In article <vh5q5j$30o36$1@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987
@teleworm.us says...
>
> Lester Thorpe wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
> > Get Palemoon. _I_ use it and therefore it must be great.
> >
> > http://www.palemoon.org/
> >
> > The web is a money-grab cesspool. Therefore Palemoon
> > cannot render all sites. But such sites are not worth
> > visiting as they present no useful INFORMATION, and
> > INFORMATION is the primal purpose of the web.
> >
> > However, if a site cannot render in Palemoon (usually
> > due to javashit choking) then just load the same site
> > in graphical "links" and there will be no problem.
> >
> > http://links.twibright.com/
> >
> > GNU/Linux/FOSS allows the user to tame the fucking
> > asinine web.
> >
> > Micro$lop only permits continued slavish servitude.
> >
> > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
> >
> > I have spoken.
> >
> > No counter argument is possible unless you are a
> > psychotic idiot.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> Anyway, an alternate browser I found congenial is Angelfish.

You sound like a weirdo.

Get Palemoon. _I_ use it and therefore it must be great.

http://www.palemoon.org/

The web is a money-grab cesspool. Therefore Palemoon
cannot render all sites. But such sites are not worth
visiting as they present no useful INFORMATION, and
INFORMATION is the primal purpose of the web.

However, if a site cannot render in Palemoon (usually
due to javashit choking) then just load the same site
in graphical "links" and there will be no problem.

http://links.twibright.com/

GNU/Linux/FOSS allows the user to tame the fucking
asinine web.

Micro$lop only permits continued slavish servitude.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I have spoken.

No counter argument is possible unless you are a
psychotic idiot.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Lester Thorpe wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> Get Palemoon. _I_ use it and therefore it must be great.
>
> http://www.palemoon.org/
>
> The web is a money-grab cesspool. Therefore Palemoon
> cannot render all sites. But such sites are not worth
> visiting as they present no useful INFORMATION, and
> INFORMATION is the primal purpose of the web.
>
> However, if a site cannot render in Palemoon (usually
> due to javashit choking) then just load the same site
> in graphical "links" and there will be no problem.
>
> http://links.twibright.com/
>
> GNU/Linux/FOSS allows the user to tame the fucking
> asinine web.
>
> Micro$lop only permits continued slavish servitude.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
> I have spoken.
>
> No counter argument is possible unless you are a
> psychotic idiot.

Speak for yourself.

Anyway, an alternate browser I found congenial is Angelfish.

--
Mental power tended to corrupt, and absolute intelligence tended to
corrupt absolutely, until the victim eschewed violence entirely in
favor of smart solutions to stupid problems.
-- Piers Anthony

Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> wrote:

>Get Palemoon. _I_ use it and therefore it must be great.

An endorsement to not take. You are a buffoon.

--
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 11/14/24 2:59 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> Get Palemoon. _I_ use it and therefore it must be great.
>
> http://www.palemoon.org/
>
> The web is a money-grab cesspool. Therefore Palemoon
> cannot render all sites. But such sites are not worth
> visiting as they present no useful INFORMATION, and
> INFORMATION is the primal purpose of the web.
>
> However, if a site cannot render in Palemoon (usually
> due to javashit choking) then just load the same site
> in graphical "links" and there will be no problem.
>
> http://links.twibright.com/
>
> GNU/Linux/FOSS allows the user to tame the fucking
> asinine web.
>
> Micro$lop only permits continued slavish servitude.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
> I have spoken.
>
> No counter argument is possible unless you are a
> psychotic idiot.
>
>
>

How does it compare with Ghostery Private Browser?

On 11/14/2024 3:59 PM, Lying Larry Piet wrote:

> Get Palemoon. _I_ use it and therefore it must be great.

Fork of Firefox, no ad blocker, and it's very slow. Fuck you.

It SUCKS like all the other GuhNoo crapware you recommend.

