From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash   
      
   On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:20:10 -0500, -hh   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Take it or leave it. I don't care.   
      
   >>> That's been pointed out to you and you've been silent.   
   >>> Telling.   
   >   
   >Still.   
      
   I'm kind of a quiet guy.   
      
   >>>>> "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.   
      
   Nope. It is not universally illegal to own one, Dummy.   
      
   >>>> ...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.   
      
    What makes you believe that?   
      
   >>>> 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.   
      
   I've no reason to own one, but I suspect I could if I wanted. They are   
   hard to come by, but not impossible. It's not illegal to own one, you   
   know. It does not require a Federal Firearms License to own one, at   
   least where I live.   
      
   >>>>>> ...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:   
      
    Bragging is mostly what pathetic little fools like you do, and   
   you've doing it regularly here on Usenet.   
      
   > I was accused of talking out of my ass,   
   >so I chose to defend myself by showing my relevant expertise.   
      
   Except you haven't, as yet, shown any kind of expertise. You aren't   
   even a very good liar.   
      
   >>>> 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..   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)