1st Time Carrying. Practicing in Public.

[TroutKing]

Translation: "Uh....I got nothin'."

No. I simply won't engage a malcontent. You know nothing about me. I've been here a short time and have had minimum interaction with you. Yet you feel comfortable enough in just four or five posts to name call and make unfounded statements. Ignorance abounds. You're not worthy of discussing a topic of any kind. Ignore me.

 

[BluesStringer]

Anyone else believe every ass-01e should be armed? This guy has a screw loose no matter how you cut it.

You're a living example of the failed mental health system in America. You're a living example of why the left is SCREAMING for gun control.

If you think he's normal then lend him your gun. Based on a small number of posts I think he's crazy as a junkyard dog. Very bizarre posts about going down in a hail of bullets. Handled a lot of crazies over the past 30 years in criminal courts. Normal people don't make such statements.

The guy thinks he's a superhero. :jester:

Other than that what do you have? And perhaps he's the next school shooter communicating his true thoughts. Since neither of us know how about we agree that such statements are bizarre no matter what the motive?

The second amendment makes no such guarantee. You have no idea what you're talking about. Clearly not schooled on the subject. Your constitution was relegated to insignificance more than a century ago. Study constitutional law and learn how the system works. Then you can argue the constitution intelligently. Until then you have only the opinion of someone without any credentialing. Constitutional law is an extremely in-depth topic. You can't learn it on the Internet. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

And as far as restricting firearms? I won't support giving every lunatic a gun based on the limited view of a two-sentence second amendment. How would the second amendment be written if your founding fathers could see the rampant insanity, mental illness and heinous crime that plagues our world today? You insult them by thinking they wouldn't restrict dangerous people? In 1789 there was no such thing as mental illness. The second amendment was denied in most mid-west cities from the mid 1800's. Abilene, Dodge, Hays City, Tombstone, Ellsworth, Wichita, Caldwell and many, many others forbid the carrying of a weapon while in the town limits: all in violation (excepting Tombstone) of the constitution. Why? Drunks with guns at the end of the line in cattle towns. In towns where population tripled with the influx of outsiders during the cattle season the unconstitutional laws were in full effect. This is nothing new. Yes I know bad people can always get a gun. But I won't hand them one legally.

You won't deny a drunk the right to carry his gun while drunk? As an ADA I would prosecute him for creating the reckless condition and recommend suspension or revocation based on what he did exactly. In defending "Wild Dog" you show me you don't see the warning signs. Yes he has a first amendment right; blah, blah, blah. He can still be prosecuted for what he says under that right. You can't make the threat without being charged, regardless if you have the motive, opportunity or means. Don't know where you got that one but it's dead wrong. Hell in many states it's a crime to call someone multiple times and merely hang-up (Aggravated Harassment).

Your 1st amendment statement is also woefully lacking. Regulation of free speech is not limited to threats. You may not exercise either your 1st amendment rights on private property or property held by certain government agencies. You may not speak out of turn at a town meeting without an obstruction charge. You may not speak out of turn in any court without a contempt charge. You may not stand in the waiting room at the SSA office and talk on your phone or engage others in loud conversation, nor may you speak to the entire waiting room without being booted, legally. You may not appear on any private property and start speaking to the crowd about anything without permission. Life would be so easy if the only law was the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately there are many hundreds of thousands of laws that conflict with it. Those laws are upheld every day in America.

No I didn't. I was on the receiving end of nonsense from another armchair lawyer. It was an uneducated and uninformed posts from someone which was liked by a nut named "Wild Dog" who's threatening to go down in a hail of bullets.

Well God damn me all the way to hell.

