New details of Newtown shooting prove assault weapons ban is needed

[rdharma]

Maddow: New details of Newtown shooting prove assault weapons ban is needed

By Eric W. Dolan
Friday, March 15, 2013 0:07 EDT

On her show Thursday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow explained why new details of the tragic mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut showed an assault weapons ban was necessary.

The Hartford Courant reported Wednesday that the shooter, Adam Lanza, fired a total of 152 bullets in less than 5 minutes, killing 20 young children and 6 adults. Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and had 30-round magazines. As Maddow noted, he only needed to reload his weapon four times before killing himself with a pistol.

“Had he only had access to ten-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines he would’ve had to reload 14 times,” she continued. “He would’ve needed 14 spare magazines beyond the one in the gun with the extra round in the chamber. Reloading 14 times. You think he would’ve still pulled off the whole thing in less than five minutes?”

......snip

Democrats are pushing to renew the assault weapon’s ban, which was first proposed by Feinstein in 1994. The law was in effect for ten years, but President George W. Bush and Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004. Both the AR-15 and 30-round magazines, which Lanza stole from his mother, were banned under the law.

His mother “would’ve only been able to legally and easily buy ten-round magazines, not 30-round magazines,” Maddow said. “So when he took those weapons from her that morning, he would’ve needed 15 separate 10-round magazines in order to reload 14 different times to try to do what he actually did so easily and so quickly thanks to the expiration of Dianne Feinstein’s law in 2004. It is three months after Sandy Hook as of today. The bill to reinstate what used to be law, which we now know might have made a large difference at Sandy Hook, that bill to reinstate what used to be law heads to the full Senate now. Everybody says the politics of this are impossible. Why should they be?”

Watch video and read entire article, courtesy of MSNBC, here:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/15/maddow-new-details-of-newtown-shooting-prove-assault-weapons-ban-is-needed/

[Jenoch]

1. There is a problem with Maddow's logic.

Lanza changed magazines when there were 7 or 8 rounds left in them. He did not change out the 30 round magazines when they were empty.

[rdharma]

2. He did not change out the 30 round magazines

RIIIIIIIIIGHT! Sure!!!!!!!

You sound like those Sandy Hook "truthers" who claim Lanza used pistols to murder the children and not the Bushmaster.

[hack89]

4. He didn't empty the mags before changing them out

he reloaded more times than Rachel said he did.

[rdharma]

12. "He reloaded more times than Rachel said".......

And you know this how?

And if he did do "tactical" reloads........ what's your point?

[hack89]

16. The point is more reloads =/= less danger

10 round mags would not have made a difference - he had all the time he needed against defenseless teachers and students. He only needed 20 bullets to kill those kids. The fact he shot 152 merely shows how deranged he was.

[rdharma]

33. "He only needed 20 bullets"

Evidently he didn't think so.

And BTW ..... 26 people were killed and some others wounded. 20 rds?

[hack89]

44. He was fucking crazy in case you didn't notice.

the point, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that smaller magazines would not have made a difference. Look up Va Tech if you have any doubts.

[rdharma]

58. "smaller magazines would not have made a difference"

If the mag capacity isn't important, why are you so adamant about keeping the high caps available?

[hack89]

67. I support limits on magazine capacity

but I am under no illusion that it would have made a difference at Sandy Hook.

[apocalypsehow]

70. That's the silly game so many of our "pro gun progressives"* play: scream and yell and gnash teeth

in OP's about how "unnecessary" and "futile" and "wouldn't make any difference" any proposed sensible gun control legislation is, only to turn around at the end and weakly proclaim their (usually much qualified) support for it in an attempt to keep up the pretenses. It doesn't fool the vast majority of DU'ers, of course, but they keep at it.



*( )

[rdharma]

97. "pro gun progressives"*

*(:eyes

They use the same talking points that you'll find on the nutty gun sites......... but without the death threats.

[Bay Boy]

105. So why not come right out

and call him a liar?

You've almost done it already.

[treestar]

104. He would have killed fewer if he had not shot 152

It does not sound like he was carefully aiming.

[VanillaRhapsody]

326. One bullet almost hit someone outside in the parking lot for crying out loud!

[lapislzi]

111. You listen to me and you listen good.

And all you pro-gun progressives, and trolls, and water carriers, and useful idiots. You just fucking listen to me.

I spent an hour with a Sandy Hook parent today. His desk is about 10 feet from mine. It is not the first hour I have spent with him, but it was one of the worst. He was a fucking wreck who looked like he hadn't slept for oh, maybe four months or so. He's a fucking wreck because of the revelations (which he has known about for some time) that have shoved the horror of that day front and center once again. He has to have people read his e-mail and his snail mail. He has to be shielded from people who make fatuous claims about how many bullets Adam Lanza could have fired in how much time. He has to be shielded from so-called gun experts who throw up smokescreens of "facts" and "statistics" twisted to fit their agenda.

The next time you want to throw stupid numbers and meaningless statistics around, maybe you should come and talk to me. Maybe you should spend an hour with me and I can tell you what it's like to sit in silence with a parent who has had his child murdered in the most unimaginable, barbaric way possible, and spout crap about magazines. I sit in silence with my friend because there is nothing to fucking say. There is nothing to say to someone who is going through that. You sit and you hold hands and you maybe wait for them to speak.

What you do not do is offer them is a dry recounting of bullets and numbers. You do not suggest that perhaps the person who murdered his son had to reload seven or eight times before he got to your kid.

You tell him that his efforts to remove those weapons from society may help to prevent another parent from going through what he's going through. You tell him that his efforts to prevent access to terrible weapons by people with mental illness is something that should have happened a long time ago and may help a very sick person from doing something similar in the future.

And quit talking to me about how many bullets it takes to kill a kid.

[apocalypsehow]

112. +1,000. Very moving. But it's falling on deaf ears: our "RKBA enthusisasts" simply don't care how

many kids have to die so they can keep massaging their precious little popguns: They. Just. Don't. Care.

That's why they continue to come here - a friggin' progressive discussion board, for crying out loud - to pimp for the NRA "RKBA" line, and peddle that right-wing organization's smarmy propaganda.

Excellent, moving post. Just very powerful stuff.

[indepat]

378. Not only do they just not care, they don't give a flying

diddle-dy fuck.

[hack89]

117. Nice story bro

if you want to save lives then.propose reasonable and rational laws that will actually work. Don't wave the bloody shirt spew emotional hyperbole, and expect a polite response.

[lapislzi]

122. I am going to have to put you on Ignore.

Because if I don't I will lose my fucking mind.

How dare you.

[apocalypsehow]

124. That's one of our "pro gun progressives"* for you:

they scarcely even bother to hide it anymore. They are on-the-spot with their pro-NRA garbage day-in and day-out, 24-7. And they don't give a damn about dead kids or dead anyone else thanks to their bloody little hobby, if it means even the slightest and mildest of restrictions on their "right" to strut & preen through Wal Mart with a pistol perched in their pants.


*( )

[hack89]

129. Bye. nt

[laundry_queen]

281. Wow

just wow. I don't think I've ever seen such a post here on DU. For shame.

[hack89]

291. It was a cheap tactic done to marginalize other opinions and end debate

I am more than will to discuss how we should reduce gun violence. I expect opposition to my views but don't drag out a grieving father and 20 dead kids and use them as a bloody club to beat me for having the nerve to disagree with you. We can have a rational debate or we can stand around slinging emotional hyperbole.

BTW - I take it you have not been reading the anti-Catholic threads. You will see plenty of such posts.

[laundry_queen]

292. Emotional hyperbole?

are you a robot or something? Emotions, like it or not, are always part of the picture in a debate. 'Rational' is subjective. For instance, I think you are being totally irrational by not being able to take into account the devastation that this tragedy has caused many families. 'Rational' debate is an oxymoron, just like 'rational' investor.

I'm so sorry for you that you sound like my psychopath ex...unable to conjure up feelings for anyone so hiding behind this 'rational' exterior and feeling so smugly superior. Oy. Your conduct with regards to that poster is abhorrent. That you can't see that just reminds me even more of my ex. Once you know 'em, it's not hard to pick them out. You can pat yourself on the back for being 'rational' but please, keep posting so the rest of us can see just how depraved the depths of your soul are.

BTW - I haven't read many anti-Catholic threads because I'm a busy person, but I wouldn't begrudge or belittle or invalidate anyone their feelings about sexual abuse nor would I label their posts 'emotional hyperbole'. Ick, how minimizing. I was born and raised Catholic (lapsed now, mostly agnostic) btw.

[hack89]

293. It was not a parent of a Newtown child I was addressing

It was someone who dragged the father and his dead child into a discussion to push a political agenda. He basically said "if you disagree with me then you support the murder of children." The fact that you can't see how cowardly and intellectually dishonest that was says a lot about you.

I can fully understand how devastated the parents are - I have two children of my own. But disagreeing with their solution to gun violence is not the same as exhibiting callus disregard for their loss.

[laundry_queen]

294. :) Keep posting!

With every post it's becoming more obvious.

BTW my ex has 4 kids (with me). He 'fully understands' things too. But he doesn't feel them. The wording in your posts sounds so familiar.

This coward is just going to sit back and watch for a bit.

[morningfog]

297. That poster loves guns more than life.

[defacto7]

269. I'll join you in that response..

[SammyWinstonJack]

137. omg!

[baldguy]

141. The word that comes to mind is "heartless". Seems "pro gun progressives" aren't progressives at all.

But then, you knew that.

[hack89]

143. My heart goes out to the children and the parents

just don't use them as a bloody club to beat me for having the nerve to disagree on the best way to solve gun violence. We can have a rational debate or we can stand around slinging emotional hyperbole.

[baldguy]

146. You don't wish to be exposed to the ugly results of your extremist RW political positions.

As if glossing over & ignoring the regularly scheduled massacres and daily murders will somehow make the blood of the victims disappear & make the suffering of their families go away.

Well, it won't. You can't dismiss any mention of the effects of gun violence as "irrational" and "emotional hyperbole" - BECAUSE DOING SO IS UNREASONABLE AND IRRATIONAL. I would expect and insist that the victims of gun violence to always be included in any debate on gun control. So that's just too fucking bad for you

[hack89]

150. Except none of the proposed bans will prevent another Sandy Hook

One day you guys will understand that if a proposed law would not have prevented Va Tech then it will not stop mass killings.

Of course the victims have a place in the discussion - but not as an emotional club to beat opponents of your agenda.

[baldguy]

153. Still whining the same RW NRA talking points - but now you're backpedaling.

By again describing the real and deep emotional toll directly caused by your narrow-minded political position as "an emotional club", it shows me that you aren't prepared to deal with this issue as an adult in a rational, mature manner.

The simple fact is that guns kill too many people. WAY, WAY too many people. The reason is that we have WAY, WAY too many guns around. And, while nobody can say what specific laws might have prevented specific incidents from occurring, there are specific proposals: an assault weapons ban, restrictions on magazine size, universal background checks, national gun registration, and other reasonable gun control measures - all of which should have the objective of greatly reducing the number of guns in circulation & therefor helping to reduce the number of people being killed.

And if you want to object to any of these, I'll expect that you have an alternative proposal to reduce the number of guns in circulation.

[hack89]

154. I support everything you mention except for an AWB

But until you accept that handguns are the problem then you have not accepted the reality of the situation.

350 people were murdered by rifles of all kinds in 2011. Even if an AWB actually prevented those 350 that still leaves 30,000 other gun deaths. And the reality is without an rifle, most mass killers would simply use handguns - as we know from Va Tech they are just as deadly.

[baldguy]

156. Too bad that too many gun nuts will cling to their handguns even more that their assault weapons.

While it's good to see you support universal background checks & national gun registration - either of which would go a long way to reducing the number of handguns in circulation - your post is like someone complaining about bicycles speeding down the street everyday, but not being at all concerned about the occasional M1 Abrams tank rolling over pedestrians. Ideally, a reasonable person would work to remove BOTH of these threats to safety.

[hack89]

157. So why do none of the laws actually remove assault rifles from society if they are so dangerous?

Even if every law being proposed in Congress passes, I will still be able to legally own and use my AR-15 and my stack of 30 round mags. That must mean that those proposing such laws do not see a threat to public safety in me owning them.

[baldguy]

162. Because your pals at the NRA and other RW extremists would howl in pain if we confiscted them.

Any gun of any type in circulation is a threat to public safety. Most aren't used for hunting or protection. They are merely dangerous toys and status symbols. The reasonable policy would be to remove the great majority of them from circulation. But in doing so some RW extremist gun nuts would - with the support of a large part of the gun nut community - actually start shooting officers doing their duty & other innocents who happened to get in the way. This probable violent reaction of the extremist gun nut community DEFINES them as being a threat to public safety, along with their guns.

Unfortunately, America continues to labor under this threat from RW extremist gun nuts - and they have political power. So we can only pass these laws and others, and allow the number of guns to be reduced by attrition. It's not the best way; it's not the simplest way; it's not the most reasonable way. But it's the only way that's left open to us.

[hack89]

163. So the President and Diane Feinstein are scared of the NRA?

interesting - I thought they were made of tougher stuff than that.

If all those people that own assault rifles are by nature so violent, why not only are there so few people killed by assault rifles but that number has steadily declined even as the number of weapons has skyrocketed?

Putting aside your emotions and bias and just looking at hard facts, it would appear that this threat that has you so scared is pretty overblown.

[baldguy]

165. It's not fear. It's recognizing the political realities of dealing with unreasonable extremists.

You're projecting.

And you're still complaining about bicycles while ignoring the tanks. If you agree we should be doing something about the proliferation of handguns, but want to do nothing about assault weapons, then you're missing the hard facts and the whole point of the debate - which is to reduce gun violence. Both problems need be addressed and dealt with.

In reality, posts like yours indicate the fears faced by RW extremists in a free society - that at some point the majority will stop being intimidated by their peculiar predilections and finally outlaw their toys & their behaviors which endanger society.

[thucythucy]

301. Baldguy that is one of the best

composed posts on this topic I have ever read.

Really, my hat's off to you. I couldn't come close to putting the problem as well as you just did.

[Mojorabbit]

327. The Dem platform supports the right of citizens to own weapons

at least it did the last time I looked. This is not an extreme rightwing position. The AWB and other means of controlling weapons are good things to discuss but you cannot in good faith call an item in the Dem platform a right wing extremist view IMO.
Peace, Mojo

[Melon_Lord]

302. I think most people would go for something reasonable...

Sandy hook is basically being used as an opportunity to grab as mug control as possible while emotions are running high.

[CTyankee]

344. what laws are those? Have you helped your congressperson craft such legislation?

Since you know what are "reasonable and rational laws" have you worked assiduously to get it before Congress as sensible gun safety laws? If not, why not? Since you don't want anyone to wave a "bloody shirt," you imply that you want a calm and reasonable conversation about what IS possible in a "balanced and fair way," one that will not threaten the 2nd amendment but would really help end the slaughter of the American people by other Americans with guns?

I hope to hear that you have been busy working with your representative's staff to produce such an ideal law. I mean this sincerely, I want to know what YOU have contributed constructively to help solve this problem.

[hack89]

354. I dedicate most of my political efforts towards healthcare

especially mental health care. I see that as a more important issue. It would also have a huge impact on gun violence.

I have written my representatives to voice my support for universal background checks and magazine size limits.

[CTyankee]

355. Can you share with us the arguments you used in favor of the background

checks and magazine size limits? Some DUers may be represented by congresspersons who wouldn't listen to a liberal and would like to use your argument (that of a 2nd amendment supporter). Not me, since my rep is Rosa DeLauro, but surely there are many who need to have an argument that would appeal to a more RW congressman/woman...

[hack89]

356. I live in a state with universal background checks

so I point out what a non-issue it - they do not impose an undue burden on gun owners. Can't really prove that it has had any impact on gun violence but it is a minimal burden.

As for limits on magazine size limits, I basically just say I support them. It is hard to argue that such limits will have a significant impact on gun violence but I think it important the president have some gun control victories in order to not seem weak.

[CTyankee]

357. Do you agree that it is the lack of a) strong federal laws that apply to ALL states and

b) we need stronger enforcement of what federal laws we already have?

It seems to me that those are two things that would have to change, as well as new laws, which I do favor.

[hack89]

358. I think that stronger federal laws regarding background checks are required.

more important is Federal funding to the states so that they can put the required data into the system. A huge problem with the present system is that there is a lot of missing data or it is not being entered in a timely manner.

[CTyankee]

359. So you don't buy the argument that such a measure is the slippery slope to a national registry?

[hack89]

360. With no record keeping requirements for private sales

I don't see it as an issue. Our present background check system generates no permanent records of a transaction and it has worked fine.

[CTyankee]

361. do you publicly espouse this position? I mean with strong 2nd A. people...

it seems to me that you could be helpful in this regard, to make this argument and try to get the other side to hear it from one of their allies. Don't you agree?

[hack89]

362. I have stated in many threads that I support universal background checks

the only proposed laws I do not support are the AWB and registration.

[CTyankee]

363. I don't mean here on DU. I mean in places where your voice would reach

more 2nd A. supporters. Here you are singing with the choir...

[hack89]

364. I don't post on many other boards

when I am around shooters in New England, there doesn't appear to be much opposition to it. We are use to relatively strict gun laws.

[SammyWinstonJack]

136. ...

[lapislzi]

148. Thank you. It was a difficult day.

I (we; my colleagues and me) know we can't weep or express our own terrible distress both for our friend and about the tragedy as a whole. We're his oasis of normalcy in a world gone completely wrong. There's a lot of crying going on in the ladies room and in our cars.

I have not spoken about it until now out of both respect for my friend and the rawness of the wound. But friend has indicated that it's OK to talk about on DU.

[DrDan]

376. thanks for sharing that - and sharing your time with that parent

I am sure it will be many more months before that parent sleeps . . . .

"barbaric" says it all

[Clames]

113. Probably because he actually reads and does his homework.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106,0,2370630.story

Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.

Also, Maddow needs to revise her timeline because from beginning at 9:35am to 9:46am-9:49am when the shooting stopped a bit more than "less than five minutes".

http://wtvr.com/2012/12/14/timeline-of-connecticut-elementary-school-shooting/

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/12/14/news/doc50cc0897adc1a203744261.txt?viewmode=2

[krispos42]

31. He changed them out before they were empty.

Like all first-person video game shooters learn, "reload when you can, not when you're empty".


Check the Wikipedia article on the shooting. He left at least one magazines with 15 rounds in it on the floor.

[rdharma]

59. "He left at least one magazines with 15 rounds in it on the floor."

Probably the last one when he saw the cops coming. Or he bobbled a reload and dropped it.

Wikipedia, eh?

[apocalypsehow]

76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[krispos42]

88. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that I was right and you were wrong.

And I reserve my "ibids" for people that repeat rather than debate, or that repeat rather than admit factual incorrectness.

[Lizzie Poppet]

91. Good luck with that.

This poster "stands by" the bigoted, slanderous fuckwittery in his .sig...so I suspect waiting for him to admit even the most obvious error is a waste of your time.

[apocalypsehow]

94. That "RKBA enthusiasts" get so sky-windingly angry about my spot-on sig line

is very telling - about a lot of things.

[apocalypsehow]

92. Baloney. You got taken to town on the facts; posted excuses why you couldn't reply to the facts

presented to refute your nonsense by (falsely) claiming to have been on "vacation," and only having a cell phone to type on - and then got busted on that; whereupon you then made a headlong dive into juvenile behavior by simply posting "Ibid" over and over and over regardless of the content of the reply you were responding too.

It was and remains laughable stuff.

[krispos42]

95. Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence.

But, facts and such don't really seem to work on you.

[apocalypsehow]

96. Baloney. You got taken to town on the facts; posted excuses why you couldn't reply to the facts

presented to refute your nonsense by (falsely) claiming to have been on "vacation," and only having a cell phone to type on - and then got busted on that; whereupon you then made a headlong dive into juvenile behavior by simply posting "Ibid" over and over and over regardless of the content of the reply you were responding too.

It was and remains laughable stuff.

And now: the Double-down.

[krispos42]

99. Still can't admit I was right and you were wrong?

[apocalypsehow]

101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

[krispos42]

106. So... no.

As usual.

[apocalypsehow]

108. Of course "no," since you were incorrect on the facts, as shown. n/t.

[krispos42]

116. Okay, show me how Feinstein's proposed AWB...

...bans all semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines.

