Skanky the 43-year-old self-marginalized scut-working
loser pothead blabbered:

> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>>
>> Skanky the 43-year-old self-marginalized scut-working loser pothead blabbered:
>>>
>>Productive responsible people are asleep at that time
>>unless their societally important jobs require them to
>>be awake. You lead a societally marginal existence;
>>you were up at 3:00am posting to usenet because you're
>>a pothead loser.
>
>
> You certainly lead a restrictive life if you believe that.

*ALL* productive, responsible people whose job
responsibilities don't require them to work at those
hours are asleep then.



>>>>>>>Are you actually accusing me of molesting kids????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You and your filthy **** sister both did it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Goo, you are the one who always introduces the topic of anally raping
>>>>>young boys.
>>>>
>>>>I'm condemning your participation in it.
>>>
>>>
>>>What participation?
>>
>>Your RAPE of the kid living next door.
>
>
> I've never raped anyone.

That's a lie. You and your equally skanky, immoral,
irresponsible, self-marginalized sister
broomstick-raped the boy next door.

cheeko chump wrote:
> > I think I have completely outed you as someone who fears aging,
>
> You've not "outed" me about anything, ****.

Oooo, did I press a little button there, Cheeky-boy?

> > and who thinks that old age is an insult.
>
> Quite the contrary. Most people become wiser as they age. You, though,
> haven't. It's not your age which is at issue, it's your (a)
> level of immaturity, (b) lack of success, (c) mindset that thinks
> people your age who've attained homes and property are "lucky." Luck
> has nothing to do with saving and planning. You aren't "unlucky"
> because you don't have as much stuff as people your age normally do;
> you've just made poor decisions and squandered your life dabbling in
> phony cyber-worlds instead of engaging in the real one. Loser.

Strawman. You have set me up to fit your hope that I am unsuccessful
by your standards. Then you knock that down. Logical arguments don't
work that way, cheeky-boy.

Goo, why do you keep on referring to, and accusing people of, anally
raping boys with broomsticks?

Goo, why are you a chronic liar?

Jonathan Ball aka "Leif Erikson" the credulous self-marginalized child rapist of Pasadena, LA > wrote in
message ink.net...
>
pearl wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Answer the questions
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>It absolutely is necessary that I try to discredit this poster now.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Treasonous mass murder supporting coward.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The 9/11 terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were
> >>>>>>>>the mass murderers,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The 9/11 terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC are certainly
> >>>>>>>mass murderers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Right - end of story.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>'Seven of the WTC Hijackers found alive!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>[snip
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Another item
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>'Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
> >>>>>
> >>>>>[snip *UNSUBSTANTIATED*
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Those guys are ALIVE, you idiot. LOL!
> >>
> >>They aren't,
> >
> >
> > They are.
>
> They aren't.

They are. You ****ing moron.

Skanky the 43-year-old self-marginalized scut-working
loser pothead blabbered:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>>>I think I have completely outed you as someone who fears aging,
>>
>>You've not "outed" me about anything, ****.
>
>
> Oooo, did I press a little button there, chico?

No. You merely displayed your stupidity, again.



>>>and who thinks that old age is an insult.
>>
>>Quite the contrary. Most people become wiser as they age. You, though,
>>haven't. It's not your age which is at issue, it's your (a)
>>level of immaturity, (b) lack of success, (c) mindset that thinks
>>people your age who've attained homes and property are "lucky." Luck
>>has nothing to do with saving and planning. You aren't "unlucky"
>>because you don't have as much stuff as people your age normally do;
>>you've just made poor decisions and squandered your life dabbling in
>>phony cyber-worlds instead of engaging in the real one. Loser.
>
>
> Strawman.

No. He has described you with complete accuracy.


> You have set me up to fit your hope that I am unsuccessful

No. You *are* unsuccessful by any reasonable meaning
of success: scut work, low income, no family, drug
dependency, financial dependence on parents/state.
You're a failure by any meaningful definitions of the
words "success" and "failure".

