From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
On 2/23/26 12:46, Socialism is for losers wrote:
> 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.
Nope.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> "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.
Nope.
>> FN US restricts their
>> sales.
>
> FN can ask their distributors to restrict sales, but they cannot
> restrict anybody else from selling one.
Nope: it depends on how the sales contract is written.
>> "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.
Nope. A business is free to establish buyer requirements, so long as
they aren't discriminatory to protected classes (eg, race, religion,
etc). A commonly known example is the scuba diving industry.
>>> 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.
Nope. Real Estate is another example with Covenant restrictions: these
legally bind the buyer as well as subsequent buyers too. Look it up.
>> 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."
Nope.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
