Gun nut opens fire in Carson City, Nevada

[ConHog]

No.

I happen to agree with you that we couldn't.

[logroller]

My only real point was that once we started seeing two income families we seen wages go down, obviously since demand has went down while supply has went up wages were going to go down. AND there were some societal costs as well.

Now the question is, could we go back to one income families forcing companies to raise wages to remain competitive for the employees who were in the market?


No.


I happen to agree with you that we couldn't.
Nor should we; force them I mean. What a family decides to do, by their volition, shouldn't be instructive of what all should do. I think the better question is rather why those choices are held against them? Too often we see decisions being made which make perfect sense in the short-term profit/ loss dept; but downright foolish in the social dept. The first five years of child's life are something which are vital to building meaningful family values, yet they're delegated to others for economic interests. It's foolish, but it's a choice one has to make by their own volition.

[ConHog]

Nor should we; force them I mean. What a family decides to do, by their volition, shouldn't be instructive of what all should do. I think the better question is rather why those choices are held against them? Too often we see decisions being made which make perfect sense in the short-term profit/ loss dept; but downright foolish in the social dept. The first five years of child's life are something which are vital to building meaningful family values, yet they're delegated to others for economic interests. It's foolish, but it's a choice one has to make by their own volition.

I fully agree that we shouldn't force anyone to do anything of the sort.

[Little-Acorn]

Because you can kill a lot of people if you decide to. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until the decide to turn nutso. The guy who wielded the AK-47 in Carson City was a law abiding citizen until today.
Some of you just enjoy seeing people slaughtered. You know there is no reason why anyone should own an AK-47, but you want the right to have one just to show what a macho man you are.
The more massacres that happen, the more you will defend your rights to massacre people if you ever turn nutso.

Gabby ... what you said is offensive ... I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people on this site DO NOT enjoy seeing people slaughtered ... you are being hysterical.

If little gabby couldn't write hysterical and offensive posts, she'd have nothing to say at all.

That would be terrible, wouldn't it...........

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't know that it was necessary to call me a pussy , but okay.?
That was a joke. I could call you many things, & a few of them might even be good, but I would never seriously call you a pussy.


Anyway, hey some women enjoy working, and there's no problem with that, I do agree that there are some professions which one sex or the other is more qualified for, I don't agree that leadership is a quality mostly seen in men though. I've seen some good female leaders in my time and plenty of shitty male leaders in my time.?

Well, you are giving a very typical reply. I dont know why people always do that. I DID NOT SAY NO WOMEN ARE GOOD LEADERS, AND ALL MEN ARE, JUST THAT ON AN AVG, MEN TURN OUT TO BE BETTER LEADERS. Alot of women dont want to lead, and in fact, dont want a woman leading them. Women always go for a guy taller than them, its universal, and women like to turn to men for protection and leadership. FOR THE MOST PART, OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.


My only real point was that once we started seeing two income families we seen wages go down, ?

Well, then, just say it, dont tiptoe around it for fear of being called a sexist. You know if you are a sexist, and if you are, then change, if you arent, who gives a shit what others think, especially here.

obviously since demand has went down while supply has went up wages were going to go down. AND there were some societal costs as well. ?
Supply has increased because of better proficiency at producing.


Now the question is, could we go back to one income families forcing companies to raise wages to remain competitive for the employees who were in the market?
Nope.

[LuvRPgrl]

No.

Im soooo confused.

[fj1200]

Im soooo confused.

Why are you confused? You agreed with me. ;)


No.


Nope.

[DragonStryk72]

Compare union membership today to what is was then. Less Americans, as a percentage, are unionized today than were in the 1950s. Compare the middle-class standard of living. Compare the degree to which capitalists were allowed to exploit their workers and run sweatshops. We didn't used to allow them to do that. It used to be that if they wanted to do business here, they had to build the plant here and meet American labour and environmental standards.

You want to fix the economy? Start by closing the tax loopholes and cracking down on those who hide funds offshore. Use steep tariffs on any imported goods produced in any plant not meeting environmental and labour standards not comparable to our own and watch outsourcing halt and manufacturing return to America. If you want prosperity, you must reject capitalism and America must once again embrace social democracy or something akin to it.

