General Discussion

apocalypsehow

(12,751 posts)

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

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 01:22 AM

Mar 2013

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 history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

661 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New details of Newtown shooting prove assault weapons ban is needed [View all] rdharma Mar 2013 OP

There is a problem with Maddow's logic. Jenoch Mar 2013 #1

He did not change out the 30 round magazines rdharma Mar 2013 #2

He didn't empty the mags before changing them out hack89 Mar 2013 #4

"He reloaded more times than Rachel said"....... rdharma Mar 2013 #12

The point is more reloads =/= less danger hack89 Mar 2013 #16

"He only needed 20 bullets" rdharma Mar 2013 #33

He was fucking crazy in case you didn't notice. hack89 Mar 2013 #44

"smaller magazines would not have made a difference" rdharma Mar 2013 #58

I support limits on magazine capacity hack89 Mar 2013 #67

That's the silly game so many of our "pro gun progressives"* play: scream and yell and gnash teeth apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #70

"pro gun progressives"* rdharma Mar 2013 #97

So why not come right out Bay Boy Mar 2013 #105

He would have killed fewer if he had not shot 152 treestar Mar 2013 #104

One bullet almost hit someone outside in the parking lot for crying out loud! VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #326

You listen to me and you listen good. lapislzi Mar 2013 #111

+1,000. Very moving. But it's falling on deaf ears: our "RKBA enthusisasts" simply don't care how apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #112

Not only do they just not care, they don't give a flying indepat Mar 2013 #378

Nice story bro hack89 Mar 2013 #117

I am going to have to put you on Ignore. lapislzi Mar 2013 #122

That's one of our "pro gun progressives"* for you: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #124

Bye. nt hack89 Mar 2013 #129

Wow laundry_queen Mar 2013 #281

It was a cheap tactic done to marginalize other opinions and end debate hack89 Mar 2013 #291

Emotional hyperbole? laundry_queen Mar 2013 #292

It was not a parent of a Newtown child I was addressing hack89 Mar 2013 #293

:) Keep posting! laundry_queen Mar 2013 #294

This message was self-deleted by its author thucythucy Mar 2013 #303

That poster loves guns more than life. morningfog Mar 2013 #297

I'll join you in that response.. defacto7 Mar 2013 #269

omg! SammyWinstonJack Mar 2013 #137

The word that comes to mind is "heartless". Seems "pro gun progressives" aren't progressives at all. baldguy Mar 2013 #141

My heart goes out to the children and the parents hack89 Mar 2013 #143

You don't wish to be exposed to the ugly results of your extremist RW political positions. baldguy Mar 2013 #146

Except none of the proposed bans will prevent another Sandy Hook hack89 Mar 2013 #150

Still whining the same RW NRA talking points - but now you're backpedaling. baldguy Mar 2013 #153

I support everything you mention except for an AWB hack89 Mar 2013 #154

Too bad that too many gun nuts will cling to their handguns even more that their assault weapons. baldguy Mar 2013 #156

So why do none of the laws actually remove assault rifles from society if they are so dangerous? hack89 Mar 2013 #157

Because your pals at the NRA and other RW extremists would howl in pain if we confiscted them. baldguy Mar 2013 #162

So the President and Diane Feinstein are scared of the NRA? hack89 Mar 2013 #163

It's not fear. It's recognizing the political realities of dealing with unreasonable extremists. baldguy Mar 2013 #165

This message was self-deleted by its author hack89 Mar 2013 #166

Baldguy that is one of the best thucythucy Mar 2013 #301

The Dem platform supports the right of citizens to own weapons Mojorabbit Mar 2013 #327

I think most people would go for something reasonable... Melon_Lord Mar 2013 #302

what laws are those? Have you helped your congressperson craft such legislation? CTyankee Mar 2013 #344

I dedicate most of my political efforts towards healthcare hack89 Mar 2013 #354

Can you share with us the arguments you used in favor of the background CTyankee Mar 2013 #355

I live in a state with universal background checks hack89 Mar 2013 #356

Do you agree that it is the lack of a) strong federal laws that apply to ALL states and CTyankee Mar 2013 #357

I think that stronger federal laws regarding background checks are required. hack89 Mar 2013 #358

So you don't buy the argument that such a measure is the slippery slope to a national registry? CTyankee Mar 2013 #359

With no record keeping requirements for private sales hack89 Mar 2013 #360

do you publicly espouse this position? I mean with strong 2nd A. people... CTyankee Mar 2013 #361

I have stated in many threads that I support universal background checks hack89 Mar 2013 #362

I don't mean here on DU. I mean in places where your voice would reach CTyankee Mar 2013 #363

I don't post on many other boards hack89 Mar 2013 #364

... SammyWinstonJack Mar 2013 #136

Thank you. It was a difficult day. lapislzi Mar 2013 #148

This message was self-deleted by its author thucythucy Mar 2013 #304

thanks for sharing that - and sharing your time with that parent DrDan Mar 2013 #376

Probably because he actually reads and does his homework. Clames Mar 2013 #113

He changed them out before they were empty. krispos42 Mar 2013 #31

"He left at least one magazines with 15 rounds in it on the floor." rdharma Mar 2013 #59

Don't confuse the Gungeon Host with facts: you'll get a string of "Ibids" in reply. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #76

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that I was right and you were wrong. krispos42 Mar 2013 #88

Good luck with that. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2013 #91

