Re: Californians seem to like the idea of Gay Marriage

On 2008-06-25 00:02:45 -0400, No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:

> Bibon <bibon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 
>> On 2008-06-24 18:47:46 -0400, No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>> 
>>> Bibon <bibon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>> 
>>>>>>> Another dishonest statement from "Bibon".  In reality, the
initiative
>>>>>>> was drafted and most of the signatures were gathered *before* the
>>>>>>> California Supreme Court ruling.  They simply finished up at about
>>>>>>> the same time as the ruling, and that was a coincidence.
>>>>>> You choose the most mundane topics to lie about.
>>>>> Oh, just to back up Craig Chilton's statement that the likes of you
>>>>> would never apologize for your lies including your current false
>>>>> accusation, I'll simply point any interested reader to
>>>>> <http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General>,
>>>>> a web page on the California Secretary of State's web site, which
>>>>> states the following:
>>>>> Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.
>>>>> Summary Date: 11/29/07 Qualified: 06/02/08 Signatures
>>>>> Required: 694,354
>>>>> Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin
>>>>> F. Gutierrez, Hak-****ng William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o
>>>>> Andrew Pugno (916) 608-3065
>>>>> Note the date 11/29/07.  Also see
>>>>> <http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf>,
>>>>> which shows letters from ths sponsers of the initiative to the
>>>>> Initiative Coordinator, Office of the California Attorney General,
>>>>> received on October 5, 2007 and dated October 1, 2007.
>>>> You poor babeeeeeeeee! You were never taught the difference between
>>>> 'signature' and 'signatures'.
>>> Are you really too stupid to realize that people who filed an
>>> initiative in early, October2007, would start gathering signatures
>>> immediately and not wait 6 months before getting started?
>>> As I said, they were collecting these all along, and fini****ng
>>> at about the time of the court ruling was merely a coincidence.
>>> Now, why don't you surprise us, try to act like an adult, and
>>> apologize for your false accusations?
>> 
>> You let your alligator mouth over load your hummingbird ass (AGAIN)
>> and now you're trying to save face by ignoring the fact that I called
>> attention to your stupid allegation.
>> 
>> That dog don't hunt, rube.
> 

No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> is a bigot who posts regularly
> on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
> hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
> creeps in every so often.  Of course, he denies his real identity (and
> the large number of aliases he's used).  Since "No One" is simply
> his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
> former identities.
> 
> This guy is completely shameless.  In a post with message ID
<87vdzy88m2.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, he fallsified a citation
> - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post with Message ID
> <87r6i0mmsy.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> for the details).
> 
> See Message-ID <87vdzy88m2.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> for a post
> in which he accidentally identified himself as No One 
> <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and
> Message ID <m3d5dvpb61.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> for details about how
> he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that he never
> received a phone call from some individual, something only ""No One" 
> could know, with the phone number in question belonging to
> "our" "No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>".  Others, of course, have 
> reached the same
> conclusion.
> 
> The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about that 
> name so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)
> 
> Some of his rantings are just comical. For example,
> in Message ID <87vdzy88m2.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, one of
> No One aliases No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> posted an inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a
> male prostitute (whether or not he intended to say that).
> 
> However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
> example, in Message ID <87vdzy88m2.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>) was caught forging headers,changing
"LC" to
> "LA" and "LB" in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was
> posting under multiple identities.  You can cross check this claim by
> using Google to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID
> <embjih02o3h@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> was attributed by "No One 
> <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> to "LA"
> (but he suppressed part of the message ID by giving it as
> <embjhn02...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> to make tracing it difficult).
> 
> He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior.  In Message ID
> <016tu2d0ksk24dsucsvpr22uq4nh2a80br@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "No One 
> <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
> <87ps7kj3oy.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> yet it does not appear there
> (<87ps7kj3oy.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> is the message ID of the post
> that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers for his post).
> In message ID <dp22v21m779nvfjdch92nurepkr5ct88vl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 he tried
to
> cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
> occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were
> automatically inserted by his newsreader.  His claim of a "mistake"
> is as believable as "my dog ate my homework".  Then in a post with
> message ID <s4d4v29mamrmrstjirqler18libhomhl93@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, he tried
> to pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even
> though the text in question never was in the one he quoted.
> 
> Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment "No One 
> <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> makes.  You really have to wonder about 
> someone who
> would post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
> <http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&>
and copy a message ID
> (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at the bottom of
> the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to find an original
> post.