[apocalypsehow]

118. No. That was never a claim made, nor a topic under discussion other than by *you*.

Again.

[krispos42]

127. Yes, it was.

Because when I stated that fact, you called me a liar, spewing NRA talking points. So, if I'm a liar when I said that "semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines will still be sold under the new AWB", then, logically, the truth MUST BE THAT no semiauto rifles fed from detachable magazines will be sold under the new AWB.

Except that they are, because I posted and linked to a) the definition of "assault weapon" in the new proposal, and b) the two-page list of semiauto rifles fed from detachable magazines that are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED from being "assault weapons". Right to Feinstein's Senate web site.

And you've never apologized or corrected yourself. In fact, you've avoided the topic multiple times. Until just now, when you found out that the Meta thread that contained this exchange disappeared. Now that the evidence is hidden and perhaps lost, you courageously address the issue.

[apocalypsehow]

131. *Placeholder* reply for sub-thread stem, re, *Bookmarked* thread for future reference. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

[krispos42]

171. You've been making an ass of yourself all through DU, is what you mean.

But that's what you get when you spread half-truths with the intent of character assassination.

Why don't you post the other half of the conversation? After all, if it's SO TERRIBLE that I did it, so childish and petty and immature, surely you feel the same about the other person in the dialogue, and have been assaulting them throughout DU, right?


And OF COURSE, because you're fair and balanced, you made proper note that my replies were in reaction to the other member. Right?





When you were spreading your half-truths throughout DU, did you ever once link to the thread in Meta? To give the people you're talking at a reference point?

[apocalypsehow]

173. Ahhh, now the "Ibid King" reverses course and admits what I have stated is the "truth," if only

"half" of it. , indeed.

One senses that there is a very real concern on your part that maybe, just maybe, one day that thread in Meta will be available in a "Read Only" format, and that if that happens someone will have some instant credibility issues to deal with the second I return to this bookmarked thread, and start posting excerpts and links to them.

I would like DU to take further note that we have a Gungeon Host engaging in the spectacle right now of personal attacks, one that only makes me snicker and doesn't bother me in the least since it simply confirms my previous points, but that certainly further calls into question his fitness to be in a position of authority over even a pro-NRA hangout like the Gungeon on DU. Mad (and nervous) because he has now had to concede that he did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over regardless of the reply he was responding to, in a juvenile attempt to drown out the discussion, he does so angrily and with personal attacks.

So noted; again.

[krispos42]

178. again, no matter how you slice it...

...It's still baloney.

You must either hate me or fear my awesome power as a Host for you to be reaching frantically for something to hang on me.

[apocalypsehow]

179. Nope: no matter how it's "sliced," it's FACT. And you well know it.

"You must either hate me or fear"

LOL! More fun stuff from the "Ibid King."

[apocalypsehow]

550. Again, no matter how you slice it you got caught making stuff up in this sub-thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

595. Yeah, like I was making up going on vacation?

So, how goes your crusade against repetitive posters?

[apocalypsehow]

579. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

600. A new link?

I'm honored.

And let me double-check, but aren't YOU the one posting two or three times to my one?

So, speaking of dishonestly, I'm waiting for you to apologize for smearing me with your sheer, brazen dishonestly.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!


Any time now...

[apocalypsehow]

592. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

602. Another repetitive post

Oh, man, well, I'll give you credit for not repeating your accusation that I was alerting on you to try to get thread closed down.

But that's about it.

So now that I'm brazenly exposed, what's next?

You walk away, confident in your victory?



If you really thought you'd won, you'd have walked away by now.

[apocalypsehow]

627. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

489. Our Gungeon Host* is so, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388


*Aka the "Ibid "!

[krispos42]

510. No, I'm so so so busted

So, what was it like from your end of the repetitive posting?

[apocalypsehow]

520. Indeed, you are. Making stuff up then having to desperately back pedal from it is funny stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

But it's reduced your credibility to ZERO on DU, alas.

[krispos42]

552. Yup, I've backpedaled all right

I claimed I was in two conversations where somebody was wrong about the Feinstein proposed ban, and I was really in TWO conversations where somebody was wrong about the Feinstein proposed ban!

Ya got me, pardner.


I thought it was just you that was wrong, but it was both you AND you that was wrong!

And you can't admit it!

[apocalypsehow]

557. Yup, you have - *REPEATEDLY*. You finally admit it. Link to your getting caught red-handed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

[krispos42]

618. LOL

You've been caught red-handed in hypocrisy, yet you still claim some kind of moral high ground.

Stunning.


*shakes head*

[apocalypsehow]

598. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

620. Oh noes! I'm nekkid!

Yeah, it get's plenty clearer.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

[apocalypsehow]

625. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

135. Wrong, but worth going over again: the question was your made-up insertion of a matter not

under contention. No one ever was ever debating with you technical definitions of what constitutes a "detachable magazines" or whether it was going to be banned under a new AWB. You brought that argument up in the middle of losing another, as a way of changing the subject. Then you started the business of ridiculing those who were beating you with the facts in the debate - a typical Gungeoneer tactic - by claiming that any one not practically a gunsmith had no business talking about gun control legislation on DU: when called on that you went back to trying to argue about "detachable magazines" and all the rest, and when that gambit failed started your "Ibid" silliness."

Like I said, you'd better hope the PTB never bring back the threads of that defunct forum in any form, "Read Only" included: it's going to be quite embarrassing for you if they do, especially when I start posting links and excerpts from it right in this thread.

[apocalypsehow]

530. Our Gungeon Host* has just busted *himself* downthread; check it out folks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

564. LOL

Molecule-thick baloney is still baloney!


WE were in at least two subthreads in the Meta thread! We're BOTH outed!

Thanks for clearing that up. I mean, I thought I was having a discussion with you and a repetitive conversation with somebody else. Turns out I was having two repetitive conversations with you!

Wow, that really makes you look like the knight in shining armor, doesn't it?



Not only are you looking like an ass in this thread, but you're copping to a history of it!

[apocalypsehow]

569. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

621. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

642. LOL, you're just clicking "reply" at random now.

[apocalypsehow]

651. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

639. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

656. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

562. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

624. Nope, not the littlest bit

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!


If you're going to get on a soapbox and make moral proclamations, you should probably live up to them.

It helps credibility.

[apocalypsehow]

630. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

650. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

109. Get ready for it, folks! This was pretty much the same prelude to the string of "Ibids"

the last go-round...

[apocalypsehow]

523. Our Gungeon Host* has just busted *himself* downthread; check it out folks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

590. Hey, I found a graphic to show your credibility

You're the Moon.






So how's that avoidance working out for you?

[apocalypsehow]

597. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[rl6214]

611. My God, what a juvenile twit.

Posting the same thing over and over, posting replies to the same posts, over and over.

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

[apocalypsehow]

626. One would almost think folks were rummaging around in sock drawers...

...you're not really foolin' anyone, sport.

[rl6214]

649. Sorry *sport* no Sock here

Just someone thinking the two of you going back and forth is worse than grade school, especially posting the same exact reply over and over and over again.

[apocalypsehow]

658. Our Gungeon Host *is* quite juvenile, as shown: he's also a bully, one who has problems telling the

truth. As also shown.

The only way to deal with bullies who have problems with telling the truth is (a) stand up to them and (b) shove the truth of their mendacity back in their faces at every opportunity.

That's what has been going on here. Sorry if this sort of thing - standing up to bullies like our Gungeon Host - doesn't appeal to you. You can always trash the thread.

[rl6214]

660. That must be why your posts outnumber his 3to1, right.

Sometimes even replying to the same post three or four times.

[apocalypsehow]

547. You got caught blatantly making stuff up in this sub-thread, and the proof is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

593. I got caught having two conversations in two subthreads

As it turns out, both with you. Which means you were repeating to avoid admitting you were wrong... twice.



Oh, excuse me...

[apocalypsehow]

599. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

526. ROFL

Oh, the hypocrisy!

Who's doing what now?

[apocalypsehow]

534. And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

570. Watch out, I might start making repetitive posts!

So how if I'm so obviously wrong, why can't you walk away, smug in your assurance of rightness?



Ah, I know why.

[apocalypsehow]

576. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

500. Our Gungeon Host* has just busted *himself* downthread; check it out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

525. My favorite denier of reality keeps busting himself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388


And I forget, who was the one posting repetitive posts in Meta with me?

Oh yeah, YOU!



Proven to be drenched in hypocrisy (which you've never denied), you double down on begin doubly wrong!

[apocalypsehow]

528. You just posted a link to proof of your own mendacity. Smooth move - it doesn't get much easier

than that.

, indeed.

[krispos42]

560. I admit it

I admit I was in at least two conversational subthreads in the Meta thread.

Ya got me, sheriff. Thanks for posting that link. :snort:


So why didn't you just admit I was right on the Feinstein ban? Inquiring minds want to know.

[apocalypsehow]

563. You were *wrong* on the Feinstein ban: America supports it. DU supports it. And you know it.

[krispos42]

633. I don't recall ever saying the America or DU didn't support it.

So... got a link? Or is this conveniently down the memory hole with the rest of Meta?

I mean, hell, that's just basic polling. Of course if you asked DU and/or America if the weapon used at Newtown was an "assault weapon", I'd be most of them would say "yes", even though it wasn't.

I probably said something like "it's a feel-good law that won't change anything", and I KNOW I said that semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines will still be sold under Feinstein's proposal.

I probably also said it was blatant pandering by Democrats who, after failing to go after the big banks, BushCo, big oil, election reform, universal single-payer health insurance, jobs, economic stimulus, etc., wanted to get some high-profile legislation under their belts so they could point and shout and beg for money and support because they "took on the gun lobby".

[apocalypsehow]

637. You have been out in front against the AWB since Day One; more mendacity. Meanwhile:

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

643. And you've been for it, which doesn't disprove my previous post.

Nice try.

[apocalypsehow]

645. Oh yes it does - you contradict yourself *AGAIN*. Meantime:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

And you're busted, and discredited, repeatedly.

[apocalypsehow]

561. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

622. You should know.. you're doing it.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!


So why didn't you tell rdharma you did not live up to your own standards?

[apocalypsehow]

631. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

98. No, I didn't: that was your Strawman-hijacking of the topic. You simply asked a rhetorical

question that had nothing to do with my reply because you didn't like the direction the conversation was headed: when the answer to the topic actually under discussion was addressed with FACTS you couldn't refute, you kept returning back to this bogus diversion of yours about something not even on the table as an issue. When that ploy didn't fly, you started in on the "Ibid" nonsense.

Your trying to pretend you were making "typos" in threads, and thus were only on your cell phone, was belied by the fact that one post you claimed to be somewhere you first spelled correctly, and then went in to "edit" it to misspell it!

Also: you couldn't keep your stories straight in the same sub-thread as to what town you were staying in on the same night. Busted!

Funny stuff, indeed.

[krispos42]

100. Ummm....

no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

[apocalypsehow]

102. Uh-huh. It's spot-on factual recounting of the matter, and you well know it.

But nice try.

[krispos42]

115. Link?

Surely you have a link to all my clumsy lies and deceit so you can embarrass me in front of everybody, right?

[apocalypsehow]

120. Uh-huh. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

121. What's most hilarious is that you are well aware the thread was in Meta, and yet *still*

think by dishonestly asking "Link?" you can change the subject from the facts laid out above.

There should be some minimum standard of behavior and decorum and fundamental honesty before someone is allowed to be a Host, even a Host of a right-wing, pro-NRA sewer like the Gungeon.

[krispos42]

128. What else is in the lost "Meta" thread?

Hmmm... oh, yeah, a whole bunch of alleged "ibids". Looks like your "smoking gun" is gone, as well as any "facts" you might think you have.


Since the thread, and indeed the entire Forum, is gone now, can I depend on you to not be jumping into threads and screaming "ibid" at me? Can I depend on you to not pretend you know what I was or was not doing IN REAL LIFE, of which we have never met and likely never will?

[apocalypsehow]

130. So now you are denying you ever posted "Ibid" repeatedly in that thread? Really?

oh, yeah, a whole bunch of alleged "ibids". Looks like your "smoking gun" is gone, as well as any "facts" you might think you have"

It is not "alleged": you did precisely that. And you well know it. There was a suggestion made over in Meta that those threads be made available in a "Read Only" format of some sort so that those who had information they wanted from that defunct forum could have access to it. You had better hope the PTB never do such a thing, because the day they do your mendacity in this very sub-thread regarding your "Ibid" actions and the rest of it will be exposed for the falsehoods they are.

*Bookmarking* for future reference, re, possible retrieval of thread-in-question "Read Only" mode some day.

[ThoughtCriminal]

144. "Ibid" is the new "yargle bargle blargh" - nt

[krispos42]

172. I'm pointing out that your smoking gun is gone

I don't, and haven't, denied I was in a protracted exchange with someone who, rather than be proven wrong on a factual matter, began simply repeating a stock answer regardless of what I replied or what facts I posted. After several exchanges, I began replying in kind.

That is what happened. You know it as well, but since you have failed during your "ibid" stalking of me to even mention that a) I was not the only one posting repeat replied, and b) I was not the one that started the exchange, I don't, and will not, ever expect you to acknowledge this, ever.

I welcome Meta becoming available as read only; I had bookmarked a thread in there.

[apocalypsehow]

174. "a whole bunch of alleged "ibids" - "I don't and haven't denied" <---Two bare-faced contradictory

statements, my friend the "Ibid King." And this time a link is available:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2515157

You're just digging yourself in deeper.

[krispos42]

180. When the evidence goes away...

... things become "alleged". As much as you are desperate to catch me in something, "alleged" is not "denial".

And when are you planning on criticizing the person I was taking with for their behavior? Are you stalking them as well, or.just me?

[apocalypsehow]

181. No, when one states it's "alleged" one states one doesn't KNOW whether the allegation(s) made

are true or not; but when one KNOWS for a fact, as you do, that the allegation(s) in question are true, since you are the one who did the thing alleged, then what your statement becomes is simply an attempt to deceive the rest of DU by pretending my allegations are "alleged," instead of being TRUE - and you well know they are true, and have even walked that back in your most recent replies in case Meta does ever go "Read Only."

More funny stuff from our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[krispos42]

186. I'm stating for the audience (that is laughing at you)...

...that, to them, it is "alleged" because they only have no proof available.

And let's face it, your view of events is colored by your one-sided hatred of me. Do you have a snarky nickname for the other half of the conversation?

If not, why not?

[apocalypsehow]

190. In other words, you are attempting to DECEIVE the "audience" because you know for a FACT

that the claims are 100% true, but did not want to admit to them.

But then you began to consider what would happen if that thread ever did happen to be made "Read Only" one of these days, and decided to start backpedaling.

Again: they DO have proof available, and that is your confirmation that what I claimed is true, something you have personal knowledge of since you were the other participant in that thread.

All the rest of this is just huff n' puff, and inane attempts to get the "last word" even while whining about "stalking"!

Every one can see what has gone on here, my friend the "Ibid King," and I highly doubt they are at me. But you go right on believing what you want.

[krispos42]

196. I know the facts as you present them are 40% true

Because you hate me, you're presenting a slice of selective facts with a feast of supposition and claims to know both my geographic location in real life AND my memories AND my thoughts.

The admins have proof available to them; Duers don't.

and again, why are you not stalking the other participant in the Meta thread and calling them childishm

[apocalypsehow]

199. No, the facts I presented are 100%, even though above you stated they were UNTRUE, mere

"allegations," even though you know them to be factual. Again: what happened is you were attempting to deceive DU until I brought up the fact that over in ATA a proposal had been floated that perhaps one day Meta threads would be in "Read Only" format. It was then and only then, with it occurring to you that your credibility would be completely sunk if that happened, that you started back-pedaling and walking your statements back, all the way up to 40% now!

"why are you not stalking the other participant in the Meta thread and calling them childishm"

Again: You initiated the first reply to me in this thread; not I to you. You can terminate this exchange at any time by simply walking away and ceasing to reply to my posts. Period.

And yet more laughs from our loveable, delightful Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[apocalypsehow]

565. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

636. LOL

So now what's your plan, to re-reply to every post of the past 10 days?



I LOVE the smell of desperation!

[apocalypsehow]

644. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

183. Hey, every reply in this thread between us has been initated by YOU, not me. So you can

drop that "stalking" jazz. You're not being "stalked": at any time you could terminate this back n' forth by simply leaving the thread and never returning. Make you a deal: the second you stop replying to my posts, I'll stop replying to yours.

How about it?


To the rest of DU: this same offer was made to our Gungeon Host aka the "Ibid King," before, and he turned it down. We'll see if the poster whining about being "stalked" - even as he is the one who initiated the back n' forth in this thread and persists in replying to me - will put his mouth where his keyboard is and simply go away and quit posting to me. One rather doubts it.

[krispos42]

185. Yeah, you smear me, then act all confused that we have a discussion about it

And let's get a post count, shall we?

Me: 18, including this one.
You: 31.

And you give two or three replies to a posting of mine, then have the audacity to look all confused and say "hey, why don't you just walk away?"

Since you started with the smears, and since you are posting multiple replies to my posts, why don't YOU walk away? I mean, I'm the mean petty one, right, so why don't YOU be the big boy, the mature adult, and walk away?


You jumped into this thread with a smear post about me. That's stalking, your feigning of ignorance and innocence notwithstanding.

[apocalypsehow]

188. What I tell you, folks? The guy who INITIATES the contact with another poster to accuse them of

"stalking" is offered the opportunity to cease the back n' forth, and instead of taking it - remember, he's the one whining about "stalking" even though he initiated the exchange - he's back in here replying to EVERY SINGLE POST OF MINE, all the while still whining about it!

Did I call it, or did I call it?

[krispos42]

191. Yes, because parallel posting of...

...insults by a stalker is NOT initiating contact. I'm only allowed to respond to DIRECT insults and smears. It's right there in the ToS, I'm sure...

[apocalypsehow]

194. Again: YOU initiated this exchange, not I; you have been offered the opportunity to terminate the

conversation by simply ceasing to reply to my posts; yet you continue to do so, by last count FOUR MORE POSTS JUST TODAY.

Quit whining about "stalking" if you're unwilling to stop replying to another DU'ers posts, especially as you are the one that replied first to me, not I to you.

But you won't, because what you're really interested in is (1) alert-shopping, hoping to send to a jury some post of mine in this sub-thread that will lock me out of it allowing you to "win" and (2) barring that, burying evidence of your attempt to deceive the rest of DU under a blizzard of replies in this sub-thread, knowing most will simply move on rather than scroll through this byzantine back n' forth.

It's a typical Gungeoneer strategy when one finds oneself on the losing end of a debate, as you have here. Repeatedly.

[krispos42]

198. Who insulted whom first?

[apocalypsehow]

200. Not that it's revelant to your "stalking" charge, but you actually did, right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2518561

That was your first rank personal attack because you are losing this debate hands down, and embarrassing yourself in the so-doing.

But as stated: that's irrelevant to your bogus charge of "stalking." YOU initiated this back n' forth between us as you were the one that replied to me first, not I to you; and, further, you have been given the opportunity to terminate the discussion at ANY TIME by simply ceasing to reply to my posts. Yet you refuse to do so - which puts paid to your nonsense about being "stalked."

[krispos42]

204. ROFL

Yeah, because I'm sure this:

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]apocalypsehow
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

is meant to be some sort of compliment or something.


You walked into this thread spewing personal denigration and half-facts. Again... when you will denigrate the instigator of repetitive nonsense that I was dealing with?

And why won't you answer that question?

[apocalypsehow]

206. Again: YOU initiated this exchange, not I; you have been offered the opportunity to terminate the

conversation by simply ceasing to reply to my posts; yet you continue to do so, by last count FOUR MORE POSTS JUST TODAY.

Quit whining about "stalking" if you're unwilling to stop replying to another DU'ers posts, especially as you are the one that replied first to me, not I to you.

But you won't, because what you're really interested in is (1) alert-shopping, hoping to send to a jury some post of mine in this sub-thread that will lock me out of it allowing you to "win" and (2) barring that, burying evidence of your attempt to deceive the rest of DU under a blizzard of replies in this sub-thread, knowing most will simply move on rather than scroll through this byzantine back n' forth.

It's a typical Gungeoneer strategy when one finds oneself on the losing end of a debate, as you have here. Repeatedly.

