Clyde, are you a spurned lover?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

The only reason I can think of for your opposition to gay marriage is
that some gay man asked you to marry him, or that you are thinking one
will some day. Rather than be tempted, you'd rather it just be
illegal.

Otherwise a gay couple marrying doesn't affect you any more than not
being able to own slaves does.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Is your opposition homophobia, religion, "science" or tradition (which
is based on the current view of marriage in the various churches
anyway, so that's really religion too)?

It doesn't matter. I get to call your "differing POV" stupid. And I'm
right.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 08:44, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> The only reason I can think of for your opposition to gay marriage is
> that some gay man asked you to marry him, or that you are thinking one
> will some day. Rather than be tempted, you'd rather it just be
> illegal.
>
> Otherwise a gay couple marrying doesn't affect you any more than not
> being able to own slaves does.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Is your opposition homophobia, religion, "science" or tradition (which
> is based on the current view of marriage in the various churches
> anyway, so that's really religion too)?
>
> It doesn't matter. I get to call your "differing POV" stupid. And I'm
> right.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

so you say
i think your arguments are stupid.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 29, 8:10*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 08:44, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > The only reason I can think of for your opposition to gay marriage is
> > that some gay man asked you to marry him, or that you are thinking one
> > will some day. Rather than be tempted, you'd rather it just be
> > illegal.
>
> > Otherwise a gay couple marrying doesn't affect you any more than not
> > being able to own slaves does.
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Is your opposition homophobia, religion, "science" or tradition (which
> > is based on the current view of marriage in the various churches
> > anyway, so that's really religion too)?
>
> > It doesn't matter. I get to call your "differing POV" stupid. And I'm
> > right.
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> so you say
> i think your arguments are stupid.- Hide quoted text -

Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.

All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
haven't seen any.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 09:08, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 8:10*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Dec, 08:44, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > The only reason I can think of for your opposition to gay marriage is
> > > that some gay man asked you to marry him, or that you are thinking one
> > > will some day. Rather than be tempted, you'd rather it just be
> > > illegal.
>
> > > Otherwise a gay couple marrying doesn't affect you any more than not
> > > being able to own slaves does.
> > > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > Is your opposition homophobia, religion, "science" or tradition (which
> > > is based on the current view of marriage in the various churches
> > > anyway, so that's really religion too)?
>
> > > It doesn't matter. I get to call your "differing POV" stupid. And I'm
> > > right.
> > > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > so you say
> > i think your arguments are stupid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

that is your problem.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
> >
> > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -

> that is your problem.

I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 30, 4:44*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > that is your problem.
>
> I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.

He can't. He's "scientifically" convinced of his righteousness.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 17:44, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > that is your problem.
>
> I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.

that's your opinion.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 18:41, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 4:44*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> > > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > > that is your problem.
>
> > I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> > objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> > All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.
>
> He can't. He's "scientifically" convinced of his righteousness.

Nope, science has nothing to do with it, either pro
or anti ssm. Its not a science issue.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
> >
> > > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > > that is your problem.
> >
> > I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> > objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> > All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.
>
> that's your opinion.

Which part is an "opinion"? You are unable to provide a rational,
non-emotional explanation of your position. The only rationale you have
ever articulated is hewing to tradition. Those are facts. I don't see where
any opinions have wandered in.

Regardless, your continuing of your pathetic "debating trade" dance on this
issue speaks volumes. You can complain from now until doomsday that you
never actually said you hate Gays, but what you have said speaks volumes
about your state of mind. You want to keep Gays out of your little
clubhouse for no other reason than it's *your* clubhouse.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 20:47, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> > > > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > > > that is your problem.
>
> > > I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> > > objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> > > All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.
>
> > that's your opinion.
>
> Which part is an "opinion"? You are unable to provide a rational,
> non-emotional explanation of your position. The only rationale you have
> ever articulated is hewing to tradition. Those are facts. I don't see where
> any opinions have wandered in.
>
> Regardless, your continuing of your pathetic "debating trade" dance on this
> issue speaks volumes. You can complain from now until doomsday that you
> never actually said you hate Gays, but what you have said speaks volumes
> about your state of mind. You want to keep Gays out of your little
> clubhouse for no other reason than it's *your* clubhouse.

My position is quite simila to Obama's
Opposition to SSM, and support ofr
Civil Union with full rights. So, you
should be telling him that he hates gays.

