Re: Futile John Francis- Lying Piece Of Shit-#2

Re: Futile John Francis- Lying Piece Of sh.t-#2

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 16 Jun 2007 06:30 GMT

More examples of Futile John's Big Lie:

========================================

235. JOF View profile
More options Dec 9 2006, 9:33 am

Newsgroups: rec.scuba
From: "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com>
Date: 9 Dec 2006 08:33:53 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 9 2006 9:33 am
Subject: Re: Invitation for rec.scuba addicts
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by

this author
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick wrote:

> And whining, obfuscating, and slimy innuendo don't constitute "arguing".

Hey, it works for you?

> Never mind the documented repetitive scurries.

Your delusions don't constitute documentation.

> That's certainly not arguing.

> So that's "unmitigated bullshit".

We are defined by those we run with.

> > and it's the "righties" here for the most part who seem to favour anger,
> > ridicule and threats as "debate".

> That's a bald lie (and thus, unmitigated bullshit.).

That's a laugh, as well as pure unmitigated bullshit, to put it in
terms you seem comfortable with.

> > When was the last time I seemed to have sparks shooting out of my ears,
> > or any other orifice for that matter.

> Just recently, in your rabid and grossly inaccurate attack ("guns, guns
> and more guns") that you slid out of debating Dennis on.

Sparks? I gave it up as a total waste of time.

> You posted a paragraph of lies, obfuscation, and good old slimy
> innuendo, and then flatly refused to cite any of it.

Can you point me to it?

> -More- unmitigated bullshit.

> > Compare that to most of the right leaning posts. So where's the
> > bullshit?

> You must be on crack, or having a breakdown.

Watch the sparks.

> >> Lately you've been cited as being able only to invent vitriolic
> >> diatribes that you refuse to even try and substantiate.

> >> Plenty of sparks, but no heat, and certainly not centrist.

> > Cite me some of my sparky episodes then.

> No.

Of course, you can't. I guess that's another lie?

> > Do you really have any idea of where the centre is?

> Sure.

> I'm in it.

Of course, and the sun, and everything else, revolves around it.

> >Would you be disappointed to learn "middle ground" isn't a place occupied
> >only by progunners who aren't raving hide in the woods and play soldier
> >types.

> If you could example it, and you can't.

Cite an opinion?

> > To me the "middle ground" in this gun debate is occupied by those who
> > are content with any responsible person keeping a reasonable number of
> > reasonable weapons for reasonable and legal uses.

> This is a lie, in that you've -extensively- argued the confiscation of
> perfectly legal weapons because they hurt your feeeeeeeeeelings.

You haven't a clue about much of what I've said, do you? If you could
get the gun cotton out of your ears you might actually learn something.

> While there may be a middle ground that may roughly resembles your
> example, you have -repeatedly- demonstrated that this group does not
> include -you-.

> More unmitigated bullshit.

> You have, several times, translated "reasonable number of reasonable
> weapons for reasonable and legal uses" into "GUNS ARE BAD. FLOWERS ARE
> GOOD".

You keep referencing those words, but when have I ever said them? You
put words in my mouth and then condemn me for them. Nice action there,
dude.

> Weapons that are "reasonable" are weapons that you "like", and
> "unreasonable" weapons are weapons you -don't like-.

I'm not sure like is the right word. Try appropriate.

> That's a startling fact considering the level of your firearms
> ignorance.

> What's even better is, for you and your type, than a person must not be
> "reasonable" if the own or even like certain types of weapons, allowing
> you a whirling dervish of "reasonable" confiscation.

Wow, that's a very convoluted sentence. I think I understand what you
tried to say. And yes, I suppose there would be some amount of
confiscation involved in my idea of appropriate weapon ownership, but
it shouldn't hinder those honestly interested only in responsible
recreational shooting and personal defense, unless they need defending
from an army.

> >I suspect that in your mind though there is no middle ground, there's
> >only us and them. The problem with that perspective is that it forces you
> >to align yourself with a lot of raving armed loonies, and it forces me to
> >be aligned with a lot of raving unarmed loonies.

> I do a fine job of defending my position without aligning myself with
> raving loonies.

You may not like it but to those on the outside of the gun fraternity
you sound just as whacked out about your guns as the biggest nutjobs
hiding out in the Idaho bush.

> You can't even defend your position, let alone separate yourself from
> the raving loonies.

I defend fine, you refuse to listen.

> You specifically advocate -random- confiscation of perfectly legal
> firearms for the simple fact that you don't like the -totally imaginary-
> (and bigoted) personalities that you -project- on the owners of these
> weapons.

Hardly random. Some of the weapons you defend as normal are about as
appropriate for use in a populated area as driving a Formula One car to
the supermarket.

> One fine example of your lack of reasoning power was our vitriolic,
> apoplectic rant about how all hunters are cowardly (except those related
> to you), but you can keep a straight face while -steadfastly- advocating
> the clubbing of tens of thousands of baby seals.

Apoplectic? I reasonably defended the seal hunt as a part of the
livelihood for some maritimers. I didn't advocate killing the baby
seals. That's been outlawed.

> You're a fuckin -whack job-, dude.

Watch the sparks.

> This "middle ground" that you advocate, requires that someone quantify
> your "responsible person keeping a reasonable number of reasonable weapons
> for reasonable and legal uses."

And the alternative that you prefer is no controls on any weapons at
all, so any whackjob can have all the weapons he thinks he needs to
satisfy all his inadequacy issues. Some folks are apparently seriously
in need of armed self esteem. I'm not talking about guns for
recreation, for legitimate collections, for self-defense. I'm talking
about the clowns who acquire guns simply for the sake of having a bunch
of guns, to satisfy whatever lame little issues they harbour. You can
make all the feeble excuses you want for them but you know they're out
there, and you should be worried about them. They're the reason you
have to try so hard to defend your right to have guns. They're what
you're really defending. That's too bad, for you.

> You've shown, empirically, that you're incapable of using "reason" to do
> it, and I and others have shown that virtually -anyone- is incapable of
> doing it.

Of course you think you have. You need that to keep the delusion
afloat.

JF