Brave is far superior.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:21:12 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
>
> How does it compare with Ghostery Private Browser?
>

Ghostery is just a customized and patched Firefox:

https://github.com/ghostery/user-agent-desktop

To build Ghostery the Firefox source code is first downloaded
and then the Ghostery patches are added.

To me this seems a silly idea. Why not just directly configure
Firefox?

Palemoon has developed its own code base and it strives to be
a community driven rather than a commercially driven project.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Batz wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> In article <vh5q5j$30o36$1@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987
> @teleworm.us says...
>>
>> Lester Thorpe wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>> > Get Palemoon. _I_ use it and therefore it must be great.
>> >
>> > http://www.palemoon.org/
>> >
>> > The web is a money-grab cesspool. Therefore Palemoon
>> > cannot render all sites. But such sites are not worth
>> > visiting as they present no useful INFORMATION, and
>> > INFORMATION is the primal purpose of the web.
>> >
>> > However, if a site cannot render in Palemoon (usually
>> > due to javashit choking) then just load the same site
>> > in graphical "links" and there will be no problem.
>> >
>> > http://links.twibright.com/
>> >
>> > GNU/Linux/FOSS allows the user to tame the fucking
>> > asinine web.
>> >
>> > Micro$lop only permits continued slavish servitude.
>> >
>> > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>> >
>> > I have spoken.
>> >
>> > No counter argument is possible unless you are a
>> > psychotic idiot.
>>
>> Speak for yourself.
>>
>> Anyway, an alternate browser I found congenial is Angelfish.
>
> You sound like a weirdo.

Why thank you! I like marching to a different drummer.

You sound <cough cough> "normal".

--
It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain
what fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess.
-- Roger Noe

On 11/15/24 2:45 AM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:21:12 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> How does it compare with Ghostery Private Browser?
>>
>
> Ghostery is just a customized and patched Firefox:
>
> https://github.com/ghostery/user-agent-desktop
>
> To build Ghostery the Firefox source code is first downloaded
> and then the Ghostery patches are added.
>
> To me this seems a silly idea. Why not just directly configure
> Firefox?
>
> Palemoon has developed its own code base and it strives to be
> a community driven rather than a commercially driven project.
>
>
>

Which one works better. Ghostery or Palemoon?

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:57:47 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> Which one works better. Ghostery or Palemoon?
>

All browsers should work the same.

A browser is just a GUI wrapper around a rendering engine.
The engine converts the HTML/CSS markup into a screen
display. The browser adds various "features," usually
junk, into the mix.

There are many, many browsers but only a very small number
of rendering engines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines

It is the rendering engine where the real difference lies.
Some are better than others in rendering HTML/CSS.

There used to be compliance tests for rendering engines but
HTML/CSS has become so convoluted lately that all such tests
are useless:

https://www.acidtests.org/

Furthermore, very few sites use only HTML/CSS. Most commercial
sites are overly bloated with ecmascript (i.e. javascipt) which
performs most of the work.

Commercial pressure for more grandiose user "experiences" will
continue to drive HTML/CSS/Ecma into ever more ridiculous levels.

As a result, only huge enterprises like Google will be able
to produce rendering engines and the associated browser.
Before too long, there will only be one browser. We are almost
there already.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 11/16/24 4:23 AM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> All browsers should work the same.

Ok never mind.

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/16/24 4:23 AM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
>
>> All browsers should work the same.
>
>Ok never mind.

Right?

--
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.

Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:57:47 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> Which one works better. Ghostery or Palemoon?
>
>All browsers should work the same.
>
>A browser is just a GUI wrapper around a rendering engine.
>The engine converts the HTML/CSS markup into a screen
>display. The browser adds various "features," usually
>junk, into the mix.
>
>There are many, many browsers but only a very small number
>of rendering engines:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines
>
>It is the rendering engine where the real difference lies.
>Some are better than others in rendering HTML/CSS.
>
>There used to be compliance tests for rendering engines but
>HTML/CSS has become so convoluted lately that all such tests
>are useless:
>
>https://www.acidtests.org/
>
>Furthermore, very few sites use only HTML/CSS. Most commercial
>sites are overly bloated with ecmascript (i.e. javascipt) which
>performs most of the work.
>
>Commercial pressure for more grandiose user "experiences" will
>continue to drive HTML/CSS/Ecma into ever more ridiculous levels.
>
>As a result, only huge enterprises like Google will be able
>to produce rendering engines and the associated browser.
>Before too long, there will only be one browser. We are almost
>there already.

