 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / July 2009Media keeps suggesting that drugs are responsible for the death of Michael Jackson.
The police should investigate all the people who have extorted Michael Jackson, over the years. Drugs didn't kill Michael Jackson. The people who slandered Jackson burdened his heart -he lasted far longer than anybody similarily attacked. http://surftofind.com/change On Jun 26, 10:08 pm, tom5...@yahoo.com wrote: > The police should investigate all the people who have extorted Michael > Jackson, over the years. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://surftofind.com/change Yes I think lots of people need to stop and think how they affect others in what they do and say and be kinder On Jun 26, 10:08 pm, tom5...@yahoo.com wrote: > The police should investigate all the people who have extorted Michael > Jackson, over the years. > > Drugs didn't kill Michael Jackson. The people who slandered Jackson > burdened his heart -he lasted far longer than anybody similarily > attacked. Oh really? You think MJ's heart was "burdened", eh? Talk to a divorced father some time, you know, the one where he's been taken to the cleaners and can't afford to hire an attorney to defend himself in court so he can have some level of contact with his children and I'll show you what a truly "burdened" person looks like. Jackson was a fool. He spent all his money on bull sh.t and died a pauper. No one is to blame for his predicament save Jackson himself. No one held a gun to his head to make his "home" into a private theme park. He blew his wad, he freaked and took the easy way out. He was a fool and weak of moral substance. for every MJ, I can show you dozens of fathers that wade into the mire of "family court" at ever opportunity they have in order to keep in touch with their kids and fight for what's right. They don't freak out and take the easy way out. Only when the state backs them into a corner, takes all they own or ever will own and uses it against them, poisons their children's minds against them tells those same, loving fathers that they don't matter. Then and only then do they take the only way out left to them. Jackson, heh, what a moron. > On Jun 26, 10:08 pm, tom5...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have some level of contact with his children and I'll show you what a truly > "burdened" person looks like. So the fact that you can't deal with your problems means that nobody else's problems interest you .... interesting. In case you don't have a radio, Michael Jackson was a father and he was divorced a few times. He went through a few legal battles, was estranged from his family and had lost every connection he may have had with reality. I'd say deadbeat dads have an easy life by comparison. > Jacksonwas a fool. He spent all his money on bull sh.t and died a pauper. No he didn't. He died with millions in a 40 million dollar rental mansion, he just left a lot of debt behind. If the stories are true he stashed cash everywhere, had 100 new hits ready for release and still owns the Beatles catalog. > No one is to blame for his predicament saveJacksonhimself. Shocking admission from a guy who claims he shouldn't be held responsible for the care of his own spawn. > No one held a > gun to his head to make his "home" into a private theme park. Unless you are claiming to have been raped at gunpoint, you are admitting that you are responsible for your own children. Another shocker. > He blew his > wad, he freaked and took the easy way out. As you wish you could do. Except his way out was dying, yours is less admirable. > He was a fool and weak of moral substance. He took responsibility for his kids, that puts him head and shoulders above you. > for every MJ, I can show you How many can you show us? More than one? Michael Jordan would be #2? > dozens of fathers that wade into the mire of "family court" at ever By your "stupid guy" math we are up to 24 fathers. > opportunity they have in order to keep in touch with their kids and fight > for what's right. They don't freak out and take the easy way out. Only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jackson, heh, what a moron. Most don't take the position that they are not responsible for their offspring because someone else has the right to abort the children. If you take that position you have lost the moral high ground and nobody will ever buy your "loving father kicked out of his house" crap. Imagine that, a psychotic homo who bought 3 children is a better man and father than you. Kinda makes a guy want to keep quiet and pay his bills ... no? "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of interest. > "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of > interest. Exactly! It's like thin people that get on a dieters forum, they have no clue! >> "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of >> interest. > > Exactly! > > It's like thin people that get on a dieters forum, they have no clue! LMAO!!! > > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of > > interest. > > Exactly! > > It's like thin people that get on a dieters forum, they have no clue! Or liars who pretend to believe each other's lies. On Jul 2, 3:02 pm, "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote: > "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's like thin people that get on a dieters forum, they have no clue! Or liars who pretend to believe each other's lies. -------------------- Now that's a hell of a thing for you to say to us, all you ever do is lie! On Jul 2, 3:02 pm, "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote: > "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's like thin people that get on a dieters forum, they have no clue! Or liars who pretend to believe each other's lies. ***************************************************** The expert speaks. Phil #3 > Or liars who pretend to believe each other's lies. > > ***************************************************** > > The expert speaks. > Phil #3 And who are you speaking to? Of course I doubt you would be considered an expert on anything On Jul 3, 3:47 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Or liars who pretend to believe each other's lies. > > ***************************************************** > > The expert speaks. > Phil #3 And who are you speaking to? Of course I doubt you would be considered an expert on anything ******************************************************** I am speaking to any who read this, including you apparently. Your opinion is worth its weight in warm spit. Phil #3 > > The expert speaks. > > Phil #3 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is worth its weight in warm spit. > Phil #3 So there you go, my opinion is worth more than yours. Is that why you need to respond to every post I make with lies and nonsense? On Jul 3, 4:07 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > The expert speaks. > > Phil #3 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is worth its weight in warm spit. > Phil #3 So there you go, my opinion is worth more than yours. Is that why you need to respond to every post I make with lies and nonsense? ----------------------------------- Lies and nonsense should always be answered with truth, honest debate and learned opinions. Which is what happens whenever you post your foolish drivel - people reply openly and honestly, something you have never done. I bet if you did, Hell would freeze over. > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I bet if you did, Hell would freeze over. No you don't, read this very thread for examples of misinformation, lies and a strawman argument. You all lie to yourselves so much that you don't know what the truth looks like anymore. You might notice how dead your group is when I don't post here, filled with dopey articles and no replies. So far none of you have addressed the misinformation I