That "RKBA enthusiasts" get so sky-windingly angry about my spot-on sig line apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #94

Baloney. You got taken to town on the facts; posted excuses why you couldn't reply to the facts apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #92

Would semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines still be sold under the new AWB? krispos42 Mar 2013 #95

Baloney. You got taken to town on the facts; posted excuses why you couldn't reply to the facts apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #96

Still can't admit I was right and you were wrong? krispos42 Mar 2013 #99

Now we're back to the "I know you are but what I am?" stage of your typical "debate" strategy... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #101

So... no. krispos42 Mar 2013 #106

Of course "no," since you were incorrect on the facts, as shown. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #108

Okay, show me how Feinstein's proposed AWB... krispos42 Mar 2013 #116

No. That was never a claim made, nor a topic under discussion other than by *you*. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #118

Yes, it was. krispos42 Mar 2013 #127

*Placeholder* reply for sub-thread stem, re, *Bookmarked* thread for future reference. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #131

Simply false. I have repeated the facts of your "Ibid" silliness in that thread all over DU, apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #132

You've been making an ass of yourself all through DU, is what you mean. krispos42 Mar 2013 #171

Ahhh, now the "Ibid King" reverses course and admits what I have stated is the "truth," if only apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #173

again, no matter how you slice it... krispos42 Mar 2013 #178

Nope: no matter how it's "sliced," it's FACT. And you well know it. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #179

Again, no matter how you slice it you got caught making stuff up in this sub-thread: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #550

Yeah, like I was making up going on vacation? krispos42 Mar 2013 #595

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #579

A new link? krispos42 Mar 2013 #600

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #592

Another repetitive post krispos42 Mar 2013 #602

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #627

Our Gungeon Host* is so, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #489

No, I'm so so so busted krispos42 Mar 2013 #510

Indeed, you are. Making stuff up then having to desperately back pedal from it is funny stuff. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #520

Yup, I've backpedaled all right krispos42 Mar 2013 #552

Yup, you have - *REPEATEDLY*. You finally admit it. Link to your getting caught red-handed here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #557

LOL krispos42 Mar 2013 #618

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #598

Oh noes! I'm nekkid! krispos42 Mar 2013 #620

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #625

Wrong, but worth going over again: the question was your made-up insertion of a matter not apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #135

Our Gungeon Host* has just busted *himself* downthread; check it out folks: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #530

LOL krispos42 Mar 2013 #564

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #569

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #621

LOL, you're just clicking "reply" at random now. krispos42 Mar 2013 #642

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #651

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #639

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #656

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #562

Nope, not the littlest bit krispos42 Mar 2013 #624

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #630

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #650

Get ready for it, folks! This was pretty much the same prelude to the string of "Ibids" apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #109

Message auto-removed Homerj1 Mar 2013 #149

Our Gungeon Host* has just busted *himself* downthread; check it out folks: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #523

Hey, I found a graphic to show your credibility krispos42 Mar 2013 #590

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #597

My God, what a juvenile twit. rl6214 Mar 2013 #611

One would almost think folks were rummaging around in sock drawers... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #626

Sorry *sport* no Sock here rl6214 Mar 2013 #649

Our Gungeon Host *is* quite juvenile, as shown: he's also a bully, one who has problems telling the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #658

That must be why your posts outnumber his 3to1, right. rl6214 Mar 2013 #660

You got caught blatantly making stuff up in this sub-thread, and the proof is here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #547

I got caught having two conversations in two subthreads krispos42 Mar 2013 #593

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #599

ROFL krispos42 Mar 2013 #526

And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #534

Watch out, I might start making repetitive posts! krispos42 Mar 2013 #570

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #576

Our Gungeon Host* has just busted *himself* downthread; check it out: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #500

My favorite denier of reality keeps busting himself krispos42 Mar 2013 #525

You just posted a link to proof of your own mendacity. Smooth move - it doesn't get much easier apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #528

I admit it krispos42 Mar 2013 #560

You were *wrong* on the Feinstein ban: America supports it. DU supports it. And you know it. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #563

I don't recall ever saying the America or DU didn't support it. krispos42 Mar 2013 #633

You have been out in front against the AWB since Day One; more mendacity. Meanwhile: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #637

And you've been for it, which doesn't disprove my previous post. krispos42 Mar 2013 #643

Oh yes it does - you contradict yourself *AGAIN*. Meantime: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #645

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #561

You should know.. you're doing it. krispos42 Mar 2013 #622

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #631

No, I didn't: that was your Strawman-hijacking of the topic. You simply asked a rhetorical apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #98

Ummm.... krispos42 Mar 2013 #100

Uh-huh. It's spot-on factual recounting of the matter, and you well know it. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #102

Link? krispos42 Mar 2013 #115

Uh-huh. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #120

What's most hilarious is that you are well aware the thread was in Meta, and yet *still* apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #121

What else is in the lost "Meta" thread? krispos42 Mar 2013 #128

So now you are denying you ever posted "Ibid" repeatedly in that thread? Really? apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #130

"Ibid" is the new "yargle bargle blargh" - nt ThoughtCriminal Mar 2013 #144

I'm pointing out that your smoking gun is gone krispos42 Mar 2013 #172

"a whole bunch of alleged "ibids" - "I don't and haven't denied" <---Two bare-faced contradictory apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #174

