> John Newman:
> read the links you sent?
They ar as Zordon suggested
"Zwallys team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East
Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year,
while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the
Antarc
> Steve Kinney:
> Hitler; Trump
WTF
Hitler; the loser calling for a redo, fam
Guezz you support the rekount
Nobody still wins, lol
.
> John Newman:
> Most pot heads I know
Instead of thinking for yourself, you subscribe to a predetermined pattern
of behavior, citing "what pothead's think" as a foundation for your truth
Eat it
In a sensory deprevation tank
> it's like me telling you "drink 2l of vodka"
It is not, why keep tr
> John Newman:
> Alcohol is a drug
Chemically, yes but not legally or socially, or you'd be in jail and out
of a job, fam
> you snipped out bullshit about "eat a half gram and find out"
Cuz you didnut try it, or address it
.5g flower is 100mg THC
I said 500mg THC
Eat it
> freak out like a li
> Tom:
> (lies, propaganda, idiocy)
Must hav all the dataz
> nobody cares
Nobody does care, keep posting Zzz
But do condense them a twinkle more; fukin 10 posts in a row, al linx;
FUCK!
> juan:
> It's funny how cryptographers use un-mathematical
> and fuzzily defined concepts like 'trust' =P
Or probabilistic risk analysis:
(c/n)2
Lol, fam
> John Newman:
> It is working?
If you think alcohol is less than or equal to "drugs" in
harmfulness, but maybe you are intentionally misreading
> How does that make it compare to alcohol unfavorably?
Purchase some alcohol and find out
Ditch that grain shit and anything with added yeast or pres
> Razer:
> There IS a lethal dose however for hash and other extracts
Wrong! (I'm on my Donald Trump shit [1])
> people produce for profit using all sorts of good shit like butane and
ether.
And CO2, which you breath in all day
Ever use soap?
Grab some dry ice and stop being such a grinch
> d
>> John Newman:
>> Heavy abuse of alcohol is just as destructive
>> as heavy use of any other drug.
> John Newman:
> On any severe alcoholic, or any person who dies of
> alcohol poisoning or driving drunk, etc.
Yeah, I meant the other way
> "war on drugs"
Seems to be working if you think alcohol
> Zenaan Harkness:
> I'm -pretty- sure we're not descending into 1939,
> but hey, please holler if I'm missing something...
---
How Hitler Became a Dictator
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Whenever U.S. officials wish to demonize someone, they inevitably compare
him to Adolf Hitler. The message immediate
> Jim Bell:
> taxes should be proportional to income. Why?
Why not?
Why support a use tax?
Please explain yourself, sir
> John Newman:
> Heavy abuse of alcohol is just as destructive
> as heavy use of any other drug.
On who? Prove it
High Price - Dr. Carl Hart
http://drcarlhart.com/
> Although I think [pot] does compare favorably
> to most other drugs..
Getting it in early for the Chelsea elections?
> pot is de
> Shawn K. Quinn:
> Honestly, if you're going to vote exclusively for candidates with no
> realistic chance of being elected... you may as well just not vote.
But your stupid argument says these two options have the same effect =D
> In Texas, if you voted for Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Mickey
>
> John Newman:
> as Juan said, fucking bad news that Trump won
John = Juan
Clarifies Juan's deep knowledge of a place he don't live.
> John Newman:
> [Trump] will do everything in his considerable power to enrich himself,
> his class, and his cronies
>
> I happen to live in the DC area
We get it, you are DNC contractor.
> It is funny, in a sad way, to see a nominally "anarchist oriented"
> forum dominated by people bickering over the relative virtues of their
> preferred nationalist heroes, a.k.a. mass murderers and their excuses
> for same. Funny, but inevitable.
Yup. A large percentage of people fall for some
> I don't think I ever said that or agreed to it. I'm not
> interested in *irrelevant* technical discussions. But,
> for instance, I've discussed a few times why a cyberweaponlike
> tor (widely supported in fake, american, privacy circles ) is
> TECHNICALLY flawed - at
> It's a waste of time and bandwidth responding to ...