Okay, one- it wouldn't work these days because union wages are so high that most american could barely afford anything if we went back to that. Why do you think people shop at Wal-Mart? Then you want to slap down more taxes, but you say nothing of the rampant overspending and misuse of funds the government already has. Oh yeah, that's not a cluster fuck waiting to happen.

and the reason that "had" to build the plant here is because back then, it was actually cheaper to have the factory here, as opposed to shipping it from around the curvature of the frickin' earth. Nowadays, companies take a serious financial hit for doing business here, get labeled as "greedy" and "evil". Yeah, there's some inspiration to stick around.

Now let's talk about numbers. Assuming what you is correct, since you offer no actual proof, just more "I'm right, trust me". Even if the percentage of unon workers is lower than it was, they hold far more sway than they used to, but amongst a smaller group. However we also have to look at physical numbers, and they are up. So more people, and more actual power. No, they're not weaker.

[Kathianne]

Compare union membership today to what is was then. Less Americans, as a percentage, are unionized today than were in the 1950s. Compare the middle-class standard of living. Compare the degree to which capitalists were allowed to exploit their workers and run sweatshops. We didn't used to allow them to do that. It used to be that if they wanted to do business here, they had to build the plant here and meet American labour and environmental standards.

You want to fix the economy? Start by closing the tax loopholes and cracking down on those who hide funds offshore. Use steep tariffs on any imported goods produced in any plant not meeting environmental and labour standards not comparable to our own and watch outsourcing halt and manufacturing return to America. If you want prosperity, you must reject capitalism and America must once again embrace social democracy or something akin to it.

The US, union or not, cannot compete with China, S. Korea., etc. People cannot live on those salaries, even if they could, don't want standard of living to dive that far.

So what?

Something new. I don't know what it might be, do know that there's zero in the current administration to bring anything forward. That needs to change.

[fj1200]

The US, union or not, cannot compete with China, S. Korea., etc. People cannot live on those salaries, even if they could, don't want standard of living to dive that far.

So what?

Something new. I don't know what it might be, do know that there's zero in the current administration to bring anything forward. That needs to change.

We build on our competencies. We are obviously not going to compete on labor and I wouldn't want to because our standard of living has grown beyond that. We will compete on a capital intensive basis where we utilize money and automation to do the manual labor. That, and focusing on design, innovation, etc. where we will create the new technologies and let the cheaper labor of the developing world do what they do best. The problem is every instinct of the current administration is opposite; enact regulations which make our capital markets less efficient, increase the cost of labor by adding on payroll taxes and business mandates, increase the cost of capital which makes it more expensive to invest in machinery, maintain high corporate tax rates which increase the cost of doing US business... you name it and we are further hamstringing business to grow and increase job opportunities.

[SassyLady]

I am STILL waiting for someone to offer a plausible reason why they need to own an AK-47.
I am not talking about a hand gun. Or a hunting rifle. This is a weapon whose only purpose is to slaughter people.
Yes, of course you CAN own one. But why would you want to? Unless you envision someday pulling off a mass murder. Or you are a total sicko.

I'm sorry Gabby ... I thought I had given it to you....to defend oneself/family against enemies....with the intent to kill them.

[gabosaurus]

I'm sorry Gabby ... I thought I had given it to you....to defend oneself/family against enemies....with the intent to kill them.

I can defend myself with the handgun that I have.
My question was, why do you need an AK-47? Do you really expect thugs to start roaming your neighborhood with high power weapons?
Now, if you plan to start doing business with organized crime or drug cartels, then perhaps you need one.

[Missileman]

I can defend myself with the handgun that I have.
My question was, why do you need an AK-47? Do you really expect thugs to start roaming your neighborhood with high power weapons?
Now, if you plan to start doing business with organized crime or drug cartels, then perhaps you need one.

Why do you need a handgun? Handguns are only for killing people. You are truly one of the biggest hypocrites on the board.

[SassyLady]

I can defend myself with the handgun that I have.
My question was, why do you need an AK-47? Do you really expect thugs to start roaming your neighborhood with high power weapons?
Now, if you plan to start doing business with organized crime or drug cartels, then perhaps you need one.

I may not need one Gabby, however, I don't want to find myself in a situation where I only have a handgun against a thug who has more firepower. As I said before, I am a survivor ... not an idealist.