You're the most long-winded, bellowing bovine I've heard in a while. You actually wrote that response? Who takes the time to write such an insufferable, long-winded load of crap. I'm well aware that things are bad. I'm not going argue theories and what I might or might not do when prosecuting or defending. I'm not going to argue whether attorneys are a good or bad thing because they're both. And I'm not going to petition rearward for redress of every ill you feel needs cure. I'm going to answer you in the here and now. This is 2015. And whether you like it or not it's the current rule of law as interpreted by the courts that you'll adhere to. If you don't like the law, change it. Or don't follow it. But don't bluster at me because you don't like lawyers. Drunken while armed constitutes a violation of law; one doesn't wait until he causes harm. He's charged with the offense. And that's the end of it. If doesn't want to be charged he shouldn't be drunk with a gun. And know this; I didn't murder your beloved constitution. I worked zealously to represent and defend my clients from wrongs. You know nothing of me or my work, which makes you both ignorant and lacking knowledge of law. Such explains your attitude.

And Ulysses Grant? You kidding? You're still fighting the war? From Alabama? Well, that drunk Grant kicked your ass so end-it already. And his drunk days were behind him when he did it.

Blues, anyone who responds as you have, with such length and anal retentive detail has too much time on their hands. What kind of person tears apart a post, sentence by sentence? Crazy, simply crazy. Over a post where someone expresses an opinion? I was an ADA in the late 70's as many young, new attorneys choose, to gain experience. I spent a career in defense work, not prosecuting. Get a law degree and we'll talk about the law. Until then what you have is merely an uninformed opinion.

And if you're going to be drunk with a gun, expect to be arrested. If you hate lawyers who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?

BTW, you called me a Yankee? I'm born and raised in MD, retired in NC. Merely worked in NY, CT, CO and NJ. So you really don't know what you're talking about. But in looking at some of your previous posts you seem like a grump who takes everyone to the wood shed.

No. I simply won't engage a malcontent. You know nothing about me. I've been here a short time and have had minimum interaction with you. Yet you feel comfortable enough in just four or five posts to name call and make unfounded statements. Ignorance abounds. You're not worthy of discussing a topic of any kind. Ignore me.

I responded to the exact words of every one of the above diatribes, lies, holier-than-thou pontifications and false diagnosis of both Wild Dog and myself contained within them. Your answers have consistently been to dismiss me from talking about the same subjects you bring up because I don't have a law degree, and now you say I'm not "worthy" of discussing any topic with you. Well la-tee-da, aren't you just the oh-so-special one?

Here's a newsflash for you counselor - You don't get to tell me what I can comment on. You don't get to reply to me and then tell me to ignore that reply. You don't get to decide the worthiness of the people who post on this forum. You don't get to say that I've called you names when I've done nothing of the sort. I've simply observed and said out loud that words like those you've posted could only come from someone with a big-government, police-state-loving bent. That's no different than you making an observation, as paranoid and erroneous as it may be, that quoting and responding to what you say is "Crazy, simply crazy," a diagnosis which even you, with your Brobdignagian superiority complex, haven't tried to convince anyone you're qualified to make from "just four or five posts."

When you claim your superiority as a legal scholar, and then start talking on a gun forum about how crazy/bizarre/screw loose/threatening or whatever the posters on that forum are, it is not a stretch to believe that your superiority complex might move you to forward your thoughts on the matter to authorities in an attempt to have such people disarmed. And don't say I don't know anything about you, because this, too, is a direct reply to stuff you've said - to wit: "Anyone else believe every ass-01e should be armed?" If you believe so strongly that you're qualified to diagnose the mental status of internet posters from "just four or five posts," why shouldn't everyone reading your words on a gun rights forum be concerned that you might likewise consider yourself qualified to pass those diagnosis on to BATFE, the FBI, DHS or whomever?

You can ignore me or not as you see fit, but as to your demand that I ignore you, NO.

Blues

 

[XD40scinNC]

Based on the above, I wonder......... could Wild Dog be BluesStringers alter ego.... After all he is attacking someone for calling Wild Dog's sanity into question.

 

[Wild Dog]

You know, Troutking, the more you post the more I realize you don't know what you're talking about. Now, I may not have any fancy law degree or much in the way of schoolin'. But what I do know is that no matter how much education you have you can't think your way into the table of warriors. Now I know you'll make a derogatory remark toward me, but know this, all the other warriors and I are having a laugh at your expense.