pointed out in my first post, you have just resorted to attacking the messenger, a common tactic among deadbeats and idiots it seems. On Jul 3, 5:40 pm, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I bet if you did, Hell would freeze over. No you don't, read this very thread for examples of misinformation, lies and a strawman argument. You all lie to yourselves so much that you don't know what the truth looks like anymore. You might notice how dead your group is when I don't post here, filled with dopey articles and no replies. So far none of you have addressed the misinformation I pointed out in my first post, you have just resorted to attacking the messenger, a common tactic among deadbeats and idiots it seems. -------------------------------------- Your ignorance of the topics and information posted here, coupled with the out-right arrogance at your refusal to engage in honest debate, are overwhelmingly foolish. > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - With the ton of misinformation, misinterpretation and outright lying you do here, it is almost impossible to discuss anything rational with any of you. On Jul 4, 2:14 am, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - With the ton of misinformation, misinterpretation and outright lying you do here, it is almost impossible to discuss anything rational with any of you. *************************************************** You should try it sometime. All you post is lies, half-truths and innuendo, completely devoid of knowledge or truth. Phil #3 > "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of > interest. Indeed. After that last bout of liberal-socialist insanity, I damned near placed her/him/it/them/whatever back into the kilfile... which would be a cryin' shame - enduring her/it's antics are well worth the laugh. Besides, where else can one get so clear a view of the Enemy of Reality and come away unscathed? > > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of > > interest. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > else can one get so clear a view of the Enemy of Reality and come away > unscathed? Yes, your lies are your reality, Michael Jackson is a "pauper" with 500 million in assets, he took responsibility for kids who weren't even his own and some deadbeat dad thinks he is better than him. I notice that none of you were able to refute anything that was written there, I am sure your weak grasp of reality will hold up as long as you stick together and remain stupid. Keep holding on. "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing worth repeating. On Jul 2, 5:11 pm, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > else can one get so clear a view of the Enemy of Reality and come away > unscathed? Yes, your lies are your reality, Michael Jackson is a "pauper" with 500 million in assets, he took responsibility for kids who weren't even his own and some deadbeat dad thinks he is better than him. I notice that none of you were able to refute anything that was written there, I am sure your weak grasp of reality will hold up as long as you stick together and remain stupid. Keep holding on. ********************************************** Not surprising that one of your caliber would hold Michael Jackson up as a paragon of virtue. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think he is a psychotic homo, which I wrote in my first post in this thread (note your lie here) Despite the fact that he is a psychotic he is still a better man than the deadbeats in this group. (understand yet?) On Jul 3, 3:50 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think he is a psychotic homo, which I wrote in my first post in this thread (note your lie here) Despite the fact that he is a psychotic he is still a better man than the deadbeats in this group. (understand yet?) ****************************************************** I understand you are psychotic. Is there anything else you'd like to demonstrate? Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Apparently you pretend to misunderstand when you know you are wrong and get caught in a lie. What's wrong? Run out of strawman arguments? On Jul 3, 4:09 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Apparently you pretend to misunderstand when you know you are wrong and get caught in a lie. What's wrong? Run out of strawman arguments? ***************************************************** Wrong again. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I didn't believe for a second that you'd run out of lies and strawmen, after all, they make up the majority of your posts. On Jul 3, 4:25 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote: > > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I don't think ANY of them are pretending. They are either that ignorant, or they have talked themselves into being that ignorant. On Jul 3, 4:25 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 4:09 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I don't think ANY of them are pretending. They are either that ignorant, or they have talked themselves into being that ignorant. *********************************** Yeah, we' re ignorant because of just being liberal man-haters we lived through it. Real piece of work you feminocentrics are. Phil #3 >> "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of >> interest. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > else can one get so clear a view of the Enemy of Reality and come away > unscathed? It's just so damn frustrating to realize that XXXX is not alone; there are millions as unbalanced as s/he, believing the government really is here to help her/him. Wait till their ox is the one being gored. Phil #3 > >> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of > >> interest. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > help her/him. Wait till their ox is the one being gored. > Phil #3 Yes, you 14 deadbeats can refer to us as "the rest of the world" those of us who comprise "the rest of the world" think you should pay your bills and accept responsibility for your offspring. There is nothing in any of my posts that would indicate that I believe the government really is here to help me. On the contrary I believe that people should be responsible for themselves and their kids while you all argue that you shouldn't be responsible for your kids and that other people should pay for the kids you spawned. In many cases those "other people" are me and other taxpayers. Same old gang of deadbeats, keep those blinders on and keep lying and swearing to it. I noticed nobody except me commented on the original lies in this thread. Is that because it won't help the group whine to point out the obvious? On Jul 3, 3:49 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > help her/him. Wait till their ox is the one being gored. > Phil #3 Yes, you 14 deadbeats can refer to us as "the rest of the world" those of us who comprise "the rest of the world" think you should pay your bills and accept responsibility for your offspring. There is nothing in any of my posts that would indicate that I believe the government really is here to help me. On the contrary I believe that people should be responsible for themselves and their kids while you all argue that you shouldn't be responsible for your kids and that other people should pay for the kids you spawned. In many cases those "other people" are me and other taxpayers. Same old gang of deadbeats, keep those blinders on and keep lying and swearing to it. I noticed nobody except me commented on the original lies in this thread. Is that because it won't help the group whine to point out the obvious? ************************************************** Keep talking; you're the best advertisement for what's wrong with America. You don't get to decide what I or anyone else thinks, regardless your illusions of grandeur. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, people who support their own kids and take the position that fathers are responsible are destroying america, we need more deadbeats to save our way of life. Just to clarify though, I have no illusions of grandeur, I just think that you are such scummy folks that everyone is better than you. I can see that you agree with my assessment by your description of my opinion, do you know why you have such low self esteem? Because you deserve it. On Jul 3, 4:08 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, people who support their own kids and take the position that fathers are responsible are destroying america, we need more deadbeats to save our way of life. Just to clarify though, I have no illusions of grandeur, I just think that you are such scummy folks that everyone is better than you. I can see that you agree with my assessment by your description of my opinion, do you know why you have such low self esteem? Because you deserve it. ----------------------------- Please stop X, I'm laughing so hard I'm gonna shoot milk outta my nose any second now!! On Jul 3, 4:08 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, people who support their own kids and take the position that fathers are responsible are destroying america, we need more deadbeats to save our way of life. Just to clarify though, I have no illusions of grandeur, I just think that you are such scummy folks that everyone is better than you. I can see that you agree with my assessment by your description of my opinion, do you know why you have such low self esteem? Because you deserve it. ******************************************************** And with this statement show just how ignorant you are about it. Child support is NOT supporting a child, no matter how much spin you put on it. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I am a person who supports his own kids, and I take the position that fathers should be responsible for their own kids. This has nothing to do with court ordered child support. Again your purposeful misreading and creation of a strawman argument is the basis of your argument. On Jul 8, 3:37 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I am a person who supports his own kids, and I take the position that fathers should be responsible for their own kids. This has nothing to do with court ordered child support. Again your purposeful misreading and creation of a strawman argument is the basis of your argument. ******************************************** Now you're backpeddling. You have claimed that many here who object to paying the mother of their children are not supporting their children when you couldn't possibly know one way or another. Phil #3 > On Jul 8, 3:37 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > when you couldn't possibly know one way or another. > Phil #3 If you plan to lie, at least cut the thing I said that you are misrepresenting before you post. My objection is (and has always been) to people who claim they don't need to support their kids because it is the mother's/judge's/president's fault or that they shouldn't be responsible for their offspring for whatever nitwit reason that is passed off as an argument here among you. If the only money that your kids get from you is court ordered then that is covered by my opinion as well, but cases where the father is a deadbeat from the beginning don't change my opinion. Another amusing facet of your group stupidity is your ability to cling to your trailerpark conservative ideals despite claiming to be dead broke, the republicans being the 'family values' party and the outside chance that liberals might ease the health insurance burden for you if they get enough votes. On top of that, recent republican activity makes it nearly impossible to conceal your home address, earn or move any significant amount of money without being reported to the IRS, you can hardly pay cash for a car anymore without forms being sent to the IRS. All thanks to your conservative heroes. I attribute this to the fact that you either love hypocrisy or are too stupid to recognize it. >> On Jul 8, 3:37 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > for their offspring for whatever nitwit reason that is passed off as an > argument here among you. See, this is where you go off track. You blame everyone who takes issue with the entire child support industry of being a deadbeat then make up lies such as "they don't need to support their kids because it is the mother's/judge's/president's fault or that they shouldn't be responsible for their offspring." as if you actually had a clue. You just cannot understand the difference between "child support" and support of a child because you are a liar and a sexist fool. >If the only money that your kids get from you is court ordered then that is >covered by my opinion as well, but cases where the father is a deadbeat >from the beginning don't change my opinion. My kids are all grown but during their pre-adult years, the only parent that flatly refused to spend a cent on our kids was there mom. But that's okay because mothers aren't expected to provide anything but a womb and must be paid for the rental on that. > Another amusing facet of your group stupidity is your ability to cling to > your trailerpark conservative ideals despite claiming to be dead broke, > the republicans being the 'family values' party and the outside chance > that liberals might ease the health insurance burden for you if they get > enough votes. What ARE you talking about? It was well known that you are a liberal democrat just from the anti-male sexism you have posted from day one but personally, I hold both republicans and democrats as guilty in the tyranny American government has become. It's just that democrats would elect Hitler if he were to run today because he promised the world to the German people. The America people have become the same. Greedy and bigoted. > On top of that, recent republican activity makes it nearly impossible to > conceal your home address, earn or move any significant amount of money > without being reported to the IRS, you can hardly pay cash for a car > anymore without forms being sent to the IRS. All thanks to your > conservative heroes. I attribute this to the fact that you either love > hypocrisy or are too stupid to recognize it. See, once again you must resort to lies to even have an argument. My heros are not politicans of either major political party, not that you'd know anyway. You are simply incapable of telling the truth or discussing facts. Phil #3 > See, this is where you go off track. You blame everyone who takes issue > with the entire child support industry of being a deadbeat then make up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > understand the difference between "child support" and support of a child > because you are a liar and a sexist fool. Since that is the argument being made, I take it at face value. When someone is such a deadbeat that they claim they should have the right to force an abortion or abandon their child completely rather than pay money to support them, I am on pretty solid ground with my comments. Wahhhh the money goes to the mother, not the kids, wahhhh the judge is against men wahhhhh .... Guess what, you let those things get between you and your kids and you are denying responsibility for that too. If you get your way and you don't pay for your kids or you force to have them aborted you are not supporting a child or paying child support. >> If the only money that your kids get from you is court ordered then >> that is covered by my opinion as well, but cases where the father is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that's okay because mothers aren't expected to provide anything but a > womb and must be paid for the rental on that. Yes, she refused to spend a cent, they walked around naked and all starved to death. Good thing they had a father who