Lulz
> Or the psychological stalking by
Translation: When you call him on lies and bullshit, it's 'psychological
stalking'
..thats so full of win, I'm going to start using that. Outright lie, and
when called on it 'Hey, don't psychologicall
>
> Fishing for an age... Wrong. Don't bother trying again.
>
Not two minutes before you sent the above quoted message, you posted a
message saying your reply would be the last in thread. Obviously not.
But whatever. Uhm -- No, not fishing at all. Maybe you are a senile
71-yro after all? Because
> Why the fuck did you forward this to the list?
>
> John
There is indeed a certain ironic quality to a list like cypherpunks, which
is supposed to be privacy-centric, to be used for public displays of
private comms like this.
I'd like to submit much of this thread as evidence for my much-debated
> CYBERSECURITY. When someone starts trolling for my psychological soft
> spots under what I believe is a stolen identity, and invites a troll or
> bot (rooty) posting shit like
Trolling for psychological soft spots? On a list? I don't know, but I
don't think that would be very effective. Maybe I'
> In a game there are agreed rules, and participation is voluntary.
Warfare meets this criteria, no? There are rules of war, like the Geneva
convention. Participation is largely voluntary, and even with nations that
have forced conscript armies, one can argue that - for example with
Israel, or Swe
> In a real fight the only rule is to end it by the fastest, safest
> means available.
Safest for whom? I assume that, finding yourself in a fight, and knocked
about the jaw a few times, that you'd choose not to simply grab your
adversary by the head and crack his skull onto a fence pole or someth
>
> A HAHAHA!!!
> I think this stupid dick works for free, Razer.
>
I do, in fact, volunteer some of my free time helping the mentally
handicapped.
Apparently it's become an obsession, as I'm posting here as well.
> Read the previous post. You don't 'own' anything. You correct factual
> mistakes but you have no 'side' in the discussion.
You're right. I don't take "sides" for the sake of taking sides. I try to
see the value of as many perspectives as possible, and to understand and
be able to reason from the
>>> 1. The Conspiracy
>
> Explained in full:
>
> http://pilobilus.net/CGBSpender3.jpg
Such can only be the case if you're looking to play 'their' game. The very
creation of such 'organizations' is what leads to the associated chaos in
the first place. Rather, I favor a free association of individ
> 1. The Conspiracy to Make You Love the State Indoctrination into the
>nurturing womb of the state is essential for our society to function
>as it does.
> 2. The Conspiracy to Conceal the True Powers in the World There is an
>invisible unelected power which controls government and indu
>> Focusing on discrimination in russia right now is WAR
>> PROPAGANDA.
>>
>
>
> THAT'S the argument I've been making.
Ok. I get where you're coming from, and this is an important point of
INFORMATION WARFARE / PROPAGANDA.
In this aspect, I'll agree with you guys and admit that as dista
>
>
> On 10/09/2016 11:04 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>> anyone that disagrees with you at all, must be an agent of the state.
>
>
> No... You're mistaking me for Juan.
>
> Your reams of vacillating bullshit to garner reactions as the convo goes
> this way and that way and sideways is typical
>
>> Why not just address the point about Stalin, and forced work camps for
>> homosexuals, starting in 1933?
>
>
> Honestly? Because I'm not interested. You DID correct my blanket
> statement about "since 1917" but the rest of your spew bores the living
> fuck out of me.
Thank you for retracting
> Your lack of specificity as a way to keep trolling the convo has been
> noted over and over and over again by Juan.
Right. Because calling you out with a specific year which negates your
statement is a lack of specificity.
Why not just address the point about Stalin, and forced work camps for
h
>
>
> On 10/09/2016 09:52 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>>
>> Your assertion about Russian in 1917 was false. Period.
>
>
> No it wasn't. By your own statement
You said "AND my POINT is THERE ARE NO DISCRIMINATORY LEGAL POLICIES and
haven't been since 1917."
That is patently false. What I agreed
>
> You changed the topic. You lose.
Your assertion about Russian in 1917 was false. Period.