 

[BluesStringer]

Based on the above, I wonder......... could Wild Dog be BluesStringers alter ego.... After all he is attacking someone for calling Wild Dog's sanity into question.

You can look at all of TroutKing's posts lined up in this thread and call what I've said an "attack"? Every single post I've made in reply to TK has actually answered and/or addressed and/or exposed as inappropriate/dishonest/erroneous every "point" he's put forth. Nothing I've said to him is any more of an "attack" than you pulling that trolling accusation out of your backside about me holding two accounts here in direct contravention to the rules of the forum is. Criticizing and attacking are not synonyms. I've attacked no one.......ever.

Blues

 

[TroutKing]

I responded to the exact words of every one of the above diatribes, lies, holier-than-thou pontifications and false diagnosis of both Wild Dog and myself contained within them. Your answers have consistently been to dismiss me from talking about the same subjects you bring up because I don't have a law degree, and now you say I'm not "worthy" of discussing any topic with you. Well la-tee-da, aren't you just the oh-so-special one?

Here's a newsflash for you counselor - You don't get to tell me what I can comment on. You don't get to reply to me and then tell me to ignore that reply. You don't get to decide the worthiness of the people who post on this forum. You don't get to say that I've called you names when I've done nothing of the sort. I've simply observed and said out loud that words like those you've posted could only come from someone with a big-government, police-state-loving bent. That's no different than you making an observation, as paranoid and erroneous as it may be, that quoting and responding to what you say is "Crazy, simply crazy," a diagnosis which even you, with your Brobdignagian superiority complex, haven't tried to convince anyone you're qualified to make from "just four or five posts."

When you claim your superiority as a legal scholar, and then start talking on a gun forum about how crazy/bizarre/screw loose/threatening or whatever the posters on that forum are, it is not a stretch to believe that your superiority complex might move you to forward your thoughts on the matter to authorities in an attempt to have such people disarmed. And don't say I don't know anything about you, because this, too, is a direct reply to stuff you've said - to wit: "Anyone else believe every ass-01e should be armed?" If you believe so strongly that you're qualified to diagnose the mental status of internet posters from "just four or five posts," why shouldn't everyone reading your words on a gun rights forum be concerned that you might likewise consider yourself qualified to pass those diagnosis on to BATFE, the FBI, DHS or whomever?

You can ignore me or not as you see fit, but as to your demand that I ignore you, NO.

Blues

In one post, about me you said...

• Just like a lawyer. Double-minded and full of double-speak.
• Understanding that relieves me of the necessity of "credentialing" myself in order to not be dismissed by one of the Constitution's murderers.
• You're not quite as special as you imagine
• you would make it harder for law abiding citizens to arm themselves i
• to validate your own jaded twisting of the rights
• Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. I'm sure he is one of your heroes,
• you being a Yankee and all
• Your F'ed-up legal system
• You would deny the right to defend themselves
• cheer yourself for your "law and order" stand against drunks?
• I don't trust you to apply the law fairly
• You just don't like seeing him speak his mind freely, so you use your law degree as a cudgel to make your evaluations and opinions more legitimate than mine or anyone else's. You just ain't that special.
• police-state-loving hack
• used your status as an attorney to legitimize your lies
• It seems you fancy yourself as Wyatt Earp and you would turn the entire country into 1880s Tombston

Let's summarize. All lawyers are double-minded and full of double-speak, I've murdered the constitution, I'm obstructing people from being armed, Grant was my hero, I'm a yankee. I screwed-up the legal system, I deny people the right to defend themselves, I'm a police-state loving hack, I'm a liar and want to be Wyatt Earp. All from a single post to me on page 6.

And you criticize me? Go away. Ignore me. I won't converse with you because you write these extremely long-winded responses of minutia detail that no one wants to argue. You're not right. You're just a long-winded grump who wins by endurance.

Despite your attempt to drag me to the woodshed, I stand by my position. Wild-Dog is wacked and if you carry a gun drunk you should be arrested. Now take your crap elsewhere.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Based on the above, I wonder......... could Wild Dog be BluesStringers alter ego.... After all he is attacking someone for calling Wild Dog's sanity into question.