[krispos42]

209. We both have the opportunity;so take it, why don't you?

Especially since you threw the first insult. Or are you going to deny the existence of post #76?


And I have not alerted on a single thing. I can't think of anything more damaging to your reputation than simply letting you post at will. At a 2:1 ratio to me, as well.

And then you accuse ME of burying things under a blizzard of replies.

[apocalypsehow]

213. Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in

this exchange, just as he did in the thread under discussion, as the facts are not on his side. But what's more, he has been caught red-handed being deceitful, claiming something is only "alleged" that he knows for a stone cold fact to be TRUE; so now krispos42 has taken the tack of complaining about "stalking," even though krispos42 is the one that posted first to me in this thread, not I to him; krispos42 is then offered an opportunity to terminate the exchange that he is claiming is "stalking" him, by simply ceasing to reply to my posts. And yet...

Here krispos42 is today with THREE more posts to me!

More fun, laughable stuff from our loveable Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[krispos42]

215. And here you are ignoring that you jumped on me unprovoked.

So I'm only allowed to defend myself if you attack me directly?

[apocalypsehow]

220. Yet again: *every* reply in this thread between us has been initated by YOU, not me. So you can

drop that "stalking" jazz. You're not being "stalked": at any time you could terminate this back n' forth by simply leaving the thread and never returning. Make you a deal: the second you stop replying to my posts, I'll stop replying to yours.

How about it?


To the rest of DU: this same offer was made to our Gungeon Host aka the "Ibid King," before, and he turned it down. We'll see if the poster whining about being "stalked" - even as he is the one who initiated the back n' forth in this thread and persists in replying to me - will put his mouth where his keyboard is and simply go away and quit posting to me. One rather doubts it.

[krispos42]

223. You argument became invalid as soon as you began posting 2nd and 3rd replies to me

That is YOU initiating more conversation.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]apocalypsehow (12,253 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

[apocalypsehow]

226. Nope: but you go right on believing that if you wish, even AS you continue to post replies...

, indeed.

[krispos42]

229. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Deny it if you like.

[apocalypsehow]

233. Nope: the "argument" was conceded by you long ago, and any DU'er just idly scanning this sub-thread

sees that. Repeatedly you've backtracked from statements you previously made; whined about "stalking" while being shown to have been the one to have initiated the conversation; refused to cease posting to me when the offer was made even you whined about "stalking"; and the realization that the thread in question might become "Read Only" sent you into a major walkback of your false assertions up and down this thread.

All in all, this is just excellent stuff. And your credibility...ZERO. Thanks for doing that. You did it to yourself.


*Summation Repost from Below*

[krispos42]

236. And now you're repeating yourself...

...hoping that I miss one of your repetitions so that you can get the "last word" that is so precious to you but won't admit.

Hey, I'm defending myself against unprovoked smears. What are YOU doing besides massaging your ego?

[apocalypsehow]

248. "hoping that I miss one of your repetitions" - Wow; an open admission of obsession. Talk about

"stalking"...

[krispos42]

251. Are you denying it?

Why else would you post multiple repeat replies to different sub-thread except to get your "victory" of the last word in a long chain of falsehoods?

[apocalypsehow]

253. Are you denying it?

Why else would you post multiple repeat replies to different sub-thread except to get your "victory" of the last word in a long chain of falsehoods?

Bravo! Self examination at it's finest!

[krispos42]

278. I've posted no repeat replies to anything of yours.

So, not only have you run out of original material, you're factually wrong. Again.


Lack of self-awareness, you have in spades.

[apocalypsehow]

287. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

309. Still waiting for the initiator to apologize and/or walk away

You have the power... use it wisely, young grasshopper.

What's this now, your 5th repetition? I lose track.

[apocalypsehow]

313. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

318. Quit posting, and I'll be happy to stop replying.

Your repeated denials that you instigated this conversation don't stand the smell test. I await an apology.

[apocalypsehow]

322. Quit posting, and I'll be delighted to stop replying.

The plain fact that you initiated this discussion is linked here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514245

Have some more fun denying easily-proven facts!

[krispos42]

328. Ah, wrong link

Common enough error.


The initial comment is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2513697


See, that's where you enter a thread that I am in and decided, unprovoked, to begin smearing me. But of course you posted in parallel to me, presumably in the hope I wouldn't notice or something.


Glad we were able to clear that up. So when can I expect your apology? Next post?

[apocalypsehow]

338. 1. That reply was to another DU'er, not to you (busted again on a falsehood!), 2. I stated a fact,

not a "smear." But, of course, you already knew that. 3. This statement reaches new heights of jejune absurdity: "you posted in parallel to me, presumably in the hope I wouldn't notice or something." 4. It was, as shown, the correct link, as the issue at hand is who initiated contact with whom in this thread, re, your ridiculous "stalking" charge. 5. As there is absolutely nothing I have to apologize for, as shown, one will not be forthcoming either now or any time in the future. You can save your keystrokes asking.

There: another tissue of falsehoods and absurdities disposed of in seven easy sentences.

[krispos42]

349. Wow, you finally admitted you posted, unprovoked, to a third party ABOUT ME

You denied doing it in #333, but at least we're making progress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2554720


An incomplete, out of context fact with intent to deceive is a smear.

As the record shows, you posted to the 3rd party an unprovoked smear (as defined above) prior to any conversation between us in this thread, and with no recent history of conflict between the two of us in another thread.

It was an unprovoked smear comment you chose to post to a random 3rd party. You can apologize at any time, or simply walk away.

[apocalypsehow]

366. Wow, you are again indulging in falsehoods: a post of mine to a "third party" has never been the

issue, and is not now. You have been whining about "stalking" throughout this thread, yet it is you who initiated (and continue to initiate) every subsequent reply to me. Every. Single. One.

2. Your link to my reply #333 is quoting a reply not to that claim, but to the (false) claim that what I posted were either "smears" or "lies": they were neither, but rather factual statements about your "Ibid" posts in a now-defunct forum, and you well know that that was what #333 was refuting in your reply #330.

3. Once again, you have been caught manufacturing falsehoods, and brazenly. You can apologize at an time, or simply walk away. Either/or.

[krispos42]

381. Um, yes it has

Are you that clueless? Did you not realize for the past week or so that I responded to you ONLY BECAUSE you were smearing me to a third party, in this case rdharma?


And tell me, Mister Fountain of Truth and Honestly, when did you decide to reveal that the reason you are smearing me (I posted a repetitive reply because I can't handle facts) was I was responding to YOUR denial of a fact¹ when YOUR denial took the form of calling that fact an "NRA talking point".

You are smearing me for doing exactly what you were doing, and continue to do in this thread. The difference between us is that YOU instigated it.


¹ The 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapon ban would not prevent new or used sales of semi-automatic rifles that feed from detachable magazines. There is a 2-page list included in the legislation that lists exempted rifles. Look it up on her Senate website.

So, once again, are you going to apologize for spewing half-truths, stalking, and being a hypocrite?

[apocalypsehow]

382. Um, not it hasn't. Simply scrolling up puts paid to this newest diversionary silliness, and your

ongoing personal attacks are noted. And laughed at.

[krispos42]

400. Your smear post about me to rdharma is, and has been, my issue

You do not decide what my issue is. You can walk away at any time, though.

[apocalypsehow]

404. 1. There was no "smear post" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over

and over again just as I stated above.

2. You are free to keep embarrassing yourself to your heart's content in this sub-thread, as far as I'm concerned.

[krispos42]

440. And again, a highly selective series of fact by a repetitive poster with a history of such.

Why don't you mention the rest of the facts so that readers can have the truth?





Simple... it would show even more your hypocrisy and your utter foolishness for embarking on your jihad. I mean, you smear me for running away from facts with repetitive posts, when that is EXACTLY what you did in the Meta thread.

You still haven't admitted that semi-auto rifles that feed from detachable magazines will be sold, new and used, under Feinstein's 2013 ban.


I enjoy that you keep avoid the above fact and posting the same selective, out-of-context fact in a vain attempt to smear me.

After all, you certainly haven't DENIED that you posted repetitively to avoid admitting that I was factually correct and truthful, now have you?

I can't WAIT for Meta to get unlocked!

[apocalypsehow]

447. Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Anyone scrolling up and down

easily sees different.

"I can't WAIT for Meta to get unlocked"

So you say, but we both know better. Your credibility is DONE on DU if it does; I doubt you'll even be able to show your head in GCRKBA in that event. I, on the other hand, will be delighted if it does, for obvious reasons.

Also, this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562504

[krispos42]

456. And again, no refutation, just an automatic denial

I mean, you won't even discuss or try to prove that I'm incorrect.



Weaker and weaker your logic-fu is.


And speaking of credibility, the obvious hypocrisy you've been spewing in this thread gives me a wonderful record of why you have no credibility. I'm glad I make a PDF of it every night.

[apocalypsehow]

467. Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

, indeed.

[krispos42]

487. Setting that slicer on ultra-thin now, huh?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

But go on thinking you have something, if it makes you feel better.

I mean, you've been busted for a while because you've admitted to not only engaging but INSTIGATING the "childish" behavior you've been trying to smear me with.

And look, there's another lie in the excerpt... I've challenged you multiple times to admit I was right about the Feinstein ban, and each time you simply ignored me.

BUSTED!

[apocalypsehow]

493. Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

516. No, I'm super busted!

You caught me... I confess...


I was unfaithful with you.




I cheated on you.



I was having a parallel conversation with you while i was having a conversation with you!





Can you ever forgive me?





So, who was right about the Feinstein ban, again? I forget.

[apocalypsehow]

519. You have been caught multiple times telling untruths on this thread, then backpedaling. Thanks for

admitting it, even if in a roundabout way.

Nowhere so spectacularly than here, of course:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

549. Your need to believe that is just adorable.

ADORABLE! Like a kitten hugging a puppy. Or like Puss in Boots from the "Shrek" films.

And there are no untruths in that thread, so I can't backpedal. I don't deny having at least two conversations in that thread, with you and with somebody else that you claimed was also you.

I think your precedent for starting multiple parallel subthreads in a thread is, by now, CRYSTAL clear.

Congratulations, you've proved your consistent: consistently hypocritical and consistently wrong.


Who was right about the Feinstein ban and semi-automtic rifles? And who was wrong about who posts repetitively to avoid discussion?

Man, you've got NOTHING!!!

[apocalypsehow]

571. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[CokeMachine]

532. Your stuff is getting old. You must miss meta.

Don't even bother to respond becaues you're off to ignore. Get a life and learn to be a grown up -- please.

[apocalypsehow]

584. "Don't even bother to respond becaues (Sic) you're off to ignore"* - LOL.

Man, that just breaks my ever-lovin' heart...




*"CokeMachine" has made such empty promises before.

[apocalypsehow]

383. And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2556738

Again.

[krispos42]

402. Of course I mention the stalking; you admit to it

You saw that I was in here, you smeared me to a person I was talking to, then you admitted that you've been doing it throughout DU.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.


Why would I not mention the stalking and the DU-wide smear campaign?

[apocalypsehow]

407. As there has been no "stalking" and no "admission" to same, you continue to grasp at feeble straws.

But nice try.

[krispos42]

442. Your plan is to keep denying that Post #132 exists?

Here, let me help:

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post132

Funny how when you initiate posting repetitively, it's NOT "silliness", but when I do it in response, it is.

And, of course, if you followed the trail of "ibids" (stepping over the trail of "NRA talking points" you left behind), you'd find an actual post I was referencing.

[apocalypsehow]

628. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

339. No, RIGHT link. See ^^^^^^. But nice try.

[apocalypsehow]

341. Also, said RIGHT link where replier above *initiates* discussion in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514245

And yet, the poster who STARTS the talking and has done every subsequent bit of the REPLY-WALKING is carrying on about STALKING...

[krispos42]

350. The smears start from you.

Unlike you, I don't go around looking for threads you're participating in and smear you to 3rd parties.

Unlike you, I don't get all surprised because the smearee challenges the smearer.

You can try all you want to deny it, but you chose to jump into the thread with an unprovoked smear. Claiming that I initiated the exchange is false.

[apocalypsehow]

368. 1. The truth - and FACTS - cannot by definition be "smears," and that's all I've posted.

2. You in fact did initiate this exchange, and have initiated every single subsequent reply between us in it. Again, since you apparently missed it, here's the link where you did just that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514245

Go on and have some more fun: keep denying what you plainly posted even as I continue to link to it. Even a "self-deletion" of the post won't help you, as you know, because it'll still show the fact that you initiated this discussion with me, and every subsequent post since, all the while complaining about "stalking."

[krispos42]

388. Selective facts are not truth

and thus are smears. It's been established that, since a disinterested 3rd party that read this subthread would have no idea that:

1) I was in an exchange of repetitions with somebody
2) That "somebody" started the repetitions first (rather than admit the fact that the Feinstein proposal will not ban sales of semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines).

AND THAT

3) That "somebody" was you

until yesterday, then the selective facts you have spouted are not truth. They are, however, hypocrisy.


And another truth is that you have admitted to wandering around DU with your selective facts, so that you are on a smear campaign against me.

Our final truth is that you entered this thread, and your third reply in this thread was to post your selective facts (smears) to a person that I was having a conversation with. You insulted me, and you've been whining ever since that I won't leave you alone.

You've got nothing, and you'll continue to have nothing. Admitting YOU were the person I was posting with in the Meta thread wasn't the brightest thing you've done in this thread, and that's saying something.

You have FIRST HAND knowledge of points #1 and 2, and yet you suppressed it to smear me while hiding your own hypocrisy.

[apocalypsehow]

390. No "selective facts" were offered: you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over in a thread

in a now-defunct forum; confident the evidence had been hidden, you attempted to deny that you had done such a thing; you then backtracked, and have been backtracking ever since.

It really is as simple as that.

, indeed.

[krispos42]

411. And... another restatement of selective facts

No refutation, though.

Do you deny calling an objective fact an NRA talking point in order to avoid admitting you were wrong?

[apocalypsehow]

416. Wrong. As shown. ^^^. n/t.

[krispos42]

452. Yeah, that's not a rational conclusion from the evidence available.

You admit that you were also engaging in repetitive posting with me in the Meta thread.

I have asserted, and you have not denied, that a) you started the repetitive posting, and b) you did so do avoid admitting I was right when I stated that semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines will still be sold new and used under the 2013 Feinstein ban.

[apocalypsehow]

391. And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2556738

[krispos42]

413. I like it when you post repetitively; it bolsters my case enormously.

Keep it up!

[apocalypsehow]

415. Your "case" has been a lost cause since about the beginning, as shown. But keep posting such

funny stuff: the rest of DU will keep laughing.

[krispos42]

450. No, that WAS in the right place.

Oh, well... anyway, what have I proven?

1. You have hypocritically said that I used repetitive posting to dodge facts
   
2. You were the poster in Meta that I was engaged in, so you were fully aware of the truth
   
3. You selectively posted facts to hide the truth
   
4. You were posting about me long before I was posting TO or ABOUT you.
   
5. You whine that I initiated the exchange and that I should just let you get the last word
   
6. You have posted ~2:1 in number of posts to mine
   
7. You have embarked on a protracted and unprovoked campaign of spreading your selective and untruthful "facts" behind my back throughout DU. (post #132)

[apocalypsehow]

471. You go right on believing whatever you wish. The facts weigh against you, time & again. And:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted.

[krispos42]

492. But somehow, they don't weigh against you.

Shocking.

For example, the fact that I was correct about the AWB, and you weren't and refused to admit it.

[apocalypsehow]

513. Whatever that's supposed to mean. Bottom line is, you've been BUSTED:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

541. LOL

So, are you ready to admit that I was right about the Feinstein ban?

You spend at least 2 subthreads in the Meta denying I was right (as you've conveniently linked to), so are you going to admit, twice, that I was right?

[apocalypsehow]

634. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

340. So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 04:28 AM - Edit history (1)

repeatedly did in a thread in a now-defunct forum, all the while whining about "stalking." ( ) 2. When it became clear during the course of denying that factual, truthful assertion of mine you came to realize that there was a possibility - slim, perhaps, but nevertheless a chance - that the thread in question might become public, so you suddenly reversed course 180 degrees and claimed I was telling the truth, after all, just not all of it. 3. You subsequently whined more about "stalking," and continue to do so, even though every single reply in this thread between us was initiated by you. 4. You are now reduced to making stuff up (see reply subsequent to this one), and grasping for that desperate "last word," having been so roundly proven wrong every step of the way. 5. In the meantime, you have tried to "alert" your way to a "win" in this sub-thread by badgering numerous juries to hide one of my posts in it just to end the matter, the intent being to have the "last word" by hook or crook (yes, I have many of the jury results sitting in my inbox thanks to several conscientious DU'ers).

Well, it has been embarrassing for you. And who knows: you may get a jury to assist you in getting that precious "last word" at some point. But it doesn't really matter: you've already "lost," and don't even know it. Or more likely do know, and just don't care how ridiculous your ongoing posts make your laughable position look.

More funnies with Gunny's.

[krispos42]

351. Half-facts without context are not truthful assertions.

And when you spread them as part of a protracted, multi-thread campaign of smearing me by replying snark to 3rd parties (never to me), it's called stalking.

And you can walk away at any time, with or without an apology.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

[apocalypsehow]

369. Again: 1. It is a FACT, not a "smear," that you posted "Ibid" over and over and over again in a

now-defunct forum in lieu of any factual content or reply to me.

2. You have initiated every single reply to me in this sub-thread, not I to you, as shown over and over and over again.

3. You have multiple times been offered the opportunity to terminate the current discussion with the added caveat that if you never again reply to or about me, I will never again reply to or about you. You have declined those offers, repeatedly, all the while still carrying-on about "stalking" ( ).

4(a). No, my friend the "Ibid" , you are not being stalked: and even if you think you are, an offer has repeatedly been made to terminate all discussion between us anywhere on DU forever. You have rejected those offers, and are still posting replies to me, your alleged "stalker."

4(b). And you can walk away at any time, with or without an apology.

[krispos42]

389. It is a fact that you started the repetitive posting before I did

"you don't have to post NRA talking points", or something to that effect (see how efficient "ibid" is?)

Of course, a cold, hard, non-partisan fact is not an NRA talking point; there's a list of semiautomatic rifles that feed from detachable magazines that are specifically exempted in Feinstein's proposal.

But you avoided the truth of that statement by calling it an NRA talking point, even after I posted a link to the text of her proposal (on her Senate website, no less) and even posted the relevant excerpt.



So, no, it was not in lieu of any factual content.

Your continual posting of "you don't have to post NRA talking points" in reply to my factual statement, lifted IN CONTEXT from the originator of the proposal WITH A LINK TO THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE PROPOSAL, is what makes your "statement" to rdharma a smear against me because it is projection.

You chickened out in the Meta thread, unable to disprove the fact of Feinstein's proposal but unable to walk away, so you projected what you did onto me.



And yet you still are shocked, SHOCKED to find that this is cause for a challenge on my part! You can walk away any time, too, you know. I would prefer it after an apology, but that's up to you.

[apocalypsehow]

572. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

553. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!" <--That was Post #385.

Now, in Reply #379 above he says:

"You say it was with you? Okay, might have been...You'll notice that I never once suggested the "other person" was YOU until now... YOU know I was replying to another repetitive poster because YOU were the repetitive poster, which makes your selective half-truth even more sinister..."

And yet, here's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment: he did, indeed, post "Ibid" over and over and over again to me, knowing who he was posting to, in that Meta thread. And yet in #379 (above) and #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread puts paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted yet again. And how.

*emphases added.

[krispos42]

615. Since I've already replied once to the above post

I'll simply link to it for your duplicates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2567592

[apocalypsehow]

648. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

271. Thanks for conceding that you are not being "stalked," but like to trot that silliness out when the

facts overwhelm you. My offer stand: stop replying to me; I'll stop replying to you.

So far, you've turned all such offers *down*, all the while whining about being "stalked"....

[krispos42]

277. Funny how you can't stop replying to me.

I mean, not only can't you stop replying to me, but you can't stop at just one post.


Funny, that.

[apocalypsehow]

289. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

312. And now you see how people get locked into senseless repetition.

[apocalypsehow]

314. Yep.

[apocalypsehow]

605. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

486. So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

508. So, what's it like to be wrong on the Feinstein bill?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[apocalypsehow]

635. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

208. *Again*: Not that it's revelant to your "stalking" charge, but you actually did, right here:

That was your first rank personal attack because you are losing this debate hands down, and embarrassing yourself in the so-doing.

