob T." Usenet Poster
bob@synapse-cs.com Post #5 of 18 (1 views) Copy Shortcut Dec 9, 2008,
9:26 AM
Re: Possible RGP Future - NEW [In reply to Reply

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

On Dec 9, 5:37 am, murray.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 9, 5:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa
Nostradamus,
> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and

> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
>
> > He is officially killfiled on this end. Join me!
>
> > Fell
> > --
> > Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
>
> > --------
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
>
> Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back

> to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.

In terms of karma, I think this is a perfect response. Skillz broke
the ethical code of the group - we can show our disdain for that
behavior by shunning him.

- Bob T.

.......................................................................
................

"Ethical code of the group". What ethical code of the group? If there
was an ethical code of the group, YOU would have been shunned a long
time ago as the most dishonest, utrustworthy cocksucka, ever. If the
group was moderated, you wouldn't even be able to post.

And how about The Pant Shitting Knight, who falsely altered hand
histories to make himself look good. Where's the application of this
made-up, so-called (by the ever self-serving weasel, BobT) "ethical
code of the group?

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


    
Date: 10 Dec 2008 13:04:48
From: Mark B [Diputsur]
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1228841250.41861@pokermagazine.com...

> "Ethical code of the group". What ethical code of the group? If there
> was an ethical code of the group, YOU would have been shunned a long
> time ago as the most dishonest, utrustworthy cocksucka, ever. If the
> group was moderated, you wouldn't even be able to post.
>
> And how about The Pant Shitting Knight, who falsely altered hand
> histories to make himself look good. Where's the application of this
> made-up, so-called (by the ever self-serving weasel, BobT) "ethical
> code of the group?

You're confusing Fell with Dip ... not one of my better moments:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/f9a3d1d348d03b00/af1763b2823620b7





     
Date: 10 Dec 2008 19:10:24
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
Pickle wrote:

"
"How would you "judge" this problem? If adultery is having "sexual
relations" with someone not your spouse (and if oral sex is NOT "sexual

relations") then how would you prove adultery?"

.......................................................................
........

The dildo. Especially the "strap-on" dildo.

It's called "The Presumption of Dildo Theory".

Veggies count. All you have to do is prove that there's a refrigerator
in the house and it's slam-dunk accepted proof of adultery.

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


  
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:03:58
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9 2008 8:37 AM, murray.john81 wrote:

> On Dec 9, 5:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Everyone imposes the ban on the welcher, igotskillz (La Cosa Nostradamus,
> > and any other moronic pseudonyms he creates), by killfiling him and
> > refusing to answer any posts made by this scum of the Earth.
> >
> > He is officially killfiled on this end.  Join me!
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Be Loud.  Be Proud.  Be Considerate!
> >
> Be very careful making attacks like this on someone, it can come back
> to bite you in ways you didn't anticipate, call it a karma.

One would also hope that abandoning all pretense of honor *on a gambling
newsgroup* by welching on a bet would come back to bite you in ways you
did not anticipate.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 09 Dec 2008 22:35:20
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 9 2008 9:03 AM, FellKnight wrote:

>
> One would also hope that abandoning all pretense of honor *on a gambling
> newsgroup* by welching on a bet would come back to bite you in ways you
> did not anticipate.
>

Honor?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. Gamblers always pay their debts.

LOL

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




    
Date: 09 Dec 2008 22:36:41
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Possible RGP Future
On Dec 10 2008 1:35 AM, garycarson wrote:

> On Dec 9 2008 9:03 AM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> >
> > One would also hope that abandoning all pretense of honor *on a gambling
> > newsgroup* by welching on a bet would come back to bite you in ways you
> > did not anticipate.
> >
>
> Honor?
>
> Oh, yeah. I forgot. Gamblers always pay their debts.
>
> LOL

.. and their grilled cheese sandwiches.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

________________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com