thinks he should be able to deny responsibility for his kids. Hopefully this taught them to be responsible for themselves and eventually their families despite their lowlife parents. > What ARE you talking about? It was well known that you are a liberal > democrat just from the anti-male sexism you have posted from day one but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the German people. The America people have become the same. Greedy and > bigoted. Democrats would also pass a bill that alleviates the cost of health insurance for people making under 80 grand a year and possibly provide insurance for all kids. A move which would fix one of your most expensive problems as a deadbeat dad. Even though it is well known to idiots that I am a liberal democrat, the fact is that I am very conservative and align myself with republicans more often than democrats, mostly because I save a ton of money when capital gains taxes are low and my business picks up when real estate changes hands. As far as fathers being responsible for their families, that is a pretty old conservative value too. I dislike politicians in general, but as I get older I support more and more conservative policies, most of which help me and my family and screw people like you. >> On top of that, recent republican activity makes it nearly impossible >> to conceal your home address, earn or move any significant amount of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You are simply incapable of telling the truth or discussing facts. > Phil #3 You are just trying to imitate me now. I see that you can't respond to any of the ideas above though, is it because you realize how stupid you are now? >> See, this is where you go off track. You blame everyone who takes issue >> with the entire child support industry of being a deadbeat then make up [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > force an abortion or abandon their child completely rather than pay money > to support them, I am on pretty solid ground with my comments. Nope. First of all, who said they should have the right to decide abortion? Second, paying a woman is not supporting children regardless what she does with the money, even if it goes to supporting the children. > Wahhhh the money goes to the mother, not the kids, wahhhh the judge is > against men wahhhhh .... Guess what, you let those things get between you > and your kids and you are denying responsibility for that too. If you get > your way and you don't pay for your kids or you force to have them aborted > you are not supporting a child or paying child support. You fail to understand at all. Most fathers, especially those here, want to be PARENTS, not debtors. You apparently think "fatherhood" is solely paying a woman to breed. >>> If the only money that your kids get from you is court ordered then that >>> is covered by my opinion as well, but cases where the father is a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > responsible for themselves and eventually their families despite their > lowlife parents. See? You don't have a clue and won't accept one. You not only don't have a clue, you are trying to tell me about a situation that between you and me, only I know about. You are a sexist sh.t-for-brains. Nothing more or less. [snip the rest of the bullshit] Phil #3 On Jul 3, 3:49 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > help her/him. Wait till their ox is the one being gored. > Phil #3 [drivel snipped] I noticed nobody except me commented on the original lies in this thread. Is that because it won't help the group whine to point out the obvious? ------------------------------- <sigh> Once again, you miss the mark X. You replied to my reply to the OP's first replier. > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - thats where the thread started for me, your lies and misinformation. Start there and tell me how your lies are true and your misinformation was anything more than a lie to support the group whine. On Jul 3, 5:48 pm, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - thats where the thread started for me, your lies and misinformation. Start there and tell me how your lies are true and your misinformation was anything more than a lie to support the group whine. ------------------------------ What I posted was my honest opinion of the situation. Nothing more, nothing less. You, on the other hand, started right off and true to form, with a predictable and fully expected ad hominem attack. > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > What I posted was my honest opinion of the situation. Nothing more, nothing > less. You posted that he died a pauper among other things, a complete lie not your "honest opinion". > You, on the other hand, started right off and true to form, with a > predictable and fully expected ad hominem attack.- Hide quoted text - On Jul 4, 2:23 am, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > nothing > less. You posted that he died a pauper among other things, a complete lie not your "honest opinion". > You, on the other hand, started right off and true to form, with a > predictable and fully expected ad hominem attack.- Hide quoted text - ----------------------------------------- When someone dies deep in debt, as Jackson did, they are a pauper. He "may have" hid cash or had other assets, that doesn't change the fact that he owed many MILLIONS of dollars and had no assets availble to clear his debts before he died. Observe the following from: http://eonline.com/print/index.jsp?uuid=5c00b09c-8ae6-4760-890e-0d049950e772&con tentType=newsStory "..a number of significant debts owed by Jackson, including more than $300 million to Fortress Investment Group, over $1.6 million to his brother, Randy Jackson, and assorted millions to various lawyers. Jackson's financial woes don't end there. On Monday, a federal judge allowed a breach-of-contract suit brought by Prescient Acquisition Group against Jackson's MJ Publishing Trust to move forward. The financial firm is seeking at least $48 million in fees for its role in assisting Jackson with refinancing a $272.5 million bank loan.." And then there's this gem from: http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/fashion-beauty/articles/archive/bang/michael-jacks on-s-death-debt-2009-06-30 "Although he had assets worth an estimated $1.3 billion, the majority of it was tied up in his 50 per cent ownership of The Beatles' back catalogue with Sony Records, which he refused or was unable to sell." Face it, X, he was broke and was trying to borrow more and more money to support his spending sprees. > When someone dies deep in debt, as Jackson did, they are a pauper. He "may > have" hid cash or had other assets, that doesn't change the fact that he > owed many MILLIONS of dollars and had no assets availble to clear his debts > before he died. Ohhh, now I understand, you are just stupid. Jackson had over 500 million in assets when he died, his debt was around 250 million. Most of that debt was loans he took out on property he owned (neverland, the beatles catalog etc) This was reported on every news outlet that reported Jackson's death. You are obviously reading up on his finances so you either can't understand that 500 is greater than 250 or you are just a bald faced liar. > Observe the following from:http://eonline.com/print/index.jsp?uuid=5c00b09c-8ae6-4760-890e-0d049... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Face it, you are either lying or need a calculator. Even with my extremely conservative estimate (based on news reports) he had 250 million, with your stupid estimate where the Beatles catalog is worth 1.3 billion he is nearly a billionaire after all the bills are paid. Add up all the numbers you found in all the articles you read and see if his total debt equals 1 billion. So far you have posted that he had assets of 1.3 billion and debts that equal less than 400 million. It is shocking that you are this ridiculous, you make a claim and then prove that your claim is wrong in your own post, then you repeat the claim as if you have proven something. You wonder why your agenda isn't taken seriously and your posts are mocked every time they find their way outside of this group. On Jul 4, 2:23 am, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > nothing > less. You posted that he died a pauper among other things, a complete lie not your "honest opinion". > You, on the other hand, started right off and true to form, with a > predictable and fully expected ad hominem attack.- Hide quoted text - ------------------------- And then there's this one from 2005.. http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-03-jackson-financial_x.htm "..Jackson was in a "serious cash crisis" from overspending when a TV documentary that raised questions about child molestation threatened his career, an accountant testified Tuesday at the singer's trial." Face it X, you suck at this. > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are wrong as usual, not only that but you made my argument for me in your posts. I did some quick math and figured he had about 250 million, by your math he has over 800 million after all the bills are paid. You really are bad at math, how can anyone take you seriously when you claim that you "pay too much in child support" or that your children don't need whatever pittance you pay for them. You obviously have no idea how numbers work and nobody in their right mind would take you seriously. >>> "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of >>> interest. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > help her/him. Wait till their ox is the one being gored. > Phil #3 Indeed, I plan on laughing my a.s off on that day. S/he can't say they weren't warned.. >>>> "XXX@XXX.COM" <dtombanjo@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of >>>> interest. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Indeed, I plan on laughing my a.s off on that day. S/he can't say they > weren't warned.. Most likely, judging from the amount and severity of it's prejudice and anger, XXX is a 'she' and will simply reap the rewards of being female in a feminocentric society at the expense of her children's welfare. Nothing new there. Phil #3 > >>>> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote nothing with validity or of > >>>> interest. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Either that or I am not a complete scumbag and I will never be estranged from my kids or fight with my wife over small change. Did you happen to read about Michael Jackson's funeral? It seems his kids were upset by his death and spoke well of him. How many of you can expect that? On Jul 8, 3:41 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Either that or I am not a complete scumbag and I will never be estranged from my kids or fight with my wife over small change. Did you happen to read about Michael Jackson's funeral? It seems his kids were upset by his death and spoke well of him. How many of you can expect that? ******************************************* You're just showing your ignorance and arrogance again. My kids love me, visit often and call even more often. They hate their mother because they see her for what she really is. (Keep in mind they are all grown and quite aware). It's not your choice whether you stay married or not , dumbshit. All it takes is for one's wife to decide that she can kick the father out, demand he pay her. It's quite simple and damn near guaranteed to benefit her in more ways than just being rid of the father without having to let go of his pocketbook. And Being raised as a multimillionaire's child with all the privilege that entails, I can see how they might be sad about the possibility of losing it but then again, in talking about Jackson's children, who aren't typical children by any stretch of the imagination. Why are you holding Jackson up as a paragon of virtue when there are still so many questions about 1) his mental faculties and 2) his moral compass? Phil #3 > On Jul 8, 3:41 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > they see her for what she really is. (Keep in mind they are all grown > and quite aware). Did you not notice the question mark at the end of that sentence? Those indicate a question. When someone asks you "how do you get to the freeway?" do you try to insult them and tell them how often your kids call you? A rational person would answer a question that starts with HOW MANY with a number. > It's not your choice whether you stay married or not , dumbshit. All it > takes is for one's wife to decide that she can kick the father out, > demand he pay her. It's quite simple and damn near guaranteed to benefit > her in more ways than just being rid of the father without having to let > go of his pocketbook. It is my choice as much as hers, of course I haven't given her as much ammunition to use against me as you must have. We can go through the whole "you get what you deserve" thing again, but it has been beaten to death already. > And Being raised as a multimillionaire's child with all the privilege > that entails, I can see how they might be sad about the possibility of > losing it but then again, in talking about Jackson's children, who > aren't typical children by any stretch of the imagination. They have been shielded from reality as much as Skinner's kid, they have no idea what goes on in the real world, they were part of a traveling circus and have no idea what money is no less how much they are due. But they loved their dad and spoke well of him and will miss him. Even in his drug haze he took responsibility for them. > Why are you holding Jackson up as a paragon of virtue when there are > still so many questions about 1) his mental faculties and 2) his moral > compass? > Phil #3 As has been shown to you before, I am not holding him up as anything other than a divorced father who took responsibility for his own kids. Directly refuting the nonsense which was posted about him in the beginning of this thread. As a person he was a psychotic nut, nobody under the age of 45 remembers him as anything but a child molesting psycho with a melting face, but somehow he knew that he was responsible for his (sorta his) kids. When I compare that to people who believe they should have no responsibility for their own biological kids (insert excuse here) he compares favorably. > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote nothing of > interest to liars who hate when other people tell the truth and don't take whines seriously. Oh, thank the Gods, you've finally admitted your a whiner. On Jul 1, 6:12 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote nothing of > interest to liars who hate when other people tell the truth and don't take > whines seriously. > Oh, thank the Gods, you've finally admitted your a whiner. We'll thank the gods when you take responsibility for your own problems, learn to read and write properly. Until then I'll just make fun of your lying and whining. On Jul 3, 1:14 pm, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > Oh, thank the Gods, you've finally admitted your a whiner. We'll thank the gods when you take responsibility for your own problems, learn to read and write properly. Until then I'll just make fun of your lying and whining. -------------------- Ah, the Liberal Whiner speaketh nothing of subsance yet again. So when did you stop beating your wife? > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -------------------- > Ah, the Liberal Whiner speaketh nothing of subsance yet again. So what is a conservative to you? Someone who refuses to believe he is responsible for his own offspring preferring that someone else raises them and pays for them (even if it is welfare)? Someone who is so gung ho for abortion that he believes he should be allowed to force an abortion on someone else? I think you need a dictionary. > So when did you stop beating your wife? I haven't stopped yet, once you stop beating them they get uppity. On Jul 1, 6:12 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote nothing of > interest to liars who hate when other people tell the truth and don't take > whines seriously. ******************************************************** You wouldn't know the truth if it introduced itself to you, which it has several dozen times on this NG. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > several dozen times on this NG. > Phil #3 HAHAHAHAH, which of you paragons of truth is willing to stop lying for 15 seconds and share the truth with me? On Jul 3, 3:52 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > several dozen times on this NG. > Phil #3 HAHAHAHAH, which of you paragons of truth is willing to stop lying for 15 seconds and share the truth with me? ----------------------- Oh, brother, not the freakin' "I get all my information from www.NYT.com" thingie again, X? Pah-leeze, even -you- can't find the articles you claim to have read there. > HAHAHAHAH, which of you paragons of truth is willing to stop lying for > 15 seconds and share the truth with me? > ----------------------- > Oh, brother, not the freakin' "I get all my information fromwww.NYT.com" > thingie again, X? > Pah-leeze, even -you- can't find the articles you claim to have read there. No, my source of information about your lies is you. Why haven't you responded to my first post in this thread? Do you agree now that your post was just a pile of bullshit? Explain how Michael Jackson died a pauper for starters, that was your most obvious lie in that post. On Jul 3, 5:57 pm, "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote: > HAHAHAHAH, which of you paragons of truth is willing to stop lying for > 15 seconds and share the truth with me? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Pah-leeze, even -you- can't find the articles you claim to have read > there. No, my source of information about your lies is you. Why haven't you responded to my first post in this thread? Do you agree now that your post was just a pile of bullshit? Explain how Michael Jackson died a pauper for starters, that was your most obvious lie in that post. ------------------------- Well, the fact he died many millions in debt would play a major part in the opinion I stated previously. Also, and this comes from CNN of all places - he was a druggie. The man (?) couldn't function properly without his cocktail of drugs. Not that he could function properly to begin with.. but that's something completely different. Honestly, I really don't care if you like what I said or not. I spoke my mind and that's all there is to it. Unless you can -prove- that something else happened, that would be the only way to get me to change my opinion of Jackson. But you'd have to prove it with factual information and links to that information so it can be verified, no blind links either. This is where you fall over each and every time - you fall to back up your wild-assed claims, post no corroborating information/links and claim that the drivel you spew is found at XYZ web site and provide no other clue to the reader on what the original article is or where it can be found. I cannot recall a time when you ever backed up one thing you've said to anyone here. Whenever any of the regulars here post there is nearly always a link that leads straight back to the article/topic in question and there is no doubt as to the validity of their claim because of it. But you, on the other hand, lie out-right and condemn others just because they have an opinion that differs from yours or they get their facts from sourses other then that liberal cess-pit: the New York Times. You make personal attacks at nearly every opportunity and dodge the main topics posted about in the group, often going off into your own little demented world view of how all men are cretinous scum and deadbeats. For some bizarre reason, you consistently make wild personal accusations and lay out a beautiful reason for all to add you to their kilfile. > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well, the fact he died many millions in debt would play a major part in the > opinion I stated previously. He was worth far more than he owed. > Also, and this comes from CNN of all places - > he was a druggie. The man (?) couldn't function properly without his > cocktail of drugs. Not that he could function properly to begin with.. but > that's something completely different. And that changes his net worth by 300 million in your estimate? > Honestly, I really don't care if you like what I said or not. I spoke my > mind and that's all there is to it. Unless you can -prove- that something > else happened, that would be the only way to get me to change my opinion of > Jackson. But you'd have to prove it with factual information and links to > that information so it can be verified, no blind links either. Already been proven, that is why I picked the simplest thing to prove. You just made up the story that he died a pauper and stick with it no matter how easily it is proven that you are wrong. Just like most of your arguments here right or wrong they go unchallenged by the other 12 idiots and defended as if your life depended on them. It is like the deadbeat mafia "Never go against the whine Anthony" > This is where you fall over each and every time - you fall to back up your > wild-assed claims, post no corroborating information/links and claim that > the drivel you spew is found at XYZ web site and provide no other clue to > the reader on what the original article is or where it can be found. I > cannot recall a time when you ever backed up one thing you've said to anyone > here. Oh no, they are just my "honest opinion" backed up by every news outlet covering michael jackson now, but they are just my honest opinion. I didn't see any evidence you provided of your claim that Jackson died a pauper, is that because you just made that up? > Whenever any of the regulars here post there is nearly always a link that > leads straight back to the article/topic in question and there is no doubt > as to the validity of their claim because of it. Bullshit, your claims for instance, show me the link. > But you, on the other > hand, lie out-right and condemn others just because they have an opinion > that differs from yours or they get their facts from sourses other then that > liberal cess-pit: the New York Times. No, I just state my honest opinion like you. If I read the NY Times that day I will refer to it but just like you my honest opinion doesn't need to be linked to anything. > You make personal attacks at nearly every opportunity and dodge the main > topics posted about in the group, often going off into your own little > demented world view of how all men are cretinous scum and deadbeats. Sounds familiar, 20 posts of personal attacks and not 1 reference to the original post. See a pattern here? I posted facts which showed what you were mistaken/lying about in your post and here we are 20 posts later and nobody is able to refute anything I said, just 20 posts attempting to hurl insults at me because I don't join you in your group whine. > For some bizarre reason, you consistently make wild personal accusations and > lay out a beautiful reason for all to add you to their kilfile. Yet here you are reading and responding. If you had any balls you would just ignore my posts and let these threads die just like every other thread in this group. On Jul 3, 3:52 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > several dozen times on this NG. > Phil #3 HAHAHAHAH, which of you paragons of truth is willing to stop lying for 15 seconds and share the truth with me? ****************************************************** Herein lies the problem: ignorance can be cured, stupid goes on forever. See if you can figure out how that applies to you. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > if you can figure out how that applies to you. > Phil #3 It applies to me because I continue to respond to you despite your dishonesty and obvious stupidity. I call it irritainment, it amuses me and I have never found a group of people whose position is less deserving of support than the dozen or so of you who whine all day about the fact that you have to pay and/or support your own kids. Add to that bit of scumbaggery your REASONS why you shouldn't be responsible for your offspring and you provide laughs for the entire week. Just remember, Michael Jackson had 50 drug problems and was completely out of his mind yet he managed to be a more responsible parent than the lot of you. I noticed you didn't counter any of the math that was recently mentioned in this thread, is that because you are still working on a way to lie about hard numbers? On Jul 8, 3:42 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > if you can figure out how that applies to you. > Phil #3 It applies to me because I continue to respond to you despite your dishonesty and obvious stupidity. I call it irritainment, it amuses me and I have never found a group of people whose position is less deserving of support than the dozen or so of you who whine all day about the fact that you have to pay and/or support your own kids. Add to that bit of scumbaggery your REASONS why you shouldn't be responsible for your offspring and you provide laughs for the entire week. Just remember, Michael Jackson had 50 drug problems and was completely out of his mind yet he managed to be a more responsible parent than the lot of you. I noticed you didn't counter any of the math that was recently mentioned in this thread, is that because you are still working on a way to lie about hard numbers? ====== If you are referring to your post with numbers about MJ's estate value, you posted the "math" to the wrong newsgroup. This group is about child support, not about deceased celebrities' estates. Of course, if this were a NG about MJ you beg the question - How do you know what the numbers are for his estate if his will is in probate before a California Court and no details have been released to the public? > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > posted the "math" to the wrong newsgroup. This group is about child > support, not about deceased celebrities' estates. And one of you tied it to child support and divorced fathers for some reason, with lies and misinformation of course but that was the post I responded to. Just another example of one lying and the others swearing to it (or ignoring it). > Of course, if this were a NG about MJ you beg the question - How do you know > what the numbers are for his estate if his will is in probate before a > California Court and no details have been released to the public?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Apparently I didn't, I underestimated by a longshot, the guy who claimed he died a pauper showed me that he had nearly 3 times the wealth I estimated. Of course there is no need for the will or probate to counter the claim that "he died a pauper" since he obviously didn't. On Jul 8, 9:39 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > posted the "math" to the wrong newsgroup. This group is about child > support, not about deceased celebrities' estates. And one of you tied it to child support and divorced fathers for some reason, with lies and misinformation of course but that was the post I responded to. Just another example of one lying and the others swearing to it (or ignoring it). ====== By that logic, every time you post some made up BS about CS and only one person calls you on it, you must assume everybody else agrees with your flawed theories. No wonder you have a problem communicating in this group. ====== > Of course, if this were a NG about MJ you beg the question - How do you > know [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Apparently I didn't, I underestimated by a longshot, the guy who claimed he died a pauper showed me that he had nearly 3 times the wealth I estimated. Of course there is no need for the will or probate to counter the claim that "he died a pauper" since he obviously didn't. ====== Still the wrong forum.. > And one of you tied it to child support and divorced fathers for some > reason, with lies and misinformation of course but that was the post I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ====== Find a time when that has happened. You all sit around waiting for me to come back then you take turns spouting bullshit and trying to change the subject until I get bored with the topic and forget about it. >> Of course, if this were a NG about MJ you beg the question - How do >> you know [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Still the wrong forum.. Did you tell the guy who tried to compare MJ to divorced fathers the same thing? Or is this the forum where you can tell any lie, claim any misinformation is true as long as the rest of the group agrees with your point of view? Sounds like you all need to create a private group where no opinions can be heard except those that comply with the groupthink. Wait ... I thought you all hated the commies .... eh, nobody will notice the extra hypocrisy. It only becomes the wrong forum when you post something that is contrary to the group's opinion. You all drew my attention when some of you crossposted to other groups, since then I've decided to check back once in awhile to see what nonsense is being spewed. I am never dissappointed. I can pick a post at random and find enough bullshit in in to fill a book. >> And one of you tied it to child support and divorced fathers for some >> reason, with lies and misinformation of course but that was the post I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > come back then you take turns spouting bullshit and trying to change the > subject until I get bored with the topic and forget about it. The shrinks call that Anti-Social Behavior. When a person thinks the world revolves around them they are said to be displaying anti-social tendancies. When self-importance overcomes a person's ability to maintain adult perspective relationships/communication they exhibit the anti-social behaviors associated with rebellious teenagers and substance abusers. >>> Of course, if this were a NG about MJ you beg the question - How do you >>> know [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > awhile to see what nonsense is being spewed. I am never dissappointed. I > can pick a post at random and find enough bullshit in in to fill a book. More anti-social delusions where self-importance overtakes the reality of intelligent, factual adult communication. >>> And one of you tied it to child support and divorced fathers for some >>> reason, with lies and misinformation of course but that was the post I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The shrinks call that Anti-Social Behavior. And the world would call this another lie from another loser. Check the history of my posting here, threads with my input range from 60 to 200 responses, the average post has 0 - 2 responses. The real anti social behaviour is your idiotic refusal to stick to the topic in a thread and your constant need to change the subject rather than admit ANYTHING that doesn't conform to the groupthink going on here. You are similar to scientologists and the trench coat mafia in this way. > When a person thinks the > world When maniac considers a newsgroup where everyone agrees with each other's lies "the world" there are much deeper problems manifesting themselves. I see you are trying to change the subject again and focus on me more than the facts presented, what would the shrinks call that? > revolves around them they are said to be displaying anti-social > tendancies. Again, expand your world beyond