Smokers, again. Or should I say, LOSERS!

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Aug 19, 10:19*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:


Once you've become honest with yourself about those being fictional,
you may be ready to start dealing with the lies that you can't yet
admit to yourself.

How nice, it's finally having a dialogue with itself to understand its
problem. Keep at it, you'll finally see that those really ARE your mommy's
basement walls surrounding you.

Nope. Still just pulling it out of your ass, and everyone still knows
it. See, if ya wanna actually insult someone you have to say
something about them that's *true*. Otherwise you can't hurt their
feelings. They just laugh at you, and *you* end up looking foolish.
Even to yourself.


Duh, you're SO smart! (not) Don't you realize this is why your psychotic
imaginings about who and what I am don't mean diddly-squat to me? Go take
your medication you **** of a moron.



For instance: you could say "You're an arrogant SOB who doesn't
hesitate to flaunt his background when he wants to swat an
ignoramus.", and it would be absolutely true. (It wouldn't hurt my
feelings any, mind you, because I'm aware of how I behave, but at
least it would be a start towards being honest with yourself.)

There's only one currency of value on Usenet, Poopsie, and that valuta
is honesty. Never lie. Because when you not only lie, but you do it
all the time, you automatically surrender the respect of every single
poster who reads your stuff.


Great! Prove who you REALLY are, and not a basement living troll. You
can't. We ALL already know you're nothing but a pretend-photographer troll.
Because you can't carry on even ONE conversation about cameras or
photography without going off into your deep-end delusions and psychoses
about who might be who in your virtual world you invented for yourself.

LOL!

And then -even should you happen to contribute something of value-
it's likely to be overlooked by the rest of the newsgroup because
you've conditioned them to think that everything you say is bull****.

Comprende?

More than you can "comprende". I do what I do because IDIOTS LIKE YOU will
fail to comprehend the valuable information I share. It's an art of
communication I perfected LONG ago. I often wondered when young, how could
I get valuable information to those that deserve to have it, while asswipes
like you will be blinded by your psychotic emotional reactions to the words
themselves, gleaning nothing from the information conveyed. The
communication act itself filtering out royal asswipe twits like you. YOU
totally LOSE. Those that deserve valuable information will receive it, free
of charge. While everyone is also having a good laugh at your expense. I
never do one thing when I can do a dozen at the same time with the same
act.

I'm SO GLAD that you are proving that it's working as elegantly and
eloquently as I had designed.

LOL!

"Comprende?" You ****ing asswipe of a troll's ****.

ROFLMAO!

On 20/08/2010 11:23, LOL! wrote:
I do what I do because IDIOTS LIKE YOU will
fail to comprehend the valuable information I share. It's an art of
communication I perfected LONG ago.

On one hand, according to you, 99.99% of mankind, present compnay
included (except you O Grand Master Of All Things Photographic), are
asswipe mother-basement-living pretend-photographer trolls and utter
morons not worth of your valuable information. So they are people you do
not communicate with. So you communicate with at most 0.01% of mankind.
And you say "it's an art of communication I perfected LONG ago".

I have a perfect car to sell you. But you can use it only on 0.01% of
the roads.

--
Bertrand

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:03:12 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 20/08/2010 11:23, LOL! wrote:
I do what I do because IDIOTS LIKE YOU will
fail to comprehend the valuable information I share. It's an art of
communication I perfected LONG ago.

On one hand, according to you, 99.99% of mankind, present compnay
included (except you O Grand Master Of All Things Photographic), are
asswipe mother-basement-living pretend-photographer trolls and utter
morons not worth of your valuable information. So they are people you do
not communicate with. So you communicate with at most 0.01% of mankind.
And you say "it's an art of communication I perfected LONG ago".

I have a perfect car to sell you. But you can use it only on 0.01% of
the roads.

Well, that's a horse-**** failed analogy if I ever read one. Consider
yourself one of those 99.99% that aren't supposed to figure it out, while
you greatly amuse me ... at your expense..

LOL!