For me, wild dog is a disturbing as your attacks on Christianity...except wild dog is just trolling.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

Despite your attempt to drag me to the woodshed, I stand by my position. Wild-Dog is wacked and if you carry a gun drunk you should be arrested. Now take your crap elsewhere.

You can stand by your position all you want, it doesn't make your position any less invalid. You are not qualified to diagnose mental health status of anyone based only on posts on an internet forum.

You've now twice assumed that my argument(s) come from the perspective of my own desire to carry while drunk, this second time coming after I answered your first personalized "if you carry while drunk" BS with the truth that I haven't consumed alcohol in any quantity at all for 20 years or more.

You have lied about Wild Dog making threats. He has made none, not to you personally or anyone else "out there." One might legitimately characterize his posts any number of critical ways, but threatening is not one of them.

You have expressed double-mindedness and double-speak. In one thread you scolded me for saying that voting is a waste of time and that I don't have the right to complain if I don't vote, and then either the same day or the next day you said yourself that the Constitution has been "relegated to insignificance" for decades. I used the double-minded reference to point out how ridiculous a notion it is that voting within a system that no longer exists by your own admission represents double-mindedness and double-speak, and it unquestionably does. I could've said the same thing about politicians, or any profession really, that is populated by people whose vocation it is to manipulate the plain and unambiguous language of the Constitution in order to weaken, and in some cases destroy, The People's God-given rights.

You have expressed a desire to make it harder for people to arm themselves. Gun control laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, quite obviously not the people who need the laws imposed upon them.

You have expressed that you would deny the right to defend themselves for an unspecified period of time after any citizen was caught and paid their penance for carrying a gun at the same time as having a BAC of 0.08 or above. I've quoted where you said it at least two times now.

I don't trust you to apply the law fairly, and since I'm basing that denial of trust only on what you yourself say here, I'm perfectly entitled to make that evaluation with or without your consent or acquiescence.

I already gave you my answer to your command/demand that I ignore you - NO. I *might* ignore your future posts around the forum unrelated to all your whining about me saying whatever I damn well please to and about your big-government, policie-state-lovin' posts in this thread, but you keep making false accusations, mental health diagnosis and whining about me telling the truth about my take on your writings, and I'll damn well reply any time I'm of a mind to. Deal with it.

Blues

 

[TroutKing]

You can stand by your position all you want, it doesn't make your position any less invalid. You are not qualified to diagnose mental health status of anyone based only on posts on an internet forum.

You've now twice assumed that my argument(s) come from the perspective of my own desire to carry while drunk, this second time coming after I answered your first personalized "if you carry while drunk" BS with the truth that I haven't consumed alcohol in any quantity at all for 20 years or more.

You have lied about Wild Dog making threats. He has made none, not to you personally or anyone else "out there." One might legitimately characterize his posts any number of critical ways, but threatening is not one of them.

You have expressed double-mindedness and double-speak. In one thread you scolded me for saying that voting is a waste of time and that I don't have the right to complain if I don't vote, and then either the same day or the next day you said yourself that the Constitution has been "relegated to insignificance" for decades. I used the double-minded reference to point out how ridiculous a notion it is that voting within a system that no longer exists by your own admission represents double-mindedness and double-speak, and it unquestionably does. I could've said the same thing about politicians, or any profession really, that is populated by people whose vocation it is to manipulate the plain and unambiguous language of the Constitution in order to weaken, and in some cases destroy, The People's God-given rights.

You have expressed a desire to make it harder for people to arm themselves. Gun control laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, quite obviously not the people who need the laws imposed upon them.

You have expressed that you would deny the right to defend themselves for an unspecified period of time after any citizen was caught and paid their penance for carrying a gun at the same time as having a BAC of 0.08 or above. I've quoted where you said it at least two times now.

I don't trust you to apply the law fairly, and since I'm basing that denial of trust only on what you yourself say here, I'm perfectly entitled to make that evaluation with or without your consent or acquiescence.