All I hear from you is your incessant
table poinding to have same sex relationships
be accepted by society as normal. They are not.
We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
But , of course, you
should have the same rights as we do.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.

In one way, which seems so silly a reason to have any kind of legal
difference.

[Boon]

On Dec 30, 6:36�pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> �Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
>
> In one way, which seems so silly a reason to have any kind of legal
> difference.

Not to mention it's a distinction that's no one else's business.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > > We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
> >
> > In one way, which seems so silly a reason to have any kind of legal
> > difference.
>
> Not to mention it's a distinction that's no one else's business.

Clyde would now like to repeat that he doesn't hate anybody.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 21:36, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
>
> In one way, which seems so silly a reason to have any kind of legal
> difference.

you don't civil union has no legal difference

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 23:01, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > > > We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
>
> > > In one way, which seems so silly a reason to have any kind of legal
> > > difference.
>
> > Not to mention it's a distinction that's no one else's business.
>
> Clyde would now like to repeat that he doesn't hate anybody.

Untrue, there are a few people I hate. but there aren't
any particular ethnic, racial or sexual groups that I hate

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > > We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
> >
> > > > In one way, which seems so silly a reason to have any kind of legal
> > > > difference.
> >
> > > Not to mention it's a distinction that's no one else's business.
> >
> > Clyde would now like to repeat that he doesn't hate anybody.
>
> Untrue, there are a few people I hate. but there aren't
> any particular ethnic, racial or sexual groups that I hate

OK, Scottie. Or if you prefer, Scottie Lite.

[Sophistic]

Gomer Pyle sha-zammed:

> All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I haven't seen
> any.

Well, then, look here, Jilly:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=64769


How same-sex marriage points to end of the world

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 20, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

What do May 17, 2004, and May 15, 2008, have in common? One judge and a
redefinition of marriage against the will of the people.

Both the Massachusetts Superior Court and the California Supreme Court by a
one-judge margin redefined what marriage has always been in every culture and
every religion for more than 5,000 years of recorded history.

Why does this matter?

As I wrote about in my book, "The Criminalization of Christianity," Jeffrey
Satinover, who holds an M.D. from Princeton and doctorates from Yale, MIT and
Harvard, was on my radio program one day and I asked him about where we are in
history. He explained that according to the "Babylonian Talmud" - the book of
rabbis' interpretation of the scriptures 1,000 years before Christ, there was
only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only
one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in
marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

(Column continues below)




Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn't in Sodom and Gomorrah,
although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but
according to the Talmud, not homosexual "marriage." What about ancient Greece?
Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual "marriage"
was practiced was . during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that's
what the "Babylonian Talmud" attributes as the final straw that led to the
Flood.

On my Faith2Action radio program on Thursday, Rabbi Aryeh Spero verified this to
be true.

Rabbi Spero spoke of God's compassion before the Flood, in hopes people would
repent and turn back to His ways. He showed patience for hundreds of years.

But, he said, the Talmud's writings reveal that "before the Flood people started
to write marriage contracts between men, in other words, homosexual 'marriage,'
which is more than homosexual activity - it's giving an official state stamp of
approval, a sanctification . of homosexual partnership."

In fact, he said, "the writings indicated that it wasn't even so much the 'straw
that broke the camel's back,' but that the sin in and of itself is so contrary
to why God created the world, so contrary to the order of God's nature, that God
said then and there 'I have to start all over . to annihilate the world and
start from the beginning. .'"

Rabbi Spero went on to say, "Even in ancient Greece they did not write marriage
contracts between men. There was homosexuality, and it was wrong, but there was
not an official 'blessed' policy. . Marriage is 'sanctification' (not simply a
partnership)." He said to confer the title of sanctification and holiness upon
this behavior is "probably one of the greatest sins of all that one does against
God's plan for this world."

The one time it happened was: "During the days of Noah." When I first heard
this, my mind immediately went to a verse I've heard many times but never with
such relevance. The verse is found in Matthew 24:37. It reads:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of
Man. - Mathew 24:37 (NIV)
I used to read this verse and think: It was bad at lots of points in history; it
doesn't necessarily mean now, but if these Jewish writings are true, we are
uniquely like the "days of Noah" right now - and only right now.