You then picked up by ignoring that basic point, where you were wrong, and
focusing on one dubious point claiming that a discriminatory law isn't
discriminatory because... reasons. Some 'reason' somehow
> Better start looking through Russian laws about 'sexual-oriented
> propaganda'. Because, just off the top of my head, for a start, material
> suggesting young people visit prostitutes of the opposite gender is
> illegal.
Fine. But prostitution is illegal. That has nothing to do with outlawing
pr
>
> What X mentioned: "law banning distribution of "propaganda
> of non-traditional sexual relationships" to minors." isn't.
Oh? Care to explain or should we just take your word for it? Because it
seems to me that a law that makes a DISCRIMINATION between one type of
material and another is, obvio
> AND my POINT is THERE ARE NO DISCRIMINATORY LEGAL POLICIES and
> haven't been since 1917.
Incorrect. The Russian Revolution in 1917 did bring about real change in
that way. Under Lenin, homosexuals were allowed to serve in government
positions, for example. HOWEVER.
In 1933, Stalin recriminali
>
> I figure it's best to ignore the implications of the simulation
> hypothesis. There's nothing to be done about it.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I find I quite agree, but for perhaps
different reasons, because I don't find the implications to be all that
difficult.
Whether reality is ma
> Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997)
There was a young man that said, Though
It seems that I know, that I know.
But what I would like to see,
Is the I that knows Me,
When I know that I know, that I know
> On 10/07/2016 06:57 AM, Greg Newby wrote:
>> The list seems quiet...
>> Cpunks List
>
> Angst fatigue?
>
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:22:16 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>
>>> The fact that ignoring it leads to nonsense is good enough
>>> proof. But if you don't like that proof, so-fucking-what. The
>>> 'law' remains valid.
>
>>
>> Only according to your opinion, and the opinion of the m
>
> So "being attacked by the US nazis is an axiom" - But it's not
> provable nor disprobable. So how do they know it will happen?
They don't KNOW. They suspect. Like you suspect the law of
non-contradiction is absolutely, always, in all cases, true.
They can't prove it, or disprove i
> On Oct 5, 2016 9:41 PM, "juan" wrote:
>>
>> This product seems related somehow...
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/v5srPIw.jpg
>
> Never thought about unicorns when touching my "sin zones", but it's a good
> idea. Unicorns have horns, I will be horny... Makes sense. Thank you
> for
>
> On Oct 5, 2016 9:16 PM, "Razer" wrote:
> Razer is correct. Unicorns do exist. Now Juan probably will say that
> Nyan Cats don't exist, hunfs! ;P
I unicorn is just a horny horse, and a pegasus is just a horse high on dope.
Rather elementary.
>> But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd
>> also like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.
>
>
> As used as a colloquial (and snobbish) synonym for insult? It's
> not the same thing as the 'informal fallacy' you know...
I just meant that you migh
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:04:32 -
>> No, one simply denies them. But, even if one HAD to USE them, that
>> would not prove them. I might use several axioms to derive a
>> contradiction.
>
> So one or more of your 'axioms' are not true and not really
> axioms. The method is called red
so on.
In these complex systems they are quite useful. Why should we not use them
in other complex areas of thought?
Simply because you're not aware of them? Well then, OK. So then we have to
AGREE on which system to use first, then.
"QED"
>
> I don't need to inv
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/04/pf/atm-record-fees/
>
> Bitcoin fees currently ranging $0.02 ~ $0.11 ...
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Fee_Plotting_Sites
>
Yeah, it sucks. Some cities I visit don't have local branches for my bank,
so in those cases, I take to making my max withdr
I'd like to publicly apologize.
It has been brought to my attention that certain comments I've made were
potentially hurtful towards women. To any that I've offended, I apologize.
I'll refrain from such excesses, even if they were meant only to pantomime
the liberal use of "whore, bitch, cunt" a
> On 10/05/2016 06:37 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
> "'conjecture' or 'hypothesis', both of which connote apparently true but
> not self-evident statements."
>
> That's what you get for using dictionaries.