Skanky the 43-year-old self-marginalized scut-working
loser pothead blabbered:

> Leif, why

No. SKANKY, why do you keep raping children with broom
handles?

Skanky the 43-year-old self-marginalized scut-working
loser pothead blabbered:

> Leif, why do you keep showing me up as a complete failure?

Because I believe in making the truth known.

Your imitation of me is the sincerest form of flattery,
lesley. You stupid ****.


Lesley the credulous self-marginalized foot-rubbing
whore of Cork, Ireland lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Lesley the credulous self-marginalized foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Answer the questions
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It absolutely is necessary that I try to discredit this poster now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Treasonous mass murder supporting coward.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The 9/11 terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were
>>>>>>>>>>the mass murderers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The 9/11 terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC are certainly
>>>>>>>>>mass murderers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right - end of story.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>'Seven of the WTC Hijackers found alive!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Another item
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>'Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[snip *UNSUBSTANTIATED*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Those guys are ALIVE, you idiot. LOL!
>>>>
>>>>They aren't,
>>>
>>>
>>>They are.
>>
>>They aren't. The hijackers all perished.
>>
>>You ****ing moron.
>
>
> They are.

They aren't, lesley. The hijackers are all dead. Some
accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
but the hijackers are all dead. No one survived any of
the plane crashes.

Skanky wrote:

>>No, everything you've written about land ownership, wealth, etc.,
>>focused and STILL DOES on "luck."
>
> No.

Yes.

>>>Back up your accusations with facts
>>
>>Forty-six. Dead end job with marginal pay. Your boss is probably half
>>your age. Pothead. Bus rider. No car. Atmosphere, Active World. Too
>>cheap for a usenet account. Cankles.
>
> 43.

Close enough.

>>>>>Not here, they don't drug test.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, they do. You lied again, Skanky.
>>>
>>>Nope
>>
>>Yes, you said you wouldn't have to take a drug test to drive a bus and
>>it turns out you would. You lied.
>
> I was wrong

As usual.

>>>The TTC themselves are on my side about this.
>>
>>The facts, though, are against you and TTC.
>>
>>>There are many signs on
>>>subways, etc.
>>
>>None of which tell you the truth -- they just try to get you to ride
>>the bus more often so they call tell Ottawa they need more money
>>because their ridership is up, you gullible ****. They won't tell you:
>
> So, are you saying that Pollution Probe is lying too?

Yes. The data you keep snipping show it, too.

Leif Erikson wrote:

> Skanky the loser pothead blabbered:
>
>> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>>
>>>>>>> Nearly 3:00am, and there you are, stoned out of your
>>>>>>> ****ing gourd and posting to usenet. That's a shit life.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What the **** Leif?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You were up after 3:00am posting to usenet. Loser.
>>
>>
>> Why do you think being up at 3 is indicative of loserness.
>
> Productive responsible people are asleep at that time unless their
> societally important jobs require them to be awake.

Productive responsible people also tend to refrain from using words like
"loserness."

> You lead a
> societally marginal existence; you were up at 3:00am posting to usenet
> because you're a pothead loser.
>
>
>>>>>> Are you actually accusing me of molesting kids????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You and your filthy **** sister both did it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Leif, you are the one who always introduces the topic of anally raping
>>>> young boys.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm condemning your participation in it.
>>
>>
>>
>> What participation?
>
>
> Your RAPE of the kid living next door.

Skanky wrote:

>>I don't look to people
>>like you for anything, much less correction.
>
> You will

not.

Skanky wrote:

>>It won't take you long, not only because of the lack of substance but
>>because of the lack of style. For an "art" site, it sure has a dearth of
>>it. Not to mention amateurish HTML.
>
> Let's see YOUR webpages.

Let's see you STAY SOBER for more than ten minutes.

Skanky wrote:

>>>I have no interest in making avatars right now.
>>
>>Everyone else your age has bought a home,
>
> I have decided not to buy a home

Your circumstances are determined by your sloth. That wasn't a decision,
it's the result of your laziness.

> I am happy with my decision.