But it can't be yet, you say. You have a lot going on in your life? You're
getting married? Here's how the New Living Translation describes that very
sentiment in Luke:

When the Son of Man returns, the world will be like the people were in Noah's
day. In those days before the Flood, the people enjoyed banquets and parties and
weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat, and the flood came to
destroy them all. - Luke 17:26-27
Happily going about as if everything was fine was what they did, too.

You don't like this possibility? Don't even believe in the Flood? Doesn't
matter. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. How can you be
sure? There's a way. Did you know that about one-fourth of the Bible is
prophecy? A quarter of the Bible is a lot - it's a big book. And did you know
God's standard? Perfection. That means that if even one of those prophecies is
wrong, you can discount the whole thing. Kind of like a prophet who makes a
false prediction - that made him a false prophet and a candidate for stoning.
Did you know that 4,000 prophecies in that Bible have already come true down to
the last detail? That leaves about 1,000 left to be fulfilled - those are the
ones regarding the last days before the return of Christ, which are being
checked off the list right now.

If 4,000 out of 5,000 prophecies have already occurred exactly as the Bible
predicted they would, you might want to pay attention to the rest.

The good news is that 1.1 million people across California have signed a
petition to bring marriage to a vote of the people through a state
constitutional amendment (just like 27 other states have done). And guess what?
An amendment to a state constitution trumps even the most out-of-control state
judiciary. We'll likely know if these signatures are validated before this
tyrannical ruling goes into effect, and I predict they will be since they
gathered 400,000 more signatures more than they needed to qualify. Besides, they
already voted - eight years ago where more than 61 percent of Californians
declared marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Now they just need to turn
that same language into a constitutional amendment.

I don't live in California, so why am I sounding the alarm? Here's why:

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and
the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among
them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the
watchman's hand. - Ezekiel 33:6
I'm praying and working to protect marriage in California (and the rest of the
country) not only because I care about marriage, but because I care about
civilization. And, if we obey God, he just may spare us from the judgment we
deserve.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Sophistic" > wrote:

> No, it wasn't in Sodom and Gomorrah,
> although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course,

It's appropriate that at the top of the linked page, there is an ad for
colon cleansing, because this ignorant woman is full of it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 30, 10:52*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Gomer Pyle sha-zammed:
>
> > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I haven't seen
> > any.
>
> Well, then, look here, Jilly:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=64769
>
> How same-sex marriage points to end of the world

I said "rational reasons", sugar. Superstition doesn't count.

You're not only very boring, you're also very dim.

Wake me after our soporific sugar retaliates by calling me more
feminine names. I get so offended and **** on the inside. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 30, 8:33*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 30 Dec, 20:47, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> > > > > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > > > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > > > > that is your problem.
>
> > > > I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> > > > objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> > > > All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.
>
> > > that's your opinion.
>
> > Which part is an "opinion"? You are unable to provide a rational,
> > non-emotional explanation of your position. The only rationale you have
> > ever articulated is hewing to tradition. Those are facts. I don't see where
> > any opinions have wandered in.
>
> > Regardless, your continuing of your pathetic "debating trade" dance on this
> > issue speaks volumes. You can complain from now until doomsday that you
> > never actually said you hate Gays, but what you have said speaks volumes
> > about your state of mind. You want to keep Gays out of your little
> > clubhouse for no other reason than it's *your* clubhouse.
>
> My position is quite simila to Obama's
> Opposition to SSM, and support ofr
> Civil Union with full rights. So, you
> should be telling him that he hates gays.

Do you suppose there might be something called "politics" involved in
Obama's position?

And your appeal to authority is noted, but not valid.

> All I hear from you is your incessant
> table poinding to have same sex relationships
> be accepted by society as normal. They are not.

They are.

> We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.

They are. Unless you think that gays are not human.

> But , of course, you
> should have the same rights as we do.

Agreed. That's why they should be able to marry.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 30, 11:09*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *"Sophistic" > wrote:
> > No, it wasn't in Sodom and Gomorrah,
> > although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course,
>
> It's appropriate that at the top of the linked page, there is an ad for
> colon cleansing, because this ignorant woman is full of it.

I noticed that too. LOL!

[Sophistic]

Gomer Pyle reached for the Ex-Lax:

> > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I haven't
> > > seen any.

> > Well, then, look here, Jilly:

> > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=64769

> > How same-sex marriage points to end of the world

> I get so offended and **** on the inside.

