Re: England's getting odder.

<ozarkheart@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:nqnk845j3gl3u7jd6rjr5kgtdaqiq15bq6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:04:01 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><ozarkheart@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:7c0g849gk45e3fkfl3cpuht0ikql4lhj3e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:30:42 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><ozarkheart@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:r7o7849ortrs8c9mgiop1cpbont64viuh1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:43:11 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Bill Smith" <squandary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:2ok584l2lgn0efctg5q35n7gk97jisfapj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He claimed he could detect the effect many years ago - in the
early
>>>>>>>>90s
>>>>>>>>IIRC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to argue with Lott, I suggest you take it up with him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not disagreeing with him - you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you assume
>>>>>>>>>>> that a majority of Americans are legally armed, or even a
>>>>>>>>>>> substantial
>>>>>>>>>>> number in places where most of the crime occurs, you would be
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>According to Lott that doesn't matter - it's the increased risk
>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>deters
>>>>>>>>>>bad guys.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't speak for Lott, I don't agree with him. I don't think
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> are enough people carrying to make a measurable difference in
>>>>>>>>> crime
>>>>>>>>> overall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your opinion isn't fact or convincing evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be convinced there are a large percentage of eligible
>>>>>>> people carrying guns, where did you get this information?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What have I written that makes you believe that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Blinkyliar never answers a direct question.....
>>>>
>>>>That looks like a direct question to me, odiousfart - what do you
think
>>>>stops it from being that?
>>>
>>> Jeez, being dishonest again; you are truly pathetic.
>>
>>Pathetic dishonesty is claiming that I am "convinced  there are a large
>>percentage of eligible people carrying guns". I haven't written anything
>>like that
>
> You stupid idiot.

You congenital ****wit.

>Of course you didn't.

Then you agree the OP is a lying maggot like you for claiming that I did 
write
something like that.


> You simply ask a question instead of answering.

Of course, you terminal idiot. When the question contains a dishonest
claim
about what I have said, how can I answer the question directly? I know
that
inserting a lie into a question is standard practice for you, but honest
people don't behave like that, only gunloons like you and the OP.

>  You steadfastly refuse to answer any direct
> question, coward.

So I only need to find one question that I have answered directly to prove
that you are a liar.

"Question:  What would you like to have in order to protect yourself?

Me: A system that prevented someone like that from getting firearms."

So you're proven (yet again) to be a liar.



>
>
>>, so you and the other idiot are liars who rely on dishonesty about
>>what I have written. Sane people understand why idiots like you
shouldn't
>>be
>>trusted with a gun.
>
> No dishonesty - except in your mind asking you a question constitutes
> being dishonest.

Up above you admit that I didn't write anything to suggest that I am
"convinced there are a large percentage of eligible people carrying guns".
When a question claims that I am convinced of that, then the question
contains a lie, and is therefor dishonest. It isn't surprising that a
pathological liar like you asks questions like that and tries to defend 
them.