XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell   
   From: leg@sea   
      
   Scout wrote:   
   > leg@sea wrote:   
   >> RD (The Sandman) wrote:   
   >>> "leg@sea"  wrote in   
   >>> news:hchrio$c9t$10@news.eternal-september.org:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Matt wrote:   
   >>>>> On Oct 30, 2:34 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>> @comcast.net> wrote:   
   >>>>>> "leg@sea"  wrote innews:hcfe6s$aeg$1@news.eternal-   
   >>>>>> september.org:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Matt wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 8:29 pm, "leg@sea"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Matt wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 28, 7:09 pm, "leg@sea"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Matt Telles felches spaniels in the break room.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Blah blah blah, Spammy is the 12 year old that rapes little   
   >>>>>>>>>> boys. Point proven.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Matt   
   >>>>>>>>> How's life by the reservoir, shall we up the ante?   
   >>>>>>>> Wow, you mean you are going to reveal my (*gasp*) name and   
   >>>>>>>> address, Spammy? Gee, anyone with a PHONE BOOK can do that.   
   >>>>>>> I _sure hope_ none of those 'crazed' gun owners you're always   
   >>>>>>> trying to disenfranchise finds there was over to Lakewood,   
   >>>>>>> Colorado, Matty...   
   >>>>>> They probably won't pay any attention to his address.....after   
   >>>>>> all, the vast majority of them are adult enough to realize that   
   >>>>>> differences of opinion exist....and always will.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Done raping the 12 year old boys, Spammy?   
   >>>>>>> Done trying to take away peoples' rights to own guns Matty?   
   >>>>>> He hasn't tried to take mine away.....or yours if you have one. He   
   >>>>>> simply has different ideas on gun control.   
   >>>>> Eh, Spammy and I go way back to his Uncle Sam days on co.general.   
   >>>>> Allegedly, he lives here. He doesn't like being shown up.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As for gun control, I do have different ideas. I think that what   
   >>>>> works in   
   >>>>> one place won't work in another. In other words, I like the concept   
   >>>>> of local control over matters. Does anyone truly disagree?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Matt   
   >>>> Why yes, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION does.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You fucking piece of shit fascist gun-grabber.   
   >>> We can hold the discussion without the name calling....it simply   
   >>> makes you look like Lee Harrison or TMT or Lookout.   
   >>>   
   >> The "discussion" is disingenuously tendered, as Matty always does.   
   >   
   > The expose him for what he is.   
      
   Which would be a simple google of: "matt telles + guns".   
      
   You could replay literally _dozens_ of threads.   
      
   >> He's an anti-gun troll, no more, no less.   
   >   
   > Perhaps.   
      
   Largely.   
      
   He knows his  programming languages and is a prolific tech writer, but   
   for usenet, he's largely an anti-gun troll.   
      
   >> As such there is no pretense of civility or couth required.   
   >   
   > Perhaps not for him, but the lurkers (and most groups have a number of them)   
   > will see your venom and unless they are aware of past history with him, may   
   > simply see you as a crazed nutcase who can't deal with the opinions of   
   > others. (ie they will see you as the troll).   
      
   That's why he noted it and I confirmed as much.   
      
   He knows he'll get you lot to play with him ad nauseum, whereas he's   
   aware I give him a short lead.   
      
   >> You've no doubt engaged him before. He's a liar and a fraud.   
   >   
   > Sure, but have the lurkers?   
      
   Dunno, honestly don't care.   
      
   >> And he will, as per always, retreat in a haze of denials, lies, edits,   
   >> and inflammatory rhetoric.   
   >   
   > At which point you can expose him to the lurkers and show that his position   
   > has not real basis and perhaps get one of them to at least reconsider their   
   > anti-gun opinion based on the reasonable and supportable facts you present   
   > and his inability to respond.   
      
   If you really think anyone changes their mind based on this nutty forum   
   you're deluded.   
      
   I've not seen that in a decade of play here.   
      
   >> I'm merely accelerating the all too predictable pace.   
   >   
   > Yep, and keeping any lurker from seeing information that may change their   
   > mind, and possibly even confirming in their mind that people who want guns   
   > are abusive, offensive, ill mannered people who you would want little or   
   > nothing to do with.   
      
   I think most folks here have their minds already made up.   
      
   > Sure, you will probably never change Matt's mind, but what about those who   
   > simply read and don't post? What will they make of your response?   
   >   
   > I know, I use to do what you're doing know, and I have to admit I sometimes   
   > still do. However, if you consider it a debate between two opposing points   
   > of view before an audience, you will understand you're not trying to change   
   > his mind.....you are simply using him to present your case to the public.   
   > Make your case a good one.   
      
   In the end however, it'll come down to (as both you and RD noted) the   
   SCOTUS.   
      
   So really this is little more than dog and pony land.   
      
   To be fair I've been at it long enough to be rather jaded.   
      
   YMMV.   
      
   Play on.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)