But as stated: that's irrelevant to your bogus charge of "stalking." YOU initiated this back n' forth between us as you were the one that replied to me first, not I to you; and, further, you have been given the opportunity to terminate the discussion at ANY TIME by simply ceasing to reply to my posts. Yet you refuse to do so - which puts paid to your nonsense about being "stalked."

[krispos42]

212. And again, my stalker who can't walk away posts 2 replies to a post of mine.

You don't get a prize for a high post count, yanno...

Your 3rd post in this thread way about denigrating me. Without me having said a single word to or about you, you dug in, and now you lack the courage to admit it or the common sense to slink away.

And you've done this before, too. You admitted to spreading word of the "ibid king" or whatever cute little name for me throughout GD. So you admit to waging a protracted campaign to denigrate me in thread that I'm not even IN.


But I'm the problem. Holy shit.

[apocalypsehow]

216. Again: YOU initiated this exchange, not I; you have been offered the opportunity to terminate the

conversation by simply ceasing to reply to my posts; yet you continue to do so, by last count FOUR MORE POSTS JUST TODAY.

Quit whining about "stalking" if you're unwilling to stop replying to another DU'ers posts, especially as you are the one that replied first to me, not I to you.

But you won't, because what you're really interested in is (1) alert-shopping, hoping to send to a jury some post of mine in this sub-thread that will lock me out of it allowing you to "win" and (2) barring that, burying evidence of your attempt to deceive the rest of DU under a blizzard of replies in this sub-thread, knowing most will simply move on rather than scroll through this byzantine back n' forth.

It's a typical Gungeoneer strategy when one finds oneself on the losing end of a debate, as you have here. Repeatedly.

[krispos42]

217. You should just print "Ibid"; it's much faster than copy and paste

See, I'm efficient.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]apocalypsehow
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.


But I should shut up and go away, right?

[apocalypsehow]

228. Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in

this exchange, just as he did in the thread under discussion, as the facts are not on his side. But what's more, he has been caught red-handed being deceitful, claiming something is only "alleged" that he knows for a stone cold fact to be TRUE; so now krispos42 has taken the tack of complaining about "stalking," even though krispos42 is the one that posted first to me in this thread, not I to him; krispos42 is then offered an opportunity to terminate the exchange that he is claiming is "stalking" him, by simply ceasing to reply to my posts. And yet...

Here krispos42 is today with THREE more posts to me!

More fun, laughable stuff from our loveable Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[krispos42]

231. Really, "ibid" is very useful when dealing with a repetitive poster.

Especially when he started the repetition and won't walk away.

[apocalypsehow]

234. And here you see it folks: the "Ibid King" is talking about how much he cherishes using "Ibid."

Thereby proving precisely my point all along...

[krispos42]

237. It's a way to be as repetitive as you, but faster.

Although I do admit that "Ibid King" is more catchy than "Repetitive King".

[apocalypsehow]

240. At this point, you've been so totally discredited, largely by your own posts, that I'm just waiting

for you to finish/stop posting to the poster you claim is "stalking" you even as you continue to reply to his every post, so I can put a *placeholder* reply in place for the day when the Meta forum threads become "Read Only" - if they ever do.

In the meantime, you go right ahead babbling and sputtering. All that needs to be said has been said, and the facts speak for themselves. DU'ers can see all of this.

[krispos42]

244. That's 3...

n/t

[apocalypsehow]

252. That's nice. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

254. And BTW, for those interested, I just counted: that makes FIFTY-ONE replies from this poster in this

thread, all the while he complains about being "stalked"...

[krispos42]

258. Ah, you're still beating me with over 60.

#3 was unprovoked smears about me, but I guess I'm not supposed to defend myself or anything.

[apocalypsehow]

259. That's nice. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

262. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

276. Still waiting for the person who claims to not be stalking me to stop double-posting n/t

[apocalypsehow]

284. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

307. Still waiting for my stalker...

...to apologize for entering this thread and smearing me, unprovoked, to a third party.

Or walk away in shame. Either one.

[apocalypsehow]

316. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

320. And now you've run out of things to say...

...and yet you still can't walk away. Gotta get in the FIRST and LAST insult, huh? It's that important to you?

[apocalypsehow]

324. And now you're back, still whining about being "stalked" in a sub-thread discussion YOU initiated...

...and here you are again, still posting replies. Speaks for itself.

[krispos42]

330. Says the person who saw me discussing a point of fact with a 3rd party...

...and chose to smear me to the 3rd party. And then later on admitted to spreading lies about me throughout DU.

[apocalypsehow]

332. So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 01:42 AM - Edit history (1)

repeatedly did in a thread in a now-defunct forum, all the while whining about "stalking." ( ) 2. When it became clear during the course of denying that factual, truthful assertion of mine you came to realize that there was a possibility - slim, perhaps, but nevertheless a chance - that the thread in question might become public, so you suddenly reversed course 180 degrees and claimed I was telling the truth, after all, just not all of it. 3. You subsequently whined more about "stalking," and continue to do so, even though every single reply in this thread between us was initiated by you. 4. You are now reduced to making stuff up (see reply subsequent to this one), and grasping for that desperate "last word," having been so roundly proven wrong every step of the way. 5. In the meantime, you have tried to "alert" your way to a "win" in this sub-thread by badgering numerous juries to hide one of my posts in it just to end the matter, the intent being to have the "last word" by hook or crook (yes, I have many of the jury results sitting in my inbox thanks to several conscientious DU'ers).

Well, it has been embarrassing for you. And who knows: you may get a jury to assist you in getting that precious "last word" at some point. But it doesn't really matter: you've already "lost," and don't even know it. Or more likely do know, and just don't care how ridiculous your ongoing posts make your laughable position look.

More funnies with Gunny's.

[krispos42]

342. Okay, let's recap

I responded to a smear post by you that you made to a third party, because, as you admitted later on on in the thread, you are going throughout DU saying the same half-truths with intent to deceive (a.k.a., a lie) about me. You seem to want to call that "initiated", although I can't imagine why.

If I was waiting in line at a grocery store, and unbeknownst to me you joined the line behind me and then publicly and within range of my ears told a third party a lie about me, me turning around and addressing the lie about me you just spoke would not be "initiating contact", it would be replying to a false allegation.

And for you to clasp your hands to your cheeks and be ASTONISHED that I would challenge and refute your smears while waiting in line at the grocery store? Yeah, that's called bad acting.




When I asked for a link to your allegations, you replied that the forum had been hidden, which, as it turns out, makes all the links to any discussion in Meta disappear or broken as well. Which was too bad, because it would have proven my claimed fact (which you have yet to deny or even address in any way at all) that a) there was a second person I was debating in the repetitive subthread, and b) the other person started the mindless repetition.

Pointing out that the hidden Meta thread turned our sources for our respective points of view into allegations because the evidence was gone let you to start claiming I was in denial or something, which is of course ridiculous because I could have simply used the self-delete feature at a whim.

And now you've added a new lie... that I'm alerting on you.

Nope. I have not alerted on a single thing of yours. Of course you won't believe me because, after all, you also have "proof" that I don't have a smartphone and that I didn't go on vacation when I said I did. For the record, my most recent alert was March 14th. Not that you'll believe me, though.

You do realize that alerts are anonymous, right?

So you're ongoing plan in this thread is when called out for decietful half-truths (lies), you add another lie for me to challenge.

And look, here we are again...

Your multiple replies have struck again. To this point I've had to reply to 5 different posts by you, and to those five posts you're created 10 replies, 5 of which are copy-and-paste repetitions of the same bullshit.

Not only do you need the last word, you need the last word DOUBLE.

*sniff sniff*

Eau de desperation.

[apocalypsehow]

606. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

333. For the record, the following statements in Post #330 above are simply FALSE:

"..and chose to smear me to the 3rd party. And then later on admitted to spreading lies about me throughout DU."

Period, end of sentence.

[krispos42]

343. Yeah, um, no

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

Nobody forced you to post #76. Therefore, it was a choice you made.

"rdharma" is, by definition, a third party.

Your insinuation that when I'm backed into a corner I just reply with a string of "ibids" is, of course, false, because a)that was a one-time event, b) it was in reply to another poster who started mindlessly posting repetitive statements rather than debate. You might be familiar with this tactic.





And then there's this gem.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

And you are indeed, by your own words, spreading lies about me throughout DU.

A false false is a truth.

That fact that you would claim something in this thread means exactly the opposite of what you posted is breathtaking.



FAIL.

[apocalypsehow]

371. Yeah, um, here's the actual facts: 1. You did in fact post "Ibid" to me in a now-defunct forum over

and over and over again; you denied doing so at first in this sub-thread and then backtracked, admitting you did; you are now stating that the "Ibid" business was not you posting that word to me in lieu of any factual content (you were losing the debate, so just started throwing that word up there in replies), but a "third party," and that, too is false.

"Your insinuation that when I'm backed into a corner I just reply with a string of "ibids" is, of course, false, because a)that was a one-time event, b) it was in reply to another poster who started mindlessly posting repetitive statements rather than debate."

(a) It is not "false": you did in fact post "Ibid" over and over and over again; (b) your statement here, on the other hand, is FALSE; it was not in reply to "another poster," but to me. Like I've said elsewhere: you better hope that Meta never becomes available in "Ready Only" format. Your credibility is GONE the day that happens, if it ever does.

"FAIL"

Indeed.

[krispos42]

395. You mean, the selective facts, don't you?

I mean, I didn't start posting "Ibid" until your fifth or dozenth "you don't have to post NRA talking points" reply to my statement of objective fact regarding that new and used semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines will still be allowed whether Feinstein's new AWB is passed or not.


You have as yet failed to admit this fact, but because you (finally!) admit that you were there, I can introduce this as fact because we both know it's true.


And no, I didn't deny doing it, nor did I hide it (although you were pleased to take advantage of the lack of evidence to hid your involvement with the "ibid" subthread). Pointing out that the evidence is gone is not denial, however much you wish it to be so.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1](a) It is not "false": you did in fact post "Ibid" over and over and over again;

No shit, sherlock. I posted almost, but not quite, as many "ibids" as your "you don't have to post NRA talking points".

The insinuation that I did so because I was backed into a corner is what is false. Now, if I was to insinute that about you, it would be TRUE, because you began repetitive posting rather than admit that my fact about the Feinstein proposal was correct. You stated that no semi-automatic rifles that feed from a detachable magazine would be sold once the Feinstein proposal was passed; this was handily disproved by me, and you went into denial.

So, you did what you falsely accuse me of doing.


And if I do post a string of repetitive comments when backed into a corner, then SURELY you can find other incidents on DU where I've done this, right?


I mean, I only have to scroll up in this thread to prove that YOU post repetitive comments when you're backed into a corner.

Good luck with that.

[apocalypsehow]

397. No, I mean the FACTS, facts you spent a good deal of this sub-thread first DENYING, but have now

backtracked to admit. All the while whining about "stalking," even as ever post in this back n' forth has been initiated by none other than you.

[krispos42]

419. So, again, no refutation.

We already discussed the difference between fact that have evidence and facts that have no evidence, so you can stop grasping for that particular lifeling.

Let's talk about what you're NOT talking about, mainly, a refutation of what I posted.

And while where at it, who posted the first unsolicited post about whom.


Your first post a smear about me was to a 3rd party. My first post to you was after your first post about me to that 3rd party.


Oh, and my first post to you was an admission to the ibids. It took you a week and a hundred posts to admit your part in the Meta exchange.


Facts hurt, huh?

[apocalypsehow]

435. "Facts hurt, huh?" - LOL...so, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562504

[apocalypsehow]

436. Add #419 to the list, re:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562504

[apocalypsehow]

632. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

398. And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2556683

[krispos42]

420. Senseless repetition

Gotta catapult that propaganda, right?

[apocalypsehow]

423. If it was "senseless" you wouldn't bother replying to it; in fact, it is NEEDED reminders of an

offer rejected by the same fella who both INITIATED every reply between us in this sub-thread, while whining about "stalking" all the while. Your attempts to obscure the issues by repetitive posts that type a lot but don't really say much need to be spliced with reminders of that offer. Just so the rest of DU - all three people still paying attention - don't forget.

[apocalypsehow]

427. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!"

Uh-huh. That's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed on Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:46 PM.

Now, check out what he said in the second post he initiated to me in this thread way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment. And yet in #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one this evening from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread put paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted again!

*emphases added.

[apocalypsehow]

536. And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

573. Having trouble refuting, huh?

Yeah, I know it's tough to admit that I'm right.

It's why I love being right.

[apocalypsehow]

609. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

537. Watch our Gungeon Host* get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

575. Your complete lack of self-awareness is hilarous

My face hurts!

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

I'm not holding you to my standard; I'm holding you to yours. And you're FAILING!!!

[apocalypsehow]

577. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

192. Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in

this exchange, just as he did in the thread under discussion, as the facts are not on his side. But what's more, he has been caught red-handed being deceitful, claiming something is only "alleged" that he knows for a stone cold fact to be TRUE; so now krispos42 has taken the tack of complaining about "stalking," even though krispos42 is the one that posted first to me in this thread, not I to him; krispos42 is then offered an opportunity to terminate the exchange that he is claiming is "stalking" him, by simply ceasing to reply to my posts. And yet...

Here krispos42 is today with THREE more posts to me!

More fun, laughable stuff from our loveable Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[apocalypsehow]

568. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

640. Dammit, now you've gone and done it

I'm starting to feel pity for you.

Do you need a hug?

[apocalypsehow]

652. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

176. No, what happened is in a sub-thread about the new proposed AWB you went off on a tangent

(an irrelevant tangent, FWIW) about "detachable magazines" and their statutory place in the new legislation.

No one was arguing that technical detail with you.

No one cared to quibble over that technical detail with you.

In fact, no one had the slightest blithering idea why you latched onto that trivia and inserted it into the conversation.

Except...you were losing the debate on the larger merits of the AWB based on posted facts. So, as is the Gungeon wont, you were desperate to change the subject. After a time of this back n' forth, you simply proclaimed that we (those of us engaging you in the sub-thread initially) were simply unworthy of your time because we didn't have the "technical" knowledge about guns to debate the issue.

Despite this dismissal of our debating prowess, you kept right on posting to us, mostly personal attacks as you have in this very sub-thread. When you were not allowed to change the subject, you simply started posting "Ibid" over and over and over again, regardless of the attempt to get you back to discussing the actual issues.

That's what happened; you well know it; and you also well know that if that thread ever becomes available in "Read Only" format, your credibility is sunk at DU (well, even further than it already is, anyway). Thus, this walkback of your previous replies both here and above.

Laughable stuff. And *Bookmarked*.

[apocalypsehow]

177. More fun with flatly contradictory statements from the Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King"*:

"I'm pointing out that your smoking gun is gone"

"I welcome Meta becoming available as read only"

So, which is it? With one statement you exult that the evidence showing that precisely what I have stated is true is "gone," while with another you claim you would "welcome" such evidence being available for DU's public perusal. Curiouser and curiouser...





*(Contradiction bonanza bonus!: and in the same reply )

[krispos42]

182. Grasping at straws again?

They are not contradictory. The evidence is gone as far as we are concerned, but not to the admins. they have the power to make it available to us again.

It is hidden, not destroyed.

That seemed obvious to me, but I.point it out for your benefit.

[apocalypsehow]

184. They are contradictory. The "evidence" is not "gone" from your memory: you well remember what you

did in that sub-thread and expecting it to be hidden forever, aka that the forum would never be available to be viewed in any way, shape or form permanently (which indeed it probably will) posted several things that were simply untrue or misleading about that thread, and then when considering it might be made available for "Read Only" suddenly reversed course and started walking your statements back - contradicting yourself repeatedly in the so doing.

But nice try.

[krispos42]

187. The evidence is gone, because the admins have hidden it

The recollections are in my memory, which of course is mine. But it is a private memory; I cannot crack open my skull and post the contents on DU. The thread from which those recollections are formed has been hidden by the Admins, and can remain hidden or be displayed based solely on their discretion.

You're stretching again. Don't fall over on your face. Again.

[apocalypsehow]

189. Continued dodging and obfuscation. You stated above my claims were mere "allegations," which

implies you are personally unaware of their veracity or not. And yet, by your own admission, you ARE aware of the truth of my claims, even though you weakly claim they are only "half" true.

This nonsense about a "private memory" is a mere dodge, and a weak one, to attempt to cover your previous false statements. You can state what you KNOW, without calling it an "allegation"; but, no, you were attempting to DENY the truth of my claims until it began to occur to you that one day the PTB might very well make that thread "Read Only," and then your credibility would be entirely sunk. So you began this ridiculous walk-back, which looks only more absurd on your part as we go on.

Of course, a poster who would simply post "Ibid" over and over and over again - as you did in thread under question; first denied doing; and now are desperately back-pedaling to sorta admit - probably isn't all that concerned about how absurd they look.

More funny, laughable stuff from our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[krispos42]

193. I'm astonished...

Just like you know my whereabouts in real life, you also know what's going on in my head!

We can only hope you use your powers for good instead of evil.

[apocalypsehow]

195. You are not astonished, just embarrassed. That's now (ON EDIT) *nineteen* replies to me

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2013, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)

since you started whining about "stalking" above, and were given an opportunity to terminate the discussion. And yet you continue to dig.

More fun with our loveable Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[krispos42]

203. And yet you can't walk away, can you?

In fact, half the time you reply to a post of mine 2 or three times. So if I've replied 6 times to my uninvited stalker who whines about having his "evidence" removed by the Admins, them my uninvited stalker must have replied 12 times.

Golly gee, why can't the person that calls people that can't end exchanges childish... end an exchange?

[apocalypsehow]

205. And here he is again, folks! The poster who complains about "stalking" yet initiated every single

reply in this thread to me, and has been offered the opportunity to terminate this discussion repeatedly by simply walking away from the thread. He just can't bring himself to stop replying to my posts, even as he whines about "stalking"...

See above, all, for further context and laughs.

[krispos42]

207. And here you are again!

Can't walk away, and still makes accusations that I don't walk away, despite responding 2:1 to me!

[apocalypsehow]

210. You're the one whining and crying about "stalking," even though YOU initiated every reply in this

thread to me. You have been offered the opportunity to terminate this discussion at any time, simply by ceasing to reply to my posts. That you have not done so reflects further on your credibility and the veracity of your absurd claims.

By all means, continue.

[krispos42]

214. Did you, or did you not, admit to denigrating me throughout GD?

And will you admit to this on your first or second reply to this post?

[apocalypsehow]

218. Nope: telling the facts about a poster's past posting behavior is hardly "denigrating" them...

...and here you are again, complaining about "stalking" while continuing to post replies.

Keep digging!

[krispos42]

221. Well, *A* fact, out of context, which makes it a lie

You still refuse to admit that I did not start the repetitive exchange, and that I was the second half of such an exchange.

So your lying to the public, because that's what deliberate omission is.

[apocalypsehow]

224. Nope: you started the exchange in this sub-thread, and when you got taken to town on the facts

suddenly went to the "I'm being stalked" dodge - which was quickly shown to be a falsehood, as about everything else you've posted here has. But nice try.

[krispos42]

227. You lost the argument when you went over to multiple replies to a single post

And you still won't admit that I was the second half of a protracted repetitive exchange instigated by somebody else.

[apocalypsehow]

232. Nope: the "argument" was conceded by you long ago, and any DU'er just idly scanning this sub-thread

sees that. Repeatedly you've backtracked from statements you previously made; whined about "stalking" while being shown to have been the one to have initiated the conversation; refused to cease posting to me when the offer was made even you whined about "stalking"; and the realization that the thread in question might become "Read Only" sent you into a major walkback of your false assertions up and down this thread.

All in all, this is just excellent stuff. And your credibility...ZERO. Thanks for doing that. You did it to yourself.

[krispos42]

235. Right...

A discussion of evidence, or lack thereof (which is somehow my fault because I waited months for the Admins to delete Meta before... something something action something) with a person who'd dedicated their existence on DU to spreading stories about me, who replies 2 or 3 to one to my replies, and can't walk away while whining that *I* won't walk away.


[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]apocalypsehow (12,253 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

And you still won't admit that I did not start the repetitive exchange I was part of, that you keep trying to whack me on the head with. Facts are just so... inconvenient, aren't they? Of course, with the thread gone I can't prove it anymore, but since even you haven't denied that I did not start the repetitive exchange I was in, that would seem to make it a di facto fact.

