Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 7, 7:10*am, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-07, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > But you see the cop _was_ challenged and lost and if he still has a
> > job he isn't about to do that ever again. *The _effective_ challenge
> > was not one-on-one on the street though, it was in the courts. *The
> > street challenge was not only ineffective, it cost the person big
> > time.
>
> You don't get the court case without standing up in the one-on-one. If
> you lick the cops boots and the cop is satisified with the boot licking
> there is no court challenge. The actions of the cop are never reviewed
> and they will be repeated until he's no longer satisified with someone
> licking his boots and he goes ape on someone who did submit or someone
> else stands up to him.


Your're right. I realized that there never would have been a case if
the street conflict hadn't occurred after I posted.

<snip>

Harry K

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And
> > offensive. *And just plain rude.
>
> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just
> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony.

No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on
reality (at best). Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting
MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun
at the less-abled.

If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. But, from
experience, I know that's a waste of my time.

So, ridicule it is. And no irony involved! LOL.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And
>> > offensive. *And just plain rude.
>>
>> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just
>> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony.

> No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on
> reality (at best). Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting
> MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun
> at the less-abled.

I am well familiar you structure things so you can give yourself
exceptions to the rules you want others to follow.

> If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
> where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. But, from
> experience, I know that's a waste of my time.

Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? I think
it's called alt.net.kooks or something like that. Affraid that you'd be
laughed at? Oh wait, that's right, you don't live by what you preach.

> So, ridicule it is. And no irony involved! LOL.

It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
create for others. Something you do continually.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 7, 12:26*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P >
> > wrote:
> >> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> >> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And
> >> > offensive. *And just plain rude.
>
> >> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just
> >> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony.
> > No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on
> > reality (at best). *Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting
> > MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun
> > at the less-abled.
>
> I am well familiar you structure things so you can give yourself
> exceptions to the rules you want others to follow.

Actually, you aren't. It's just more made up **** for an idiot.

> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>
> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?

As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
your posts. The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
control.


> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>
> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
> create for others. Something you do continually.

Wrong, yet again. I didn't make the rules. They existed before even
you showed up in USENET. I just abide by them (something that you
seem to be unable to do).

Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. Thanks!

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:

> Actually, you aren't. It's just more made up **** for an idiot.

*yawn* name calling to get out. lame.

>> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
>> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
>> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>>
>> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>
> As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
> your posts. The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
> control.

Another exception you make for yourself.


>> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>>
>> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
>> create for others. Something you do continually.

> Wrong, yet again. I didn't make the rules. They existed before even
> you showed up in USENET. I just abide by them (something that you
> seem to be unable to do).

You're not abiding by jack **** Ed. You've reduced yourself to whiny
little troll who has to mention me in threads I am not even
participating in.

> Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. Thanks!

So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
threads that it doesn't belong here?

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 5, 9:18 pm, Brent P > wrote:
>
> Cops
> are not our masters and it's not 'stupid' to argue with them, one just
> has to understand what they really are.

Uh huh... armed with multiple weapons, and police powers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_qVJfaYZA
-----

- gpsman

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot.
>
> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame.

Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL.

> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>
> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>
> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
> > control.
>
> Another exception you make for yourself.

The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin'
hilarious.

> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>
> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
> >> create for others. Something you do continually.
> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even
> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you
> > seem to be unable to do).
>
> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed.

As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of
knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with
you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else.

My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect.

> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks!
>
> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
> threads that it doesn't belong here?

*sigh*

Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
*driving*, you drooling dip****.

I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take
any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and
brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else?

L-****ing-OL.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot.
>>
>> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame.
>
> Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL.
>
>> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
>> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
>> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>>
>> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>>
>> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
>> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
>> > control.
>>
>> Another exception you make for yourself.
>
> The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin'
> hilarious.
>
>> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>>
>> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
>> >> create for others. Something you do continually.
>> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even
>> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you
>> > seem to be unable to do).
>>
>> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed.
>
> As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of
> knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with
> you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else.
>
> My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect.
>
>> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks!
>>
>> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
>> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
>> threads that it doesn't belong here?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>
> I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take
> any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and
> brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else?
>
> L-****ing-OL.
>
> E.P.
>

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot.
>>
>> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame.
>
> Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL.

The king of context trimming getting all bent out of shape because of a
little extra aggressiveness in the clean up. There was no thought put to
it at all, Ed. But here you go seeing malice where there was none...
gee that's a behavior you accuse other people of...

>> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
>> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
>> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>>
>> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>>
>> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
>> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
>> > control.
>>
>> Another exception you make for yourself.
>
> The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin'
> hilarious.

What is hilarious is that you complain I am littering the newsgroup but
by your own actions, you increase what you are complaining about by no
less than 10 fold.

>> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.

>> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
>> >> create for others. Something you do continually.
>> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even
>> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you
>> > seem to be unable to do).
>>
>> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed.

> As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of
> knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with
> you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else.
> My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect.

What do you call a person who sprinkles his posts with insults directed
at people who aren't even participating in the thread at the time? Is
there a special term for that now or does still fall under 'trolling'?
As far as denial or uninformed, well some are. But not all. Your use of
'anyone' is clearly false.

>> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks!
>>
>> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
>> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
>> threads that it doesn't belong here?
> *sigh*
> Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> *driving*, you drooling dip****.

How about you point out specifically where I started a 'tin foil hatted'
tangent in this very typical topic I posted on with elements of MFFY,
'just let them do it', and 'road rage'? Put up or shut up. And I mean
started, not replied into, because replying into a tangent is someone
else's tangent, not mine.

> I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take
> any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and
> brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else?
> L-****ing-OL.

See, this is why it's pretty clear you have some inner need to discredit
me. You just spout lies like the above. Care to show where I mentioned
any of the above, ever, in any serious fashion? (I have mentioned aliens
in jest or in an anology of the absurd a few times over the years, but
never the other two in any form or fashion) Care to put up or shut up,
motha-****a?

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 8, 10:30 am, Brent P >
wrote:
>
> The king of context trimming getting all bent out of shape because of a
> little extra aggressiveness in the clean up. There was no thought put to
> it at all, Ed.

Now there's a surprise. Not that you act without thinking, that's
obvious, but that you realize it yourself.
-----

- gpsman