chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>this thread.

No one asked, shut the hell up, JFC.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 10/28/24 5:02 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 10/28/24 11:23 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 10/27/24 10:52 PM, DFS wrote:
>>>>> On 10/27/2024 1:33 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>>>> Le 27-10-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's not one thing wrong with talking about, or insulting, some
>>>>>>> dumb fsck in your kill file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not an explanation, it's a confirmation of your pretended
>>>>>> "deleted not read" messages. It's a loss of time and it proves
>>>>>> that the guy you pretend to killfile is way more important to you
>>>>>> than what you claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> shitv is pathetic.  He's been talking about me and responding to me 3rd
>>>>> party from behind his killfile for 20 years.  Think about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom does the same thing, not just to me but to a
>>>>> variety of 'trolls'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now Bloaty's put me in double-secret probation.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone has their own way of coping with assholes.
>>>
>>> Fixed it for you.
>>
>> Not really, because not everyone that one disagrees with is an asshole.
>
> It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of producing insulting trash
> talk or spamming the group with falsehoods or obviously biased opinions not
> recognizing the validity of the opinions of COLA denizens.

Sure, but that statement is extremely broad in what a reader can choose
to claim to justify their coping behavior, and becomes problematic unto
itself: its a means to make an easy/lazy excuse for one's coping.

People aren't perfect or infallible: COLA denizens have their times of
trash talking, of making falsehoods, and of biased opinions.

>> Which is what the term "shoot the messenger" illustrates: it describes
>> a hypocritical reaction to receiving news that one didn't like. Even
>> though the messenger isn't responsible for what the news was: shooting
>> the messenger is a very poor means of coping with being informed of the
>> reality which one did not like.
>
> There's no way of shooting the messenger online. Sad.

Sure, which is why I note that a poster is 100% responsible for their
own online behavior and credibility: they can't try to blame anyone
other than themselves for their own actions.

>> Nevertheless, point taken: reality includes that there's some people who
>> insist on being assholes, too. Fortunately, most people can separate
>> the message from the messenger.
>
> When a messenger frequently posts crap messages, one tends to believe the
> messenger is crap as well.

Depends on what the 'crap' really is, because objective facts don't
become untrue just because they're unpopular, although this also gets
down further into the question of topical relevancy too, for something
also needs to be relevant to the topic at hand.

-hh

On 10/28/24 7:39 PM, Joel wrote:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>> this thread.
>
>
> No one asked, shut the hell up, JFC.
>

Unfortunately, some folks' coping mechanisms remain .. underdeveloped
and juvenile.

-hh

chrisv wrote:

>Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>this thread.

One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.

On 10/29/24 6:14 PM, chrisv wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>> this thread.
>
> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>

"When a messenger frequently posts crap messages, one tends to believe
the messenger is crap as well."

-hh

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>
>>Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>this thread.
>
>One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.

Faggot.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

chrisv wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>>Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>this thread.
>
>One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.

One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>>chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>>this thread.
>>
>>One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>
>One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.

Jesus fucking Christ, faggot, shut the fuck up, retard.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 10/29/24 6:14 PM, chrisv wrote:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>> this thread.
>>
>> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>
> "When a messenger frequently posts crap messages, one tends to believe
> the messenger is crap as well."

It's amazing the damage a few years of aging can do.

--
Progress was all right. Only it went on too long.
-- James Thurber

On 10/30/24 8:18 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 10/29/24 6:14 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>>> this thread.
>>>
>>> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>>
>> "When a messenger frequently posts crap messages, one tends to believe
>> the messenger is crap as well."
>
> It's amazing the damage a few years of aging can do.
>

True, plus contracting CoVid has increased this cognitive decline too:

"...the virus also attacks the nervous system. Doctors in a large
Chicago medical center found that more than 40% of patients with COVID
showed neurologic manifestations at the outset, and more than 30% of
those had impaired cognition."

<https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-hidden-long-term-cognitive-effects-of-covid-2020100821133>

The scary part is that repeated infections are cumulative. Only good
news is that vaccination appears to reduce the cognition loss risk.

Repeated CoVid infections (especially amongst anti-vaxxers) certainly
could go a long ways in explaining the current political climate too.