[apocalypsehow]

238. At this point, you've been so totally discredited, largely by your own posts, that I'm just waiting

for you to finish/stop posting to the poster you claim is "stalking" you even as you continue to reply to his every post, so I can put a *placeholder* reply in place for the day when the Meta forum threads become "Read Only" - if they ever do.

In the meantime, you go right ahead babbling and sputtering. All that needs to be said has been said, and the facts speak for themselves. DU'ers can see all of this.

[krispos42]

242. You mean this post?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]krispos42 (44,458 posts)
88. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that I was right and you were wrong.

And I reserve my "ibids" for people that repeat rather than debate, or that repeat rather than admit factual incorrectness.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post88


You've been saying I've been denying using "ibid", yet clearly that's not true.

That post was in your 3rd post in the thread, and your first one that referenced me. You've posted several dozen times to me... based on some illusion you had Friday evening.

[apocalypsehow]

246. You *did* deny it, but have now reversed course in your colossal walkback. But keep going.

The rest of DU will keep laughing.

[krispos42]

249. You mean THIS walkback?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]krispos42 (44,477 posts) Sat Mar 16, 2013, 03:28 PM
171. You've been making an ass of yourself all through DU, is what you mean.

But that's what you get when you spread half-truths with the intent of character assassination.

Why don't you post the other half of the conversation? After all, if it's SO TERRIBLE that I did it, so childish and petty and immature, surely you feel the same about the other person in the dialogue, and have been assaulting them throughout DU, right?


And OF COURSE, because you're fair and balanced, you made proper note that my replies were in reaction to the other member. Right?





When you were spreading your half-truths throughout DU, did you ever once link to the thread in Meta? To give the people you're talking at a reference point?

[apocalypsehow]

256. There was no "walkback" there whatsoever, of course. To the rest of DU: the text krispos42

has posted in the body of this reply is his, not mine. He's now resorted to just posting subject lines completely unrelated to the content of his replies - further discrediting his posts here.

But, then, you already knew that.

[krispos42]

260. No shit, sherlock.

That's why it's in a blue box with my name on it.


It's how an excerpt box works. I used to do the DUzies; I might know about that kind of stuff.

apocalypsehow
256. There was no "walkback" there whatsoever, of course. To the rest of DU: the text krispos42

has posted in the body of this reply is his, not mine. He's now resorted to just posting subject lines completely unrelated to the content of his replies - further discrediting his posts here.

But, then, you already knew that.

Wow, that kind of reply needs to be protected from self-deletion.

[apocalypsehow]

261. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

265. Still waiting for my stalker to apologize for unprovoked smearing. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

268. 1. There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over

& over again in that thread; and there was no "stalking," either, as you were the one who initiated every reply in this sub-thread to me, not I to you.

You're not really fooling anybody, know it?

[krispos42]

274. Half-truths that deceive is a smear.

And a lie. And your double standard and hypocrisy on this issue is now in full view of everybody.

You do what you mock me for doing. You have yet to acknowledge or even debate that I was involved in a repetitive conversation that I did not initiate.

And still, you have yet to walk away!

[apocalypsehow]

285. It was 100% truth, one you first denied but then back-tracked and now admit; there was no "smear."

And we're still waiting on the person who initiated this back n' forth and then started whining about "stalking" to put his mouth where his keyboard is and leave.

[krispos42]

308. Scroll up, man. Not only did I never deny it, I admitted to it early our exchange.

Pointing out that the evidence is gone is not "denial".

And I'm still waiting for the person that sneaked into this thread to post half-truth smears about me to apologize or walk away in shame.

[apocalypsehow]

337. So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and

repeatedly did in a thread in a now-defunct forum, all the while whining about "stalking." ( ) 2. When it became clear during the course of denying that factual, truthful assertion of mine you came to realize that there was a possibility - slim, perhaps, but nevertheless a chance - that the thread in question might become public, so you suddenly reversed course 180 degrees and claimed I was telling the truth, after all, just not all of it. 3. You subsequently whined more about "stalking," and continue to do so, even though every single reply in this thread between us was initiated by you. 4. You are now reduced to making stuff up (Other DU'ers: see Post #330, among others), and grasping for that desperate "last word," having been so roundly proven wrong every step of the way. 5. In the meantime, you have tried to "alert" your way to a "win" in this sub-thread by badgering numerous juries to hide one of my posts in it just to end the matter, the intent being to have the "last word" by hook or crook (yes, I have many of the jury results sitting in my inbox thanks to several conscientious DU'ers).

Well, it has been embarrassing for you. And who knows: you may get a jury to assist you in getting that precious "last word" at some point. But it doesn't really matter: you've already "lost," and don't even know it. Or more likely do know, and just don't care how ridiculous your ongoing posts make your laughable position look.

More funnies with Gunny's.

[krispos42]

348. If I'm so desperate for the last word, why do you post 2:1 to me? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

372. If I'm so desperate for the last word, why you initiate posts to me AT ALL? n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

373. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*Besides Which*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[krispos42]

396. If your NOT so desperate for the last word, why do you keep replying?

I've been reply to you because of your smears against me. I want an apology. I want justice.

[apocalypsehow]

401. If your NOT so desperate for the last word, why do you keep replying?

You initiated every reply in this exchange between us, and yet continue to whine about "stalking."

"I've been reply to you because of your smears against me"

Again: there WERE NO "SMEARS": you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over again in a thread in a now-defunct forum; you first tried to deny it, but have now admitted it. Get a new tune: that one grows old, and by your own admission.

"I want an apology. I want justice."

[krispos42]

437. You talked about me before I talked TO or ABOUT you.

Do you deny that?

[apocalypsehow]

443. If your NOT so desperate for the last word, why do you keep replying?

You initiated every reply in this exchange between us, and yet continue to whine about "stalking."

"I've been reply to you (Sic) because of your smears against me"

Again: there WERE NO "SMEARS": you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over again in a thread in a now-defunct forum; you first tried to deny it, but have now admitted it. Get a new tune: that one grows old, and by your own admission.

"I want an apology. I want justice."



Also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

On and on and on it goes: All. Too. Easy.

[krispos42]

470. You still think you have something?

You didn't admit it until the 24th, or thereabouts. Until then, it was an allegation, yes?

Besides, the Meta thread was very protracted, with multiple subthreads. Our discussion with Feinstein's AWB probably happened in more than one sub-sub-subthread, which is of course your fault for replying 2 or three to one.

Again, I'm not as obsessed with the Meta thread as you obviously are, so I at least have a reason for not knowing the minute details of your multiple subthreads.

The question is... if you know it so well, why did you tell the misleading half-truths that you did?

[apocalypsehow]

601. You still think you're getting away with peddling that mendacious bilge? LOL:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

455. And, in the meantime...So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

466. A repetitive post to a repetitive post?

My oh my. My statement of fact that you initiated the repetitive posting in the Meta thread is clad in iron now!

[apocalypsehow]

603. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

654. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!" <--That was Post #385.

Now, in Reply #379 above he says:

"You say it was with you? Okay, might have been...You'll notice that I never once suggested the "other person" was YOU until now... YOU know I was replying to another repetitive poster because YOU were the repetitive poster, which makes your selective half-truth even more sinister..."

And yet, here's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment: he did, indeed, post "Ibid" over and over and over again to me, knowing who he was posting to, in that Meta thread. And yet in #379 (above) and #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread puts paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted yet again. And how.

*emphases added.

[apocalypsehow]

430. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!"

Uh-huh. That's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed on Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:46 PM.

Now, check out what he said in the second post he initiated to me in this thread way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment. And yet in #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one this evening from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread put paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted again!

All. Too. Easy.

*emphases added.

[krispos42]

438. My accuser, the "you don't have to post NRA talking points" repeater...

...keeps failing to mention that little fact.

If the facts you post do not lead readers to truth, then ipso facto you are not telling the truth. That's why Faux News is so popular... fiction always outsells non-fiction.

Since the truth is that you began posting repetitive replies to me to avoid admitting you were wrong and I was right, and since your "100% facts" don't tell any DUers that truth, then...

YOU DIDN'T POST THE TRUTH.

The question is, since my repetitive replies were in response to YOUR repetitive replies, why aren't YOU mocking yourself?

Why aren't YOU warning others not to argue with YOU because YOU don't do facts well?

And since my first reply to you was in no way a denial, why do you keep saying I denied it?


Your desperation is strong, young grasshopper.

[apocalypsehow]

451. You have been busted point-blank - *repeatedly* - posting things you then have to "walk back,"

as when you denied posting "Ibid" over and over and over again in the first place, then, when considering that Meta might become "Read Only," quickly scampering back to admitting you had. Your latest example is highlighted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Text:

Quick! There's still time to "self-delete" your post *here*, to avoid embarrassment down-thread:

View profile

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 11:53 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!"

Uh-huh. That's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed on Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:46 PM.

Now, check out what he said in the second post he initiated to me in this thread way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment. And yet in #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one this evening from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread put paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted again!

*emphases added.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post427

All too easy. My friend the Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid " really should try harder to keep track of what he's posted previously, so he doesn't contradict himself so brazenly and publicly this regularly.

Really, nothing more needs to be posted to show your tangle with the truth, and the losing cause you repeatedly find yourself in with the so doing.

"Desperation," indeed...

[krispos42]

461. Man, you're slicing the baloney really thin... but it's still baloney.

You desperately want to believe that I denied posting in the repetitive exchange you started in Meta. I didn't; after you posted that not only was the Meta forum hidden, but any links to any posts in Meta were now defunct I pointed out (with glee) that the evidence was gone.

And you still claim to be posting "100% facts", when you hid your role in the Meta thread until the weekend and failed to mention that you not only were ALSO posting repetitive posts to me, you initiated the repetition.

You've been busted for days.

[apocalypsehow]

464. Your denials and subsequent repeated back-trackings speak for themselves:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted.

[krispos42]

483. Unlike you, I deny nothing.

Your denial that you're spreading half-truths with intent to smear speaks for itself.
Your denial that you initiated the repetitive posting in Meta speaks for itself; and if it didn't, your prolific repetitive posting in this thread destroys your denial.
Your denial that I initiated our discussion also speaks for itself.

Poor you.

[apocalypsehow]

485. Oh yes you have, *repeatedly*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted...

[krispos42]

507. No, I haven't

Sorry.

I was involved in multiple subthreads with multiple people in the Meta thread, including, I believe, The Magistrate. The thread has been removed since and thus no longer a reference object.

So the fact that I was in fact talking to you (or rather, "at" you) in more than one subthread should shock nobody; look at your habit of posting multiple posts to a single reply.

*pats head*

But if it makes you feel better, you can keep linking to your badly-formatted post to avoid admitting I was right on the Feinstein ban.


Your coping mechanism is SO cute!

[apocalypsehow]

517. Oh yes you have, *repeatedly*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Your denial mechanism is SO cute!

[krispos42]

544. What was your role in the Meta thread again?

C'mon, tell the group. Don't deny it.

[apocalypsehow]

589. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

374. An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)

cease replying to you. Both in this sub-thread and anywhere else on DU, if you wish. As you are the one who initiated this discussion between us, you go first.

You have repeatedly rejected that offer, as shown by your continued (unsolicited) posts to me, even as you whine about "stalking."

But it is this simple: stop initiating posts to me, and the discussion will stop.

Next up: Excuse #10,125 as to why you will not quit initiating unsolicited posts to me, with a further complaint about "stalking" ( ) added in.

X2, 3/23/13

[apocalypsehow]

375. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*Besides Which*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[krispos42]

399. And my counter-offer is that you apologize and walk away.

And let's not forget...


The ORIGINAL Unsolicited post, shall we?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

So, Mr. Original Unsolicited Post That Smears Me... when you do you apologize and walk away?

[apocalypsehow]

403. Your counter-offer is rejected: stop replying to me, and I'll stop replying to you. You INITIATED

every single reply between us in this sub-thread, all the while whining about "stalking":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post88

It is that simple.

[krispos42]

439. Sure, just as soon as you promise to end your smear campaign...

...or whatever fiction you need to call it to avoid admitting guilt, against me.

I mean, you admit you have been spreading your incomplete and prejudicial version of truth against me throughout DU; so I have the right to respond.

If you didn't want me calling out your bullshit, why did you post it? Nobody forced you to.

So apologize and walk away.

[apocalypsehow]

441. Your counter-offer is rejected: stop replying to me, and I'll stop replying to you. You INITIATED

every single reply between us in this sub-thread, all the while whining about "stalking":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post88

It is that simple. Again.

[apocalypsehow]

629. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

613. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

211. Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in

this exchange, just as he did in the thread under discussion, as the facts are not on his side. But what's more, he has been caught red-handed being deceitful, claiming something is only "alleged" that he knows for a stone cold fact to be TRUE; so now krispos42 has taken the tack of complaining about "stalking," even though krispos42 is the one that posted first to me in this thread, not I to him; krispos42 is then offered an opportunity to terminate the exchange that he is claiming is "stalking" him, by simply ceasing to reply to my posts. And yet...

Here krispos42 is today with THREE more posts to me!

More fun, laughable stuff from our loveable Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King."

[krispos42]

219. You could just put me on "ignore"

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]apocalypsehow (12,253 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

[apocalypsehow]

222. You go right ahead and put me on *ignore*: myself, I find it laughable how you tie yourself up in

knots before all of DU. It's funny stuff.

[krispos42]

225. Not as funny as you

"You can't call me on the bullshit that I post whenever I see you in a thread!"

And I have nobody on my ignore list, so putting you on it would not hind your presence from me.

[apocalypsehow]

230. Uh-huh. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

239. At this point, you've been so totally discredited, largely by your own posts, that I'm just waiting

for you to finish/stop posting to the poster you claim is "stalking" you even as you continue to reply to his every post, so I can put a *placeholder* reply in place for the day when the Meta forum threads become "Read Only" - if they ever do.

In the meantime, you go right ahead babbling and sputtering. All that needs to be said has been said, and the facts speak for themselves. DU'ers can see all of this.

[krispos42]

243. Really, try "ibid",

You've been repeating posts since #92/#96; it's much faster.

[apocalypsehow]

245. That's your Schtick, not mine. Still waiting for final reply to me from a poster who claims he's

being "stalked" by same.

Ongoing funny stuff.

[krispos42]

247. Still waiting for the person smearing me to walk away

Go on, show how much bigger you are by not repeating yourself and walking away.

[apocalypsehow]

250. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts...

, indeed.

[krispos42]

280. Repetition #3

Still no apology.

Sure am glad I made a PDF of this thread. I'm assuming at some point you're reread the entire thread and start self-deleting out of embarrassment.

Wish I had made a PDF of the other one in Meta, but hey, maybe the Admins will unlock it.

[apocalypsehow]

288. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

310. So my stalker gets the first and last word?

It's that important to you, huh.

[apocalypsehow]

317. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

321. Avoidence, denial, hypocritical behavior, no apology.

Still.

[apocalypsehow]

325. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

331. I'd be happy to stop posting, just as soon as you apologize for smearing me in this thread and other

Which you have admitted to up-thread.

[apocalypsehow]

335. So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and

repeatedly did in a thread in a now-defunct forum, all the while whining about "stalking." ( ) 2. When it became clear during the course of denying that factual, truthful assertion of mine you came to realize that there was a possibility - slim, perhaps, but nevertheless a chance - that the thread in question might become public, so you suddenly reversed course 180 degrees and claimed I was telling the truth, after all, just not all of it. 3. You subsequently whined more about "stalking," and continue to do so, even though every single reply in this thread between us was initiated by you. 4. You are now reduced to making stuff up (Other DU'ers: see Post #330, among others), and grasping for that desperate "last word," having been so roundly proven wrong every step of the way. 5. In the meantime, you have tried to "alert" your way to a "win" in this sub-thread by badgering numerous juries to hide one of my posts in it just to end the matter, the intent being to have the "last word" by hook or crook (yes, I have many of the jury results sitting in my inbox thanks to several conscientious DU'ers).

Well, it has been embarrassing for you. And who knows: you may get a jury to assist you in getting that precious "last word" at some point. But it doesn't really matter: you've already "lost," and don't even know it. Or more likely do know, and just don't care how ridiculous your ongoing posts make your laughable position look.

More funnies with Gunny's.

[krispos42]

346. You can apologize at any time, you know.

Nobody made you decide to spread weasel truths about me throughout DU, and nobody is making you reply 2:1 to me.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

[apocalypsehow]

367. Stating facts is simply speaking the truth, so there is nothing for me to apologize for. NOTHING.

You, not so much. But good luck with it.

"nobody is making you reply 2:1 to me"

Nobody is making you reply to me at all.

Again: every single reply between us in this sub-thread has been initiated by you. Every. Single. One.

[krispos42]

385. No, stating facts is not speaking the truth

That's how Faux News gets away with their bullshit; selective facts.


If a person entered this thread and read ONLY YOUR POSTS, they would have NO clue that:

1) The person I was arguing with was also posting repetitive replies
2) The person I was arguing with began posting repetitive replies FIRST


And they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was exchanging repetitive posts with!

So you from the beginning KNEW that when I stated the person I was arguing with in the Meta thread a) was also posting repetitive replies, and b) initiated the repetition, that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment.


So, since the information you gave would not have given a disinterested 3rd party the complete picture, nor given him or her the hypocrisy of YOU smearing ME over repetitive posting, IT CANNOT BE TRUTH.

So, it's a smear against me, and it certainly wasn't the truth. And you dare to tell ME that I replied to nothing?

[apocalypsehow]

386. "No, stating facts is not speaking the truth" <---There you have it folks, RIGHT THERE.

[krispos42]

408. Thanks for admitting I'm right

So, since you haven't refuted my point and you admit that I'm right, when can I get my apology?

[apocalypsehow]

414. Thanks for admitting I'm right

So, since I've refuted every single 'point' you've made in this sub-thread, and you admit that I'm right, when can I get my apology?

[krispos42]

448. Well, you've ignored a hell of a lot of them, I'll give you that.

I'm waiting for you to refute the following:

1. In the Meta thread, you began maintained that an object fact was an "NRA talking point"
   
2. In the Meta thread, you began posting repetitively before I did
   
3. In this thread, you have admitted to telling one-sided and incomplete facts about our Meta exchange
   
4. In this thread, you admitted to making a personal campaign against me throughout DU, telling the same one-sided and incomplete facts.

[apocalypsehow]

460. False, #1-4. Further, you've been caught *AGAIN* making stuff up, and having to backtrack:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted.

[krispos42]

480. Okay, if they're false, then prove it so.

You assert that you were the one engaging me in repetitive posting in the Meta thread. Since SOMEBODY in there was posting that an objective fact was an "NRA talking point"... that leaves only... YOU.


So #1 is re-affirmed.

And since you know the truth because you were in the Meta thread (as you've admitted to), then you know you began posting repetition in there first, JUST LIKE YOU DID IN THIS THREAD.

So #2 is re-affirmed.

And since you waited a week to admit you were the one in the Meta thread I was "conversing" with, you telling incomplete facts with the intent of hiding your actions.

So, #3 is re-affirmed.

And, finally, post #132 re-affirms item #4.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.






I'm waiting for you to deny you're apocalypsehow.

[apocalypsehow]

482. Asked & answered, *ALL* (scroll ^ & down). Then there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted... , indeed.

[krispos42]

501. You can't refute them! You can't refute them!

Busted x 4, so you try to distract.

Lame.

[apocalypsehow]

538. Watch our Gungeon Host* Spin! Spin! Spin! And get caught up in his own tangled web of mendacity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Funny stuff - over and over again.

[krispos42]

581. LOL

Clinging to that, eh?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!


So when are you going to apologize for being the hypocrisy?

You've still got nothing except me referencing two subthreads, one an argument with you over the Feinstein proposal, and one about repetitive posting. And no matter how hard you look upthread, you'll never find where I thought I was repetitive posting with YOU until you admitted it a couple of days ago.



Can you link to the thread again? Pretty please?

[apocalypsehow]

647. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

387. And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2556738

[krispos42]

410. Man, a non-reply reply AGAIN

And again, for a man that wants to END the conversation, you're sure out-posting me.

You know, you can put more than one paragraph in a reply, right?

[apocalypsehow]

412. I have no interest in "ending" a conversation I didn't initiate; you're the one whining about

"stalking."