Free hint, dumbass, your joke browsers suck. I just rented a movie,
one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
Show" starring Jim Carrey. Would be trivial to boot up my Fire TV
device, and stream it to my TV, but slight drawback there, the audio
would be through my TV's relatively lo-fi speakers. By opening a
Chrome window for Amazon Prime Video, dragging it across to my TV as a
second monitor, and letting the audio flow into my computer speakers
and subsequently into my headphones, I get a real "theater"
experience, in my chair in my room.

This is what you are missing, with your retardo setup, dumbass.

--
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 2024-11-17, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>>On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:57:47 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> Which one works better. Ghostery or Palemoon?
>>
>>All browsers should work the same.
>>
>>A browser is just a GUI wrapper around a rendering engine.
>>The engine converts the HTML/CSS markup into a screen
>>display. The browser adds various "features," usually
>>junk, into the mix.
>>
>>There are many, many browsers but only a very small number
>>of rendering engines:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines
>>
>>It is the rendering engine where the real difference lies.
>>Some are better than others in rendering HTML/CSS.
>>
>>There used to be compliance tests for rendering engines but
>>HTML/CSS has become so convoluted lately that all such tests
>>are useless:
>>
>>https://www.acidtests.org/
>>
>>Furthermore, very few sites use only HTML/CSS. Most commercial
>>sites are overly bloated with ecmascript (i.e. javascipt) which
>>performs most of the work.
>>
>>Commercial pressure for more grandiose user "experiences" will
>>continue to drive HTML/CSS/Ecma into ever more ridiculous levels.
>>
>>As a result, only huge enterprises like Google will be able
>>to produce rendering engines and the associated browser.
>>Before too long, there will only be one browser. We are almost
>>there already.
>
>
> Free hint, dumbass, your joke browsers suck. I just rented a movie,
> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
> Show" starring Jim Carrey. Would be trivial to boot up my Fire TV
> device, and stream it to my TV, but slight drawback there, the audio
> would be through my TV's relatively lo-fi speakers. By opening a
> Chrome window for Amazon Prime Video, dragging it across to my TV as a
> second monitor, and letting the audio flow into my computer speakers
> and subsequently into my headphones, I get a real "theater"
> experience, in my chair in my room.
>
> This is what you are missing, with your retardo setup, dumbass.
>

Rent a movie?
Are you a boomer?
Asking for a friend.

--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>> I just rented a movie,
>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>> Show" starring Jim Carrey. Would be trivial to boot up my Fire TV
>> device, and stream it to my TV, but slight drawback there, the audio
>> would be through my TV's relatively lo-fi speakers. By opening a
>> Chrome window for Amazon Prime Video, dragging it across to my TV as a
>> second monitor, and letting the audio flow into my computer speakers
>> and subsequently into my headphones, I get a real "theater"
>> experience, in my chair in my room.
>>
>> This is what you are missing, with your retardo [barebones Linux from scratch] setup, dumbass [Larry/Russell].
>
>Rent a movie?
>Are you a boomer?
>Asking for a friend.

Uh, you are aware that you can do that *ONLINE*, right? Try reading
what I posted. I don't even have my DVD player, here. I don't have a
DVD drive in my computer. It's all in the cloud, dummy. I paid under
$4 to watch the movie, instead of purchasing it for life or buying a
physical disc.