When the evidence goes away... krispos42 Mar 2013 #180

No, when one states it's "alleged" one states one doesn't KNOW whether the allegation(s) made apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #181

I'm stating for the audience (that is laughing at you)... krispos42 Mar 2013 #186

In other words, you are attempting to DECEIVE the "audience" because you know for a FACT apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #190

I know the facts as you present them are 40% true krispos42 Mar 2013 #196

No, the facts I presented are 100%, even though above you stated they were UNTRUE, mere apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #199

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #565

LOL krispos42 Mar 2013 #636

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #644

Hey, every reply in this thread between us has been initated by YOU, not me. So you can apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #183

Yeah, you smear me, then act all confused that we have a discussion about it krispos42 Mar 2013 #185

What I tell you, folks? The guy who INITIATES the contact with another poster to accuse them of apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #188

Yes, because parallel posting of... krispos42 Mar 2013 #191

Again: YOU initiated this exchange, not I; you have been offered the opportunity to terminate the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #194

Who insulted whom first? krispos42 Mar 2013 #198

Not that it's revelant to your "stalking" charge, but you actually did, right here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #200

ROFL krispos42 Mar 2013 #204

Again: YOU initiated this exchange, not I; you have been offered the opportunity to terminate the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #206

We both have the opportunity;so take it, why don't you? krispos42 Mar 2013 #209

Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #213

And here you are ignoring that you jumped on me unprovoked. krispos42 Mar 2013 #215

Yet again: *every* reply in this thread between us has been initated by YOU, not me. So you can apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #220

You argument became invalid as soon as you began posting 2nd and 3rd replies to me krispos42 Mar 2013 #223

Nope: but you go right on believing that if you wish, even AS you continue to post replies... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #226

I'm sorry, but it's true. krispos42 Mar 2013 #229

Nope: the "argument" was conceded by you long ago, and any DU'er just idly scanning this sub-thread apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #233

And now you're repeating yourself... krispos42 Mar 2013 #236

"hoping that I miss one of your repetitions" - Wow; an open admission of obsession. Talk about apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #248

Are you denying it? krispos42 Mar 2013 #251

Are you denying it? apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #253

I've posted no repeat replies to anything of yours. krispos42 Mar 2013 #278

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #287

Still waiting for the initiator to apologize and/or walk away krispos42 Mar 2013 #309

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #313

Quit posting, and I'll be happy to stop replying. krispos42 Mar 2013 #318

Quit posting, and I'll be delighted to stop replying. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #322

Ah, wrong link krispos42 Mar 2013 #328

1. That reply was to another DU'er, not to you (busted again on a falsehood!), 2. I stated a fact, apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #338

Wow, you finally admitted you posted, unprovoked, to a third party ABOUT ME krispos42 Mar 2013 #349

Wow, you are again indulging in falsehoods: a post of mine to a "third party" has never been the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #366

Um, yes it has krispos42 Mar 2013 #381

Um, not it hasn't. Simply scrolling up puts paid to this newest diversionary silliness, and your apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #382

Your smear post about me to rdharma is, and has been, my issue krispos42 Mar 2013 #400

1. There was no "smear post" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #404

And again, a highly selective series of fact by a repetitive poster with a history of such. krispos42 Mar 2013 #440

Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Anyone scrolling up and down apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #447

And again, no refutation, just an automatic denial krispos42 Mar 2013 #456

Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #467

Setting that slicer on ultra-thin now, huh? krispos42 Mar 2013 #487

Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #493

No, I'm super busted! krispos42 Mar 2013 #516

You have been caught multiple times telling untruths on this thread, then backpedaling. Thanks for apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #519

Your need to believe that is just adorable. krispos42 Mar 2013 #549

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #571

Your stuff is getting old. You must miss meta. CokeMachine Mar 2013 #532

"Don't even bother to respond becaues (Sic) you're off to ignore"* - LOL. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #584

And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #383

Of course I mention the stalking; you admit to it krispos42 Mar 2013 #402

As there has been no "stalking" and no "admission" to same, you continue to grasp at feeble straws. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #407

Your plan is to keep denying that Post #132 exists? krispos42 Mar 2013 #442

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #628

No, RIGHT link. See ^^^^^^. But nice try. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #339

Also, said RIGHT link where replier above *initiates* discussion in this thread: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #341

The smears start from you. krispos42 Mar 2013 #350

1. The truth - and FACTS - cannot by definition be "smears," and that's all I've posted. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #368

Selective facts are not truth krispos42 Mar 2013 #388

No "selective facts" were offered: you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over in a thread apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #390

And... another restatement of selective facts krispos42 Mar 2013 #411

Wrong. As shown. ^^^. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #416

Yeah, that's not a rational conclusion from the evidence available. krispos42 Mar 2013 #452

And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #391

I like it when you post repetitively; it bolsters my case enormously. krispos42 Mar 2013 #413

Your "case" has been a lost cause since about the beginning, as shown. But keep posting such apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #415

No, that WAS in the right place. krispos42 Mar 2013 #450

You go right on believing whatever you wish. The facts weigh against you, time & again. And: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #471

But somehow, they don't weigh against you. krispos42 Mar 2013 #492

Whatever that's supposed to mean. Bottom line is, you've been BUSTED: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #513

LOL krispos42 Mar 2013 #541

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #634

So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #340

Half-facts without context are not truthful assertions. krispos42 Mar 2013 #351

Again: 1. It is a FACT, not a "smear," that you posted "Ibid" over and over and over again in a apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #369