As I noted yesterday, and as was noted previously when you had a real
usenet account from your ISP and before you again were forced to accept
what was handed to you because of your sloth and indifference, you set
very low standards and then pat yourself on the back for your lack of
accomplishment.

> Why aren't you?

I'm quite happy, Skanky, and my contentment isn't based on you, your
failures, or your low standards.

> Because it scares you

No, Skanky, I'm not afraid.

> too much to consider
> anything that nonconforms to the societal average, that's why.

At least you admit you're abnormal.

> I probably have a much happier life than you

Don't bet on it.

> because I do what is best
> for me, instead of worrying about what the current norm is.

I'm hardly a faddist and I even called you out on your statements about
veganism because veganism is a fad.

>>Your parents. You're in your mid-40s and still dependent on them for
>>support.
>
> Prove this

Your posting history already has.

>>>It's been around since before 1996, when I first became a cit.
>>
>>So you've been wasting your time with this commercially unsuccessful
>>crap for a whole decade?
>
> If it's so unsuccessful, how have they lasted so long?

For the same reason the Florida Marlins are still in Florida. Inertia
and a tendency some people have for throwing good money after bad.

>>Answer the question. Why would you want to whisper or send phony
>>telegrams to other losers in your phony make-believe world, Skanky? And
>>what's so big about that?
>
> Answer this question.

No. Answer mine instead of dodging it. What's so ****ing special about
whispering to other flakes in a flaky, phony world?

Skanky wrote:

>>>I think I have completely outed you as someone who fears aging,
>>
>>You've not "outed" me about anything, ****.
>
> Oooo, did I press a little button there

No.

>>>and who thinks that old age is an insult.
>>
>>Quite the contrary. Most people become wiser as they age. You, though,
>>haven't. It's not your age which is at issue, it's your (a)
>>level of immaturity, (b) lack of success, (c) mindset that thinks
>>people your age who've attained homes and property are "lucky." Luck
>>has nothing to do with saving and planning. You aren't "unlucky"
>>because you don't have as much stuff as people your age normally do;
>>you've just made poor decisions and squandered your life dabbling in
>>phony cyber-worlds instead of engaging in the real one. Loser.
>
> Strawman.

No, it's not a strawman, and you know nothing about logic.

So Cheeko, you still won't retract your lies and/or errors?

Goo wrote:
> No. SKANKY, why do you keep raping children with broom
> handles?

Goo, why do you keep on referring to, and accusing people of, anally
raping boys with broomsticks?

Cheeky, get yourself some prune juice. You're sounding cranky again
and must be constipated.

cheeko chucklebutt wrote:
> Let's see you STAY SOBER for more than ten minutes.

You don't know the frequency that I smoke pot. Everyone knows this
because I've already made it clear to you here. Now let's get back to
the subject you're avoiding. You criticise my website's design.
Explain in detail, and also provide your artistic qualifications.
Failing that, show an example of your own web work and explain why you
believe it to be superior. You can't.

cheeko chucklebutt wrote:
> > I am happy with my decision.
>
> As I noted yesterday, and as was noted previously when you had a real
> usenet account from your ISP and before you again were forced to accept
> what was handed to you because of your sloth and indifference, you set
> very low standards and then pat yourself on the back for your lack of
> accomplishment.

It's YOU who is portraying my standards as low, and YOU don't matter.
What matters is how I see myself, and I'm quite happy with what I see.

> > Why aren't you?
>
> I'm quite happy, Skanky, and my contentment isn't based on you, your
> failures, or your low standards.

If you were happy and content, you wouldn't feel the need to lash out
and make stuff up about people. You wouldn't have the need to make
them look bad. You're a very miserable person and it shows.

> No, Skanky, I'm not afraid.

You have a horrible fear of nonconformity. It shows every time you use
as insults words like 'self-marginalized'.

> > too much to consider
> > anything that nonconforms to the societal average, that's why.
>
> At least you admit you're abnormal.

There's your fear again. Fear of going against the norm.

> > I probably have a much happier life than you
>
> Don't bet on it.

It shows in how grouchy you are on the newsgroups.