Which explains your propensity for breaking out in sphincters and defecating
yourself to death on rao on a 'regularity' basis.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 30, 11:30*pm, "Soporific" > wrote:

Some boring **** that I snipped.

Did anybody (other than sugar) even notice? LOL!

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill gets snippy:

> Some boring **** that I snipped.

Boy George and G.I. Jill looking to get homosexually "married"?

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Dec, 00:16, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:33*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 Dec, 20:47, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> > > > > > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > > > > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > > > > > that is your problem.
>
> > > > > I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> > > > > objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> > > > > All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.
>
> > > > that's your opinion.
>
> > > Which part is an "opinion"? You are unable to provide a rational,
> > > non-emotional explanation of your position. The only rationale you have
> > > ever articulated is hewing to tradition. Those are facts. I don't see where
> > > any opinions have wandered in.
>
> > > Regardless, your continuing of your pathetic "debating trade" dance on this
> > > issue speaks volumes. You can complain from now until doomsday that you
> > > never actually said you hate Gays, but what you have said speaks volumes
> > > about your state of mind. You want to keep Gays out of your little
> > > clubhouse for no other reason than it's *your* clubhouse.
>
> > My position is quite simila to Obama's
> > Opposition to SSM, and support ofr
> > Civil Union with full rights. So, you
> > should be telling him that he hates gays.
>
> Do you suppose there might be something called "politics" involved in
> Obama's position?
>
> And your appeal to authority is noted, but not valid.
>
> > All I hear from you is your incessant
> > table poinding to have same sex relationships
> > be accepted by society as normal. They are not.
>
> They are.
>
> > We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
>
> They are. Unless you think that gays are not human.
>
> > But , of course, you
> > should have the same rights as we do.
>
> Agreed. That's why they should be able to marry

they can, thay can marry members of the opposite sex.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 31, 7:33*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 31 Dec, 00:16, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 8:33*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 30 Dec, 20:47, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > > > Then lay out your "non-stupid" arguments.
>
> > > > > > > > All I'm looking for are rational reasons for your opposition. I
> > > > > > > > haven't seen any.- Ascunde citatul -
> > > > > > > that is your problem.
>
> > > > > > I'd say the problem is that since you have no rational, non-emotional
> > > > > > objections to SSM, your opposition is entirely emotional and/or irrational.
> > > > > > All he was asking is that you admit that instead of lying.
>
> > > > > that's your opinion.
>
> > > > Which part is an "opinion"? You are unable to provide a rational,
> > > > non-emotional explanation of your position. The only rationale you have
> > > > ever articulated is hewing to tradition. Those are facts. I don't see where
> > > > any opinions have wandered in.
>
> > > > Regardless, your continuing of your pathetic "debating trade" dance on this
> > > > issue speaks volumes. You can complain from now until doomsday that you
> > > > never actually said you hate Gays, but what you have said speaks volumes
> > > > about your state of mind. You want to keep Gays out of your little
> > > > clubhouse for no other reason than it's *your* clubhouse.
>
> > > My position is quite simila to Obama's
> > > Opposition to SSM, and support ofr
> > > Civil Union with full rights. So, you
> > > should be telling him that he hates gays.
>
> > Do you suppose there might be something called "politics" involved in
> > Obama's position?
>
> > And your appeal to authority is noted, but not valid.
>
> > > All I hear from you is your incessant
> > > table poinding to have same sex relationships
> > > be accepted by society as normal. They are not.
>
> > They are.
>
> > > We don't accept 'you' as being like 'us'.
>
> > They are. Unless you think that gays are not human.
>
> > > But , of course, you
> > > should have the same rights as we do.
>
> > Agreed. That's why they should be able to marry
>
> they can, thay can marry members of the opposite sex.

Did you learn how to chase your tail from 2pid?

Can you fetch too? Good boy!

[Sophistic]

Jenn turned up her nose:

>> No, it wasn't in Sodom and Gomorrah,
>> although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course,

> It's appropriate that at the top of the linked page, there is an ad for
> colon cleansing, because this ignorant woman is full of it.

Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls. Yum.

http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Sophistic" > wrote:

> Jenn turned up her nose:
>
> >> No, it wasn't in Sodom and Gomorrah,
> >> although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course,
>
> > It's appropriate that at the top of the linked page, there is an ad for
> > colon cleansing, because this ignorant woman is full of it.
>
> Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls. Yum.
>
> http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353

Wow, yet another substantive post from Sophomoric. Sorry, I won't click
on your link. Perhaps you are into school children; I am not.

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 1:46�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Jenn turned up her nose:
>
> >> No, it wasn't in Sodom and Gomorrah,
> >> although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course,
> > It's appropriate that at the top of the linked page, there is an ad for
> > colon cleansing, because this ignorant woman is full of it.
>
> Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls. Yum.
>
> http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353

Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. Don't worry, I reported it.

Boon

[Sophistic]

BaBoon blabbed:

> > Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls. Yum.

> > http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353

> Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. Don't worry, I reported it.

Reported what, a link to a commercially available CD?

Some Bozo had e-mailed me that link to try to gross me out. (It did.)
Figured I'd repay the favor ... to someone.

[Sophistic]

Buffoon tattled:

> > Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls. Yum.

> > http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353

> Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. Don't worry, I reported it.

Not only do you argue with yourself in posts, but are now a self-styled hall
monitor snitch.

Who did you say has sunk to a new low, again?

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 2:33�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> BaBoon blabbed:
>
> > > Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls. Yum.
> > >http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353
> > Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. �Don't worry, I reported it.
>
> Reported what, a link to a commercially available CD?
>
> Some Bozo had e-mailed me that link to try to gross me out. (It did.)
> Figured I'd repay the favor ... to someone.

I'm sure Bret Ludwig, who is on his third ISP in 6 months,
commiserates.

Boon

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 2:49�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Buffoon tattled:
>
> > > Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls. Yum.
> > >http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353
> > Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. �Don't worry, I reported it.
>
> Not only do you argue with yourself in posts, but are now a self-styled hall
> monitor snitch.

Wow, two replies to the same post. You're obviously rattled.

>
> Who did you say has sunk to a new low, again?

You. I'm not the one posting links to school girls smearing
themselves with offal.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Sophistic" > wrote in message

> BaBoon blabbed:
>
>>> Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls.
>>> Yum.
>
>>> http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353
>
>> Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. Don't worry, I
>> reported it.

> Reported what, a link to a commercially available CD?

> Some Bozo had e-mailed me that link to try to gross me
> out. (It did.) Figured I'd repay the favor ... to someone.

Note that Marc externalizes his deep-seated obsession with pedophila by
gratuitously dropping my name.

Someone should tell his wife to move herself and her kids out of the house
and into a safe place. Too bad he hides his true address.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 1, 8:00*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Note that Marc externalizes his deep-seated obsession with pedophila by
> gratuitously dropping my name.

LOL!

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 6:00�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Sophistic" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > BaBoon blabbed:
>
> >>> Well, Jenn, this one's for you. Japanese schoolgirls.
> >>> Yum.
>
> >>>http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=45353
>
> >> Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. �Don't worry, I
> >> reported it.
> > Reported what, a link to a commercially available CD?
> > Some Bozo had e-mailed me that link to try to gross me
> > out. (It did.) Figured I'd repay the favor ... to someone.
>
> Note that Marc externalizes his deep-seated obsession with pedophila by
> gratuitously dropping my name.

So the words "Arny Krueger" and "pedophilia" are synonymous? LOL!

>
> Someone should tell his wife to move herself and her kids out of the house
> and into a safe place. Too bad he hides his true address.

Why are you, a known pedophile and child pornographer, so desperate to
find out details about my family? I hide my address all right...from
YOU.

Boon

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 6:07�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 8:00�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > Note that Marc externalizes his deep-seated obsession with pedophila by
> > gratuitously dropping my name.
>
> LOL!

Yeah, he really messed that one up.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Question for you, Arnii: Do you believe every other poster on RAO is a
figment of your tattered imagination?

> >> Now you've sunk beneath Arny's level. Don't worry, I
> >> reported it.

> Note that Marc externalizes his deep-seated obsession with pedophila by
> gratuitously dropping my name.

To my mind, it wasn't at all gratuitous. You're the one who harbors
depraved images of deviant sexuality. Connecting you to Stynchie's
salacious flirtation with juvenile whorelets is hardly a stretch.

Now be truthful, Turdborg: Whom do you hope to persuade that you're not the
sickest **** on RAO? Anybody who doesn't loathe you already is mentally
defective. You can have such posters on your side. We surely don't want
them.