PS ... neighbors grow a lot of pot and have lots of firepower at their disposal and I don't want to be on the losing end of one of their gang wars that might overflow into my yard. So, yes, I really do expect thugs to start roaming my property with automatic weapons.

[J.T]

Then you want to slap down more taxes, but you say nothing of the rampant overspending and misuse of funds the government already has.

Dude... you're in that thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32555-Let-s-talk-cuts) :rolleyes:


Nowadays, companies take a serious financial hit for doing business here

Yes, curse the Clean Air and Water Acts and labour standards! We need some of this:


2433

2434

2435

2436

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/


http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/crazy%20smiley.gif

[logroller]

I can defend myself with the handgun that I have.

Out of concern for the general safety of others, and I'm sure you'll have no trouble doing this, would you mind reciting the four cardinal rules of gun safety? (WITHOUT reference, of course)


My question was, why do you need an AK-47?

I like to go to the range and shoot off a few hundred rounds with friends, its a real tension breaker; way better than going to a bar. Handguns are fun, but hard on the hands after ~50rnds, and accuracy goes to shit. Shotguns--same thing, just beats the hell out you. Rifles though...locked, loaded, target in sight, FIRE. A slight concussion, the blowback of the gas operation, repeat. ANd don't get me started with the thrill of a gong target. GONG...GONG, GONGGONG...GONGGONGGONG...GONGGONGGONG--ah shit, damn magazine limits. Thanks gabs; I was just starting to have fun.



Do you really expect thugs to start roaming your neighborhood with high power weapons?

No, I suppose I do not expect thugs to start roaming my neighborhood; thus far, they seem to be content picketing the non-union grocery store. But so long as you're posing hypothetical questions, do you expect somebody to break into your home with a deadly weapon, or do you keep a firearm for peace of mind?


Now, if you plan to start doing business with organized crime or drug cartels, then perhaps you need one.

Ironically, both these groups exist thanks to prohibition of activities which are deemed socially undesirable; while gun control has steadily increased during their rise to power, yet they seem to be growing ever more powerful. Food for thought.

[J.T]

Out of concern for the general safety of others, and I'm sure you'll have no trouble doing this, would you mind reciting the four cardinal rules of gun safety? (WITHOUT reference, of course)


Always make the the weapon is loaded and a round chambered
Always make sure the safety is off
Only point a gun at people you don't like
Squeeze, don't pull, the trigger

;)

[logroller]

Always make the the weapon is loaded and a round chambered
Always make sure the safety is off
Only point a gun at people you don't like
Squeeze, don't pull, the trigger

;)
You must be one of those gunnuts Gabs has been warning us about. Gunnuts get special rules, as follows...

1) don't possess a weapon unless you intend to kill randomly
2) get the cheapest and most scary-looking gun available (the bigger and blacker the better)
3) never carry more ammunition than you will need
4) always have a bullet for yourself (see rule 3)

[red states rule]

http://www.funnyandjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/burglarize-house.gif

[red states rule]

You must be one of those gunnuts Gabs has been warning us about. Gunnuts get special rules, as follows...

1) don't possess a weapon unless you intend to kill randomly
2) get the cheapest and most scary-looking gun available (the bigger and blacker the better)
3) never carry more ammunition than you will need
4) always have a bullet for yourself (see rule 3)


Here are the basic rules of gun ownership


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaogun600.jpg

[LuvRPgrl]

Why are you confused? You agreed with me. ;)

Yea, Im a bit slow sometimes.....I finally figured it out :)

[LuvRPgrl]

I can defend myself with the handgun that I have.
My question was, why do you need an AK-47? Do you really expect thugs to start roaming your neighborhood with high power weapons?
Now, if you plan to start doing business with organized crime or drug cartels, then perhaps you need one.


You ever been in , around or near where riots are taking place? I would want more than a measly handgun.
Besides, WHAT YOU WANT ISNT WHAT I MIGHT WANT, isnt that what freedom is all about.

This country was founded on the ideal of freedom.
Not fairness doctrine,
not wealth for all
not medical insurance for all
not a chicken in every pot
not the privledge for homos to marry
Not the right to collecting welfare

just FREEDOM

FREEDOM BABY, THATS ALL.