> > because I do what is best
> > for me, instead of worrying about what the current norm is.
>
> I'm hardly a faddist and I even called you out on your statements about
> veganism because veganism is a fad.

I said 'current norm', not fad. Please read before commenting on
something.

> >>Your parents. You're in your mid-40s and still dependent on them for
> >>support.
> >
> > Prove this
>
> Your posting history already has.

Where? Cite.

> >>Answer the question. Why would you want to whisper or send phony
> >>telegrams to other losers in your phony make-believe world, Skanky? And
> >>what's so big about that?
> >
> > Answer this question.
>
> No. Answer mine instead of dodging it. What's so ****ing special about
> whispering to other flakes in a flaky, phony world?

The answer to your question was in my responding question (which you
snipped). It appears to have gone over your head.

Goo, are you still ****ing on your living room floor these days? Your
neighbours are complaining about the smell.

Skanky wrote:

> So

You're the one who keeps lying about accruing "benefits" from your
repeated failures, Skanky. I showed you that your claims about public
transportation were bogus. You contribute at least as much pollution as
people who work meaningful jobs and have cars do; you also require
public assistance to subsidize your bus fare.

Further, you were shown before your ISP stopped offering you usenet
access that your consumption causes more animal deaths than if you were
to consume a least-harm diet like the one advocated by Professor
Jones. You were given plenty of information about how you could alter
your lifestyle to do the things you said you were vis-a-vis the
animals, but you stubbornly rejected making any changes to your diet or
lifestyle. You proved yourself to be a rank poseur.

You don't save lives, you don't save animals, and you're not saving the
planet. Stop pretending you're doing well.

Skanky wrote:

> get yourself some prune juice.

Go give yourself an enema. You're full of shit.

Skanky wrote:

> > Let's see you STAY SOBER for more than ten minutes.
>
> You don't

I don't smoke pot. You do, and it's irreparably harmed your ability to
think or communicate coherently. You're an incoherent deadbeat skag.

> You criticise my website's design.

Is that what you call it?

Skanky wrote:

> > > I am happy with my decision.
> >
> > As I noted yesterday, and as was noted previously when you had a
> > real usenet account from your ISP and before you again were forced
> > to accept what was handed to you because of your sloth and
> > indifference, you set very low standards and then pat yourself on
> > the back for your lack of accomplishment.
>
> It's YOU who is portraying my standards as low,

You call the shit on your site "art." You refer to its "design." That
alone shows you have low standards.

> What matters is how I see myself, and I'm quite happy with what I see.

Because of your aforementioned low standards.

> > > Why aren't you?
> >
> > I'm quite happy, Skanky, and my contentment isn't based on you, your
> > failures, or your low standards.
>
> If you were happy and content

I am.

> You wouldn't have the need to make them look bad.

I don't have to do a thing to make you, Lesley, or Karen look bad
because you do it so well yourselves. Inner earth beings, skinhead
subculture, UFOs; jacking off small animals, abandoning a child,
dress up communes; 40something slackerdom. What more can I
add to what the three of you really are.

> > No, Skanky, I'm not afraid.
>
> You have a horrible fear of nonconformity.

No, Skanky, I mock it because in reality you conform to every queer
thing you possibly can: veganism, bus riding subculture, and so on.

> It shows every time you
> use as insults words like 'self-marginalized'.

Haha! That's not used out of any fear. It's hardly something you should
wear as a badge of honor. The fact that you do verifies everything
you've been trying to deny.

> > > too much to consider
> > > anything that nonconforms to the societal average, that's why.
> >
> > At least you admit you're abnormal.
>
> There's your fear again. Fear of going against the norm.

It isn't fear. Why do you fear being normal?

> > > Answer this question.
> >
> > No. Answer mine instead of dodging it. What's so ****ing special
> > about whispering to other flakes in a flaky, phony world?
>
> The answer to your question

Answer the question, Skanky.

