On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:31:36 +0000 (UTC), El Trauco
<naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
>news:gtpev2ta5qs0jiof9ls6vtbmfrrhmash9m@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:51:51 +0000 (UTC), El Trauco
>> <naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>>
>>>4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
>>>news:r8oev250o6g0e544birhvejch44jnrudic@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:08:56 +0000 (UTC), El Trauco
>>>> <naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:ssgev2tqm9t6g04ri5gesodfs3sfi7sgnn@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:28:44 +0000 (UTC), El Trauco
>>>>>> <naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"-Grunt" <-Grunt@grunt.grunt> wrote in news:05HJh.297777$k82.7245
>>>>>>>@fe07.news.easynews.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13-Mar-2007, El Trauco <naughtynaughtynaughty> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow. That brought a tear to my eye.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am so glad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you like a peeled onion to wipe it away with?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would you like a knife to cut your genitals off so you are no
>>>>>>>longer a danger to children?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny that you should assume that Grant is a danger to children --
>>>>>> or are you accusing him of being a pedophile? And I wonder what
>>>>>> bigoted reason you're basing such an assumption on?
>>>>>
>>>>>What are you basing your assumption on that he isn't?
>>>>
>>>> If we are talking about +Grant, perhaps the fact the said he was not
>>>> is the criteria I chose to use.
>>>>
>>>> If we're talking about -Grunt ... well, I'm not talking about
>>>> -Grunt.
>>>
>>>So who do you think I was replying to, dimwit?
>>
>> Sorry -- I must have misread a -Grunt as a +Grant somewhere. Still,
>> since I don't know who this -Grunt is other than the fact that he
>> hates "Y-Not," I'm not sure what assumptions I can make about him.
>>
>> And you know what, I don't mind telling you when I make a mistake. It
>> happens, big deal. What's funny is how you act like you never make
>> them -- funny how you've never mentioned how you accused me of
>> misrepresenting that research when the truth was that you just didn't
>> want to believe what it said, funny how you've never told me how you
>> can tell which people are good and which are bad just based on some
>> arbitrary label, funny how you don't feel the need to march off in
>> demonstration against Hannibal the Cannibal but think I should expend
>> what little energy I've got marching for freedom and rights when I'm
>> simply doing the best I can given my health and my finances.
>>
>> So, you still want to call me the dimwit?
>
>Yes. If suddenly there was discrimination against anti-pedophiles, you
>can bet your pathetic little life that I would be out there standing up
>for myself and other anti-pedophiles. Why won't pedophiles do the same?
>As you say, you are too scared of the "witch hunt" atmosphere.
>
>Luckily Rosa Parks wasn't a chickenshit wimp like you pedos are.
>
>ET
Damn! You guyz is makin' me head hurt!
Ain't you got nuttin better to do?
A real estate transaction, or somethin' like that??
Jeez. GeddafugginLife.
"That which is not just is not law"
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 |
|