[DragonStryk72]

I can defend myself with the handgun that I have.
My question was, why do you need an AK-47? Do you really expect thugs to start roaming your neighborhood with high power weapons?
Now, if you plan to start doing business with organized crime or drug cartels, then perhaps you need one.

You don't need an ipod, nor do you need an internet connection. Even if your job is web-based, you could go to your local library or starbucks and use it there. Thankfully, our Founders did not found our nation on having to prove why a right was deserved. As I stated above, the very questioning of why someone needs a thing is irrelevent to the discussion.

As has also been pointed out, an AK is a full-auto weapon, which is the objection to it, but the fact is that almost any semi-auto weapon can be altered into a full-auto, making it the equal of the AK. So why bother banning something when the exact same effect can be produced in almost any gun on the market?

People who are determined to kill a lot of people will not ever be stopped by laws, as mass murder is already illegal. taking away guns will only tell them where best place to start is.

[logroller]

Yea, Im a bit slow sometimes.....

Gonna put this quote in my 'to use outside of context' file.:coffee:

[J.T]

This country was founded on the ideal of freedom.

So long as you were White and had a penis and owned land...


an AK is a full-auto weapon
Walk into a gun store and pick up an AK-47. It will be semi-auto.


almost any semi-auto weapon can be altered into a full-auto

Another anti-gun myth. See the video on 'assault weapons' I posted earlier in this thread.

[logroller]

So long as you were White and had a penis and owned land...


Walk into a gun store and pick up an AK-47. It will be semi-auto.



Another anti-gun myth. See the video on 'assault weapons' I posted earlier in this thread.

He said the "ideal" of freedom, not its actual application. MM is right though, the AK-47 was originally a three position (s, 1, f) automatic rifle.People in america just don't bother to use the proper model designation, preferring instead the generic branding 'AK-47'; abroad it is often referred to as a Kalish I believe-- check wiki. Kinda like one may use the term 'm-16' and ar-15 interchangeably, though the latter is a family of various models; the former was the designated model of the first ar-15 type weapon adopted for service. 'AR-15' is owned by Colt. Making a civilian ar-15 into a fully automatic weapon isn't all that hard, if you have access to a machine shop and fire control parts; not that I've done that and buried it in an undisclosed location, it's a federal crime.

[LuvRPgrl]

Gonna put this quote in my 'to use outside of context' file.:coffee:

but please, take out the term "sometimes"...

[LuvRPgrl]

So long as you were White and had a penis and owned land....

well, I do qualify, so what the point dipdong?



Walk into a gun store and pick up an AK-47. It will be semi-auto.



Another anti-gun myth. See the video on 'assault weapons' I posted earlier in this thread.

You're calling Loggingman anti gun????

[J.T]

the AK-47 was originally a three position (s, 1, f) automatic rifle.
And? An AK-47 you buy in a gun shop will be semi-auto

People in America just don't bother to use the proper model designation, preferring instead the generic branding 'AK-47'
Because they're AK-47s. There are different variations of the AK-47 made by different manufacturers, but that doesn't make them not AK-47s and more than the fact that there's more than one F-150 (different years have their differences) makes your F-150 not an F-150.

[logroller]

And? An AK-47 you buy in a gun shop will be semi-auto
Because they're AK-47s. There are different variations of the AK-47 made by different manufacturers, but that doesn't make them not AK-47s and more than the fact that there's more than one F-150 (different years have their differences) makes your F-150 not an F-150.

Then it's an AK-type, influenced by the design, but not an AK-47. and the f-150 analogy is weak; better one be if someone ordered a CocaCola, original formula it wouldn't have cocaine in it. Here's a history (http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/history.html)from the official site; clearly describing an AK-47 as a (s,f,1) sub-machine gun; but it's not really worth arguing about; people are gonna call soda coke and AK-type rifles AK-47s regardless:thumb:

[LuvRPgrl]

And? An AK-47 you buy in a gun shop will be semi-auto
Because they're AK-47s. There are different variations of the AK-47 made by different manufacturers, but that doesn't make them not AK-47s and more than the fact that there's more than one F-150 (different years have their differences) makes your F-150 not an F-150.

Yes, but those variations have their own designation, a very specific one. Like AK-64, for example. You would, or should never call an AK-64 an AK-47, because it isnt. That is simply incorrect.

