From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 2/21/26 17:58, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:01:28 -0500, -hh   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/21/26 15:13, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:17:34 -0000 (UTC), pothead   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2026-02-21, Socialism is for losers  wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:16:24 -0500, NoBody  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 06:56:08 -0500, -hh wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 2/21/26 02:19, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 21:51:08 -0500, -hh wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Nah, I used that minor windfall to poke at another luzer sockpuppet.   
   >>>>>>>>> Since they ran, you're welcome to take their arrow:  in what year did   
   >>>>>>>>> you exceed $25/hr in your career (if ever)?  Do be ready to prove it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Right after you prove you've been published....   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Already done weeks ago, by citing a paper which cited it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You post a link to an 8 page document with no specifics about what   
   >>>>>> you're trying to say.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Typical response from you.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> FYI, you've tried & failed to show that you yourself passed too:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Pot, kettle, black.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Hughie insinuated that he was "special"   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Special?   
   >>>> So Hugh was/is a short bus passenger?   
   >>>   
   >>> Hughie doesn't document any of his claims, ...   
   >>   
   >> Except for how you saw & tried to disregard one just ~6 hours earlier:   
   >   
   > Hughie makes claims that he doesn't back up. I don't make claims.   
   > Hughie asked a question and I answered it. It wasn't a claim. It was   
   > an answer to a question and since I felt no obligation to answer, I   
   > felt no obligation to document it.   
      
   No, for your "answer" wasn't to what the question had asked.   
      
   That's been pointed out to you and you've been silent.   
   Telling.   
      
      
   >> "Nope, sorry. I saw that before and it doesn't work."   
   >   
   > LOL> Says the guy you insinuated there was something special about a   
   > simple picture he had on his poorly constructed web site that anybody   
   > could have had.   
      
   Not a random photo, but relevant to that topic.   
      
   > ...and then he said, "oh lookie, lookie at what I can do.  I can make   
   > it so you can't see it any more. Aren't I just so special because I   
   > can do that?"   
      
   Nope.  It was showing relevant knowledge of the topic at hand.   
      
   Plus it shows ownership/control of the domain I'm posting from, which   
   neither none of the anonymous troll sockpuppets here can do.   
      
   > Hey, hughie, ya pathetic dimbulb, I've got several thousand pictures   
   > on my hard drives that don't exist anywhere on the Internet.   
      
   Because context matters.  How many of them are uniquely of nonlethal   
   weapons used by LEO that was part of that topic on ICE, hmmm?   
      
   >>> ...including that silliness about him making $25/hour as a volunteer,   
   >>> but he asks other people if they made that much and demands that   
   >>> they be prepared to document it.   
   >>   
   >> Because the dodging & whining response was the point ... and the Tell.   
   >   
   > No, Hughie, the point is that you are a sad little phony who has never   
   > done anything of significance who is trying to pretend that you have.   
      
   Even humble ones are more than any accomplishments you've shown.   
      
   > I don't know who you're tring to impress, but I don't think it's   
   > working.   
      
   Well, it is making you cry harder & harder:  mission accomplished! /s   
      
      
   >>> Hughie is a phony, and not terribly bright.   
   >>   
   >> Nah: y'all have been hoisted on your own petard.   
   >   
   > Irony anyone?????   
      
   "The lady, she doth protest too much..."    
      
   >> That's why you're desperately doing backflips trying   
   >> to find new excuses:  trivializing published works,   
   >>'same name', Ad Hominems.  It has driven y'all nuts.   
   >   
   > The document might have been important...   just not to me... and   
   > that you posted it apparently believing that it documented you to have   
   > been "published" makes the whole thing delightfully laughable.   
      
   What an huge backpedal from the prior "not published" insult attempt!   
      
   > You're a friggen joke, Hughie...   
      
   The origin was claiming that my comments were wrong because I was   
   uniformed on the subject.  Being published in that subject debunks.   
      
      
   >> So here's a Kewpie doll as a little old prize for ya:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >   
   > OMG, Hughie thinks that because he's a NYTimes subscriber makes him   
   > "special."   
      
   Nah, just showing that NoBody was also lying...again.   
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)