I already gave you my answer to your command/demand that I ignore you - NO. I *might* ignore your future posts around the forum unrelated to all your whining about me saying whatever I damn well please to and about your big-government, policie-state-lovin' posts in this thread, but you keep making false accusations, mental health diagnosis and whining about me telling the truth about my take on your writings, and I'll damn well reply any time I'm of a mind to. Deal with it.

Blues

You did it again. My "police-state-lovin'" posts? You don't know if I love or hate the police. But your little fingers can't keep from typing the accusation on basically no information.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. If in your view engaging in meaningful conversation involves name calling, accusations and generalized statements about what someone is then you're not someone capable of intelligently discussing volatile topics. It's that simple. We could have a long discussion on all of these things but I refuse to discuss the issues with someone who belittles, demeans and classifies another. You don't take me to the woodshed. The shots I took at Wild Dog are justified. Frigging lunatic makes statements that serve only to disrupt good conversation.

And I'll give it to you another 1,000 times. If you're drunk with a gun expect to get arrested. I fully support it. That's the law. If you don't like it then change it. Otherwise get arrested. Then call any lawyer and ask him for help. Or go to jail. I don't care either way. Some people hate lawyers until they screw-up or get sued. Then we become your salvation.

 

[BluesStringer]

You did it again. My "police-state-lovin'" posts?

Would it be presumptuous of me to take the above as you conceding that you're a big-government lover, since I have never said one without the other? Regardless, saying that "You don't know if I love or hate the police" is not addressing the assertion anyway. Is you is, or is you ain't a big-government, police-state-lovin'-American? I really detest the politically-correct hyphenation of groups of Americans, but it kinda sorta feels right in this instance.

You don't know if I love or hate the police. But your little fingers can't keep from typing the accusation on basically no information.

No information? Going only on what you yourself have said, you would send agents of the same government operating illegitimately under the Constitution that you admit has been relegated to insignificance for several (or was it "many?") decades, to disarm for an unspecified amount of time (for the rest of their lives perhaps?) anyone caught with a gun who was "legally" drunk.

Over and over and over again I have given you the opportunity to revise or retract your statements on that subject so that it took into account some evaluation of degree of drunkenness and/or actual harm befalling another because of it. Not a hint of backing off from you. Those are statements of a supporter of heavy-handed policing, or "police-state-loving" is my synonym-phrase for same. Again, deal with it.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. If in your view engaging in meaningful conversation involves name calling, accusations and generalized statements about what someone is then you're not someone capable of intelligently discussing volatile topics.

HA! You really don't get that everything you accuse me of here is exactly what prompted me to start replying to you in the first place, do you?

"wacked."
"crazy, simply crazy."
"Next you'll say your hands are registered weapons."
"All this talk of allowing everyone to be armed is great. But we do have people in this world who we shouldn't arm."
"From a future school or mall shooter."
"Anyone else believe every ass-01e should be armed? This guy has a screw loose no matter how you cut it."

All of those quotes and more are perfectly consistent with the transgressions against you that you accuse me of.

It's that simple. We could have a long discussion on all of these things but I refuse to discuss the issues with someone who belittles, demeans and classifies another.

And I overlook the same things with you and actually address issues that you bring up, even when you bring them up while in the midst of displaying those same things!

You must be scared to death of mirrors, because apparently, when someone holds one up to you, you only see the crazy, wacked, threatening person holding it and never yourself.

You don't take me to the woodshed. The shots I took at Wild Dog are justified.

If you believe the things I put in bold above about me, then no they're not (name calling, accusations and generalized statements about what someone is). You couldn't possibly know the mental health status of an anonymous poster on the internet, and I mean that as literally as anything I've ever typed into a post on this site. It simply isn't possible for you to be as sure as you are about it, yet not only do you reiterate it as fact here again, now you claim you're completely "justified" to engage in the same kind of rhetoric you bemoan me using towards you.

Frigging lunatic makes statements that serve only to disrupt good conversation.

And engage in name-calling to boot, after whining about the exact same thing!

And I'll give it to you another 1,000 times. If you're drunk with a gun expect to get arrested. I fully support it. That's the law.