Kinda like Ford has the F series trucks, but you wouldnt call the f150 an F350.

[J.T]

official site
'official'? How is it 'official'? is it run by Kalashnikov himself?

And as I pointed out some time ago, full-auto weapons are already easily restricted in the US, which means that the only AKs were discussing in this thread (recall it's about KRB wanting to ban those AKs you can walk into a gun store and buy without any special license) are semi-auto.

Luv, wtf is an ak-64? Did you mean an Ak-74?

[logroller]

'official'? How is it 'official'? is it run by Kalashnikov himself?


Now you're just arguing for arguments sake? Moot point, let's move on.

[J.T]

You link some obscure site and claim it's 'official' and therefore authoritative. Now you admit you were talking out of your neck?

[ConHog]

Now you're just arguing for arguments sake? Moot point, let's move on.

I have that idiot on ignore and would appreciate if you wouldn't quote his every post effectively negating my ignore .

Thanks.

[logroller]

JT. I googled 'official AK-47' --that's the site. The AK-47 is now considered public domain, ie not owned by anybody. So the current producer of modern AK's in russia doesn't lay any claim to AK-47s. Find a more official one to dispute my assertions if you can. The reason I offered a truce is b/c it doesn't really matter. People are still going to be ignorant and that's fine, it doesn't affect what I know to be true. I haven't the patience or inclination to justify what I know to be factual to someone who is clearly only interested in arguing, and not in the discovery of fact.

Having said that; please refute the following statement using tangible evidence.
Though AK variants have come into production, the original design of the AK-1 and AK-2, as adopted in 1947 as the AK-47 was a selective fire assault rifle.

Do you know what selective fire means? It means it has atleast one semi-automatic and one automatic firing position.

Here's the US Army AK-47 Operation Manual (http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/AK47USArmyOperatorManual.pdf). Below is an excerpt from 'Section 1: General'



The AK-47 (fig 3) is a short, compact, selective-fired weapon de-signed by the Soviets in 1946 which fires a cartridge intermediate in
power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges. It has a mild re-
coil which gives it the capability of delivering effective full auto-
matic fire up to 300 meters.

You haven't provided anything but hearsay in defense of your position because you are patently incorrect; the fact you insist on arguing only proves you are professedly ignorant too.

[J.T]

the original design of the AK-1 and AK-2, as adopted in 1947 as the AK-47 was a selective fire assault rifle.

Do you have a point or are you just arguing to be a dumbass?

Are you denying that fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and that if you walk into a gun store and pick up an AK-47 for sale it will be a semi-automatic?

This entire thread, we've been discussing those weapons readily available for purchase by any law-abiding citizen from any gun store. Is there a reason you've picked the anti-gun fearmongering banner KRB dropped when he was banned?


You haven't provided anything but hearsay in defense of your position because you are patently incorrect;

:lol:

Walk into any gun store and ask them about the hoops you have to jump for to own fully-automatic weapons. Ask about the AKs you can buy without a special permit- ask whether they're full- or semi-auto. Or just Google it.

[logroller]

Do you have a point or are you just arguing to prove I'm a dumbass?

Are you denying..
:lol:
'

Hearsay doesn't count Jt. refute my statements, I shall answer your ?'s

[darin]

Guys - it's fine to sorta 'change' a quote from somebody - but you MUST highlight what you've changed and make-note of the fact.

[LuvRPgrl]

'official'? How is it 'official'? is it run by Kalashnikov himself?

And as I pointed out some time ago, full-auto weapons are already easily restricted in the US, which means that the only AKs were discussing in this thread (recall it's about KRB wanting to ban those AKs you can walk into a gun store and buy without any special license) are semi-auto.

Luv, wtf is an ak-64? Did you mean an Ak-74?

see post #283 by logroller
yea, I hit the 6, which is right next to the 7, it was dark.
I see mis typing alot, and do it myself, but everybody else here seems to be able to extrapolate from the surrounding terms to figure out that the postere left a word out, like, "he was going to go to the store" is typed as "he was going to go the store"
Everybody here, cept you, seems to make the connection without arguing or criticizing it, why is that?
I already know the answer, Im just wondering if you do

[ConHog]

see post #283 by logroller
yea, I hit the 6, which is right next to the 7, it was dark.
I see mis typing alot, and do it myself, but everybody else here seems to be able to extrapolate from the surrounding terms to figure out that the postere left a word out, like, "he was going to go to the store" is typed as "he was going to go the store"
Everybody here, cept you, seems to make the connection without arguing or criticizing it, why is that?
I already know the answer, Im just wondering if you do

Because he's a fucking moron who has nothing better to do with his time then sit around on a message board and antagonize the shit out people.


STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!!!!

[LuvRPgrl]

Because he's a fucking moron who has nothing better to do with his time then sit around on a message board and antagonize the shit out people.


STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!!!!

You had your go round with him, nowl we cant have ours?

[ConHog]

You had your go round with him, nowl we cant have ours?

My go round with him was to try to convince him to be a decent poster. He proved to have no interest in doing anything but trolling.

But no, enjoy yourself, just don't expect to accomplish anything.

[fj1200]

^I just quote him so you still get to read his posts.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[ConHog]

^I just quote him so you still get to read his posts.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That doesn't surprise me at all. Asshole :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

My go round with him was to try to convince him to be a decent poster. He proved to have no interest in doing anything but trolling.

But no, enjoy yourself, just don't expect to accomplish anything.

LIAR.
And it was a stupid lie, your record is public info.
You had many posts in your go round, then a measly 2 short posts about his trolling.

But hey, thanks for the permission.

[SassyLady]

LIAR.
And it was a stupid lie, your record is public info.
You had many posts in your go round, then a measly 2 short posts about his trolling.

But hey, thanks for the permission.

Well, I can tell that JT definitely achieved one of his goals ... to get the regulars here in a tiff with each other ... talk about divide and conquer.....now he's got you guys going at each other .... over, of all things ... about the fact that neither of you like his posts....:lame2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, I can tell that JT definitely achieved one of his goals ... to get the regulars here in a tiff with each other ... talk about divide and conquer.....now he's got you guys going at each other .... over, of all things ... about the fact that neither of you like his posts....:lame2: ewww, Sassy lady is HOT tonight.

:laugh:

Actually it started some time ago in a different thread when CH was claiming he cant be racist because he married a Mexican girl. hahhaha, yeaaaaaaaa, riggggggggggggggggggght

[J.T]

Imagine two kids shooting up a school. Does a teacher have a better chance of stopping them with your retard-action rifle, a semi-auto pistol, or no gun at all because it's a 'gun-free zone' and only the criminals are armed?

Why do you want the school killers to be able to kill more innocent people?

Gabby never told us why she wants more dead innocents

[SassyLady]

Gabby never told us why she wants more dead innocents

She like that sometimes .... what I call a "hit and run poster", or she's like me ... doesn't subscribe and gets behind in reading all the posts and/or gets bored with all the bickering that seems to fill up the thread.

[J.T]

She like that sometimes .... what I call a "hit and run poster", or she's like me ... doesn't subscribe and gets behind in reading all the posts and/or gets bored with all the bickering that seems to fill up the thread.

Sending conhog and luv to their respective corners, denying gabby the joy of this trolling thread being successful, and getting us back on track...

-Nobody ever gave any good reasons to ban guns
-Gun-free zones have been the scenes of slaughter in the past
-Gun crimes are negatively correlated with gun ownership by lawful citizens
-Gabby never showed anything that hints the man who committed this crime was a 'gun nut' as opposed to a nut with a gun.

And, of course, KRB is no longer here to argue his own anti-gun nuttery.

Unless Gabs wants to take this time to make an actual case for her anti-gun nuttery, this discussion has been over for some time.

[J.T]

She like that sometimes .... what I call a "hit and run poster", or she's like me ... doesn't subscribe and gets behind in reading all the posts and/or gets bored with all the bickering that seems to fill up the thread.

Based on the thread title, I doubt she ever intended to have an intelligent or honest discussion. She was just trollin'.

[SassyLady]

Based on the thread title, I doubt she ever intended to have an intelligent or honest discussion. She was just trollin'.

She's like the kid that pokes at the hornet's nest with a stick and then runs. She just likes to watch the frenzied activity of what she's created.....without any real interest in the hive.

[LuvRPgrl]

this discussion has been over for some time.

and yet here you are still babbling on.

[SassyLady]

Time to go nite-nite