>
> English language dictionaries also conflate "Want" with "Need".
>
> Apparently that '
> Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not
> to be 'agreed' upon. Also, axioms can be proven. If axioms
> couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would
> be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.
>From the CRC Encyclopedia of Mathemati
> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500
>> "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there,
>> > and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit
>> > un-American, if not fla
>> The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
>
> A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has
> no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in
> territories 'belonging' to other mafias.
On this, at least, we can agree completely.
The
> You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much
> to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the
> party.
I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires fundamental
assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed upon?
And using
>
> You subscribe to that one too? Well no, since scammers,
> charlatans and intellectual frauds love to hide their scams
> behind empty, ambiguous words.
>
> Anyway, hopefully you got the point. Your 'understanding'
> of 'logic' is quite similar to that of the worst t
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:36:40 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>> Rationality is, at its
>> foundation, about AGREEING on some basic foundational ideas,
>
>
>
> "I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to.
> I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it."
>
>> I'm not anti-rationalist, any more than I am anti-wrench. It's a
>> tool. And when it is a useful too, I'm more than willing to use it.
>>
>> But not all problems are mere nuts and bolts.
>
>
> It's the only valid tool for rational discussions. But you
> want to be able to use ration
> Besides since you are an anti-rationalist, why would you care
> about any 'refutation'.
I'm not anti-rationalist, any more than I am anti-wrench. It's a tool. And
when it is a useful too, I'm more than willing to use it.
But not all problems are mere nuts and bolts.
>> lulz. You'r
> As X said, it DOES sort of tip the opponent off that you have something
> to hide, but whether they can identify 'you'... especially using
> something like Tails that spoofs your mac address and leaves no trace
> that you've ever done anything more than power up at a given time.
>
> So if you're
> It's worse than that :( In that I agree with much of what he says. Or at
> least, I get his perspective, as part of a working understanding. But
> he's clearly not interested in that :( So it goes.
Yeah. It's like I told a friend of mine once during a discussion.
"That is a lucid, cogent, well
>
> Ignoring what he writes, and declining to address whatever I notice,
> works pretty well :)
>
Truth. I should learn to look at chatter like juan's as something akin to
entropy.
Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as well;
I suppose that's 'on me' as they say.
>> Like I told ya. A dingy hotel bar napkin. I'd scan it and prove it to
>> ya,
>> since I know you like evidence and logic, but unfortunately I used it
>> for
>> cleanup and tossed it with the condom wrapper, and your mom's phone
>> number
>> already. True story.
>
> Mean :(
>
>
I know, I know.
weak tea, son.
Which is why I'm content to fuck with you, not offer any real answers to
your supposed questions, and generally make fun of the entire
"conversation" that you're pretending to be a part of.
> xorcist bottom line? DON"T MESS WITH MY BUDDIES TH
> The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher', also said:
> "the government doesnât use Tor."
>
> https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568
>
> Comments?
>
I wouldn't expect them to use Tor. If you're a field agent that may be
under surveillance, connecting to someth
>> remember that even part-time workers in the first world
>> making $25k-30k USD are globally in the 1% or so.
>
> There use to be an informational leaflet going around called "If the
> world was 10 people". In that scenario, Americans have ALL the stuff.
Yeah, I've seen break-downs like that. It
> Here's some advanced calculus for you : World population ~
> 7400 millions. What's the 1% of 7400? Why, it's 74 millions.
>
> Now find out who those 74 million people are. Then try the 10%
> group. That one should include most of the US and europe...et
> cetera.
I
>> Are we talking about wealth, or intelligence?
>
> I know what I'm talking about but you don't know what you are
> talking about. You seem to have some kind of problem...
You're right, I do have several problems.
At the moment, I can't find my lighter. And you never shut the fuck u
> Let me SPELL IT OUT for you, RETARD. I didn't deny I was typing
> on a computer (as a matter of fact, I use a desktop computer).
> I denied being in the "1%". GET IT now?
Wait, I lost track. Are we talking about wealth, or intelligence?