It is a fact that you started the repetitive posting before I did krispos42 Mar 2013 #389

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #572

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #553

Since I've already replied once to the above post krispos42 Mar 2013 #615

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #648

Thanks for conceding that you are not being "stalked," but like to trot that silliness out when the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #271

Funny how you can't stop replying to me. krispos42 Mar 2013 #277

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #289

And now you see how people get locked into senseless repetition. krispos42 Mar 2013 #312

Yep. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #314

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #605

So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #486

So, what's it like to be wrong on the Feinstein bill? krispos42 Mar 2013 #508

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #635

*Again*: Not that it's revelant to your "stalking" charge, but you actually did, right here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #208

And again, my stalker who can't walk away posts 2 replies to a post of mine. krispos42 Mar 2013 #212

Again: YOU initiated this exchange, not I; you have been offered the opportunity to terminate the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #216

You should just print "Ibid"; it's much faster than copy and paste krispos42 Mar 2013 #217

Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #228

Really, "ibid" is very useful when dealing with a repetitive poster. krispos42 Mar 2013 #231

And here you see it folks: the "Ibid King" is talking about how much he cherishes using "Ibid." apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #234

It's a way to be as repetitive as you, but faster. krispos42 Mar 2013 #237

At this point, you've been so totally discredited, largely by your own posts, that I'm just waiting apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #240

That's 3... krispos42 Mar 2013 #244

That's nice. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #252

And BTW, for those interested, I just counted: that makes FIFTY-ONE replies from this poster in this apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #254

Ah, you're still beating me with over 60. krispos42 Mar 2013 #258

That's nice. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #259

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #262

Still waiting for the person who claims to not be stalking me to stop double-posting n/t krispos42 Mar 2013 #276

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #284

Still waiting for my stalker... krispos42 Mar 2013 #307

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #316

And now you've run out of things to say... krispos42 Mar 2013 #320

And now you're back, still whining about being "stalked" in a sub-thread discussion YOU initiated... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #324

Says the person who saw me discussing a point of fact with a 3rd party... krispos42 Mar 2013 #330

So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #332

Okay, let's recap krispos42 Mar 2013 #342

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #606

For the record, the following statements in Post #330 above are simply FALSE: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #333

Yeah, um, no krispos42 Mar 2013 #343

Yeah, um, here's the actual facts: 1. You did in fact post "Ibid" to me in a now-defunct forum over apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #371

You mean, the selective facts, don't you? krispos42 Mar 2013 #395

No, I mean the FACTS, facts you spent a good deal of this sub-thread first DENYING, but have now apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #397

So, again, no refutation. krispos42 Mar 2013 #419

"Facts hurt, huh?" - LOL...so, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #435

Add #419 to the list, re: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #436

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #632

And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #398

Senseless repetition krispos42 Mar 2013 #420

If it was "senseless" you wouldn't bother replying to it; in fact, it is NEEDED reminders of an apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #423

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #427

And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #536

Having trouble refuting, huh? krispos42 Mar 2013 #573

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #609

Watch our Gungeon Host* get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #537

Your complete lack of self-awareness is hilarous krispos42 Mar 2013 #575

Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #587

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #577

Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #192

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #568

Dammit, now you've gone and done it krispos42 Mar 2013 #640

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #652

No, what happened is in a sub-thread about the new proposed AWB you went off on a tangent apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #176

More fun with flatly contradictory statements from the Gungeon Host, aka the "Ibid King"*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #177

Grasping at straws again? krispos42 Mar 2013 #182

They are contradictory. The "evidence" is not "gone" from your memory: you well remember what you apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #184

The evidence is gone, because the admins have hidden it krispos42 Mar 2013 #187

Continued dodging and obfuscation. You stated above my claims were mere "allegations," which apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #189

I'm astonished... krispos42 Mar 2013 #193

You are not astonished, just embarrassed. That's now (ON EDIT) *nineteen* replies to me apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #195

And yet you can't walk away, can you? krispos42 Mar 2013 #203

And here he is again, folks! The poster who complains about "stalking" yet initiated every single apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #205

And here you are again! krispos42 Mar 2013 #207

You're the one whining and crying about "stalking," even though YOU initiated every reply in this apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #210

Did you, or did you not, admit to denigrating me throughout GD? krispos42 Mar 2013 #214

Nope: telling the facts about a poster's past posting behavior is hardly "denigrating" them... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #218

Well, *A* fact, out of context, which makes it a lie krispos42 Mar 2013 #221

Nope: you started the exchange in this sub-thread, and when you got taken to town on the facts apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #224

You lost the argument when you went over to multiple replies to a single post krispos42 Mar 2013 #227

Nope: the "argument" was conceded by you long ago, and any DU'er just idly scanning this sub-thread apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #232

Right... krispos42 Mar 2013 #235

At this point, you've been so totally discredited, largely by your own posts, that I'm just waiting apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #238

You mean this post? krispos42 Mar 2013 #242

You *did* deny it, but have now reversed course in your colossal walkback. But keep going. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #246

You mean THIS walkback? krispos42 Mar 2013 #249

There was no "walkback" there whatsoever, of course. To the rest of DU: the text krispos42 apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #256