[Sophistic]

Buffoon thinks he's onto something:

> > Not only do you argue with yourself in posts, but are now a self-styled hall
> > monitor snitch.

> Wow, two replies to the same post. You're obviously rattled.

Yeah, I'm really quaking in 'lil Georgie's dainty little booties.

> > Who did you say has sunk to a new low, again?

> You. I'm not the one posting links to school girls smearing themselves with
> offal.

I figured it was right up Jenn's alley, so to speak.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 21:00, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> .... deep-seated obsession with pedophila by
> gratuitously dropping my name.
>
>
if the shoe fits!.......

[Sophistic]

Buffoon smugly believes he's onto something:

> > Some Bozo had e-mailed me that link to try to gross me out. (It did.)
> > Figured I'd repay the favor ... to someone.

> I'm sure Bret Ludwig, who is on his third ISP in 6 months, commiserates.

I'm on my second ISP in over 10 years, so I'm sure he does.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Sophistic" > wrote:

> Buffoon thinks he's onto something:

> > You. I'm not the one posting links to school girls smearing themselves
> > with
> > offal.
>
> I figured it was right up Jenn's alley, so to speak.

Why?

[Sophistic]

Jenn wants to know:

>> I figured it was right up Jenn's alley, so to speak.

> Why?

Your "colon cleansing" reference naturally segues into dykish enemates.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Sophistic" > wrote:

> Jenn wants to know:
>
> >> I figured it was right up Jenn's alley, so to speak.
>
> > Why?
>
> Your "colon cleansing" reference naturally segues into dykish enemates.

The reference to intellectual excrement makes you think of sexual
activity? OK...

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 22:39, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *"Sophistic" > wrote:
> > Jenn wants to know:
>
> > >> I figured it was right up Jenn's alley, so to speak.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > Your "colon cleansing" reference naturally segues into dykish enemates.
>
> The reference to intellectual excrement makes you think of sexual
> activity? *OK...

If there is such a thing as a brain enema, Arny sure
can use one to releive his 'congestion'!

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 7:19�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Buffoon thinks he's onto something:
>
> > > Not only do you argue with yourself in posts, but are now a self-styled hall
> > > monitor snitch.
> > Wow, two replies to the same post. �You're obviously rattled.
>
> Yeah, I'm really quaking in 'lil Georgie's dainty little booties.

We weren't talking about George.

>
> > > Who did you say has sunk to a new low, again?
> > You. �I'm not the one posting links to school girls smearing themselves with
> > offal.
>
> I figured it was right up Jenn's alley, so to speak.

Explain it to your ISP, not me.

Boon

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 7:23�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Buffoon smugly believes he's onto something:
>
> > > Some Bozo had e-mailed me that link to try to gross me out. (It did.)
> > > Figured I'd repay the favor ... to someone.
> > I'm sure Bret Ludwig, who is on his third ISP in 6 months, commiserates..
>
> I'm on my second ISP in over 10 years, so I'm sure he does.

Well, it takes a couple of months for them to catch up to you. And
the more times you have to switch ISPs, the easier it is for others to
trace you.

Boon

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 7:32�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Jenn wants to know:
>
> >> I figured it was right up Jenn's alley, so to speak.
> > Why?
>
> Your "colon cleansing" reference naturally segues into dykish enemates.

Not to normal people.

Boon

[Sophistic]

Buffoon doggedly believes he's still onto something:

> Well, it takes a couple of months for them to catch up to you.

For posting a link to a commercially available music CD?

BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!

Have you been taking legal advice from boy wonder Scotty Wheeler?

Or are you so far gone into mental derangement from all that aspartame-laced
diet soda swilled over the years?

You keep getting stupider and more insane with each passing day.

[Boon]

On Jan 2, 3:06�am, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Buffoon doggedly believes he's still onto something:
>
> > Well, it takes a couple of months for them to catch up to you.
>
> For posting a link to a commercially available music CD?
>
> BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!
>
> Have you been taking legal advice from boy wonder Scotty Wheeler?
>
> Or are you so far gone into mental derangement from all that aspartame-laced
> diet soda swilled over the years?
>
> You keep getting stupider and more insane with each passing day.

Legal? Who said anything about legal? Try to keep up with what I'm
saying, dumbass.

Boon