Because I agree that neither of us are i
> Juan is extremely onry
That is a polite way of putting it. Are you suggesting I try being overly
polite?
Well, OK.
Juan, dear sir, I wouldn't be happy to find your thumbs cramping up typing
on a phone. Fear not, I shant be ill to find that you not bother
responding to my twaddle and would be
> http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder
>
> Were you abused as a child?
>
No, just having some 'fun' with Juan.
Trying different strategies to see what will actually shut him the fuck up
and just ignore me.
>
> Sadly, the mental rigour required for precise communication and clear
> thinking is not for many.
I'm fine with mental rigor, except when its used to box in ideas, and try
to control people.
Which is, ALWAYS, how ideologues use it.
So, in those circumstances, I eschew it. Because I don't le
longs to the "1%" then?
And those phones are computers, fuck face.
>
> Does it hurt to be as stupid and corrupt as you are 'xorcist'?
No, not at all. Because I'm smart enough to know that a programmable
device that has a CPU in it is a computer. Even if, derp.. i
>
> ignorant establishment bot is also an expert in chinese
> history! amazing.
Expert? No. But you don't need to be an expert to know a few things.
Like you. I see you occasionally use verbs and nouns properly.
>> Look at the Middle East: For all intents and purposes they are in the
>>
>> Hey fuck head, you're typing on a computer. That makes you one of the
>> global 1% too.
>
>
> False. Like everything you said, stupid piece-of-shit.
Hey fuck head, any electronic device that can post stuff on the net is a
computer.
> That's the kind of privileges you get by raping the whole world
> for centuries, including spanish empire, dutch empire, british
> empire(yours) and now british-amerikunt empire (yours). No
> wonder you are a loyal subject ahd defender of the status quo.
> Oh yes, i
> Ain't no "if" about that collapse; "when" would be more accurate.
Agreed.
> And the wonderful achievements of Progressive Liberalism only cost us:
Agreed.
> But our "homeless people" can have a shiny toy to compensate them for
> their lack of basic security and so-called necessities. Yes, th
>
> Yes, piece-of-shit - That's clearly what you said, and like the
> 'good '(pretty mediocre) scam artist you are, you prefaced it
> with "I agree with you, but...".
Oh Juanita, sing that sweet sweet song of love to me once again! Of all
the trolls under heaven, there is none
> I suppose. If the 'good life' includes sleeping with a tire iron and a
> big knife to fend off predators of the human species.
>
> In SOME COUNTRIES the homeless may not get fat or have ipods but the
> odds of being attacked by an idiot kid of the gentry, or being lit up,
> is pretty slim. I say
> Not 'we'. I'm commenting on the estalishment progaganda you
> post.
Yah.
>
> What? You can't come up with any decent answer, piece-of-shit
> psychobabble scam artist?
Actually, I found that answer quite entertaining. And seeing that our
previous interaction has proven t
>
> Actually, people who support to varying degrees things like tor
> (a pentagon's cyberweapon), google, clinton and even the US
> military (not as bad as russia's) are not unthinking. They
> understand perfectly well what they are doing.
>
Says a pinhead using Gmail.
'ta
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:47:08 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>
>> As sick as this society is (and I do agree on that), bloodshed is
>> relatively at a minimum, and resources are plentiful.
>
> What kind of moral agent, sorry, robot, would say that kind of
> thing?
>
Sorry, we yo
>> Hell, even the
>> homeless can be overweight and have ipods and shit.
>
> They can have iPods but no shelter. How does this sound for you?
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/17/the-stuff-we-really-need-is-getting-more-expensive-other-stuff-is-getting-cheaper/
>
Oh, hey I ge
> It's a counterpoint to all the technocratic libertarian bullshit that
> appears here. as if that republican crap somehow 'punk'.
>
> This society is sick and perverse and needs to be put out of it's misery
> like a rat dog that just bit some gentrified whore's kid.