You not only fully support that, but you fully support someone's rights being denied after all the dust has settled and the "drunk" paid his/her debt to society. To wit:

You won't deny a drunk the right to carry his gun while drunk? As an ADA I would prosecute him for creating the reckless condition and recommend suspension or revocation based on what he did exactly.

And you keep directing your nonsense at me personally by saying if "you" want to drink and carry a gun, then yada yada yada. I don't drink, so this isn't a debate about me or what I want. Yet and still you have no problem with calling me "crazy," which, coming from a lawyer sounds like a pretense to fully support disarming me too for nothing more than observing how many times you've engaged in name calling, accusations and generalized statements about what someone is with no more clues about those peoples' mental health status than you have about the language you use that makes you sound like a big-government, police-state-lovin' hack.

If you don't like it then change it.

Sure, I'll get right on that. Your next line should've been, "Get out and vote to change that." Then your circular logic would've completed another cycle.

Otherwise get arrested.

I don't drink, remember? I will never get arrested for the offense of carrying while drunk, so quit directing this police-state-supporting tripe at me personally.

Then call any lawyer and ask him for help. Or go to jail. I don't care either way. Some people hate lawyers until they screw-up or get sued. Then we become your salvation.

My salvation? Oh good grief, now I've heard it all. What trouble do you imagine I'll be getting in down here in the wilds of Dead Cell Holler, AL, when I don't drink, always set my cruise control to a couple of MPH below the speed limit, and only go to town once or twice a month? My salvation is most certainly NOT dependent on any scum-sucking, snake-in-the-grass lawyer, of that you can rest assured.

How many times a day do you pat yourself on the back for being so far superior to everyone else because of your law degree? I mean how many times other than the multitudes found here on this site, which I can count for myself.

Blues

 

[TroutKing]

Would it be presumptuous of me to take the above as you conceding that you're a big-government lover, since I have never said one without the other? Regardless, saying that "You don't know if I love or hate the police" is not addressing the assertion anyway. Is you is, or is you ain't a big-government, police-state-lovin'-American? I really detest the politically-correct hyphenation of groups of Americans, but it kinda sorta feels right in this instance.



No information? Going only on what you yourself have said, you would send agents of the same government operating illegitimately under the Constitution that you admit has been relegated to insignificance for several (or was it "many?") decades, to disarm for an unspecified amount of time (for the rest of their lives perhaps?) anyone caught with a gun who was "legally" drunk.

Over and over and over again I have given you the opportunity to revise or retract your statements on that subject so that it took into account some evaluation of degree of drunkenness and/or actual harm befalling another because of it. Not a hint of backing off from you. Those are statements of a supporter of heavy-handed policing, or "police-state-loving" is my synonym-phrase for same. Again, deal with it.



HA! You really don't get that everything you accuse me of here is exactly what prompted me to start replying to you in the first place, do you?

"wacked."
"crazy, simply crazy."
"Next you'll say your hands are registered weapons."
"All this talk of allowing everyone to be armed is great. But we do have people in this world who we shouldn't arm."
"From a future school or mall shooter."
"Anyone else believe every ass-01e should be armed? This guy has a screw loose no matter how you cut it."

All of those quotes and more are perfectly consistent with the transgressions against you that you accuse me of.

And I overlook the same things with you and actually address issues that you bring up, even when you bring them up while in the midst of displaying those same things!

You must be scared to death of mirrors, because apparently, when someone holds one up to you, you only see the crazy, wacked, threatening person holding it and never yourself.



If you believe the things I put in bold above about me, then no they're not (name calling, accusations and generalized statements about what someone is). You couldn't possibly know the mental health status of an anonymous poster on the internet, and I mean that as literally as anything I've ever typed into a post on this site. It simply isn't possible for you to be as sure as you are about it, yet not only do you reiterate it as fact here again, now you claim you're completely "justified" to engage in the same kind of rhetoric you bemoan me using towards you.



And engage in name-calling to boot, after whining about the exact same thing!