a group of dishonest deadbeats who will claim anything is true if it helps them argue that they shouldn't be responsible for their own children. > When self-importance overcomes a person's ability to > maintain adult perspective relationships/communication they exhibit the > anti-social behaviors associated with rebellious teenagers and substance > abusers. Is this why you were all dumped by your wives and kept away from your children? I can see that, thanks for the insight. >> Did you tell the guy who tried to compare MJ to divorced fathers the >> same thing? Or is this the forum where you can tell any lie, claim any [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > More anti-social delusions where self-importance overtakes the reality > of intelligent, factual adult communication. Yet you still try to play "projectionist psychologist" and avoid all facts, questions and reality when it clashes with your little commie whiner group's agenda. Try to take things one at a time and don't worry that you are stupid, I can understand stupid people. As you can see, I don't suffer their stupidity well, but I understand them. Tell me why it was the wrong forum for me to point out the lies regarding MJ to a poster who tied MJ to deadbeat dads but you had no problem with him making up nonsense about MJ's finances to support his deadbeat agenda. Could this have anything to do with the fact that you hate the truth when it pierces your veil of deadbeat dadism? >>>> And one of you tied it to child support and divorced fathers for some >>>> reason, with lies and misinformation of course but that was the post I [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > have anything to do with the fact that you hate the truth when it pierces > your veil of deadbeat dadism? You can't see it but the problem is that you actually believe the voices inside your head that tell you these lies. If you had a clue, you wouldn't blame everyone posting of being a deadbeat, trailer park trash or other euphemisms to salve your ignorance and bigotry. Instead, you continually attack everything that doesn't agree with your femino-centric anti-male drivel. Phil #3 > You can't see it but the problem is that you actually believe the voices > inside your head that tell you these lies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > agree with your femino-centric anti-male drivel. > Phil #3 I respond in kind, did you happen to read the thread or are you just blind to everything that isn't written by a lowlife trailerpark deadbeat? >> You can't see it but the problem is that you actually believe the voices >> inside your head that tell you these lies. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I respond in kind, did you happen to read the thread or are you just blind > to everything that isn't written by a lowlife trailerpark deadbeat? You're a lying POS. You insult people you don't know about a situation you know even less about all the while claiming to have it all knowed up. Goodness help us that you are probably old enough to vote. Phil #3 On Jul 8, 3:42 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > if you can figure out how that applies to you. > Phil #3 It applies to me because I continue to respond to you despite your dishonesty and obvious stupidity. I call it irritainment, it amuses me and I have never found a group of people whose position is less deserving of support than the dozen or so of you who whine all day about the fact that you have to pay and/or support your own kids. Add to that bit of scumbaggery your REASONS why you shouldn't be responsible for your offspring and you provide laughs for the entire week. Just remember, Michael Jackson had 50 drug problems and was completely out of his mind yet he managed to be a more responsible parent than the lot of you. I noticed you didn't counter any of the math that was recently mentioned in this thread, is that because you are still working on a way to lie about hard numbers? ********************************************* You're about as stupid as a two-day old mule. I don't respond the HUNDREDS of topics in this NG, including many in threads I reply to. I haven't checked but I'd bet you don't respond to everything in every thread either. Phil #3 > You're about as stupid as a two-day old mule. I don't respond the > HUNDREDS of topics in this NG, including many in threads I reply to. > I haven't checked but I'd bet you don't respond to everything in every > thread either. > > Phil #3 Sorry stupid, you reply to almost all of my posts, you just refuse to reply to the parts of my posts that shine a light on the stupidity and dishonesty that passes for abstract thought around here. Your MO is fairly transparent. >> You're about as stupid as a two-day old mule. I don't respond the >> HUNDREDS of topics in this NG, including many in threads I reply to. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dishonesty that passes for abstract thought around here. Your MO is fairly > transparent. Replying to your posts is entertainment. You are incapable of showing stupidity and dishonesty in others posts but you sure show your own. I don't "refuse" to reply to any post. I do often choose not to reply to some posts, parts of some posts or typographical errors, among others. You don't address each and every topic in each and every post made so you're guilty of doing exactly what you claim I and others are doing. That makes you an emotional cripple; morally bankrupt (but I think anyone reading is well aware of your handicap). Phil #3 >>> You're about as stupid as a two-day old mule. I don't respond the >>> HUNDREDS of topics in this NG, including many in threads I reply to. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Replying to your posts is entertainment. You are incapable of showing > stupidity and dishonesty in others posts but you sure show your own. I think you just have a reading comprehension problem coupled with a deadbeat bias. > I don't "refuse" to reply to any post. I do often choose not to reply to > some posts, parts of some posts or typographical errors, among others. You skip everything pertinent to the topic that you can't refute and turn the threads into personal attacks and discussions about semantics or a play by play of the thread. > You don't address each and every topic in each and every post made so > you're guilty of doing exactly what you claim I and others are doing. I pretty much do, even though I am responding to 3 or 4 deadbeats at a time. I don't ignore the subject of a thread and try to make the thread personal because I can't refute something you say (like you do). Of the 4 or 5 of you, why is it that nobody was able to discuss the original point made in this thread? > That makes you an emotional cripple; morally bankrupt (but I think > anyone reading is well aware of your handicap). > Phil #3 Everyone reading? You mean the group of liars who stick together no matter how outrageous the lie or how stupid the idea? Yeah I think that would make you a great judge of my emotions and morality. Whenever I need a psychological evaluation I go to a guy who claims he shouldn't be responsible for his kids (because he can't give birth) and someone whose moral fight is for the right to avoid child support for his own kids. Aren't you the guy who complained about me calling you names in a recent post? Were you offended by my use of trailer trash and deadbeat? I guess you'll just have to get used to that. >>>> You're about as stupid as a two-day old mule. I don't respond the >>>> HUNDREDS of topics in this NG, including many in threads I reply to. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > post? Were you offended by my use of trailer trash and deadbeat? I guess > you'll just have to get used to that. I can always killfile you but I'd miss the entertainment of how stupid a liberal can be. Phil #3 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.