No shit, sherlock. krispos42 Mar 2013 #260

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #261

Still waiting for my stalker to apologize for unprovoked smearing. n/t krispos42 Mar 2013 #265

1. There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #268

Half-truths that deceive is a smear. krispos42 Mar 2013 #274

It was 100% truth, one you first denied but then back-tracked and now admit; there was no "smear." apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #285

Scroll up, man. Not only did I never deny it, I admitted to it early our exchange. krispos42 Mar 2013 #308

So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #337

If I'm so desperate for the last word, why do you post 2:1 to me? n/t krispos42 Mar 2013 #348

If I'm so desperate for the last word, why you initiate posts to me AT ALL? n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #372

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*Besides Which*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #373

If your NOT so desperate for the last word, why do you keep replying? krispos42 Mar 2013 #396

If your NOT so desperate for the last word, why do you keep replying? apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #401

You talked about me before I talked TO or ABOUT you. krispos42 Mar 2013 #437

If your NOT so desperate for the last word, why do you keep replying? apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #443

You still think you have something? krispos42 Mar 2013 #470

You still think you're getting away with peddling that mendacious bilge? LOL: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #601

And, in the meantime...So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #455

A repetitive post to a repetitive post? krispos42 Mar 2013 #466

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #603

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #654

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #430

My accuser, the "you don't have to post NRA talking points" repeater... krispos42 Mar 2013 #438

You have been busted point-blank - *repeatedly* - posting things you then have to "walk back," apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #451

Man, you're slicing the baloney really thin... but it's still baloney. krispos42 Mar 2013 #461

Your denials and subsequent repeated back-trackings speak for themselves: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #464

Unlike you, I deny nothing. krispos42 Mar 2013 #483

Oh yes you have, *repeatedly*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #485

No, I haven't krispos42 Mar 2013 #507

Oh yes you have, *repeatedly*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #517

What was your role in the Meta thread again? krispos42 Mar 2013 #544

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #589

An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #374

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*Besides Which*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #375

And my counter-offer is that you apologize and walk away. krispos42 Mar 2013 #399

Your counter-offer is rejected: stop replying to me, and I'll stop replying to you. You INITIATED apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #403

Sure, just as soon as you promise to end your smear campaign... krispos42 Mar 2013 #439

Your counter-offer is rejected: stop replying to me, and I'll stop replying to you. You INITIATED apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #441

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #629

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #613

Again, just for the record: krispos42 INITIATED the current exchange; krispos42 has fared badly in apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #211

You could just put me on "ignore" krispos42 Mar 2013 #219

You go right ahead and put me on *ignore*: myself, I find it laughable how you tie yourself up in apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #222

Not as funny as you krispos42 Mar 2013 #225

Uh-huh. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #230

At this point, you've been so totally discredited, largely by your own posts, that I'm just waiting apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #239

Really, try "ibid", krispos42 Mar 2013 #243

That's your Schtick, not mine. Still waiting for final reply to me from a poster who claims he's apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #245

Still waiting for the person smearing me to walk away krispos42 Mar 2013 #247

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #250

Repetition #3 krispos42 Mar 2013 #280

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #288

So my stalker gets the first and last word? krispos42 Mar 2013 #310

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #317

Avoidence, denial, hypocritical behavior, no apology. krispos42 Mar 2013 #321

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #325

I'd be happy to stop posting, just as soon as you apologize for smearing me in this thread and other krispos42 Mar 2013 #331

So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #335

You can apologize at any time, you know. krispos42 Mar 2013 #346

Stating facts is simply speaking the truth, so there is nothing for me to apologize for. NOTHING. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #367

No, stating facts is not speaking the truth krispos42 Mar 2013 #385

"No, stating facts is not speaking the truth" <---There you have it folks, RIGHT THERE. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #386

Thanks for admitting I'm right krispos42 Mar 2013 #408

Thanks for admitting I'm right apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #414

Well, you've ignored a hell of a lot of them, I'll give you that. krispos42 Mar 2013 #448

False, #1-4. Further, you've been caught *AGAIN* making stuff up, and having to backtrack: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #460

Okay, if they're false, then prove it so. krispos42 Mar 2013 #480

Asked & answered, *ALL* (scroll ^ & down). Then there's this: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #482

You can't refute them! You can't refute them! krispos42 Mar 2013 #501

Watch our Gungeon Host* Spin! Spin! Spin! And get caught up in his own tangled web of mendacity: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #538

LOL krispos42 Mar 2013 #581

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #647

And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #387

Man, a non-reply reply AGAIN krispos42 Mar 2013 #410

I have no interest in "ending" a conversation I didn't initiate; you're the one whining about apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #412

You talked about me before I talked to or about you. krispos42 Mar 2013 #446

Not gonna happen. You initiated this exchange by posting, unsolicited, to me. You may terminate the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #449

The fact remains that you talked about me before I talked to or about you. krispos42 Mar 2013 #459

The fact remains that you have initiated every single reply between us in this thread, all the while apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #462

You initiated the discussion of my (and your) posting habits. krispos42 Mar 2013 #481

The fact remains that you have initiated every single reply between us in this thread, all the while apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #484

You chose to smear me to rdharma krispos42 Mar 2013 #504

There was no "smear post" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #506

Yeah, it was krispos42 Mar 2013 #539

No, it wasn't. I failed to mention nothing; you, on the other hand, even denied posting "Ibid" apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #545

