From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 2/22/26 09:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Not quite, because what you actually said was:   
      
   " Without looking it up, I'd say it was early or mid 1980s   
   that I made over $50K annually,....I'm pretty sure of what I posted   
   based on what I was investing back then"   
      
   That's you admitting that you were relying on total household income   
   including passive (not 'earned') income sources.   
      
      
   >> That's been pointed out to you and you've been silent.   
   >> Telling.   
      
   Still.   
      
   >>>> "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.   
      
   Nope, the FN-303 is a restricted item that US public can't legally own.   
      
   >>> ...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.   
      
   "The public doesn't get to see everything."   
      
   >> 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....   
      
   You certainly could too...but you've not.   
      
      
   >>> 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/   
      
   Go ahead and try to buy one, since that's what it will take for you to   
   figure out for yourself that it is a regulated product that's not   
   available to the US general public.   
      
      
   >>>>> ...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.   
      
   Except that I'm not bragging:  I was accused of talking out of my ass,   
   so I chose to defend myself by showing my relevant expertise.   
      
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   The cite shows that you're wrong.  That's why you've tried to backpedal   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)