Re: Californians seem to like the idea of Gay Marriage

On 2008-06-27 01:30:11 -0400, No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:

> Bibon <bibon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 
>> On 2008-06-26 20:55:11 -0400, No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>> 
>>> Bibon <bibon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>> 
>>>> 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'.


'Signatures' hasn't the same meaning as 'signature.' RTFP!


>>>>>>> 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?



>>>>>> NO ONE --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.




>>> <forgery snipped>      No One <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> is a bigot
>>> who posts regularly
> 
> 
> <next fogery snipped - anyone can check his message IDs to tell that
> NO ONE is lying as usual.>


Nod...

__
Semper Gumby