Yeah, you did. krispos42 Mar 2013 #585

Nope: you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over again in that thread, and denied doing so apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #657

There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #511

Unless you give the truth, it's a smear. krispos42 Mar 2013 #540

The truth was given - and you denied it. Then backtracked. Then kept making stuff up. Then, here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #582

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #421

So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #433

For the record, the following statements in Post #331 above are simply FALSE: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #336

Dude, get a grip krispos42 Mar 2013 #347

Now it's double-down time on the falsehoods: "the ibid argument was with SOMEBODY ELSE." apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #365

I think it's pretty clear that you've put far more stock into the "ibid" subthread than I have. krispos42 Mar 2013 #379

Now, yet another backtrack; another admission of falsehoods retracted; yet once more a laughable apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #380

Once again a no-response response krispos42 Mar 2013 #405

And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #384

Yup, I'm still noting that your stalking is stalking. krispos42 Mar 2013 #406

Yup, I'm still noting that you have INITIATED every single reply in this sub-thread, and continue to apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #409

And you keep whining about how innocent you are... krispos42 Mar 2013 #445

Yup, I'm still noting that you have INITIATED every single reply in this sub-thread, and continue to apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #453

So you talked about me, unprovoked, first... krispos42 Mar 2013 #463

*Still* noting that you have INITIATED every single reply in this sub-thread to me, and continue to apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #469

I can't reply to you unless you reply to me krispos42 Mar 2013 #490

I'm not the one whining about "stalking" - you are. Even though *you* INITIATED every single reply apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #495

No, you're the one stalking. krispos42 Mar 2013 #518

And, in the meantime...So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #454

You need to learn how to format things to make them legible krispos42 Mar 2013 #465

You go right on believing that you can't read it if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #468

Oh, I can read it krispos42 Mar 2013 #488

Then if you can read it, you know your credibility has been reduced to ZERO on DU, and by your own apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #498

You're wearing your mirrored sunglasses backwards krispos42 Mar 2013 #522

Nope: but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Meantime, BUSTED: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #527

Truth always makes me better krispos42 Mar 2013 #559

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #588

I'll refer you to my other answer n/t krispos42 Mar 2013 #473

I'll refer you HERE: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #478

To the thread... krispos42 Mar 2013 #497

I refer you again to the post where your credibility has been reduced to ZERO, and by your own hand: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #503

Yeah, no. krispos42 Mar 2013 #529

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #429

Another attempt to get 2 last words? krispos42 Mar 2013 #444

An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #457

As you are the one that posted negatively about me, first and unprovoked... krispos42 Mar 2013 #472

An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #474

All you have to do stop complaining about me replying to you... krispos42 Mar 2013 #494

And, in the meantime...So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #475

So not busted krispos42 Mar 2013 #496

Yes, completely busted. You must think the rest of DU can't read, or know how to click a link: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #509

Oh, I'm counting on them being able to read. krispos42 Mar 2013 #535

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #607

And, in the meantime...So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #458

Golly gee, another repetitive post! krispos42 Mar 2013 #476

And, in the meantime...So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #479

Should you really be drawing attention to your repetitive nature? krispos42 Mar 2013 #499

And, in the meantime...So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #505

I like that you post repetitively krispos42 Mar 2013 #531

Watch our Gungeon Host* Spin! Spin! Spin! And get caught up in his own tangled web of mendacity: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #542

You mean watch you make a fool out of yourself? krispos42 Mar 2013 #583

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #596

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #431

And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #533

Says the self-righteous crusader against repetitive posts? krispos42 Mar 2013 #567

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #578

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #580

And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #554

Yup, here I am all tangled krispos42 Mar 2013 #617

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #646

1. There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #272

Well, then if there was no smearing, and nothing you want to stick to me... krispos42 Mar 2013 #279

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #286

And watch the Gungeon Host get caught up in the tangled web of his own disproved assertions *here*: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #524

Wait... disproved assertions? krispos42 Mar 2013 #556

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #566

Oh, come on, answer the question! n/t krispos42 Mar 2013 #638

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #594

I'll try again. krispos42 Mar 2013 #255

*Still* waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #257

Oh, not all night. krispos42 Mar 2013 #263

*Still* waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #264

We'll pick this up later. Have a good night n/t krispos42 Mar 2013 #266

On Edit: you know what, on second thought, why the *hell* do I care if you continue to make a fool apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #270

Because you have yet to apologize to me for smearing my name. krispos42 Mar 2013 #273

Your name was not "smeared": you did indeed post "Ibid" over and over and over again in that thread apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #283

In a dialogue that was not initiated by me. krispos42 Mar 2013 #306

"But I'll be happy to re-engage during the daytime" <--- Right here, my fellow DU'ers. The same apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #267

You admit to stalking me, so calling you a stalker both reasonable and accurate krispos42 Mar 2013 #275

No, I did not. You started whining about "stalking" even though every reply in this thread was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #282

Selective half-truths are lies. And your 3rd post in this thread was an unprovoked half-truth krispos42 Mar 2013 #305

Still waiting on the person who claims they're being "stalked" to quit replying to my posts. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #315

Still waiting for the critic of repetitive posting to chastise himself. krispos42 Mar 2013 #319

Still waiting for the poster who INITIATED this sub-thread then started whining about "stalking" apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #323

If only I was asking for an apology for imagined offenses. krispos42 Mar 2013 #329

