Thrown out of an FBO...

Don't care...

mike

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

And yet she is correct.

Ron Lee

mike regish wrote:

Don't care...

mike

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

And yet she is correct.


Of course you do not. Why should you care about accuracy? You've
already proclaimed that you are "liberal." :-)

Um...those "radical" muslims were in Afghanistan. It's not even spelled like
Iraq. Look...Iraq ends in a "Q". See it? Afghanistan ends in a "stan". "Q".
"STAN" I put them real close so maybe it would be easier for you to see the
difference.

mike

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

W is somewhat liberal IMO. He is hardly a Reagan conservative but he
does stand by his convictions and is an honorable man. He has done a
fair job of fighting the muslim radicals who want to kill Americans
but he is wrong on the illegal worker (erroneously called immigration)
amnesty program, protecting our borders, Katrina relief, etc

Ron Lee

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another.

I doubt you'd do any better in some other language.

I do just fine.



[...]
And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
need
any support other than you say so?

It's not a "law of trolling". It's a simple matter of intent. Part of
Jay's intent was to troll. That's trolling.

Suppose a person mugs another person, killing them in the process. Suppose
also that the mugger was looking to a) obtain some property from the other
person, and b) murder the other person.

Does the fact that they wanted property from the other person negate the
fact that their intent was also murder? Do we decide that the mugger was
not a murderer, even though they DID intent to murder, simply because they
also wanted to obtain property?

No, of course not. Your assertion that Jay's other motive somehow obscures
this motive to troll is, quite frankly, idiotic.

I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the fact
that one *is* trolling.

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome.

Among other definitions.

The other definitions, such as they are, are irrelevant. The "would" with
respect to the definition *I* was using is still appropriate, and very much
"there".

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal
ball
and knew that you *would* post.

No crystal ball is needed when predicting another person's reaction, based
on previous experience with that person. It's the reason that, as I said,
most of the regulars in this newsgroup are *very* predictable.

But in any case, Jay has in so many words admitted that he "knew I would
post". I find it remarkable that you would even consider debating that
point. Of all the points in this thread, it is the most directly provable,
since Jay has written an explicit statement to that effect.

The comparison of sharing one's experience with others in a public forum to
mugging, stealing, and murdering is quite impressive, if not eccentric. But you
like to toss around words like idiotic, so suit yourself.

mike regish wrote:

And yourself...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
The secondary
reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
who are
predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.


How so?

I'll vote in favor of it.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If
trolling
was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
need
any support other than you say so?

mike regish wrote:

No! Really?!

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

To clarify for you, midwes was typed in error, the correct word was
midwest.

I thought it was pretty easy to figure out, but I'm sorry that you had
trouble. HTH.

mike regish wrote:

Ahhh...grasshopper.

Such wisdom...from one so young, yet.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

The intolerant only prefer to be amongst themselves and could certainly
not love anyone else.


Grasshopper? I'm curious how old "so young" is to you.

I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
mouth from another angle.

mike

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message


I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the
fact that one *is* trolling.

mike regish wrote:

If you can't figure it out by now, you never will.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just
hid
it better.
mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the
party,
all by himself in the span of 6 years.

Exposed what? What are you talking about? "Been like 'that'" --what
stereotype are you trying to make?


That you are intolerant of others who don't talk and believe and think like
you? That wasn't hard to figure out, Mike.