Again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post370

[krispos42]

446. You talked about me before I talked to or about you.

Your self-deception that you didn't initiate this is very deep rooted.

Don't worry, though, we'll work through this together, and when you've seen the light and made things right, we'll have a beer together.

[apocalypsehow]

449. Not gonna happen. You initiated this exchange by posting, unsolicited, to me. You may terminate the

discussion any time by walking away. But by all means, keep going: the rest of us will keep laughing.

[krispos42]

459. The fact remains that you talked about me before I talked to or about you.

That is not "unsolicited", no matter how much you wish it was.


Image this:


One day, you send me a PM and say "Krispos, I'm going to embark on a campaign to spread selective and misleading facts about you in threads you're not in and probably haven't read, but if you respond to any of them I'm going to accuse you of initiating the exchange and post until I get the last word, all the while denying you have any standing to address me directly".

Is that a rational point of view?

[apocalypsehow]

462. The fact remains that you have initiated every single reply between us in this thread, all the while

whining about "stalking"; the further fact remains that you have repeatedly been offered an opportunity to terminate this discussion, but have offered nothing but excuses as to why you will not do so.

All the rest is just excuse-making and weak justifications on your part. And, oh yeah, lots of just plain making stuff up and back-tracking:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Next up: more windy excuse-making and back-tracking from our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

481. You initiated the discussion of my (and your) posting habits.

All you have to do is apologize and walk away.


Of course you won't. You just denied that you're on a campaign to "spread the truth" about me throughout DU, so maybe your ability to perceive facts isn't all it's capable of being.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.


Ooo, look... formatting.

[apocalypsehow]

484. The fact remains that you have initiated every single reply between us in this thread, all the while

whining about "stalking"; the further fact remains that you have repeatedly been offered an opportunity to terminate this discussion, but have offered nothing but excuses as to why you will not do so.

All the rest is just excuse-making and weak justifications on your part. And, oh yeah, lots of just plain making stuff up and back-tracking:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Next up: more windy excuse-making and back-tracking from our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

504. You chose to smear me to rdharma

That's on you, not me.


And you keep linking to a post that demonstrates you inability to admit I was right. Is that a good debate tactic?


Now it's your turn to re-link to the thread and not refute anything.

[apocalypsehow]

506. There was no "smear post" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over

& over again.

You first denied it; then reversed course and admitted it; and have been backpedaling ever since. Then you got caught in a really big Whopper, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Your credibility is DONE.

[krispos42]

539. Yeah, it was

You failed to mention that you were the person I was responding to the "ibid" thread, and that you were behaving in almost the exact same fashion as I was.

But the key point, though, was that YOU started the repetition, just like you did in this thread ( ) to avoid admitting I was factually correct and truthful, and you weren't.

So, you were projecting how YOU debate onto ME.

That is an insult to me.

And each time you post to that same post (which proves that you and I were having the same conversation TWICE, making you DOUBLY WRONG), you again prove that you were projecting how you "debate" onto me!



And pointing out that evidence is gone (which you were the first to do, IIRC), is not denial. You're in denial that it wasn't denial.

[apocalypsehow]

545. No, it wasn't. I failed to mention nothing; you, on the other hand, even denied posting "Ibid"

over and over and over again in that thread, until later backtracking when you considered that Meta might be made "Read Only." Then there was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Laughable stuff - again.

[krispos42]

585. Yeah, you did.

For example, that you were the one that initiated the repetitive posting. You know, because you were losing a debate over an objective fact.

Just as an example.

The rank hypocrisy is self-evident.


And I never denied posting it, but you still haven't positively affirmed that you began posting repetitively to try to get out of looking wrong.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

You are what you hate, aren't you?

[apocalypsehow]

657. Nope: you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over again in that thread, and denied doing so

in this one; once the possibility was raised that the thread in that now-defunct forum might possibly be resurrected, in "Read Only" format, you started back-pedaling, admitting to the "Ibid" bit while trying to downplay the rest; and what has followed has been all kinds of dodging, falsehoods, obfuscations, and, of course, non-stop walk-backs.

As here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

, indeed.

[apocalypsehow]

511. There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over

& over again.

That's on you, not me.

And you have been completely and totally "refuted" in this sub-thread: repeatedly.

[krispos42]

540. Unless you give the truth, it's a smear.

Explain to the audience YOUR role in the ibid thread that you admit being in.

[apocalypsehow]

582. The truth was given - and you denied it. Then backtracked. Then kept making stuff up. Then, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

Your credibility: ZERO.

[apocalypsehow]

421. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!"

Uh-huh. That's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed on Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:46 PM.

Now, check out what he said in the second post he initiated to me in this thread way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment.

Our Gungeon Host is busted again!

*emphases added.

[apocalypsehow]

433. So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562504

[apocalypsehow]

336. For the record, the following statements in Post #331 above are simply FALSE:

"...for smearing me in this thread and other (Sic) Which you have admitted to up-thread."

1. There was no "smear," merely a repetition of irrefutable facts concerning your posting behavior and words ("Ibid") in another thread in a now-defunct fourm.

2. I have admitted to no such thing, either "up-thread" or anywhere else.

3. Any one is free to confirm fact #2 by merely scrolling up and down this bizarre sub-thread; confirmation of fact #1 has been admitted by the poster above himself in this same sub-thread, albeit with qualifications that it was only "40%" and later 50% - or "half" - true. As the poster's story has shifted, so too, has his claims - as clearly seen above.

[krispos42]

347. Dude, get a grip

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

Unprovoked half-truths with intent to deceive are smears. And you admit in your own words to spreading it throughout DU.

You have no standing to even post those half-truths with intent do deceive; the ibid argument was with SOMEBODY ELSE.

This is YOUR personal crusade. You're stalking me, by your own admission, to post smears about me in a since-hidden conversation with a THIRD PARTY.

[apocalypsehow]

365. Now it's double-down time on the falsehoods: "the ibid argument was with SOMEBODY ELSE."

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

One set of falsehoods gets smacked down (repeatedly), and you simply shift to another set. No, the Ibid "argument" - it was not an argument as such; just me posting facts and you posting "Ibid" over and over - was between you and I, not some third party. Unbelievable that you would state such a thing: you'd better HOPE that that thread in that now-defunct forum never becomes available as "Read Only," now more than ever. Your reply above will be shown as yet another tissue of fabrications.

"half-truths with intent to deceive are smears"

We've been through this before, but we'll do it again:

1. It was not "half-truths," but the whole truth: you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over again in lieu of reasoned or factual reply in a thread in a now-defunct forum.

2. There has been no "intent to deceive" on anyone's part in this thread but yours, as shown above repeatedly.

"This is YOUR personal crusade. You're stalking me, by your own admission, to post smears about me in a since-hidden conversation with a THIRD PARTY."

FALSE.

1. Again, you initiated the reply to me above, not I to you.

2. They are not "smears" but the truth: facts cannot by definition be "smears," and that's the only thing I've posted either in this thread or anywhere else on DU.

3. Your statement is (again) simply untrue: there was no "third party": your "Ibid" silliness in that now-hidden thread was between you and I, not some "third party."

The absurdities continue to flow unabated.

[krispos42]

379. I think it's pretty clear that you've put far more stock into the "ibid" subthread than I have.

You say it was with you? Okay, might have been. Unlike you, I haven't obsessed about it. And, conveniently for you, it's currently hidden. You'll notice that I never once suggested the "other person" was YOU until now. What took so long?

I recall we had a conversation in that same thread, because I remember you refused to admit that the 2013 Feinstein ban will still allow sales of new semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines. Even after I posted the fucking list of semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines that are specifically exempted BY NAME AND/OR MODEL NUMBER that is in the proposed legislation. So there's that.

Regardless of WHO the other person was I was conversing with, whether it be you or Vladimir Putin, the person I was conversing with began posting repetitive posts. The same post over and over again, verbatim. I responded (RESPONDED) with the same post over and over again.

And, to echo your argument further upthread, that YOU know I was replying to another repetitive poster because YOU were the repetitive poster, which makes your selective half-truth even more sinister.

The fact that it's taken dozens of posts by you to acknowledge that simple, basic fact shows much you don't want that fact, that truth, to come up.

So you'll continue to say I posted "ibid" over and over again, but YOU won't admit that YOU posted something to the effect of "you don't have to post NRA talking points" over and over again, and that I was replying to YOU.

So it's a selective truth, which is effectively a lie.



Now, to the second half of your post...


Let me correct myself, due to new facts that you, after a week of concealment, you decided to reveal.

"This is YOUR personal crusade. You're stalking me, by your own admission, to post smears about me in a since-hidden conversation with a THIRD PARTY YOU where you conveniently censor your OWN ROLE IN THE ACTIVITIES YOU ARE SMEARING ME ABOUT."


All better now?

[apocalypsehow]

380. Now, yet another backtrack; another admission of falsehoods retracted; yet once more a laughable

walk-back.

Yet more funnies with Gunnies, Take #1,299.

[krispos42]

405. Once again a no-response response

I never said who the person I was discussion was, or wasn't. So... you've got nothing. Again.


And you can't hide that you told nobody in this thread that YOU were the person I was arguing with in Meta.


Like I said, if a disinterested third party read this subthread, they would have had no idea you were the person in Meta until yesterday. You certainly knew it, and you just as certainly "selectively" failed to mention it.



Yet it my fault for not being as obsessed with a months-old cold (and now hidden) thread as you are.

[apocalypsehow]

384. And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2556738

Again.

[krispos42]

406. Yup, I'm still noting that your stalking is stalking.

This surprises you... why?

I mean, I understand that you don't want to admit you're stalking, but you do you not expect me to notice it?

[apocalypsehow]

409. Yup, I'm still noting that you have INITIATED every single reply in this sub-thread, and continue to

post replies to me, yet are still whining about "stalking."

I mean, I understand that you don't want to admit you're stalking, but you do you not expect me to notice it?

[krispos42]

445. And you keep whining about how innocent you are...

...how UNPROVOKED all this is!


Oh, poor little old you!

Here you are, jumping into threads to post selective facts and make hypocritical condemnations of me as part of an admitted larger campaign of personal smears against me, and I, the Big Evil Krispos, dare to... you know, call out your truthless statements and demand an apology!

It must be terrible to be you!

[apocalypsehow]

453. Yup, I'm still noting that you have INITIATED every single reply in this sub-thread, and continue to

post replies to me, yet are still whining about "stalking."

I mean, I understand that you don't want to admit you're stalking, but you do you not expect me to notice it?

[krispos42]

463. So you talked about me, unprovoked, first...

...and yet me addressing that smear is me stalking you?

I need a mirror to hold up to you.

[apocalypsehow]

469. *Still* noting that you have INITIATED every single reply in this sub-thread to me, and continue to

post replies to me, all the while complaining non-stop about "stalking." ( )

And then there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted.

[krispos42]

490. I can't reply to you unless you reply to me

And you keep replying...


So, tell the group why you didn't admit you were the other, and greater, part of the infamous "ibid/NRA talking point" subthread? You've been busted on that for a while; it will be better if you get that off your chest.

[apocalypsehow]

495. I'm not the one whining about "stalking" - you are. Even though *you* INITIATED every single reply

in this thread. Then, there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted.

[krispos42]

518. No, you're the one stalking.

Glad we got that straight. Now, once you apologize for smearing me to 3rd parties, we're all straight.

And why do you keep linking to a thread that shows you clinging to being wrong?

[apocalypsehow]

454. And, in the meantime...So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

465. You need to learn how to format things to make them legible

It still wouldn't prove anything except that you keep posting selective and untruthful facts, but at least it would be legible.

But I doubt legibility is what you want.

[apocalypsehow]

468. You go right on believing that you can't read it if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

488. Oh, I can read it

It says "BALONEY".

It also says that you're clinging to this one post because it lets you avoid having to discuss anything else.




So, how right was I about the Feinstein AWB in that Meta thread?

[apocalypsehow]

498. Then if you can read it, you know your credibility has been reduced to ZERO on DU, and by your own

posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted. And if Meta ever becomes "Ready Only," that credibility will be LESS than zero. As you well know.

, indeed.

[krispos42]

522. You're wearing your mirrored sunglasses backwards

You're seeing yourself busted on four different things, and think you're looking at me.


Hell, more than four. You're admitting that you denied reality in MULTIPLE SUBTHREADS in Meta!

You're looking lamer and lamer each time you willfully link to proof of the depth of your denial.




Can you link to it again? Pretty please?

[apocalypsehow]

527. Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

, indeed.

[krispos42]

559. Truth always makes me better

It's why I challenged your characterization of me.


[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

And remind me again of who doesn't do debate all that well?

[apocalypsehow]

588. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

473. I'll refer you to my other answer n/t

[apocalypsehow]

478. I'll refer you HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

And the grand total of all 3 DU'ers who still might be paying any sort of attention to this absurdity.

[krispos42]

497. To the thread...

...where you do not refute that fact that you engaged in denial of facts posted by me?

Good link!

[apocalypsehow]

503. I refer you again to the post where your credibility has been reduced to ZERO, and by your own hand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

529. Yeah, no.

Why can't you refute my four proofs instead?

[apocalypsehow]

429. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!"

Uh-huh. That's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed on Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:46 PM.

Now, check out what he said in the second post he initiated to me in this thread way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment. And yet in #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one this evening from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread put paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted again!

*emphases added.

[krispos42]

444. Another attempt to get 2 last words?

You've been watching too much Lawrence O'Donnell or something.

That's the only reason I can think of why you keep repetitive posting. Of course, the entire discussion was started over your selective facts about me repetitive posting, so the dichotomy is interesting.

[apocalypsehow]

457. An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will

cease replying to you. Both in this sub-thread and anywhere else on DU, if you wish. As you are the one who initiated this discussion between us, you go first.

You have repeatedly rejected that offer, as shown by your continued (unsolicited) posts to me, even as you whine about "stalking."

But it is this simple: stop initiating posts to me, and the discussion will stop.

Next up: Excuse #11,037 as to why you will not quit initiating unsolicited posts to me, with a further complaint about "stalking" ( ) added in.

[krispos42]

472. As you are the one that posted negatively about me, first and unprovoked...

...you need to apologize. I still await...

[apocalypsehow]

474. An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will

ease replying to you. Both in this sub-thread and anywhere else on DU, if you wish. As you are the one who initiated this discussion between us, you go first.

You have repeatedly rejected that offer, as shown by your continued (unsolicited) posts to me, even as you whine about "stalking."

But it is this simple: stop initiating posts to me, and the discussion will stop.

Next up: Excuse #11,038 as to why you will not quit initiating unsolicited posts to me, with a further complaint about "stalking" ( ) added in.

[krispos42]

494. All you have to do stop complaining about me replying to you...

...and apologize for your post to rdharma that smeared me.

You know, the unprovoked, behind my back smear as part of your larger campaign to "educate" DU at large.

[apocalypsehow]

475. And, in the meantime...So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

496. So not busted

Unlike your admission that you're engaging on a behind-my-back smear campaign against me.


I need an acre-sized mirror, is what I need.

[apocalypsehow]

509. Yes, completely busted. You must think the rest of DU can't read, or know how to click a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

535. Oh, I'm counting on them being able to read.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,550 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]
Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
132. Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU,

View profile

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
every chance I have gotten. That's hardly "avoiding" anything, and you well know it. The reason you have FOR THE FIRST TIME responded to my post regarding your childish "Ibid" behavior is solely because Meta is now defunct: previously, you simply ignored my posts about the matter because you knew I could link back to the thread proving it in a moment's notice.

, indeed.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,550 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

And yet, you're warning them about ME being repetitive!

[apocalypsehow]

607. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

458. And, in the meantime...So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

476. Golly gee, another repetitive post!

Imagine that!


Let's see what we have there... oh, yeah, in protracted thread with lots of subthreads, I was talking with you about Feinstein's AWB and with somebody else who was calling an objective, in-context fact an NRA talking point.

Only, thanks to somebody's habit of posting multiple replies to a single post, it turns out that you and "someone else" were, in fact, the same person. Gee, if only the Meta thread hadn't been hidden, this could have been resolved days ago.

Although, given your, um, "unique" ability to ignore inconvenient facts and truth, it still probably wouldn't have mattered.

That reminds me, I'm still waiting for you to admit I was right about the fact that semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines will still be sold new and used under her 2013 ban.

[apocalypsehow]

479. And, in the meantime...So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

499. Should you really be drawing attention to your repetitive nature?

You undermine your initial post, where you warn people not to argue with me because I'm repetitive.


BWAAA-HA HA HA HA!!!

So, how right was on the Feinstein AWB again?

[apocalypsehow]

505. And, in the meantime...So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

531. I like that you post repetitively

I mean, you have pretty much none now, but I like how you keep nailing it to the floor just on the off change it tries to go up again one day in the future.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

Keep swinging that hammer, and I'll keep handing you nails.

[apocalypsehow]

542. Watch our Gungeon Host* Spin! Spin! Spin! And get caught up in his own tangled web of mendacity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

583. You mean watch you make a fool out of yourself?

Here I am, trying to hold YOU to your SELF-IMPOSED standards...

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

Maybe you're really the Gungeon Host!

[apocalypsehow]

596. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

431. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!" <--That was Post #385.

Now, in Reply #379 above he says:

"You say it was with you? Okay, might have been...You'll notice that I never once suggested the "other person" was YOU until now... YOU know I was replying to another repetitive poster because YOU were the repetitive poster, which makes your selective half-truth even more sinister..."

And yet, here's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment: he did, indeed, post "Ibid" over and over and over again to me, knowing who he was posting to, in that Meta thread. And yet in #379 (above) and #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread puts paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted yet again. And how.

*emphases added.

[apocalypsehow]

533. And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

567. Says the self-righteous crusader against repetitive posts?

Congrats!


So, what was your role in the Meta conversation again?

[apocalypsehow]

578. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

580. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

554. And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

[krispos42]

617. Yup, here I am all tangled

In a mess of subthreads, maybe. But that's about it.

[apocalypsehow]

646. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

272. 1. There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over

& over again in that thread; and (2) there was no "stalking," either, as you were the one who initiated every reply in this sub-thread to me, not I to you.

*For the Record*

[krispos42]

279. Well, then if there was no smearing, and nothing you want to stick to me...

...why can't you walk away?

Because, you know, selective half-truths sans context with intent to deceive isn't a smear. Just ask Faux News...


And you're doing exactly, precisely, what you're saying I should not have done, in your opinion.


And you began talking about be before I began talking TO or ABOUT you, Mr. Initiator.


Apology, please.

[apocalypsehow]

286. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

524. And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

556. Wait... disproved assertions?

So it WASN'T you I was conversing with?

Make up your mind!

[apocalypsehow]

566. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

638. Oh, come on, answer the question! n/t

[apocalypsehow]

594. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[krispos42]

255. I'll try again.

You repeated the same thing, twice... again...

Missed this one, as was doubtless your intention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post172

[apocalypsehow]

257. *Still* waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts...

...so I can put a placeholder reply in place for future reference.

But we can do this all night, I reckon.

[krispos42]

263. Oh, not all night.

I have to go to bed. I have to take my kid to the walk-in clinic tomorrow morning and see why he's coughing so much. If I'm lucky and they're fast, I can get him to school on time... assuming the doc give the okay to go to school.


But I'll be happy to re-engage during the daytime.

[apocalypsehow]

264. *Still* waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

266. We'll pick this up later. Have a good night n/t

[apocalypsehow]

270. On Edit: you know what, on second thought, why the *hell* do I care if you continue to make a fool

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2013, 04:57 AM - Edit history (1)

of yourself? You go right ahead.

[krispos42]

273. Because you have yet to apologize to me for smearing my name.

You've freely and without a show of remorse have admitted to taking every opportunity to smear me.

Posting half-facts and partial truths is deceit, effectively a lie. Your double standard and hypocrisy diminishes whatever reputation you have, something that I, personally, enjoy watching.

I'm waiting for an apology, after an admission of wrongdoing.

[apocalypsehow]

283. Your name was not "smeared": you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over again in that thread

and by your own admission. You are never going to receive an apology you do not deserve.

[krispos42]

306. In a dialogue that was not initiated by me.

You do not hold the initiator of the repetitive posting to the same standard as you are holding me. The initiator, bear in mind, posted the exact same subject line over and over again, as did I. My subject line was "ibid"; his was something else.

Furthermore, you're doing exactly what the initiator of the now-hidden Meta thread did.