So, recap time: 1. You INITIATED contact in this thread to deny doing something you clearly and apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #334

How do you get a typo on a copy-and-paste? krispos42 Mar 2013 #345

An offer is and has been on the table for some time: you cease initiating posts to me, and I will apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #370

I have been, and will continue to, challenge your unprovoked smear against me krispos42 Mar 2013 #392

1. There was no "smearing" as you did indeed post "Ibid" BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION over & over apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #393

Factually incorrect, as usual. krispos42 Mar 2013 #417

Nope, quite correct, as usual, as shown^^^^^^^. Scrolling up does the trick for 99.99% of DU'ers. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #424

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #425

And now, embarrasingly *busted* in this very thread, doing your usual thing #425^^^ apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #426

And, on a side note: did I call it, my fellow DU'ers, or did I CALL IT: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #394

I think we're alone in this thread. krispos42 Mar 2013 #418

Of course we are: why would the rest of DU be interested in this? apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #422

LOL!!! Dr Fate Mar 2013 #608

So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #434

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #641

Addendum: *Placeholder* reply for Bookmarked thread, re: future reference. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #134

Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #655

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #623

Quick! There's still time to "self-delete" your post *here*, to avoid embarrassment down-thread: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #428

So, so busted: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #432

More avoidance. krispos42 Mar 2013 #512

More avoidance: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #515

*gasp* krispos42 Mar 2013 #543

You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #548

You're caught in rank hypocracy krispos42 Mar 2013 #604

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #610

Nope: you're *caught* in "rank hypocracy" (Sic); plus repeated falsehoods, and making stuff up: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #612

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #551

On March 15th, I did not mention the Feinstein discussion was repetitive krispos42 Mar 2013 #614

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #616

Hard to twist & explain your plainly posted words with reams of obfuscation. It's not working. n/t apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #619

Check this out, folks: "they would not have known until yesterday that YOU were the person I was apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #653

Our good friend the Gungeon Host* has made a major boo-boo in this thread, and busted himself: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #491

No, I made a super-major boo-boo! krispos42 Mar 2013 #514

You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #521

I got caught admitting to having two conversations in a subthread... krispos42 Mar 2013 #555

You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #558

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #574

You got caught blatantly making stuff up, and the proof is here: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #546

Oooo, an escalation krispos42 Mar 2013 #586

*Exposure* of sheer, brazen dishonesty doesn't get any clearer than this, my fellow DU'ers: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #591

"Probably" isn't a fact. sylvi Mar 2013 #661

How about the "Hartford Courant"? krispos42 Mar 2013 #89

"Questions?" rdharma Mar 2013 #168

Link? n/t krispos42 Mar 2013 #170

Link rdharma Mar 2013 #175

You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. Read the post again. Jenoch Mar 2013 #107

The deniers have floated that one. lapislzi Mar 2013 #123

At least he was intelligent. If a gun is going to jam it will be in the last two or three rounds. CosmicDustBunny Mar 2013 #61

Lanza may have been intelligent Jenoch Mar 2013 #110

You lost me. I didn't read or hear anything to imply otherwise. Did I miss something? CosmicDustBunny Mar 2013 #159

Maddow used simple math to make a point Jenoch Mar 2013 #167

So, your issue is that Lanza wasn't able to kill even more children? baldguy Mar 2013 #125

That's ridiculous and insulting. Of course, Jenoch Mar 2013 #133

What's ridiculous and insulting is that no matter how many thousands of Americans are murdered baldguy Mar 2013 #138

Belittle? Jenoch Mar 2013 #139

I stand by my words, especially given your response. baldguy Mar 2013 #140

I stand by my words, which you seem to have confused with another post. Jenoch Mar 2013 #142

Well, you are waddling around in that duck suit, making those quacking noises. baldguy Mar 2013 #147

22 rounds is still more than double 10, logic is good. morningfog Mar 2013 #296

I was wrong when I used the nujmbers 7 or 8. Jenoch Mar 2013 #299

Your point is full of suspect fail. morningfog Mar 2013 #300

"...thanks to the expiraton of Dianne Feinstein�s law in 2004" Peter cotton Mar 2013 #3

Seung-Hui Cho reloaded well over a dozen times at Va Tech hack89 Mar 2013 #5

It's worth noting that Cho's handguns had 10 round magazines. Peter cotton Mar 2013 #7

9mm Glock 19s have a 15 round mag hack89 Mar 2013 #8

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Cho was using Peter cotton Mar 2013 #10

Not really sure - you could be right. nt hack89 Mar 2013 #11

Two pistols Crepuscular Mar 2013 #40

That explains it. Peter cotton Mar 2013 #93

He was using a mix between the Glock and Walther. Clames Mar 2013 #114

Yes Glock 19's standard mag is 15 rds ..... oldhippie Mar 2013 #39

Then let's ban semi-autos, including handguns. Hoyt Mar 2013 #82

Good luck with that. Peter cotton Mar 2013 #90

Message auto-removed Homerj1 Mar 2013 #151

Hey, Australians did it in 1996, and they are a lot tougher than our gun cultists. Hoyt Mar 2013 #169

Obviously the attempt to pass the AWB is the first step to banning all semi-automatics ... spin Mar 2013 #377

