Re: Yet another reason why we need gun control...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:12:04 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ocbkr3tj7schkojv8qg4ljqnibru1gpb1u@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:08:58 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8h3ir3ps3fjj5kl79ft5h7285iosef49gl@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:15:57 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:epvhr3l11gsmnnjkousq6cu1n8si672tkk@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:50:08 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5rpgr394aaedsen2phfc20hqs3aoil7rbq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:30:30 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gunfr3pqdu036vj2h88p5206hqci6icrsq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:38:49 GMT, "Blinky Bill"
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tmffr39g89ogviipvhhn3jpl738kfq0pdc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:52:59 GMT, "Blinky Bill"
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lv6fr3hrvq9dsn6b1eh3birdb5gisg8clt@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:24:19 GMT, "Blinky Bill"
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"RSweeney" <dockscience@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eaGdnS6FD_EKHyranZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VhLtj.15778

You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of
the
active
drug.
THAT is why some users OD.

Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.

Do you believe that liquor stores sell antifreeze and
methanol
laced
booze?

Are you capable of making a post that addresses the subject
under
discussion?

Are you able to think in the abstract?

Apparently my thoughts aren't as abstract as the previous
poster.

Not only are they not as abstract - they seem to be missing.

It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span
of
a
gnat,
and the intelligence to go with it.

LOL You are the one who missed it - not me.

That's just how it seems to you <chuckle>





If you miss his point, perhaps
you will undertand when you finish high school.

And when you finish pre-school you might be able to explain the
ratiionale
behind using an analogy to explain another analogy which didn't
explain
the
original subject of discussion.

LOL The rationale is very clear:

It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span
of
a
gnat,
and the intelligence to go with it.

And again.

Indeed <chuckle>

Glad you agree

Why wouldn't I agree that you have the attention span and intelligence
of
a
gnat? I wrote it originally and you've done nothing to change my
opinion.






So you are either dumb or dishonest.

Or rational.

Not quite

Very quite.



You pick.

Rational - one of the others fits you.

LOL Keep trying grassiopper

Um, whatever.





Shall I explain it for you?

Explain using an analogy to explain an analogy that failed to
explain
the
original argument being made? Don't hold back - go for it - I
could
do
with
a laugh.

LOL I wil use small words so you can understand (probably about a
50/50 proposition): Your comment "Decriminalising would not
necessarily change that." - referring to the quality of the
product -
is wrong.

A statement of fact in a hypothetical situation - you are as mad as
your
fellow gun-loons. No-one knows what other laws would change if drugs
were
decriminalised, or how those laws would change.

No one knows exactly what will happen in any future circumstance,

Thank you - that's what I have been saying for quite some time.

dimbulb. However, even an fool such as yourself should be able to
predict there would be government controls.

And even a moron such as yourself should be able to see that such
controls
won't stop overdoses, which was what was being discussed.

Nope - here is what I responded to:

You were replying to what I wrote and what I wrote involved an analogy
that
apparently incorporated the notion that decriminalising drugs would
eliminate overdoses.

Nope - when I stepped in it was about the part on unknown qauality.


Nope - decriminalising drugs and the elimination of overdoses. Pay
attention.


Nope - you pay attention. I entered the discussion and addressed the
point about the quality of the product.

Nope- you pay attention - your first response was

"Are you able to think in the abstract? If you miss his point, perhaps
you will undertand when you finish high school."

Sufficiently vague to mean anything you or I read into it. And containing
two thinly veiled insults. Now you bleat and whine when you get insulted in
return. Grow up, fuckwit.

LOL Yep: Vulgarity is your only response.





Again; you are either stupid or dishonest - I think i may have to vote
for both.

No indecisiveness from me - you are both a cockhead and a fuckwit.

Ah yes, a sure sign that I have spanked you.......

Decisiveness is a sign you have spanked me? Is that your fantasy - to
spank
someone you believe is a schoolchild - what a sick paedophilic pervert you
are.

Yep: A sure sign. You have no recourse left except to resort to
childish vulgar insults.

One possible reponse when insults are directed at me.

Keep trying grasshopper


To be honest

That's a refreshing change.

- I expected that.

You would have to be really stupid not expect some response - do you really
believe you can insult and antagonise people and not expect a response?

As noted before - your vulgarity shows your character.
.