From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash   
      
   On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:45:07 -0500, -hh   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/23/26 07:12, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >The protest was your multiple repetitions after that.   
      
   Hughie blusters and fumes but doesn't say anything relevant.   
      
   >>>>>>> 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...   
   >   
   >Demonstrates motivation.   
      
   Hughie blusters and fumes but doesn't say anything relevant.   
      
   >>>>>>>>> "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.   
   >   
   >I said: "the FN-303 is a restricted item that US public can't legally   
   >own."  The first part is absolutely correct:   
      
    No it's not.   
      
   > FN US restricts their   
   >sales.   
      
   FN can ask their distributors to restrict sales, but they cannot   
   restrict anybody else from selling one.   
      
   >"The latter "US" is an error because I know that they're illegal   
   >to personally own in my own State and certainly some others,   
      
   Could be true, but you haven't proven it. It's not relevant to this   
   discussion anyway.   
      
   >but I   
   >didn't bother to check every last State & local jurisdiction, because   
   >its a moot point because FN US already restricts them nationwide.   
      
    By what authority can they do that, Dummy? They do not have such   
   authority.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Restricted by FN US nation-wide.   
      
    Like I said, they have no authority to do that.   
      
   > Noting a lack of a federal law does   
   >not constitute proof of no other State/Local restrictions, so the onus   
   >is on you to prove that they're universally legal in all jurisdictions   
   >in all 50 States plus DC & territories...good luck!   
      
   That goes beyond my proven claim that "a person can own one,   
   photograph it, and give the photo to the halfwitted wimp who stocks   
   the soda pop aisle at the grocery store."   
      
   >>>>>>>> ...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?   
   >   
   >Don't you recognize own words?   
      
   It was irrelevant nonsense in this context...   
      
   >>>>>>> Plus it shows ownership/control of the domain I'm posting from, which   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)