On 13 Aug 2006 11:13:05 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>Goo, why do you keep on referring to, and accusing people of, anally
>raping boys with broomsticks?
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Subject: Desperate for kinky *** sex
Message-ID: >

I might be pretty smart considering how stupid I am.
.. . .
Have you ever licked another man's asshole? No!!! So you have
no idea why I love them so much.
.. . .
The smell of shit just gives a place the feeling of love, to me.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Skanky the 43-year-old self-marginalized scut-working
loser pothead blabbered:
> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>
>>No. SKANKY, why do you keep raping children with broom
>>handles?
>
>
> Leif, why do you

No. SKANKY, why do you keep raping children with broom
handles?

cheeko chimpface wrote:
> You're the one who keeps lying about accruing "benefits" from your
> repeated failures

What are you babbling about?

> you also require
> public assistance to subsidize your bus fare.

Again, what are you babbling about? Are you referring to the fares
being set too low? If so, then simply argue that you believe the fares
should be higher. By the way, have you ever parked in downtown
Toronto, the hugely populated business district? How do you suppose
people would get there with public transit. There are NOT enough cabs
or parking there.

> Further, you were shown before your ISP stopped offering you usenet
> access that your consumption causes more animal deaths than if you were
> to consume a least-harm diet like the one advocated by Professor
> Jones. You were given plenty of information about how you could alter
> your lifestyle to do the things you said you were vis-a-vis the
> animals, but you stubbornly rejected making any changes to your diet or
> lifestyle. You proved yourself to be a rank poseur.

No. I've always been quite open about my beliefs which are this. I
eat vegetarian because I believe it's best for my health. If it
happens to also benefit some animals out there, great (and I think it
does). I don't expect unreasonable extremes for myself the way you
expect of me.

> You don't save lives, you don't save animals, and you're not saving the
> planet. Stop pretending you're doing well.

I'm quite happy with how I'm doing. It's YOU that seems to feel I
don't measure up to some extremes.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Leif-goo wrote:
> No. SKANKY, why do you keep raping children with broom
> handles?

Go take your medicine.

Why is it that you sound like a whiny kid throwing out any insult he
can make up? Didn't you ever get past that stage? Argue with logic
and reason instead. Drop the potty mouth whiny stuff.

Cheeko, you're getting boring. All you have is insults and wild
claims. Do you actually have any friends in real life?

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky the 43-year-old self-marginalized scut-working
loser pothead blabbered:

> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>
>>No. SKANKY, why do you keep raping children with broom
>>handles?
>
>
> Go take your medicine.

Stale, trite, unoriginal. The story of your life.

Skanky wrote:

>>You're the one who keeps lying about accruing "benefits" from your
>>repeated failures
>
> What

Your MO is to demonstrate implicitly that you're not the most
industrious person in the world and then to suggest that your manner of
doing things -- like taking the bus because you can't afford a car -- is
preferable anyway.

>>you also require
>>public assistance to subsidize your bus fare.
>
> Again

Okay, you also require public assistance to subsidize your bus fare.
What's unclear about that? This is your brain on pot...

> Are you referring to the fares being set too low?

I'm "referrring" to the fact that taxpayers subsidize public
transportation. You wouldn't ride the bus if it cost you a break-even
fare -- nine-times what you're currently paying if your service is as
costly as my city's.

> There are NOT enough cabs or parking there.

I don't know why you're harping about it since you don't have a car and
taxis aren't usually subsidized like the bus.

>>Further, you were shown before your ISP stopped offering you usenet
>>access that your consumption causes more animal deaths than if you were
>>to consume a least-harm diet like the one advocated by Professor
>>Jones. You were given plenty of information about how you could alter
>>your lifestyle to do the things you said you were vis-a-vis the
>>animals, but you stubbornly rejected making any changes to your diet or
>>lifestyle. You proved yourself to be a rank poseur.
>
>
> No.

Yes. You are a poseur.

>>You don't save lives, you don't save animals, and you're not saving the
>>planet. Stop pretending you're doing well.
>
> I'm quite happy with how I'm doing.

Low standards which are too easily met. You're not saving the planet,
you're not saving animals, and I also showed that your BS about hemp oil
isn't saving your life, either.

Skanky snipped:
> Why is it

Why do you spend so much time "whispering" and sending cyber "telegrams"
to other losers in your phony chat world and so little time making your
real world better?

chico chupacabra followed up:

> Skanky snipped:
>
>> Why is it
>
>
> Why do you spend so much time "whispering" and sending cyber "telegrams"
> to other losers in your phony chat world and so little time making your
> real world better?

Telegrams are last century, Skanky. Western Union no longer offers them.
Guess that makes you and your dopey AW friends "nostalgic losers."

http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ern_union.html

cheeko wrote:
> Your MO is to demonstrate implicitly that you're not the most
> industrious person in the world and then to suggest that your manner of
> doing things -- like taking the bus because you can't afford a car -- is
> preferable anyway.

What the **** are you mumbling about? Cite the demonstration of how
industrious I am. Cite where I say whether or not I *currently* have a
car. You know, insults instead of logic is ridiculous.

> Okay, you also require public assistance to subsidize your bus fare.
> What's unclear about that? This is your brain on pot...

It's not up to me how much the fare is. Don't blame me. Whatever the
fare, there are some circumstances under which public transit is still
the best way to go, and others where a car is best.

> I'm "referrring" to the fact that taxpayers subsidize public
> transportation. You wouldn't ride the bus if it cost you a break-even
> fare -- nine-times what you're currently paying if your service is as
> costly as my city's.

Take it up with your city. Don't whine to me about it.

> > I'm quite happy with how I'm doing.
>
> Low standards which are too easily met. You're not saving the planet,
> you're not saving animals, and I also showed that your BS about hemp oil
> isn't saving your life, either.

It must suck to be you if your standards are that one must save the
planet and all the animals. Such a standard is unobtainable by any
reasonable non-extremist person. Also, your big problem about hemp oil
is that it has omega 6 along with the 3 and 9. In fact you kinda
freaked out about that, ranting that people already get 6 elsewhere. I
don't see what the big deal is. Hemp happens to have some 6, yes, but
the 3 and 9 balance things out quite nice. It is a very nutritious oil.

cheesy chipmunk wrote:
> > Why do you spend so much time "whispering" and sending cyber "telegrams"
> > to other losers in your phony chat world and so little time making your
> > real world better?

The same can be asked of you. Why do you spend so much time on usenet
and so little time making your real world better?

> Telegrams are last century, Skanky. Western Union no longer offers them.
> Guess that makes you and your dopey AW friends "nostalgic losers."
>
> http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ern_union.html

Telegrams in Active Worlds are to old fashioned telegrams, what email
is to snail mail. Surely you realized this, didn't you?

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky, stoned 46 year-old bus rider, wrote:

> > > Why do you spend so much time "whispering" and sending cyber
> > > "telegrams" to other losers in your phony chat world and so
> > > little time making your real world better?
>
> The same can be asked of you.

I don't spend my time in make-believe chat worlds.

> Why do you spend so much time on usenet

I don't spend nearly as much time as you do; I was gone all day while
you were here posting, and probably wiling away your day sending fake
telegrams to deadbeat slackers who are gullible enough to waste US$85
or more a year playing make believe.

> and so little time making your real world better?

My world is pretty good, and my "little time" today was 12.5 hours.
****.

> > Telegrams are last century, Skanky. Western Union no longer offers
> > them. Guess that makes you and your dopey AW friends "nostalgic
> > losers."
> >
> > http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ern_union.html
>
> Telegrams in Active Worlds are to old fashioned telegrams, what email
> is to snail mail. Surely you realized this, didn't you?

No, I've never spent time in your Land of Make Believe so I can
"whisper" or send telegrams to the slackers there. I don't care to,
either.

Skanky, stoned 46 year-old agoraphobic bus rider with arrested
development, wrote:

> > Your MO is to demonstrate implicitly that you're not the most
> > industrious person in the world and then to suggest that your
> > manner of doing things -- like taking the bus because you can't
> > afford a car -- is preferable anyway.
>
> What the ****

That's not a good motto to have, and it's hardly a productive way of
life. But the empty parking space at your apartment tells you that.

> > Okay, you also require public assistance to subsidize your bus fare.
> > What's unclear about that? This is your brain on pot...
>
> It's not up to me how much the fare is.

Yes, it is. You vote for the ****s in Ottawa.

> Don't blame me. Whatever the
> fare, there are some circumstances under which public transit is still
> the best way to go

It's the only way you go.

> > I'm "referrring" to the fact that taxpayers subsidize public
> > transportation. You wouldn't ride the bus if it cost you a
> > break-even fare -- nine-times what you're currently paying if your
> > service is as costly as my city's.
>
> Take it

No, I won't take a bus.

> > > I'm quite happy with how I'm doing.
> >
> > Low standards which are too easily met. You're not saving the
> > planet, you're not saving animals, and I also showed that your BS
> > about hemp oil isn't saving your life, either.
>
> It must suck to be you

It doesn't one bit.

> Such a standard is unobtainable by any
> reasonable non-extremist person.

Then why do you embrace extremism?

> Also, your big problem

No, it's YOUR big problem: you endorsed it because you parroted some
bullshit you read on an advertisement.

> about hemp oil is that it has omega 6 along with the 3 and 9.

You still can't get it through that pot-addled skull of yours that
omega-6 is already plentiful in the average diet -- TOO plentiful in
fact. You were stupidly parroting and extolling the virtues of omega-6
even though most people get too ****ing much as it is.
-------------
....The American Institute for Cancer Research reports that the current
ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids in the average
American diet is about 15-to-1. An ideal ratio would be 4-to-1....

Omega-6 fatty acids are pro-inflammatory. Inflammation is essential
because it helps the body repair itself (such as in the case of a
muscle sprain). But be cautious because too much inflammation can lead
to chronic degenerative disease....

Americans are consuming significantly more omega-6 fatty acids than
omega-3 fatty acids (a ratio of approximately 15-to-1). Ratté says this
may help to explain the occurrence of chronic inflammatory disease in
American culture.

The ratio can become unbalanced simply by the food choices you make.
For example, beef that has been fed grain, soy beans, hormones and
other additives to fatten them up can have ratios as high as 15-to-1.
When people consume this beef, it increases their ratio as well. On the
other hand, grass-fed, grass-finished beef have a ratio closer to
5-to-2, which is similar to the ratio humans need.

In order to fix the imbalance, Ratté says Americans need to either
decrease their intake of omega-6 fatty acids or increase their intake
of omega-3 fatty acids. €œWe can decrease our omega-6 intake by avoiding
plain oils and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) such as corn oil and
soybean oil,€� Ratté says. €œThe best way to increase omega-3 levels is
to take cod liver oil or fish oil in the form of a capsule or in its
natural state.€�

http://www.nwhealth.edu/healthyU/eatWell/omegas.html
---------------------

> In fact you kinda
> freaked out about that, ranting that people already get 6 elsewhere.

It was neither freaking out nor ranting. You were stupidly parroting BS
about omega-6 and suggesting people needed MORE. No, you dumb ****,
they get enough; they need more omega-3.

> I don't see what the big deal is.

Established!!! LOL

> Hemp happens to have some 6, yes,
> but the 3 and 9 balance things out quite nice. It is a very
> nutritious oil.

Spoken like the gullible true believer you are. Emotionaly retarded
shitbag.

cheeky hiccup wrote:
> > It's not up to me how much the fare is.
>
> Yes, it is. You vote for the ****s in Ottawa.

Tell me what I voted.

> No, I won't take a bus.

You absolutely refuse, under all circumstances? That's a little
extreme, isn't it?

> > Such a standard is unobtainable by any
> > reasonable non-extremist person.
>
> Then why do you embrace extremism?

I don't. Show where I do.

> ...The American Institute for Cancer Research reports that the current
> ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids in the average
> American diet is about 15-to-1. An ideal ratio would be 4-to-1....

What is the ratio for hemp oil? Before bashing it, let's find out.
Maybe I'll try googling it later.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/