--
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 2024-11-17, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>> I just rented a movie,
>>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>>> Show" starring Jim Carrey. Would be trivial to boot up my Fire TV
>>> device, and stream it to my TV, but slight drawback there, the audio
>>> would be through my TV's relatively lo-fi speakers. By opening a
>>> Chrome window for Amazon Prime Video, dragging it across to my TV as a
>>> second monitor, and letting the audio flow into my computer speakers
>>> and subsequently into my headphones, I get a real "theater"
>>> experience, in my chair in my room.
>>>
>>> This is what you are missing, with your retardo [barebones Linux from scratch] setup, dumbass [Larry/Russell].
>>
>>Rent a movie?
>>Are you a boomer?
>>Asking for a friend.
>
>
> Uh, you are aware that you can do that *ONLINE*, right? Try reading
> what I posted. I don't even have my DVD player, here. I don't have a
> DVD drive in my computer. It's all in the cloud, dummy. I paid under
> $4 to watch the movie, instead of purchasing it for life or buying a
> physical disc.
>
Ok.
Fair enough.
I was referring to the term "renting a movie"

--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>>>> I just rented a movie,
>>>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>>>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>>>> Show" starring Jim Carrey. Would be trivial to boot up my Fire TV
>>>> device, and stream it to my TV, but slight drawback there, the audio
>>>> would be through my TV's relatively lo-fi speakers. By opening a
>>>> Chrome window for Amazon Prime Video, dragging it across to my TV as a
>>>> second monitor, and letting the audio flow into my computer speakers
>>>> and subsequently into my headphones, I get a real "theater"
>>>> experience, in my chair in my room.
>>>>
>>>> This is what you are missing, with your retardo [barebones Linux from scratch] setup, dumbass [Larry/Russell].
>>>
>>>Rent a movie?
>>>Are you a boomer?
>>>Asking for a friend.
>>
>> Uh, you are aware that you can do that *ONLINE*, right? Try reading
>> what I posted. I don't even have my DVD player, here. I don't have a
>> DVD drive in my computer. It's all in the cloud, dummy. I paid under
>> $4 to watch the movie, instead of purchasing it for life or buying a
>> physical disc.
>>
>Ok.
>Fair enough.
>I was referring to the term "renting a movie"

I got that, but it's really the norm, the purchase price from Amazon
Prime Video was $15, and I'm unlikely to watch it again anytime soon.
<$4 is better.

--
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 11/16/2024 8:36 PM, Joel wrote:

> Free hint, dumbass, your joke browsers suck. I just rented a movie,
> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
> Show" starring Jim Carrey.

I loved The Truman Show. Carrey and Laura Linney were so good in it.
And Natascha McElhone is an absolute beauty, of course.

Are you the center of a reality show nowadays?

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:

>> I just rented a movie,
>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>> Show" starring Jim Carrey.
>
>I loved The Truman Show. Carrey and Laura Linney were so good in it.
>And Natascha McElhone is an absolute beauty, of course.

It's a real classic, yeah, I was reminded of that.

>Are you the center of a reality show nowadays?

My entire life, I guess.

--
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 11/16/2024 11:09 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>
>>> I just rented a movie,
>>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>>> Show" starring Jim Carrey.
>>
>> I loved The Truman Show. Carrey and Laura Linney were so good in it.
>> And Natascha McElhone is an absolute beauty, of course.
>
>
> It's a real classic, yeah, I was reminded of that.

Also had Paul Giamatti in it. Check him out in Sideways, which is a
real hoot.

>> Are you the center of a reality show nowadays?
>
>
> My entire life, I guess.

Mentally ill people often have delusions of persecution and/or grandeur.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:

>>>> I just rented a movie,
>>>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>>>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>>>> Show" starring Jim Carrey.
>>>
>>> I loved The Truman Show. Carrey and Laura Linney were so good in it.
>>> And Natascha McElhone is an absolute beauty, of course.
>>
>> It's a real classic, yeah, I was reminded of that.
>
>Also had Paul Giamatti in it. Check him out in Sideways, which is a
>real hoot.

Isn't that the wine movie? I did see it, actually.

>>> Are you the center of a reality show nowadays?
>>
>> My entire life, I guess.
>
>Mentally ill people often have delusions of persecution and/or grandeur.

