From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash   
      
   On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:51:10 -0500, -hh   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Wow, Good point. I admit I never considered that. I'll pass that   
   argument along to my lawyer   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
      
   Wow, Good point. I admit I never considered that. I'll pass that   
   argument along to my lawyer   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>> "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.   
      
   Wow, Good point. I admit I never considered that. I'll pass that   
   argument along to my lawyer   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Sales contracts are not the only way items change hands.   
      
   >>> "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.   
      
   Such a sales contract could be written, but you've not documented that   
   FN has done that. At any rate there are ways around such contracts and   
   other ways that tangible goods change hands.... and indeed, FN-303s   
   are available for sale.   
      
   >>>> Actually, it's not even restricted. There's no federal law against   
   >>>> buying or selling one. I suppose there might be local laws where   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)