You not only fully support that, but you fully support someone's rights being denied after all the dust has settled and the "drunk" paid his/her debt to society. To wit:



And you keep directing your nonsense at me personally by saying if "you" want to drink and carry a gun, then yada yada yada. I don't drink, so this isn't a debate about me or what I want. Yet and still you have no problem with calling me "crazy," which, coming from a lawyer sounds like a pretense to fully support disarming me too for nothing more than observing how many times you've engaged in name calling, accusations and generalized statements about what someone is with no more clues about those peoples' mental health status than you have about the language you use that makes you sound like a big-government, police-state-lovin' hack.



Sure, I'll get right on that. Your next line should've been, "Get out and vote to change that." Then your circular logic would've completed another cycle.



I don't drink, remember? I will never get arrested for the offense of carrying while drunk, so quit directing this police-state-supporting tripe at me personally.



My salvation? Oh good grief, now I've heard it all. What trouble do you imagine I'll be getting in down here in the wilds of Dead Cell Holler, AL, when I don't drink, always set my cruise control to a couple of MPH below the speed limit, and only go to town once or twice a month? My salvation is most certainly NOT dependent on any scum-sucking, snake-in-the-grass lawyer, of that you can rest assured.

How many times a day do you pat yourself on the back for being so far superior to everyone else because of your law degree? I mean how many times other than the multitudes found here on this site, which I can count for myself.

Blues

Wow! That took some time. Too bad I didn't read any of it. Just go away. I'm completely uninterested in your opinion on anything.

 

[mspt_99]

Wow! That took some time. Too bad I didn't read any of it. Just go away. I'm completely uninterested in your opinion on anything.

You've been losing this argument from the beginning. Now you are waving the white flag. Oops.
Mspt

Sent from my XT1254 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Wild Dog]

Admit it, TroutKing, BlueStringer is just a little too much handle.

 

[BluesStringer]

Wow! That took some time. Too bad I didn't read any of it. Just go away.

NO.

I'm completely uninterested in your opinion on anything.

So uninterested are you that you quote the entire post so that anyone who missed it would have the chance to see it again. You have a funny way of demonstrating your disinterest. Whatever, for at least the second time your reply amounts to nothing more than, "Uh....I got nothin'." It's one of the exceedingly few honest things you've implied and/or said in this exchange, so thanks for that at least.

Blues

 

[TroutKing]

Once again Bluestringer; I have no intention of debating you on any topic. Took a long look at your past. You abuse and insult nearly everyone. No sir. When the captain of the debate team learns how to interact with the other children I'll play. Not until then. I see an angry malcontent who gets his juice on a chat board trying to show everyone they're stupid. No sir, not stupid. We can argue all day about how you interact with people but we won't be arguing any other topic. So are you interested in some game played by 13-year-old bully girls? Those past posts show someone who's having trouble keeping hysterics in check. Why would anyone insult everyone who disagrees with them? It's very telling. My guess is that psychological issues were present elsewhere? A parent or sibling? I'd bet my retirement on it. No sir, not taking the bait.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Won't debate on any topic... Debates on everything blues replies too...

Oh...and look...more psychological evaluations from a lawyer.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

Once again Bluestringer; I have no intention of debating you on any topic. Took a long look at your past. You abuse and insult nearly everyone. No sir. When the captain of the debate team learns how to interact with the other children I'll play. Not until then. I see an angry malcontent who gets his juice on a chat board trying to show everyone they're stupid. No sir, not stupid. We can argue all day about how you interact with people but we won't be arguing any other topic. So are you interested in some game played by 13-year-old bully girls? Those past posts show someone who's having trouble keeping hysterics in check. My guess is that psychological issues were present elsewhere in the family. Am I right? A parent or sibling? I'd bet my retirement on it.

Still trying to set up a pretense to have me investigated for mental illness I see, and yet you still whine about being called a big-government, police-state-loving hack?

