From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash   
      
   On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 02:37:10 -0500, -hh   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/22/26 18:09, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >"The lady, she doth protest too much..."  /s   
      
    Hughie doesn't know what "protest" means... "take it or leave   
   it" is not a protest, dummy.   
      
   >>>>> That's been pointed out to you and you've been silent.   
   >>>>> Telling.   
   >>>   
   >>> Still.   
   >>   
   >> I'm kind of a quiet guy.   
   >   
   >Your posting proliferation proves otherwise.   
      
   Blah, blah, blah...   
      
   >>>>>>> "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.   
   >   
   >Goalpost move attempt.   
      
   Yes, that's what you're doing below:   
      
   >In the US that their sale is restricted.   
      
    Hughie said it was illegal. It's not illegal. Now, Hughie is the   
   one moving the goalpost to say it's restricted.   
      
   Actually, it's not even restricted. There's no federal law against   
   buying or selling one. I suppose there might be local laws where   
   leftists rule against self-defense.   
      
   >>>>>> ...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."   
   >   
   >Silence.  Hmmmm!   
      
   Hmmmm? You babble some irrelevant nonsense and expected a reply?   
      
   >>>>> 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?   
   >   
   >You're not using it.   
      
    How would a ditz like you know if I am or had ever been using my   
   own domain, Dummy?   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >True, you could try to steal one from a police department.   
      
   ..or I could just buy one.   
      
   https://www.ebay.com/itm/177778382677?   
      
   https://www.gatewoodsupplyco.com/FN303-Less-than-Lethal-Launcher   
   -68_p_7445.html   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Because its a FN restriction to exclude the general public, selling them   
   >as a "Law Enforcement only" product.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)