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:21:08 -0400, John A. wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:17:04 -0500, Ted Banks wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:33:55 -0400, John A. wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:30:23 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Aug 19, 6:39*am, peter wrote:


If you want to shorten your life, be my guest. Just don't affect the
length or quality of mine.

Oh dear. A blind, deaf-and-dumb, self-centered idealist.

Look, Poopsie; every single time you start a motor vehicle you affect
the potential length and quality of *everyone's* lives. *In fact,
practically everything you do that involves high-tech beyond the level
of making fire has negative long-term effects on the 6.8 billion other
people inhabiting this planet.

You can't avoid it, so stop pretending that you're judging everyone
from some higher plane and that *you* don't do anything that has nasty
side affects.

So smoking = driving. Go ahead and do the world a favor. Kill yourself
with your own smoke.

I don't smoke, silly person. And yes, smoking *is* like driving in
that there are literally hundreds of things *you* do every day that
are likely to have negative long-term health effects on your
neighbors. Anything that puts carcinogens -or pathogins of any sort-
into the environment during either production or use qualifies, and
that includes the computer you're staring at right now.

Now: consider the literally millions of motor vehicles spewing tons of
carcinogens into the air we breath every day, compare that to the
relatively tiny amounts of toxics contributed by smokers, and it will
become apparent -even to you- that the odds of exposure to second-hand
tobacco smoke being the singular cause of any modern American's lung
cancer are practically nil.

You're neglecting proximity. Might as well assume a spherical chicken.

Oh, I get it. You use a 4 mile-long snorkel to breathe air from the upper
atmosphere that's not been saturated with carcinogens from car, truck,
train, bus, and power-plant exhausts. Now it all makes sense.

Tighten those self-induced-ignorance blinders even more. I don't believe
they've left a painful enough scar on your face yet.

I can always tell when I am within 1 hour from being downtown of any major
city. The smell of the diesel fumes coming from the city gives me a
throbbing headache. But city dwellers are so used to it they never even
notice.

Just because there's a background exposure to other pollutants doesn't
mean local concentrations of tobacco smoke don't increase the risk.
There's not so much baseline pollution so as to crowd the tobacco
smoke out of our lungs. If there was, we wouldn't be here having this
debate.

Breathing city-air is equivalent to smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day.
That's far beyond anything you will get from occasional and temporary
second-hand smoke. Your problem is that you don't want to look in the
mirror and realize that YOU are creating a greater health-hazard for
everyone by driving or using electricity or having goods delivered to your
stores and homes than any smokers do, even if smokers were sitting right
next to you 24 hours a day.

Tighten those ignorance-inducing blinders some more. I don't hear you
screaming yet.


The radon level in my house in the winter, is equivalant to at least two packs a day.

greg

In article , Rich wrote:
In Canada, onerous taxes on tobacco have helped (I think cigarettes
are something like $8 for a small package) drop smoking levels from
40% of the population in the late 1960's to just over 14% today. But,
there is much greater concentration in the poorer levels of society.
The more educated and the higher class you come from, the lower the
incidence of smoking. Now, this is absolute proof that smoking in the
West is being relegated to those with lower intelligence. Even at the
high prices tobacco commands, the poor still allocate income for it,
not appreciating the effects smoking has on health and standard of
living of those on modest incomes.

Taxes have little effect on smoking, but the government just loves the
cigarette tax money. They rely on it.

Government always likes to bring up health issues to justify the tax, just
like tax on sun tan salons 10%, but the major issue is, they mostly want the money.

Next, they will tax 10% extra on cameras.

greg

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:19:07 GMT, (GregS) wrote:

In article , Rich wrote:
In Canada, onerous taxes on tobacco have helped (I think cigarettes
are something like $8 for a small package) drop smoking levels from
40% of the population in the late 1960's to just over 14% today. But,
there is much greater concentration in the poorer levels of society.
The more educated and the higher class you come from, the lower the
incidence of smoking. Now, this is absolute proof that smoking in the
West is being relegated to those with lower intelligence. Even at the
high prices tobacco commands, the poor still allocate income for it,
not appreciating the effects smoking has on health and standard of
living of those on modest incomes.

Taxes have little effect on smoking, but the government just loves the
cigarette tax money. They rely on it.