You can apologize and/or walk away at any time.

[apocalypsehow]

267. "But I'll be happy to re-engage during the daytime" <--- Right here, my fellow DU'ers. The same

poster who ludicrously claimed he was being "stalked" is posting an reply about how eager he is to get back to re-engaging with the poster he claims is "stalking" him!

I could easily just close up shop right here: that absurd reply simply is the apotheosis of the entire absurdity that our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" has been engaged in on this sub-thread initiated by him against me, all the while whining about "stalking."

Funny stuff, eh?

[krispos42]

275. You admit to stalking me, so calling you a stalker both reasonable and accurate

And you fault me for not walking away, yet you can't see to do so.

I'm waiting for an apology for the disproven smears you posted.

[apocalypsehow]

282. No, I did not. You started whining about "stalking" even though every reply in this thread was

initiated by you; further, you were given the opportunity to terminate this discussion at any time, thus ending the supposed "stalking." You have failed to avail yourself of that opportunity.

"I'm waiting for an apology for the disproven smears you posted."

1. Those weren't "smears" they were FACTS, and they have been proven - and by your own admission.

2. I wouldn't hold my breath were I you.

[krispos42]

305. Selective half-truths are lies. And your 3rd post in this thread was an unprovoked half-truth

And those lies are about me, so it's a smear. Feel free to apologize at any time.


And you can walk away any time. That is a 100% fact.

[apocalypsehow]

315. Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t.

[krispos42]

319. Still waiting for the critic of repetitive posting to chastise himself.

And, of course, apologize.

[apocalypsehow]

323. Still waiting for the poster who INITIATED this sub-thread then started whining about "stalking"

to find better things to do with his time, like look after the Group he agreed to Host.

And, of course, I don't offer apologies for imagined (and imaginary) offenses.

[krispos42]

329. If only I was asking for an apology for imagined offenses.

The sub-thread is full of them. And the Gungeon seems to be just fine. So fine there's only one person banned from there.

[apocalypsehow]

334. So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and

repeatedly did in a thread in a now-defunct forum, all the while whining about "stalking." ( ) 2. When it became clear during the course of denying that factual, truthful assertion of mine you came to realize that there was a possibility - slim, perhaps, but nevertheless a chance - that the thread in question might become public, so you suddenly reversed course 180 degrees and claimed I was telling the truth, after all, just not all of it. 3. You subsequently whined more about "stalking," and continue to do so, even though every single reply in this thread between us was initiated by you. 4. You are now reduced to making stuff up (Other DU'ers: see Post #330, among others), and grasping for that desperate "last word," having been so roundly proven wrong every step of the way. 5. In the meantime, you have tried to "alert" your way to a "win" in this sub-thread by badgering numerous juries to hide one of my posts in it just to end the matter, the intent being to have the "last word" by hook or crook (yes, I have many of the jury results sitting in my inbox thanks to several conscientious DU'ers).

Well, it has been embarrassing for you. And who knows: you may get a jury to assist you in getting that precious "last word" at some point. But it doesn't really matter: you've already "lost," and don't even know it. Or more likely do know, and just don't care how ridiculous your ongoing posts make your laughable position look.

More funnies with Gunny's.


Edit: typo.

[krispos42]

345. How do you get a typo on a copy-and-paste?

Man.

Anyway, my fellow grocery-line member, you can stop making yourself look by simply by posting "uh huh" and walking away.

Since you reply 2:1 to my posts, you must be twice as desperate to get the last word and to win.

[apocalypsehow]

370. An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will

cease replying to you. Both in this sub-thread and anywhere else on DU, if you wish. As you are the one who initiated this discussion between us, you go first.

You have repeatedly rejected that offer, as shown by your continued (unsolicited) posts to me, even as you whine about "stalking."

But it is this simple: stop initiating posts to me, and the discussion will stop.

Next up: Excuse #10,125 as to why you will not quit initiating unsolicited posts to me, with a further complaint about "stalking" ( ) added in.

[krispos42]

392. I have been, and will continue to, challenge your unprovoked smear against me

Your smear is even more egregious in light of the fact that YOU are projecting onto ME your behavior in the Meta thread.


YOU were the one denying facts, YOU were the one that began repetitive posting to me.


A disinterested 3rd party reading only YOUR posts in this thread would not have know these facts, so your claim that you simply spoke "truth" to rdharma is disproven. You lied to her to smear me, you did it without provocation or even a conversation from me, and you admit to doing it throughout DU, which makes you a stalker on a mission.


So you made your bed. Now lie in it. Either slink away in silence, or apologize and walk away.

I am the injured party here, not you.

[apocalypsehow]

393. 1. There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over

& over again in the Meta thread.

2. YOU were the one denying facts, YOU were the one that began repetitive posting to me, i.e., "Ibid" over and over and over again, something you first DENIED in this very sub-thread yet NOW ADMIT.

So you made your bed. Now lie in it. Either slink away in silence, or apologize and walk away.

[krispos42]

417. Factually incorrect, as usual.

I posted proof to back of my statement, you began replying "you don't have to post NRA talking points" in reply to my objective fact lifted directly, and with context and attribution, from Feinstein's own Senate website.

You don't deny this, do you?


And because, again, you provide selective facts that would give an objective 3rd party the opposite of the truth, then it is a lie. And because it insults me, it is a smear.


And at least I admit to posting "ibid". You have yet to admit to posting "you don't have to post NRA talking points" over and over again.


Nor have you admitted that my "ibids" were referring to replies that I made to your "you don't have to post NRA talkings points" repetitive post. I forget what that post was, but all "ibids" referred to a more lengthy reply that I made prior.


So, again, when can I expect my apology for your unprovoked smearing of me?

[apocalypsehow]

424. Nope, quite correct, as usual, as shown^^^^^^^. Scrolling up does the trick for 99.99% of DU'ers.

[apocalypsehow]

425. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!"

Uh-huh. That's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed on Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:46 PM.

Now, check out what he said in the second post he initiated to me in this thread way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment.

Our Gungeon Host is busted again!

*emphases added.

[apocalypsehow]

426. And now, embarrasingly *busted* in this very thread, doing your usual thing #425^^^

You make it soooo easy; I almost feel bad.

Better hope that Meta thread under contention between us is ever made "Read Only," my friend the "Ibid ": your credibility will simply be less than zero.

[apocalypsehow]

394. And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2556683

[krispos42]

418. I think we're alone in this thread.

Regardless, it's predictable that I'll call notice to stalking behavior, right?

I just don't know why you're so proud of being one.

[apocalypsehow]

422. Of course we are: why would the rest of DU be interested in this?

I know if I wasn't a party to this absurdity I wouldn't be interested in the slightest.

[Dr Fate]

608. LOL!!!

!!!

[apocalypsehow]

434. So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562504

[apocalypsehow]

641. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

134. Addendum: *Placeholder* reply for Bookmarked thread, re: future reference. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

623. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

428. Quick! There's still time to "self-delete" your post *here*, to avoid embarrassment down-thread:

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!"

Uh-huh. That's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed on Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:46 PM.

Now, check out what he said in the second post he initiated to me in this thread way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment. And yet in #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one this evening from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread put paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted again!

*emphases added.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post427

All too easy. My friend the Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid " really should try harder to keep track of what he's posted previously, so he doesn't contradict himself so brazenly and publicly this regularly.

[apocalypsehow]

432. So, so busted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562504

All. Too. Easy.

[krispos42]

512. More avoidance.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

It's cute that you think you have something.

Actually, what you have is you refusing I was right about the Feinstein AWB in TWO separate subthreads in the Meta thread, which makes you doubly wrong.

And you keep linking to it!


I be if Skinner unlocked the Meta thread now, we'd find out that you were in denial of my rightness in five or six subthreads!



I can't wait!

[apocalypsehow]

515. More avoidance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

So, so busted.

, indeed.

[krispos42]

543. *gasp*

A repetitive post again? I thought only I did that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post76



Still got nothing. My quiver's full.

I LOVE the smell of desperation!

Post it again, please?

[apocalypsehow]

548. You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Your "quiver" is empty - and has been for some time.

[krispos42]

604. You're caught in rank hypocracy

And yet, that's not stopping you from posting or arguing.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to rdharma (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,427 posts)
76. Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply.

View profile
He doesn't do "debate" all that well.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]Response to krispos42 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:22 PM

Star Member apocalypsehow (12,548 posts)
101. Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy...

View profile
Look for the "Ibids" to start flying any second now, folks!

And I made up nothing, no matter how much you want to believe it. Unless...


Hold on! Are you denying that we had a repetitive conversation? Or that we had a debate about the Feinstein ban?

[apocalypsehow]

610. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

612. Nope: you're *caught* in "rank hypocracy" (Sic); plus repeated falsehoods, and making stuff up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

Not to mention constant back-pedaling and excuse-mongering....

[apocalypsehow]

551. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!" <--That was Post #385.

Now, in Reply #379 above he says:

"You say it was with you? Okay, might have been...You'll notice that I never once suggested the "other person" was YOU until now... YOU know I was replying to another repetitive poster because YOU were the repetitive poster, which makes your selective half-truth even more sinister..."

And yet, here's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment: he did, indeed, post "Ibid" over and over and over again to me, knowing who he was posting to, in that Meta thread. And yet in #379 (above) and #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread puts paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted yet again. And how.

*emphases added.

[krispos42]

614. On March 15th, I did not mention the Feinstein discussion was repetitive

Although, if it was with you, then it obviously was.

I did mention the second, repetitive subthread in the first, Feinstein, subthread.

Thanks for clearing my name and proving yourself wrong.


Now, onto this part.

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread,
No, I never said that. I said I reserved my "ibids" for repetitive posters. That was not a knock at you.

and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment: he did, indeed, post "Ibid" over and over and over again to me, knowing who he was posting to, in that Meta thread.
Yeah, no, because you gave no context to the discussion, nor did you mention I was posting "ibids" to link back to a reply I made to a repetitive post that was made. Nor did you mention that the "other person" began repeating first. Nor did you mention that the "other person" began repeating to avoid admitting wrongness. And, finally, you also failed to mention that the "other person" in the ibid thread was, in fact, YOU.

And yet in #379 (above) and #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread.

Truthfully and consistently asserted, you mean.

And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread puts paid to yet another false assertion of his here.
Second time? That's post #95, which looks like this:

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #92)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:07 PM

Star Member krispos42 (44,665 posts)
95. Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

View profile
You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence.

But, facts and such don't really seem to work on you.

Ah, okay. I refer to our conversation about the Feinstein ban, and I mention that my "ibids" (which, according to you, I've denied) were in response to a copy-and-paste repetition, which I had been dealing with in another subthread.

And then later on you revealed that YOU were the repetitive poster I referenced. So it turns out I was having at least two conversations with you along separate lines in the thread.




So, as I've been saying all along... what have you proven besides I was having two conversations in a Meta thread?

[apocalypsehow]

616. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

619. Hard to twist & explain your plainly posted words with reams of obfuscation. It's not working. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

653. Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was

exchanging repetitive posts with!" <--That was Post #385.

Now, in Reply #379 above he says:

"You say it was with you? Okay, might have been...You'll notice that I never once suggested the "other person" was YOU until now... YOU know I was replying to another repetitive poster because YOU were the repetitive poster, which makes your selective half-truth even more sinister..."

And yet, here's what our Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King" typed way back on Fri Mar 15, 2013, 05:07 PM:

"Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB?

You said no, I said yes, and posted the excerpt to prove it.

I can't prove I went on vacation, and you can't prove I didn't. So that's not going anywhere. The fact that I don't have a history of lying about such things would count for a normal person, but hey...

And let's not forget, my "ibid" replies were in response to copy-and-paste repetition of the same sentence."*

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514441

So from the beginning he KNEW (a) who he was posting "Ibid" too in that Meta thread, and (b) that I was 100% factually correct in my assessment: he did, indeed, post "Ibid" over and over and over again to me, knowing who he was posting to, in that Meta thread. And yet in #379 (above) and #381 and #388 and #405 and any number of others posted this evening (about every one from him to me, 3/24/13) he has falsely attempted to assert he had NO IDEA who he was posting "Ibid" to in that now-lost Meta thread. And now his OWN words and post from the very second time he initiated a post to me in this sub-thread puts paid to yet another false assertion of his here.

Our Gungeon Host is busted yet again. And how.

*emphases added.

[apocalypsehow]

491. Our good friend the Gungeon Host* has made a major boo-boo in this thread, and busted himself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

Not good!

And yet he keep's on keepin' on....

*Aka, the "Ibid "!

[krispos42]

514. No, I made a super-major boo-boo!

If you're going to make stuff up, go big, man, go big.



So, how many subthreads did you create in the Meta thread, anyway?

[apocalypsehow]

521. You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

You may think that's funny, but most DU'ers are laughing for other reasons... , indeed.

[krispos42]

555. I got caught admitting to having two conversations in a subthread...

...when I was, in fact, having two conversations in a subthread.



Arrest me, officer.

[apocalypsehow]

558. You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

It's that simple - and even you now come around to admitting it. Good stuff - all too easy. Again.

[apocalypsehow]

574. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[apocalypsehow]

546. You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562388

[krispos42]

586. Oooo, an escalation

Now I'm "blatantly" making stuff up. Like being in two conversational subthreads in Meta.



Maybe you can sharpen up your deli slicer a bit more.

[apocalypsehow]

591. *Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512186#post428

At this point, every distraction and obfuscation possible is being thrown into the mix, but the record is clear, and our Gungeon Host* has long ago ceased fooling anybody, as seen.

*Aka the "Ibid ."

[sylvi]

661. "Probably" isn't a fact.

It's something a poster pulls out of a bodily orifice.

[krispos42]

89. How about the "Hartford Courant"?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]<snip>

Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.

More than a week after the shooting, investigators were still finding bullets under doors and in carpets and walls in the school as they tried to match the casings to the magazines.

Investigators are aware that frequent reloading is common in violent video games because an experienced player knows never to enter a new building or room without a full magazine so as not to risk running out of bullets. This has led them to speculate privately that this might be a reason that he replaced magazines frequently.

<more>

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106,0,2370630.story

Questions?

[rdharma]

168. "Questions?"

How did that moron, Altimari, ever get a job as a reporter?

"Sources" said. Oh, brother! "Sources" also said that an AR-15 was taken from the trunk of Lanza's vehicle (it was a SAIGA shotgun).

Why did Lanza wear ear plugs? Errrrrp derrrrrp!

[krispos42]

170. Link? n/t

[rdharma]

175. Link

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2013, 04:33 PM - Edit history (3)

You must have been out to lunch during the initial reports.

Washington Post:

"He had two semiautomatic pistols and a .223-caliber rifle, law enforcement officials said. He apparently used only the handguns, which were later found in the school. The rifle was found in the vehicle."

I think they meant THIS "rifle"....... http://www.izhmash.ru/rus/product/saiga12.shtml

The one shown in the lower right corner.

[Jenoch]

107. You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. Read the post again.

I was not aware that people are suggesting he used pistols and not the Bushmaster. Early on there was a lack of information about what weapons he used and what weapons were left in the car. The 'truthers' are batshit crazy, whether they are the Sandy Hook version or the 911 version.

[lapislzi]

123. The deniers have floated that one.

All sorts of blabbity-blah about the weapon found in the car. They've been running around shrieking ever since.

[CosmicDustBunny]

61. At least he was intelligent. If a gun is going to jam it will be in the last two or three rounds.

That was the basic deal with the Gifford shooting. The gun jammed. It seems this kid did his research.

Still, her logic is solid. Doing the same exchange for the same reason would have meant 8 out of ten bullets per magazine, and therefore 19 magazines. Just getting at them would be a challenge. This isn't a Lara Croft movie with magazine harnesses on your thighes we're talking about. Rachel was being generous in her numbers.

[Jenoch]

110. Lanza may have been intelligent

but that had nothing to do with why he swapped the magazines in the manner in which he did. Rachel used to be fairly ignorant about how guns operate. I think she is now manipulating the information in such a way as to support the conclusion she wishes to promote. She used arithmetic to make her point (number of rounds shot, capacity of magazines, etc.) instead of using the facts of the case to make a point.

[CosmicDustBunny]

159. You lost me. I didn't read or hear anything to imply otherwise. Did I miss something?

It's hard to keep up with the information overload, and a lot of it is contradictory. That said, I trust Rachel to admit she was wrong if she was. She's done that many times. Then again, she's not on FOX, where admitting you were wrong doesn't exist.

[Jenoch]

167. Maddow used simple math to make a point

but her logic is faulty. She divided the total number of rounds (152) by the capacity of the magazine (30) to come up with the number of times he needed to change mahazines. The problem with that logic is that he did not do it that way. You attributed intelligence,and the jamming factor, as to why Lanza did it that way. It is more likely he changed magazines in the manner he did because that's the way 'gamers' do it when playing the violent video games.

Maddow was of course using the Newtown tragedy to make a point about how it was only possible because of 'high capacity' magazines instead of 10-round magazines.

If anti-gun people were being honest they would attempt to ban all guns with removable magazines. New York has banned the use of more than 7 rounds in detachable magazines. A law like that would have had little effect in a situation like New Town.

[baldguy]

125. So, your issue is that Lanza wasn't able to kill even more children?

Sick, sick, sick.

[Jenoch]

133. That's ridiculous and insulting. Of course,

that was your point. I was simply pointing out the facts.

[baldguy]

138. What's ridiculous and insulting is that no matter how many thousands of Americans are murdered

RW extremist gun nuts still can get away with painting themselves as victims while simultaneously bathing in innocent blood when they belittle any attempt to enact rational gun control measures.

[Jenoch]

139. Belittle?

Maddow was using logic based on incorrect information. What is terrible is that laws could be passed and enforced that actually reduces gun crime but instead of doing something productive time is wasted on passing laws that have only the appearance of doing something to reduce crime.

[baldguy]

140. I stand by my words, especially given your response.

By insisting that the features which a gun an "assault weapon" are merely cosmetic, you're confirming that the problem America faces is with guns in general and not just those guns limited by the definition of "assault weapon".

By also insisting that no additional gun control measures are necessary, and that those that we have should be eliminated, you stand with the criminals that are the cause of the gun violence which plagues America, and results in endless pain, suffering and death.

People who oppose stringent national gun control measures do nothing but shit on the memories of the victims of Sandy Hook and allow more Americans to unnecessarily suffer a similar fate.

[Jenoch]

142. I stand by my words, which you seem to have confused with another post.

Where did I write 'assault weapon' or the cosmetic features you mention, where did I say no additional gun control measures are necessary and those that we have should be eliminated?

I was simply pointing out the flaws in the logic of Maddow and you seem to have taken that to the extreme (and assumed a lot).

[baldguy]

147. Well, you are waddling around in that duck suit, making those quacking noises.

Unless I'm given some compelling evidence otherwise, I think I'm safe treating you like a duck.

[morningfog]

296. 22 rounds is still more than double 10, logic is good.

Your's is flawed and your motives suspect.

[Jenoch]

299. I was wrong when I used the nujmbers 7 or 8.

He actually left magazines on the floor that were half-full. My point is that Maddow was attempting to make a point when she wasn't using the correct information.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408

[morningfog]

300. Your point is full of suspect fail.

[Peter cotton]

3. "...thanks to the expiraton of Dianne Feinstein’s law in 2004"

The original AWB which expired in 2004 did not prohibit possesion or sale of 30 round magazines, only the manufacture of new ones for civilian use. There were probably 30 million of them in 2004, and more like 100 million of them now (at least).

A magazine will, if stored properly, function perfectly well for centuries. They're here to stay.

[hack89]

5. Seung-Hui Cho reloaded well over a dozen times at Va Tech

as he killed 32 people and wounded 17 with a handgun.

The AWB then and now would have not stopped Va Tech.

People need to think - if any law would not have stopped the Va Tech shooting then it will not stop mass shootings.

[Peter cotton]

7. It's worth noting that Cho's handguns had 10 round magazines.

Magazine bans are pointless.

[hack89]

8. 9mm Glock 19s have a 15 round mag

you are thinking of the Glock 26.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

[Peter cotton]

10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Cho was using

reduced capacity magazines of 10 rounds each.

[hack89]

11. Not really sure - you could be right. nt

[Crepuscular]

40. Two pistols

Cho used two pistols in the VA shootings, A Glock that used 15 rnd. mags and a Walther that used 10 round mags.