I know, but in 1998, when I exited the theater, an older lady asked if
I liked the "show", and I said "yeah" in a way that showed it blew my
mind, and she nodded.

--
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 11/17/2024 12:31 AM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>
>>>>> I just rented a movie,
>>>>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>>>>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>>>>> Show" starring Jim Carrey.
>>>>
>>>> I loved The Truman Show. Carrey and Laura Linney were so good in it.
>>>> And Natascha McElhone is an absolute beauty, of course.
>>>
>>> It's a real classic, yeah, I was reminded of that.
>>
>> Also had Paul Giamatti in it. Check him out in Sideways, which is a
>> real hoot.
>
>
> Isn't that the wine movie? I did see it, actually.

Great buddy comedy.

>>>> Are you the center of a reality show nowadays?
>>>
>>> My entire life, I guess.
>>
>> Mentally ill people often have delusions of persecution and/or grandeur.
>
>
> I know, but in 1998, when I exited the theater, an older lady asked if
> I liked the "show", and I said "yeah" in a way that showed it blew my
> mind, and she nodded.

Mentally ill people often imagine dark conspiracies or motivations where
there are none, or misconstrue communication well beyond what was intended.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:

>>>>>> I just rented a movie,
>>>>>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>>>>>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>>>>>> Show" starring Jim Carrey.
>>>>>
>>>>> I loved The Truman Show. Carrey and Laura Linney were so good in it.
>>>>> And Natascha McElhone is an absolute beauty, of course.
>>>>
>>>> It's a real classic, yeah, I was reminded of that.
>>>
>>> Also had Paul Giamatti in it. Check him out in Sideways, which is a
>>> real hoot.
>>
>> Isn't that the wine movie? I did see it, actually.
>
>Great buddy comedy.

It's a pretty good movie, yeah. Definitely worth watching.

>>>>> Are you the center of a reality show nowadays?
>>>>
>>>> My entire life, I guess.
>>>
>>> Mentally ill people often have delusions of persecution and/or grandeur.
>>
>> I know, but in 1998, when I exited the theater, an older lady asked if
>> I liked the "show", and I said "yeah" in a way that showed it blew my
>> mind, and she nodded.
>
>Mentally ill people often imagine dark conspiracies or motivations where
>there are none, or misconstrue communication well beyond what was intended.

I guess you'd have to be me, to really understand.

--
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.

Joel wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I just rented a movie,
>>>>>>> one I'd seen several times before, including new in a theater in 1998,
>>>>>>> but an old favorite, one relevant to my life these days, "The Truman
>>>>>>> Show" starring Jim Carrey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I loved The Truman Show. Carrey and Laura Linney were so good in it.
>>>>>> And Natascha McElhone is an absolute beauty, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a real classic, yeah, I was reminded of that.
>>>>
>>>> Also had Paul Giamatti in it. Check him out in Sideways, which is a
>>>> real hoot.
>>>
>>> Isn't that the wine movie? I did see it, actually.
>>
>> Great buddy comedy.
>
>
> It's a pretty good movie, yeah. Definitely worth watching.
>
>
>>>>>> Are you the center of a reality show nowadays?
>>>>>
>>>>> My entire life, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Mentally ill people often have delusions of persecution and/or grandeur.
>>>
>>> I know, but in 1998, when I exited the theater, an older lady asked if
>>> I liked the "show", and I said "yeah" in a way that showed it blew my
>>> mind, and she nodded.
>>
>> Mentally ill people often imagine dark conspiracies or motivations where
>> there are none, or misconstrue communication well beyond what was intended.
>
>
> I guess you'd have to be me, to really understand.
>
>
You mean a lazy unemployed mooching poofter.

Rudy Canoza <rudy@jollycone.con> wrote:

>> I guess you'd have to be me, to really understand.
>>
>You mean a lazy unemployed mooching poofter.

No, you are an anonymous nym-shifting coward, so eat shit, loser.

--
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.