Government always likes to bring up health issues to justify the tax, just
like tax on sun tan salons 10%, but the major issue is, they mostly want the money.

Next, they will tax 10% extra on cameras.

greg

They should put a 50% tax on all disposable diapers. The largest percentage
of all non-recyclable land-fill pollution. It might make those selfish and
self-centered over-breeding pigs think twice about sticking a dick in a
****.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Aug 20, 1:53*am, LOL! wrote:


Duh, you're SO smart! (not)

Scored 168 the last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet test
series back in high school.

And you?

Average is 183. They can't score my spatial IQ because it is too high.
Averaging that in throws off the overall score. Sadly, verbal/language is
only 138, which drags down the average. I communicate in visuals and
spatials better than language. Learning fluent AMSLAN took only 2
semesters. Well, one actually. I spent the 2nd one tutoring all the other
students. Independent creativity tests, like spatial, are also off the
scales.


Great! Prove who you REALLY are, and not a basement living troll. You
can't.

Already did. The name is Pete Roehling. Google is your friend.

No you didn't. You didn't prove ****. Steal more people's identities
online. It's easy for a troll like you. That's how useless dip****s like
you operate.

And I'm Ansel Adams. I really didn't die. I just faked my death to increase
the value of my photography. Prove I'm not.

See how that works? You psychotic piece of **** TROLL. You can't even prove
your gender online, much less your real identity. IT'S ALL IN YOUR STUPID
LITTLE ****ING HEAD. Whatever you want to believe to be true will be true
for you and NOBODY else. All your projections, all your assumptions, ALL
COME FROM YOUR OWN PSYCHOTIC IMAGINATION.

I suggest you go back and get some more time-in washing those locked-ward
lunch tables. You sure as hell didn't learn much while there under
court-order.

LOL!

"Words are like a mirror -- if a moron peers into them you can't expect a
moron to see any wisdom nor intelligence in those words."

I'd ask you if you are "catching-on yet?", but that would be a frivolous
question. The answer is more than obvious. A resounding "NO".

LOL!

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Aug 20, 11:15*am, LOL! wrote:


Average is 183.

Sure it is.

That's why you spend so much time preening and putting other people
down.

Great! Prove who you REALLY are, and not a basement living troll. You
can't.

Already did. *The name is Pete Roehling. Google is your friend.

No you didn't. You didn't prove ****. Steal more people's identities
online. It's easy for a troll like you. That's how useless dip****s like
you operate.

Right. Sure.

My address is easily available by Googling, and you're welcome to come
meet me face-to-face. (Ya see, only people who have something to hide
conceal their real identites behind multiple posting nyms and the
anonymity of Usenet.)

Rationalize yourself out of that one, Poopsie. It'll be fun to watch.

Not necessary. Have someone meet you. Oh, too bad. It's just one of your
many sock-puppets trying to prove what is not.

LOL!

I've dealt with psychotic trolls like you in the past. You're commonplace,
ordinary.

You'll never "get it", you're far too psychotic. That's why having you
around is such fantastic free entertainment!

LOL!

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Aug 20, 12:17*pm, LOL! wrote:


My address is easily available by Googling, and you're welcome to come
meet me face-to-face. *(Ya see, only people who have something to hide
conceal their real identites behind multiple posting nyms and the
anonymity of Usenet.)

Rationalize yourself out of that one, Poopsie. *It'll be fun to watch.

Not necessary. Have someone meet you. Oh, too bad. It's just one of your
many sock-puppets trying to prove what is not.

See? I *told* you it would be fun to watch.

Were someone to drop a bowling ball on your foot from an altitude of
twenty feet, you would blandly assert that nothing had
happened...


What? A VIRTUAL bowling bowl? Just like your psychotic virtual-realty
online? You bet!

Catching on yet?

Of course not, you're too much of a stupid ****ing **** of a TROLL.

LOL!

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:14:11 -0500, LOL! wrote:

What? A VIRTUAL bowling bowl? Just like your psychotic virtual-realty
online?

What's this? We have a real estate agent selling a bowling alley
online?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida