B&H and Adorama Closed!

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:01:43 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:44:06 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:

They "count as people" exactly as much as, and no more than, any other
people do.

Thus, married people have a right to privacy.
. . .

As it is increasingly apparent that this obvious truth will ever penetrate
the thick casing of solid bone surrounding the small growth at the upper
end of your spinal cord, this conversation is hereby ended.

Plonk.

That action seems to be the last resort of those with exceedingly
weak constitutions. Pull that plunger too often and you and your
similarly inclined brethren will most likely end up with a painful
RSI to your right wing.

Neil can't see us because he's willfully blinded himself. So
at least our conversations will be in private as far as he's
concerned.

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 16:37:00 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"ASAAR" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:44:06 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:

They "count as people" exactly as much as, and no more than, any other
people do.

Thus, married people have a right to privacy.
. . .

As it is increasingly apparent that this obvious truth will ever
penetrate
the thick casing of solid bone surrounding the small growth at the upper
end of your spinal cord, this conversation is hereby ended.

Plonk.

That action seems to be the last resort of those with exceedingly
weak constitutions. Pull that plunger too often and you and your
similarly inclined brethren will most likely end up with a painful
RSI to your right wing.

I never "pull that plunger" as you put it without adequate reason; I regard
stubborn and repetitive stupidity on the other's part as adequate reason.

Neil


More to the point, jerkoff, you don't even pull the plunger.
as proven by your childish response to the very next message from
ASAAR.

Why are you unable to really plonk anyone? It would have to be
that plonking, to you, is simply a childish exercise intended to show
how superior you are; then you're bound to "peek" to see what people
think of you for your silly plonking.

Grow up and stop your infantile games.

But you didn't see any of this because I'm plonked, right?

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:50:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

There is no constitutional "right to privacy," apart from those
specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights ("to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures," etc.). Married or unmarried, you have no
CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy beyond what the Constitution says you
have. (Duh.)

So we return to your rejection of the ninth amendment.

Sorry I couldn't put "CONSTITUTIONAL" in 36-point bold for you, but such are
the limits of ordinary text, and HTML is frowned on in newsgroups.


So are you.

Since usenet is clearly not up to adequate emphasis so that
your SCREAMED point bears its proper weight, why dion't ou **** off
and join a teen chat group which allows HTML posting so that you're
adequately understood. It would be about your speed.

Oh, sorry -- you can't see my postings.

Signed,
Grateful Plonkee

"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

There is no constitutional "right to privacy," apart from those
specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights ("to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures," etc.). Married or unmarried, you have no
CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy beyond what the Constitution says
you have. (Duh.)

So we return to your rejection of the ninth amendment.

Sorry I couldn't put "CONSTITUTIONAL" in 36-point bold for you, but
such are the limits of ordinary text, and HTML is frowned on in
newsgroups.

As I said, SO WE RETURN TO YOUR REJECTION OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT. Put
that in 72-point bold, red text.

I fully accept the Ninth Amendment and understand what it says; what you
imagine it means is unclear, but evidently in error whatever it is.

Your confusion is not my problem and in all likelihood uncorrectible anyway.
Goodbye now.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:26:26 GMT, wrote:

Neil can't see us because he's willfully blinded himself. So
at least our conversations will be in private as far as he's
concerned.

It's not enough that he does so, he and his slightly saner buddy
can't simply do it and get on with their life, such as it is.
Interestingly, I was plonked not for shouting or being abusive. I
received the threat that if in my reply I didn't agree with the
plonker's POV I would be plonked. Had I capitulated to that threat
it would have been a pathetic response on my part to a pathetic
threat. Some people can only survive by finding ways to refuse to
see the obvious. Others butt up against cognitive dissonance and
are able to grow beyond their security blanket limitations. I
already composed a reply with respect to plonking but saved it.
I'll dig it up and post it shortly after this one is sent.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:32:04 GMT, wrote:

Why are you unable to really plonk anyone? It would have to be
that plonking, to you, is simply a childish exercise intended to show
how superior you are; then you're bound to "peek" to see what people
think of you for your silly plonking.

Grow up and stop your infantile games.

But you didn't see any of this because I'm plonked, right?

Almost. Going by an old, possibly mythical legend (more likely to
be promulgated by those who have overused their right wing), those
that plonk their magic twanger too often risk going blind.

"I'll be good, I will, I will." -- Froggy the Gremlin

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

There is no constitutional "right to privacy," apart from those
specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights ("to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures," etc.). Married or
unmarried, you have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy beyond
what the Constitution says you have. (Duh.)

So we return to your rejection of the ninth amendment.

Sorry I couldn't put "CONSTITUTIONAL" in 36-point bold for you,
but such are the limits of ordinary text, and HTML is frowned on
in newsgroups.

As I said, SO WE RETURN TO YOUR REJECTION OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT.
Put that in 72-point bold, red text.

I fully accept the Ninth Amendment and understand what it says; what
you imagine it means is unclear, but evidently in error whatever it
is.

Your confusion is not my problem and in all likelihood uncorrectible
anyway. Goodbye now.

I'm not confused at all. I understand what "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people," means. If you really
understood it, you would know that there is a constitutional right to
privacy.

But you are so tied into the right-wing agenda of big-brother government
and Christian supremacy, that you will ignore and dispute any provisions
of the constitution that get in the way of that agenda.

In article ,
ASAAR wrote:

Almost. Going by an old, possibly mythical legend (more likely to
be promulgated by those who have overused their right wing), those
that plonk their magic twanger too often risk going blind.

"I'll be good, I will, I will." -- Froggy the Gremlin

And for those who don't understand the reference,
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/nyuk/froggy.html

Thanks for the memories, ASAAR.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:21:21 -0700, Nikon User wrote:

And for those who don't understand the reference,
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/nyuk/froggy.html

Thanks for the memories, ASAAR.

And thank you for the link. I remember being slightly disappointed
when Smilin' Ed passed the reins to Wild Bill Hickok's sidekick, but
it didn't matter very much since Froggy was the main attraction.

--
"I'm Buster Brown. I live in a shoe. That's my dog Tige. He lives
in there too."

In article ,
ASAAR wrote:

I remember being slightly disappointed when Smilin' Ed passed the
reins to Wild Bill Hickok's sidekick,

He didn't have much of a choice; he was sorta dead.