Talking points from the NRA? rdharma Mar 2013 #18

Just inconvenient facts. hack89 Mar 2013 #32

Maybe, but it doesn't mean that gun deaths can't be treestar Mar 2013 #103

If a law wouldn't have prevented Va Tech hack89 Mar 2013 #119

Nothing can stop mass shootings entirely treestar Mar 2013 #158

How? hack89 Mar 2013 #160

Lets not forget that his gun was not legally an assault weapon hack89 Mar 2013 #161

Flawed assumption Crepuscular Mar 2013 #6

So you are saying we need to get rid of all guns? HangOnKids Mar 2013 #14

Well, it is the logically consistent final answer sir pball Mar 2013 #26

No Crepuscular Mar 2013 #35

I Know NO Such Thing HangOnKids Mar 2013 #48

"changing magazines adds a significant amount of time" rdharma Mar 2013 #27

changing magazines adds a significant amount of time? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #38

The responses in this thread crack me up. Robb Mar 2013 #9

I don't own guns for self defense hack89 Mar 2013 #13

One would be more inclined to conserve ammo, and not fire indiscriminately, SayWut Mar 2013 #23

Murder sprees and self defense aren't the same. Peter cotton Mar 2013 #24

"gun cuddlers believe they can't defend themselves without them" rdharma Mar 2013 #47

The strawman in your post cracks me up. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2013 #68

Yep, that and attacking a prominent progressive voice on television while they are at it. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author pipoman Mar 2013 #502

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #15

LOL! HangOnKids Mar 2013 #17

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #22

Your Post HangOnKids Mar 2013 #56

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #71

Why are you asking me? HangOnKids Mar 2013 #73

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #77

Sorry Dude I Am Not Becoming Defensive HangOnKids Mar 2013 #78

Looks like the gun nutters are calling up "backup"! nt rdharma Mar 2013 #28

Yep, they coordinate these swarms via PM's, I happen to know that for a fact. Looks like MIRT apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #126

Do you obsessively nitpick any and all sincere proposals for reducing gun violence? maxsolomon Mar 2013 #20

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #29

Why would it be bad for Dr. Jill Biden to have a gun? ornotna Mar 2013 #34

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #37

The average male gun owner in America has 6.9 guns. I read that somewhere recently. maxsolomon Mar 2013 #43

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #55

I live the logic some here use nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #19

"it physically takes three seconds to change that magazine" rdharma Mar 2013 #30

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #36

What do you shoot competitively? rdharma Mar 2013 #53

Thankfully the vast majority of shooters nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #41

I'd call that on the (slightly) high side of average, myself. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2013 #66

Logic? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #46

Yes, we are gun owners nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #49

Son? Excuse me if I don't call you Mom. Crepuscular Mar 2013 #51

So you'd rather they have drums (which have a tendency to jam) nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #74

Is Matronizing a word? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #79

Whatever dude nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #85

Ignore away, probably better if you don't want to look foolish. Crepuscular Mar 2013 #86

Message auto-removed Homerj1 Mar 2013 #152

But he was switching, that *is* the point nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #164

"It's not time consuming or difficult." rdharma Mar 2013 #50

Reading comprehension is a valuable talent Crepuscular Mar 2013 #54

"I said it's neither time consuming or difficult" rdharma Mar 2013 #57

Thank you. n/t. MoclipsHumptulips Mar 2013 #145

Perhaps I am naive but in my mind there is another advantage to small capacity magazines. left is right Mar 2013 #352

One shot every two seconds WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #21

I can't even fathom the terror those little children and adults felt premium Mar 2013 #25

I believe the report also said that... Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #42

AWB doesn't address rate of fire One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #45

I suspect Crepuscular Mar 2013 #60

"kill 20 children" rdharma Mar 2013 #62

Not too good at reading, eh? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #63

"number of children that Lanza killed" rdharma Mar 2013 #64

OK, 26. dairydog91 Mar 2013 #81

"You can shoot glass with any gun" rdharma Mar 2013 #87

Message auto-removed ChineseJew Mar 2013 #75

By leaving off the "semi- auto". Works for H&k, so we're good with it. nt jmg257 Mar 2013 #83

Read it again Crepuscular Mar 2013 #84

Did Lanza buy the ammunition or did he also take that from his mother? HereSince1628 Mar 2013 #52

Unfortunately, the AWB doesn't address a gun's rate of fire. That could be a cool law. Recursion Mar 2013 #65

Kick, Rec. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #69

The AR-15 used would not have been banned under the 1994 AWB. NutmegYankee Mar 2013 #80

Check a dictionary... Melon_Lord Mar 2013 #155

just curious backwoodsbob Mar 2013 #197

"high capacity mag prove the need for an assault weapon ban?" rdharma Mar 2013 #201

Any more details come out about his mental state? customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #202

If a shooter knows they won't have to reload as much Politicalboi Mar 2013 #241

The only reason Loughner may have fumbled and dropped that magazine was because... LAGC Mar 2013 #311

I still can't believe that people have the audacity to post 'they are sorry likesmountains 52 Mar 2013 #290

They don't want you to laundry_queen Mar 2013 #295

Some gun nuts love guns for than life. morningfog Mar 2013 #298

How about if we just keep firearms away from kids with emotional disorders? geckosfeet Mar 2013 #353

Michael Moore hinted that someone might be about to leak the crime scene photos KamaAina Mar 2013 #477

I thought CT had an assault weapons ban in place when this shooting happened sunwyn Mar 2013 #659