While I do understand the frus
> By-the-way, I saw somebody on the interwebz suggesting that
> trump's job is to get the cunt elected. The idea is to have
> somebody like trump to point at and say "look! the murderous
> cunt is better than him!". Sounds sorta plausible. At least if
> your target au
>
> It doesn't make any sense. He either wants the job or he doesn't. If he
> does, he needs to figure out--FAST--that running the United States of
> America is not a reality TV show!! If he doesn't, he could have declined
> the GOP nomination and let... just about anyone else in the running
> (bes
> http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/02/wednesday-hillary-clinton-done-
> You know what... up until now I have supported what Julian and Wikileaks
> have done. If he costs Hillary the election, though, that could very
> well change in a hurry.
Makes no difference either way. Hillary is as corrupt
>
> My opinion of people like Musk and the rest of the technocrats is they
> ARE Darwin's finest example ... of "Marauders and Pillagers".
>
> Any service to society is coincidental and unintentional and solely
> related to 'wealth accumulation'. Philanthropics too... It's for the
> writedown. Not
> Don't forget to hate on automation engineers as the unemployment rate
> reaches 45% and the gubmint still hasn't figured out what to do with all
> those idled people.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
>
> Source:
> http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/09/30/tales-from-the-american-dm
>
> Trust me. It IS NOT rare.
Well, if we're speaking of disassociative / depersonalized states
generally, I quite agree. But my understanding is that 'fugue' states
refer to a rather rare sub-type specifically characterized by amnesia.
>
> Further, there ARE varying degrees... Leading to missing
>
>
> On 09/29/2016 04:05 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>> Well, considering that he was taking it hard,
>
> How do you know?
When I first heard he died, I read a few articles that were kicking around
about it, and his family and friends had mentioned it, along with his
financial troubles. Or,
> So he got rid of the wife/bitch/cunt. Another reason not to
> commit suicide. Rest of your stupid psycho-drivel ignored.
Well, considering that he was taking it hard, it would seem he didn't
consider her a bitch/cunt. Or were you just showing your misogynistic side
because no sane
>
> So what happened to Ian Murdock?
>
Just checked the wiki. It's a bit limited. Prior to his suicide, he split
up with his long-time partner Debra (Debian was named as a combination of
their names), had taken it hard as most long-term mid-life breakups tend
to do, and was apparently soon to be e
>
> You can do IT work for anbody
you dont have to code/sysadmin/whatever
> strictly for a company in the computer industry. This has been my shift
> in the past few years.
+1
Buddy of moved into a sweet gig. After years of 'serious' admin work, he
was burnt out, and took a gig at a local hosp
>
> Consider taking part in this. Paying for using windoze coming soon,
> I heard.
>
Meh. Nowhere near lucrative enough. I can beat that 'handily' with regular
sperm donations.
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -
> mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your
> striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)
I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in
common, at least thus far.
As far as 'intellectual honesty' goes,
> I don't know what you're talking about. Then again, neither do
> you.
What can I say, you get me so flustered, its tough to think with you
around, hot pants.
> What was your last display of buddhist stupidity? Ah yes,
> "bluecore". Oh, and you wouldn't work for BAE...ex
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:31:34 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>>
>> >Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine
>> >example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist'
>> >'philosohical' 'thought'
>> >
>> >You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest.
> *I just routinely counter the garbage that people like you
> routinely vomit. *Don't think your are special. Having pointed
> all the mistakes in your mental vomit,
> *I'm back to the no "margaritas ante porcos" policy.*
>
> Great knock-out, Juan!
> This should be periodic
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:23 PM, wrote:
> I'd bet a lot of readers here would have major ethical issues with
> what they do... collect and mine info so they can cold call, spam,
> promote, engineer, and market people brands and junk they don't
> need... and wouldn't be into working in that line
> What I stated a while back about my reasons for never getting involved
> in the computer industry as a way to earn my bucks... I don't get along
> with fewdal punkz and hypercompetitive-hyperagressives reel well. So
> what did they do? They FUCKED the whole 'Fucking thing'.
In my experience tha
> Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine
> example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist'
> 'philosohical' 'thought'
>
> You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of
> shit IOW =)
Does this mean we're breaking up again?
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