-hh

chrisv wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>>chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>>this thread.
>>
>>One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>
>One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.

One Joel, one Chris A, one -highhorse post, deleted, unread.

On 2024-10-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>>chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>>Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>>>this thread.
>>>
>>>One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>>
>>One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.
>
> One Joel, one Chris A, one -highhorse post, deleted, unread.

I just killfile them.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

Le 2024-10-31 à 02:41, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Two "%" posts were deleted, unread, as will all future posts of his in
>>>>> this thread.
>>>>
>>>> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>>>
>>> One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.
>>
>> One Joel, one Chris A, one -highhorse post, deleted, unread.
>
> I just killfile them.

I rather enjoy chrisv publicly announcing that the posts of clowns have
been deleted after being unread.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

CrudeSausage wrote:

> Le 2024-10-31 à 02:41, RonB a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>>>>
>>>> One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.
>>>
>>> One Joel, one Chris A, one -highhorse post, deleted, unread.
>>
>> I just killfile them.
>
>I rather enjoy chrisv publicly announcing that the posts of clowns have
>been deleted after being unread.

It's not a bad thing that it annoys those that I do it to.

--
"money is an anathema to self-proclaimed FOSS principles" - lying
asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

Le 2024-10-31 à 18:02, chrisv a écrit :
> CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Le 2024-10-31 à 02:41, RonB a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>>>>>
>>>>> One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.
>>>>
>>>> One Joel, one Chris A, one -highhorse post, deleted, unread.
>>>
>>> I just killfile them.
>>
>> I rather enjoy chrisv publicly announcing that the posts of clowns have
>> been deleted after being unread.
>
> It's not a bad thing that it annoys those that I do it to.

They deserve it entirely.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-31, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Le 2024-10-31 à 02:41, RonB a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>>>>>
>>>>> One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.
>>>>
>>>> One Joel, one Chris A, one -highhorse post, deleted, unread.
>>>
>>> I just killfile them.
>>
>>I rather enjoy chrisv publicly announcing that the posts of clowns have
>>been deleted after being unread.
>
> It's not a bad thing that it annoys those that I do it to.

I withdraw my comment.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2024-10-31, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> Le 2024-10-31 à 02:41, RonB a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One Joel post and two -highhorse posts were deleted, unread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One -highhorse and one Joel post were deleted, unread.
>>>>>
>>>>> One Joel, one Chris A, one -highhorse post, deleted, unread.
>>>>
>>>> I just killfile them.
>>>
>>>I rather enjoy chrisv publicly announcing that the posts of clowns have
>>>been deleted after being unread.
>>
>> It's not a bad thing that it annoys those that I do it to.
>
>I withdraw my comment.

All three of you are being faggots.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 28-10-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>> some inferior being wrote:
>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's not one thing wrong with talking about, or insulting, some
>>>>>>> dumb fsck in your kill file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not an explanation, it's a confirmation of your pretended
>>>>>> "deleted not read" messages.
>
> It's no such thing, obviously.

Thanks for your confirmation you explained nothing.

> Confirmation that you are a liar.

If you killfile someone, you don't see his messages. It's not my way of
seing things, it's the definition of the killfile. So you can't answer
them. So if you answer a message from someone you killfile, it proves
you don't killfile him.

>>>>>> It's a loss of time and it proves
>>>>>> that the guy you pretend to killfile is way more important to you
>>>>>> than what you claim.
>
> Just the opposite, dumbshit.

You mean it takes you more time to killfile someone than to read and
answer his messages?

> It is my victory when they read me and I don't read them.

That's a funny one. What do you win exactly? The ultimate winner,
considering your only point of view, would be someone reading nobody and
sending a lot of messages. It would be pointless and you would be the
only one in the world to consider him a winner.

The purpose of sending messages here, is not only to be read, but to
exchange. If you don't want exchanges, you create your blog with a one
side communication. If you killfile someone, it's not a victory, it
proves you can't exchange with someone. So, it's when reading and
answering him would be a loss of time, you win time killfiling him.

When you take some time to answer someone you pretend to killfile, you
prove him his message is important for you. And when you insult someone
you killfile, you prove he's important to you because it means you think
about him when you don't need to. So showing everyone you are pissed of
with someone proves he infuriates you when he doesn't care about you. So
it's nothing like a victory.