You'd know without a doubt that there was mental illness in my family if you bothered to really read my past posts, and not just the ones that support your diagnosis-made-from-afar of me. I've never hidden or been shy about talking about my only sister's suicide or mental health problems that tortured her for the last 20 or so years of her life. What do you imagine that that proves about me, counselor? It is still counselor isn't it? You're not actually a psychologist or psychiatrist too are you? Maybe official counsel for the AMA?

Trolling me now for health diagnosis not even legitimate enough to be based on what I say here, but based on my family's illnesses? You can add to being a big-government, police-state-loving hack that you are also a despicable, black-hearted troll.

Blues

 

[TroutKing]

Still trying to set up a pretense to have me investigated for mental illness I see, and yet you still whine about being called a big-government, police-state-loving hack?

You'd know without a doubt that there was mental illness in my family if you bothered to really read my past posts, and not just the ones that support your diagnosis-made-from-afar of me. I've never hidden or been shy about talking about my only sister's suicide or mental health problems that tortured her for the last 20 or so years of her life. What do you imagine that that proves about me, counselor? It is still counselor isn't it? You're not actually a psychologist or psychiatrist too are you? Maybe official counsel for the AMA?

Trolling me now for health diagnosis not even legitimate enough to be based on what I say here, but based on my family's illnesses? You can add to being a big-government, police-state-loving hack that you are also a despicable, black-hearted troll.

Blues

So I guessed right. Figures-in perfectly. I don't know what you wrote some time ago as I wasn't here. 30 years dealing with criminals, liars and cheats gives one an innate feel for possible roots of certain behaviors. A grumpy malcontent who has to correct and slap anyone he disagrees with? I've seen you a million times. No thanks. Good luck to you sir.

 

[BluesStringer]

So I guessed right. Figures-in perfectly. I don't know what you wrote some time ago as I wasn't here. 30 years dealing with criminals, liars and cheats gives one an innate feel for possible roots of certain behaviors. A grumpy malcontent who has to correct and slap anyone he disagrees with? I've seen you a million times. No thanks. Good luck to you sir.

So "grumpy malcontent" is the same as "criminals, liars and cheats" when it comes to family medical history predictability? Is "grumpy malcontent" synonymous with "mentally ill," because clearly you are trying to establish for anyone reading here at least, that you are justified in calling me crazy or implying that I'm full-on mentally ill. Can you show us any actual medical-based scholarship on that clear implication that you just made? Or like just about everything else, did you just pull it out of your big-government, police-state-lovin' stanky ol' backside?

I don't believe that you gleaned that out of anything I've said to you, or to anyone else in any posts you've reviewed of mine from the past. I think you searched on "suicide" "mentally ill" "sister" "brother" or any number of words associated with the despicable implication you were trying to make yourself some psychological clairvoyant out of, and you found a past post or three where I talked about my sister. Nothing you could ever say will convince me otherwise because I've already proven you a liar. For all the bluster and self-aggrandizing pronouncements of hero-status by Wild Dog, he never threatened anybody anywhere on these pages, which makes you a liar. Now you're a liar times two as far as I'm concerned.

Blues

 

[TroutKing]

So "grumpy malcontent" is the same as "criminals, liars and cheats" when it comes to family medical history predictability? Is "grumpy malcontent" synonymous with "mentally ill," because clearly you are trying to establish for anyone reading here at least, that you are justified in calling me crazy or implying that I'm full-on mentally ill. Can you show us any actual medical-based scholarship on that clear implication that you just made? Or like just about everything else, did you just pull it out of your big-government, police-state-lovin' stanky ol' backside?

I don't believe that you gleaned that out of anything I've said to you, or to anyone else in any posts you've reviewed of mine from the past. I think you searched on "suicide" "mentally ill" "sister" "brother" or any number of words associated with the despicable implication you were trying to make yourself some psychological clairvoyant out of, and you found a past post or three where I talked about my sister. Nothing you could ever say will convince me otherwise because I've already proven you a liar. For all the bluster and self-aggrandizing pronouncements of hero-status by Wild Dog, he never threatened anybody anywhere on these pages, which makes you a liar. Now you're a liar times two as far as I'm concerned.

Blues

Sorry sir but I didn't read the post.