[Peter cotton]

93. That explains it.

I remembered reading that he used 10 round mags, I thought that was speaking of reduced capacity magazines.

[Clames]

114. He was using a mix between the Glock and Walther.

The majority were 10rd magazines out of the 17+ used.

[oldhippie]

39. Yes Glock 19's standard mag is 15 rds .....

.... but there are plenty of 10 rd mags out there for states that limit mag capacity and certain competitions.

[Hoyt]

82. Then let's ban semi-autos, including handguns.

If nothing else it will all but put those who profit from guns out of business. The gun accumulators aren't going to keep adding to a cache of revolvers and lever/bolt actions. Just not sexy or lethal enough to produce endorphins in those enamoured with guns.

[Peter cotton]

90. Good luck with that.

There's isn't going to be an assault weapons ban at the federal level. A handgun/semi-auto ban isn't even on the radar.

[Hoyt]

169. Hey, Australians did it in 1996, and they are a lot tougher than our gun cultists.

It can happen. In the meantime, we need to keep treating the gun cultists like enemies of our society, smokers, lovers of swastikas and confederate flags, Republicans, etc. Someday, our society will change -- and hopefully our leaders will bite the bullet and take action on guns too.

[spin]

377. Obviously the attempt to pass the AWB is the first step to banning all semi-automatics ...

and all handguns.

I feel that this is the goal of most in the gun control movement but few are willing to admit it.

From your posts I understand that you intensely dislike allowing honest and responsible gun owners to legally carry a handgun concealed so it is only logical that you would wish to ban all handguns. Obviously it is far more difficult to carry a concealed shotgun or rifle than it is a handgun. Even if it was legal, few gun owners would go through the hassle required.

I would welcome more honestly from those who strongly support gun control. We all waste a lot of time arguing about exactly what is an assault weapon and if a high capacity magazine containing 50 or 100 rounds is more deadly than 5 or 10 ten round magazines.

If all the gun control advocates would simply be as upfront and honest as you are, we could cut out a lot of bullshit and simply debate if banning all semi-auto rifles and shotguns and all handguns is a good idea. I would totally support such a discussion at the national level. Both sides could present their best arguments and it would be so simple that everybody could participate.

[rdharma]

18. Talking points from the NRA?

Criminals don't obey laws......... so why bother.

[hack89]

32. Just inconvenient facts.

which in your lexicon means NRA talking points. Care to actually address what I wrote?

[treestar]

103. Maybe, but it doesn't mean that gun deaths can't be

cut back by banning assault weapons - doesn't have to stop every shooter, but in this case, with Lanza, it would have made it harder for him to kill as many.

[hack89]

119. If a law wouldn't have prevented Va Tech

then it will not stop mass shootings. An AWB would not have prevented Va Tech.

[treestar]

158. Nothing can stop mass shootings entirely

But the point was the law we did have would have made it harder for Lanza to kill so many. We could cut back on the number of people they can kill.

[hack89]

160. How?

a man with a handgun kills 32 people on a campus full of healthy young adults while reloading 12 times but can't do the same against a bunch of first graders?

Hand guns are just as deadly. They are also the big killers - they are responsible for 97% of all gun deaths including mass shootings.

[hack89]

161. Lets not forget that his gun was not legally an assault weapon

CT has an AWB and it was legal. It would have also been legal under the old AWB.

So no - the law we did have would not have made it harder for Lanza to kill so many.

[Crepuscular]

6. Flawed assumption

The presumption is that it takes 152 rounds to kill 26 people, which is most certainly not a valid assumption. It also presumes that changing magazines adds a significant amount of time to what is needed to accomplish such a horrific act. The Sandy Hook shooter had 11 minutes in which to accomplish his carnage, the same tragic results could have been accomplished with a revolver and a pocket full of speed loaders or a pump shotgun.

[HangOnKids]

14. So you are saying we need to get rid of all guns?

Because all carnage is the same? Thanks for that voice of reason.

[sir pball]

26. Well, it is the logically consistent final answer

One comes to after acquiring a bit of actual knowledge on the subject of both firearms and the current and proposed laws surrounding them.

Of course, even if one doesn't take it to the final answer but instead looks to mitigate violence rather than eliminate it altogether, the 94 and current AWBs still fall flat on their faces.

[Crepuscular]

35. No

No, I'm not suggesting that but if you could magically make all guns disappear, it would in fact reduce gun violence. But we both know that's both a political and a practical impossibility. So that leaves us with doing what we can to try and reduce the level of gun violence. There are some things that could be done towards that end but banning assault weapons and high cap magazines is not one of them.

[HangOnKids]

48. I Know NO Such Thing

Why are you attaching yourself to the tail of a battered kite?

[rdharma]

27. "changing magazines adds a significant amount of time"

Oh?

10 round mags would have required at least 15 reloads at 3 seconds each that's 45 seconds of purely reloading time. That 45 second figure is assuming he wouldn't bobble any reloads.

30 round mags - 15 seconds.

And 11 minutes? Nope. Cop car was hit before he knew the jig was up.

[Crepuscular]

38. changing magazines adds a significant amount of time?

Enough that the carnage would not have occurred? Like the magazine changes did in the Va. Tech shooting, where the shooter used 10 and 15 round magazines?

[Robb]

9. The responses in this thread crack me up.

The circular logic is hilarious. Mass murderer X didn't need high-capacity mags or assault weapons to kill 50 people, but for some reason the gun cuddlers believe they can't defend themselves without them.

[hack89]

13. I don't own guns for self defense

and secondly, we are just pointing out that Rachel's logic is flawed.

Lanza did not need to reload at all to kill those kids - 20 bullets was all he needed. One reload with 10 round mags. So tell em how limiting magazine size would have save lives.

And then tell me why more reloads = less danger. The Va Tech shooter reloaded a dozen times to kill 32 people. And he was using a handgun and not an assault weapon.

One day you guys will figure it out - if any law would not have stopped the Va Tech shooting then it will not stop mass shootings.

[SayWut]

23. One would be more inclined to conserve ammo, and not fire indiscriminately,

knowing in advance what their carry out load is.
It also made a big difference when the victims had no place to flee, escape or take cover.
20-26 rounds or 152 rounds would have made little difference in that type of environment.

[Peter cotton]

24. Murder sprees and self defense aren't the same.

Murder sprees almost invariably involve shooting at helpless opponents. In that situation, pausing for 2 swconds to reload normally doesn't hinder the shooter in any way.

In the case of self-defense, the victim is shooting at opponents who are not helpless. While I hope never to be in such a situation if I were I would want every conceivable advantage, up to and including the highest capacity magazine practicable.

Could I defend myself with a 10 round reduced capacity magazine rather than a 30 round round standard capacity magazine? Yes, although not as well. Heck, I could limit myself to a 6 shot revolver or even a single shot flintlock...it would better than nothing...but why should I?

[rdharma]

47. "gun cuddlers believe they can't defend themselves without them"

You noticed that too, eh?

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. The strawman in your post cracks me up.

Cool that we both got a chuckle out of the thread, huh?

[apocalypsehow]

72. Yep, that and attacking a prominent progressive voice on television while they are at it.

Curious how our "pro gun progressives"* always wind up on the opposite side of genuine progressives, ain't it?





*( )

[HangOnKids]

17. LOL!

Really?

[HangOnKids]

56. Your Post

Why are you asking?

[HangOnKids]

73. Why are you asking me?

I never called you anything of the sort, I made some random comments. Are you trying to bait me into saying something negative about you? or guns? ??????? I really have no idea what you are going on about......

[HangOnKids]

78. Sorry Dude I Am Not Becoming Defensive

But you did ask the question to me specifically, if you wanted to ask people in the thread you should have replied to the Original Post. And now I hate to be blunt, but I am done talking to you. Bye Thanks ever so much!

[rdharma]

28. Looks like the gun nutters are calling up "backup"! nt

[apocalypsehow]

126. Yep, they coordinate these swarms via PM's, I happen to know that for a fact. Looks like MIRT

got that gun troll, though.

[maxsolomon]

20. Do you obsessively nitpick any and all sincere proposals for reducing gun violence?

Do you believe that the 2nd amendment is absolute & more important than any other?

Do you argue technical minutae ad nauseum?

Do you own an arsenal of weapons?

Do you believe that more guns in more places make society safer?

Then you're a NUT.

[ornotna]

34. Why would it be bad for Dr. Jill Biden to have a gun?

Any inside information?

[maxsolomon]

43. The average male gun owner in America has 6.9 guns. I read that somewhere recently.

But i'd say 3 non-hunting firearms, & any one of my other conditions, and you're a gun nut.

I disagree, more guns are never 'good', regardless of who has them. Plenty of "law-abiding private citizens" fuck up and shoot someone or themselves accidentally. And purposefully.

The Nut threshold is higher for coin collecting. >10.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I live the logic some here use

First, it physically takes three seconds to change that magazine, so yes, it would have slowed the shooter down...then there is the issue of physically carrying 14 magazines.

But do carry on...gun lovers.

[rdharma]

30. "it physically takes three seconds to change that magazine"

And that assumes NO BOBBLES during reload.

I was a law enforcement instructor and I shoot competitively........ and I've seen even very well trained shooters bobble reloads.

The more reloads you have to make........ the more chances to bobble.

[rdharma]

53. What do you shoot competitively?

Just about every type of competition there is. IPSC is my favorite.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Thankfully the vast majority of shooters

Do not use combat loads. Yes, my husband can do that too, he did shoot competitively while in the Navy. Agaib, the majority of shooters average three seconds, which incidentally was the moment Loughner was stopped...while reloading.

But you know this.

Why I just love the logic. Or should I say "logic."

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. I'd call that on the (slightly) high side of average, myself.

Yes, bobbling the change would run that up into 5-10 second territory...but people can change mags in about a second, too. I'm also a competition shooter, and I'd consider a three-second mag change to be a screw-up.

More to the point, I very much doubt that even a few bobbled reloads would have any significant effect on the average spree killing. It might change who got shot (less chance of the people who immediately beat feet upon hearing shots to get targeted). However, I can't see it making a big difference in the total number of victims unless it was a very target-poor environment (which I doubt a spree killer would choose unless he were targeting a specific group).

In any case, given the millions and millions of high-capacity mags already in circulation, any ban is going to be essentially feel-good window dressing anyway., Anyone who really wants them would still be able to get them.

[Crepuscular]

46. Logic?

Serious question, have you ever shot a semi-automatic handgun or rifle before? If so, did you have difficulty changing the magazine?

It's not time consuming or difficult. The "logic" involved in thinking that adding a few seconds or even minutes to the time needed to create the kind of carnage seen at Sandy Hook is a stretch, at best. Twenty kids trapped in a classroom would have been just as dead had the shooter been using a revolver with speed loaders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Yes, we are gun owners

And no son, we are not talking of competitive shooters, average *is* three seconds.

In fact, you might want to check when exactly was Loughner stopped...yup, when changing magazines.

[Crepuscular]

51. Son? Excuse me if I don't call you Mom.

When was Cho stopped?
How about Lanza?
Klebold and Harris?
James Holmes?
Charles Whitman

Yeah, Loughner was stopped after he dropped a magazine. The time needed to change mags did not seem to be much of a factor in most of the other high profile mass shootings that have occurred. Back to that logic thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. So you'd rather they have drums (which have a tendency to jam)

Let's make that clear.

By the way, not only are we gun owners, but both my husband and I have seen the result due to professional work first hand.

And anyway, the AR standard load sucks for deer hunting...of course you also conveniently ignore having to physically carry more magazines might put a damper. And one more thing, hunting legal is anywhere from five to ten rounds depending on the state. So excuse me if all this sounds like bullshit excuses.

Have a good day son, go ahead and call me mom...the excuses sound like the ones made by teens when they take the family car.

[Crepuscular]

79. Is Matronizing a word?

Clearly you take offense when someone calls you out for posting bullshit, so you resort to attack mode. Whatever.

Just to clarify, the .223 is a perfectly adequate deer hunting caliber and is used by hundreds of thousands deer hunters every year. Using the correct load is required, as it is with just about any hunting rifle. Your claim that the AR sucks as a deer rifle is laughable.

Physically carrying some additional magazines is not a monumental obstacle to being able to kill a whole bunch of people. You have seen tactical vests before, right? What do you think they are designed for? The burden of carrying additional weapons or ammo is not going to do anything to prevent a killer. That's been amply demonstrated by a number of the individuals who have been involved in mass shootings, so it's ridiculous to throw up carrying magazines as some kind of an impediment that would make a difference.

As far as a drum magazine, anyone who would consider using one in any kind of a tactical situation is an idiot, as they are highly prone to jamming, as was the case in the Aurora shooting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Whatever dude

Welcome to the ignore list.

It's inhabited with way too many bullshit spouting NRA talking points folks, enjoy the company.

And no, the AR round is not considered adequate for deer.

[Crepuscular]

86. Ignore away, probably better if you don't want to look foolish.

Facts trump bullshit.

The 223 Winchester loaded with a 70 gr. Barnes TSX, or a similar properly constructed hunting bullet, will take down any deer that you want to put in the freezer, as is demonstrated many, many times every fall. Since you seem to be the resident expert on just about everything, how many deer have you ever killed, Nadin?

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. But he was switching, that *is* the point

[rdharma]

50. "It's not time consuming or difficult."

You sure don't have much experience shooting, eh?

I designed various law inforcxement qualifcation and training courses..... and you claim that reloads take no time?

[Crepuscular]

54. Reading comprehension is a valuable talent

I said it's neither time consuming or difficult, not that it takes no time. Been shooting firearms for over 40 years and own many semi-auto's. Please, don't show your ignorance by claiming that changing magazines is either a difficult or time consuming procedure.

[rdharma]

57. "I said it's neither time consuming or difficult"

Yes. I understood you the first time.

As I said before..... "The fasted reload is the one you never make". Ever hear that before?

Probably not..... as your lack of knowledge shows.

[MoclipsHumptulips]

145. Thank you. n/t.

[left is right]

352. Perhaps I am naive but in my mind there is another advantage to small capacity magazines.

Besides, the possibly of slowing the carnage, with each re-load there is a small gap that the shooter’s humanity and sense of dignity might reassert itself. Yes, I know it is possibly only a million to one chance but it might happen

[WilliamPitt]

21. One shot every two seconds

[premium]

25. I can't even fathom the terror those little children and adults felt

when this deranged person started to shoot.
I tear up every time I think of it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. I believe the report also said that...

...at one point the magazine to Lanza's gun either ran empty or jammed, and in that time period, six children were able to escape.

So wouldn't that go to show that a change in ammo clips isn't a trivial amount of time, as some gun enthusiasts claim? No, a magazine capacity limit might not have stopped Lanza from going to the school with a gun, but if Lanza were forced to have to reload magazines more often, it at least could possibly have saved a couple more lives. Doesn't detract from the overall tragedy but it does go towards the entire scope.

[One_Life_To_Give]

45. AWB doesn't address rate of fire

Havn't ever seen part of the AWB that talks about Semi-automatic being able to put 5 rds per minute down range or 500 rds per minute. Bayonet Lugs, flash suppressors and pistol grips. But nothing about rate of fire. Now if you want to require manufacturers to put a little timer in to prevent firing faster than XX. That would prevent 152 rds from being fired in 5 minutes (assuming XX greater or equal to 2sec) But nobody has proposed that.

(As a side note how long would it have taken Chuck Connors "Rifleman" to fire 152rds? Although presumably he would of subdued 152 bad guys in so doing.)

[Crepuscular]

60. I suspect

I suspect that most killers could kill 20 children at close range with a lot fewer than 152 shots and without using an assault rifle or even a semi-auto.

[rdharma]

62. "kill 20 children"

You're not too good with numbers, eh? 26 people killed and others wounded.

[Crepuscular]

63. Not too good at reading, eh?

I said 20 children, which were the number of children that Lanza killed.

[rdharma]

64. "number of children that Lanza killed"

The adults killed doesn't count, eh?!!!

And how did Lanza gain entry?

[dairydog91]

81. OK, 26.

He wasn't dealing with large groups of adults, when the 1-3 seconds it takes to change a mag might have given an adult an opportunity to jump him (Not a chance I'd count on, as an adult. AR-15s reload really quickly). He killed the adults mostly one by one, where it wouldn't have mattered whether he had 10 rounds or 30 rounds before a reload. The only large groups of people he dealt with were composed almost entirely of little kids. I guess he would have had to reload more while he was shooting into helpless children (Maybe if he'd been limited to 10-round magazines, there would have been additional 1-3 second opportunities for one of the kids to take him down Bruce-Lee style).

And how did Lanza gain entry?
He shot the glass, apparently. You can shoot glass with any gun.

[rdharma]

87. "You can shoot glass with any gun"

Yes......... and you expend rounds doing so.

And no..... "jumping him was not an option"........ but more frequent mag changes would have lengthened the time required to "do his dirty work". He put the pistol in his mouth when the police arrived. So his time was limited by that factor.

[jmg257]

83. By leaving off the "semi- auto". Works for H&k, so we're good with it. nt

[Crepuscular]

84. Read it again

Read what I said again, it was not a reference to the specific weapon that was used at Sandy Hook, it was in response to the idea that "rate of fire" or that 152 bullets were expended, had a meaningful impact on the outcome.

I said that I suspected that a killer could accomplish the same level of carnage using an assault rifle (which are full auto) OR a semi-auto, with far fewer than 20 rounds. The point being that rate of fire was not a relevant factor in this shooting. As I've said previously, the same degree of carnage could have been achieved had he been using a revolver with a handful of speed loaders or a pump shotgun.

[HereSince1628]

52. Did Lanza buy the ammunition or did he also take that from his mother?

I've wondered about that and CT laws around the sale of ammunition.

[Recursion]

65. Unfortunately, the AWB doesn't address a gun's rate of fire. That could be a cool law.

But nobody has proposed a ban on guns that can fire more than X rounds in Y seconds. The AWB is a bill that would regulate what the fastest-firing category of gun can look like.

[apocalypsehow]

69. Kick, Rec.

[NutmegYankee]

80. The AR-15 used would not have been banned under the 1994 AWB.

Connecticut adopted that law and make it slightly stricter. The rifle used was not banned under the Conn. AWB and the 1994 law allowed posession of 30 round magazines with a manufacture date prior to 1994.

That statement in the article is in error.

[Melon_Lord]

155. Check a dictionary...

I don't think "prove" means what you think it does.

[backwoodsbob]

197. just curious

how does a high capacity mag prove the need for an assault weapon ban?

[rdharma]

201. "high capacity mag prove the need for an assault weapon ban?"

Who said it did?

[customerserviceguy]

202. Any more details come out about his mental state?

Including, what, if anything he was diagnosed with, and what, if anything, he had been taking for it?

Who was going to jump him during a reload, a first-grader?

[Politicalboi]

241. If a shooter knows they won't have to reload as much

They will have more "courage" to shoot people without the fear of getting their ass kicked. IMO this reason alone should be good enough to get rid of 30 round mags. And I don't care how much you practice reloading. You may be a wiz at practice, but when it's real, they may be slow enough, or they may drop their clip like the asshole in Arizona did at got stopped.

[LAGC]

311. The only reason Loughner may have fumbled and dropped that magazine was because...

....it was one of those unwieldly hi-caps that don't fit well in the pocket.

Standard capacity magazines are much easier to carry, draw, and reload.

Could be that that extended, high-capacity magazine that he had trouble with may have actually saved lives that day...

[likesmountains 52]

290. I still can't believe that people have the audacity to post 'they are sorry

for the kids and families, but blah ,blah,blah,." We have to start somewhere. Give us a chance to work on this.

[laundry_queen]

295. They don't want you to

and that is the problem. As evidenced 'upthread', they pretend to care, but they don't, really. They actually look down on the rest of us for caring and wanting to do something about it (because god forbid gunz get taken away).

[morningfog]

298. Some gun nuts love guns for than life.

Sick, but true. I give them the benefit of the doubt and blame lead poisoning from playing with their toys.

[geckosfeet]

353. How about if we just keep firearms away from kids with emotional disorders?

It's safer and cheaper.

We could also help the kids by getting them to play with other kids, taking time to talk to them, going to therapist's with them etc.

I think that would work better.

[KamaAina]

477. Michael Moore hinted that someone might be about to leak the crime scene photos

Now that would be a game-changer.

[sunwyn]

659. I thought CT had an assault weapons ban in place when this shooting happened