Re: Unraveling Roe


ladagency@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> What I didn't include is . . .

the same idiocy that you've posted before.

Here's my response to your post the last time you posted this
ridiculous "theory":

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/287a2e550235e711?dmode=source&hl=en

I'm not bothering to write it all again.

Merely repeating your religious fundamentalist, pseudo-legalese
nonsense isn't going to make it true. Instead of obsessing over this
nonsense, try studying and comprehending the First Amendment.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A qiuestion for the community
    ... what do you say we put an end to this nonsense? ... reply to your earlier post and given your response here to Salad. ... Need appointment scheduling? ... I am disgusted with the behavior of Steve. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: On the bent!
    ... Peter Clinch wrote in response to Tony Raven: ... > A bloody stupid load of nonsense if ever I heard one (the sort of thing I ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: A new math usenet group
    ... Any filter which doesn't remove idiocy simply isn't worth implementing. ... I disagree. ... We should only ban repetitive nonsense. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Argue about this
    ... For 2 reasons: Lots of others call Rene on his nonsense, ... do not feel it is important enough to require response, ... like '21-Stone Beth', but I don't and I won't. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: uk.legal.moderated
    ... not bothering to post replies. ... It would be nice if you could check your facts before posting provocative ... nonsense like this, Peter. ...
    (uk.legal)