> I'm demonstrating my superiority, especially when I commit in advance
> to letting some inferior being have the last word, unread and
> unrebutted.

In fact, as you answer the message, you don't let him have the last
word. It's exactly the opposite: you want to have the last word at all
costs even when you have no more argument and are unable to rebute him.
So you demonstrate the exact opposite of what you pretend and you let
someone you consider an inferior being win over you. You shouldn't be
proud of loosing against an inferior being.

> Nore: Your response will be deleted, unread.

Each time you said that, you answered it in a way that proves you read
it.

> Note: It's not boastful to be superior to some POS who attacks with
> lies.

You are superior to no one. You have never been able to give a logical
answer. Only stupid sentences. You can't argue, you can only rely on
mere insults to hide it.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Every dipshit (and there have been many) who has accused me of lying
about my "snipped, unread" is a loser and a pathetic liar. Every one
of them realizes that what I do shows me to be superior. That is why
they refuse to accept it.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
>Every dipshit (and there have been many) who has accused me of lying
>about my "snipped, unread" is a loser and a pathetic liar. Every one
>of them realizes that what I do shows me to be superior. That is why
>they refuse to accept it.

Whether you're lying or not, it's obnoxious, inferior spew, from a
aging nerd, a transphobe, a racist, a right-wing pawn. I wanted to be
your buddy, around here, but you've proven that was a fruitless hope.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 11/1/24 3:45 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 28-10-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>>> some inferior being wrote:
>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's not one thing wrong with talking about, or insulting, some
>>>>>>>> dumb fsck in your kill file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not an explanation, it's a confirmation of your pretended
>>>>>>> "deleted not read" messages.
>>
>> It's no such thing, obviously.
>
> Thanks for your confirmation you explained nothing.
>
>> Confirmation that you are a liar.
>
> If you killfile someone, you don't see his messages. It's not my way of
> seing things, it's the definition of the killfile. So you can't answer
> them. So if you answer a message from someone you killfile, it proves
> you don't killfile him.
>
>>>>>>> It's a loss of time and it proves
>>>>>>> that the guy you pretend to killfile is way more important to you
>>>>>>> than what you claim.
>>
>> Just the opposite, dumbshit.
>
> You mean it takes you more time to killfile someone than to read and
> answer his messages?
>
>> It is my victory when they read me and I don't read them.
>
> That's a funny one. What do you win exactly? The ultimate winner,
> considering your only point of view, would be someone reading nobody and
> sending a lot of messages. It would be pointless and you would be the
> only one in the world to consider him a winner.
>
> The purpose of sending messages here, is not only to be read, but to
> exchange. If you don't want exchanges, you create your blog with a one
> side communication. If you killfile someone, it's not a victory, it
> proves you can't exchange with someone. So, it's when reading and
> answering him would be a loss of time, you win time killfiling him.
>
> When you take some time to answer someone you pretend to killfile, you
> prove him his message is important for you. And when you insult someone
> you killfile, you prove he's important to you because it means you think
> about him when you don't need to. So showing everyone you are pissed of
> with someone proves he infuriates you when he doesn't care about you. So
> it's nothing like a victory.
>
>> I'm demonstrating my superiority, especially when I commit in advance
>> to letting some inferior being have the last word, unread and
>> unrebutted.
>
> In fact, as you answer the message, you don't let him have the last
> word. It's exactly the opposite: you want to have the last word at all
> costs even when you have no more argument and are unable to rebute him.
> So you demonstrate the exact opposite of what you pretend and you let
> someone you consider an inferior being win over you. You shouldn't be
> proud of loosing against an inferior being.
>
>> Nore: Your response will be deleted, unread.
>
> Each time you said that, you answered it in a way that proves you read
> it.
>
>> Note: It's not boastful to be superior to some POS who attacks with
>> lies.
>
> You are superior to no one. You have never been able to give a logical
> answer. Only stupid sentences. You can't argue, you can only rely on
> mere insults to hide it.
>

Well said, all throughout.

-hh

On 10/28/2024 6:34 PM, twitv wrote:

> It is my victory when they read me and I don't read them.

It's the world's loss when you're above ground another day.