From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash   
      
   On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 08:03:56 -0500, -hh   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
    You asked if and when I first earned $25/hour and I told you   
   would have been in the early to mid 1980s.   
      
   >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.   
      
    A picture of part of a weapon that anybody could have had.   
      
   >> ...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.   
      
    It did no such thing. One could show a picture of a nuclear   
   reactor without knowing anything about nuclear reactors, you pathetic   
   moron.   
      
   >Plus it shows ownership/control of the domain I'm posting from, which   
   >neither none of the anonymous troll sockpuppets here can do.   
      
   Oh, Hughie owns the domain...   You're special, Hughie, oh so   
   special...   
      
   ...as if anyone can't register their own domain....   
      
   https://us.cybernews.com/lp/best-web-hosting-us/domain-providers   
   ?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BING_CN_HS_S-P_T1_U   
   _I-Domain-Provider_All-Lang&utm_content=82120187769202&utm_term=   
   omain%20registration&utm_id=688885634&campaignId=688885634&   
   adgroupId=1313919087309537&adId=82120187769202&targetId=kwd-8212   
   459177465:loc-190&device=c&munique=a7da318f925a11071be9581495d27   
   2c&source=bing&medium=cpc&campaign=BING_CN_HS_S-P_T1_US_I-Domain   
   Provider_All-Lang&content=82120187769202&term=domain%   
   20registration&msclkid=a7da318f925a11071be9581495d2752chttps://u   
   .cybernews.com/lp/best-web-hosting-us/domain-providers/?utm_sour   
   e=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BING_CN_HS_S-P_T1_US_I-Domain   
   Provider_All-Lang&utm_content=82120187769202&utm_term=   
   domain%20registration&utm_id=688885634&campaignId=688885634&adgr   
   upId=1313919087309537&adId=82120187769202&targetId=kwd-821214591   
   7465:loc-190&device=c&munique=a7da318f925a11071be9581495d2752c&s   
   urce=bing&medium=cpc&campaign=BING_CN_HS_S-P_T1_US_I   
   -Domain-Provider_All-Lang&content=82120187769202&term=domain%20r   
   gistration&msclkid=a7da318f925a11071be9581495d2752c   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   Dimwitted Hughie thinks that he's the only person that can get   
   themselves a picture of an FN303...   
      
   It's not like a person can't own one, photograph it, and give the   
   photo to the halfwitted wimp who stocks the soda pop isle at the   
   grocery store.   
      
   https://botach.com/fnh-fn303-mk2-less-lethal-launcher/   
      
   >>>> ...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.   
      
    Unlike you, Hughie, I have no need to show my accomplishments.   
   Unlike you, my ego is not dependent on attempts to collect accolades   
   and acknowledgments from other people.   
      
   >> 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 lives in his own imaginary bubble where he imagines   
   that he has a back yard.   
      
   >>>> 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..."    
      
    More irony from Hughie..   
      
   >>> 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!   
      
   No backpedal at all, Dummy. I previously said the document did not   
   document you having been published and I just said it again. Do you   
   also have a reading comprehension problem?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)