On 3 Mar 2005 05:43:38 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 12:03:46 -0800, wrote:



Now. No one has said you beat your wife,

Hmm, so you think, that if someone asks "do you STILL beat your wife",
that that wouldn't conotate a lie????

That is correct.


Now, notice, John, he didn't ask
IF I had ever beat my wife. If he had, I would have answered. But,
being how Fritz isn't very bright, he IMPLICATED me, which is a total
lie. Do you condone that behavior? Do you think someone who would
implicate me in a total fabrication would have integrity?

He could have tremendous integrity and be pulling your chain just to see how
loudly you ring.

nor smoke pot,
Not true. Jim has, several times. Go look. Fritz even accused me of
smoking pot with my kids. Go look again. Jim has accused me of growing
pot, of growing pot with my kids' knowledge, of buying seeds on the
internet, of having a "crop" of pot, and on and on. All lies. Do you
condone his lying about such? Do you think a person that would post
such lies would have integrity?

Show me where Jim has said that you smoke pot.


nor do nasty things with
your kids,

Nobody said "nasty things". See above.

nor live in a trailer,

Show me one instance where they've said you live in a trailer.


Again, Smithers, and NOYB have, without any facts.

nor any of the other multitude of things with
which you take issue.

Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication". It is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those three
are nothing short of liars.


You're missing the point, and you're trying my patience.

Suppose I said, "Basskisser, have you stopped eating what you pick out of your
nose?"

There would be an *implication* that you had been eating whatever you picked out
of your nose. Now, you know that you've *never* even picked your nose, and
therefore the implication is patently ridiculous. It can't be true or false.
It's not a statement of fact. It's a question.

Should you ask me such a question, I would not accuse you of lying. You simply
asked me a question. If you asked me the question, I could:

- do nothing

- respond with something like, "I've never eaten the stuff I pick out of my
nose."

-go TOTALLY ****ING BANANAS and start asking you to PROVE your WILD ASSED
allegations and tell you what a LYING ASSHOLE you are and get the whole damn
group LAUGHING at me for getting caught again.

Do you get my drift?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2005 05:43:38 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 12:03:46 -0800, wrote:



Now. No one has said you beat your wife,

Hmm, so you think, that if someone asks "do you STILL beat your wife",
that that wouldn't conotate a lie????

That is correct.


Now, notice, John, he didn't ask
IF I had ever beat my wife. If he had, I would have answered. But,
being how Fritz isn't very bright, he IMPLICATED me, which is a total
lie. Do you condone that behavior? Do you think someone who would
implicate me in a total fabrication would have integrity?

He could have tremendous integrity and be pulling your chain just to see
how
loudly you ring.

nor smoke pot,
Not true. Jim has, several times. Go look. Fritz even accused me of
smoking pot with my kids. Go look again. Jim has accused me of growing
pot, of growing pot with my kids' knowledge, of buying seeds on the
internet, of having a "crop" of pot, and on and on. All lies. Do you
condone his lying about such? Do you think a person that would post
such lies would have integrity?

Show me where Jim has said that you smoke pot.


nor do nasty things with
your kids,

Nobody said "nasty things". See above.

nor live in a trailer,

Show me one instance where they've said you live in a trailer.


Again, Smithers, and NOYB have, without any facts.

nor any of the other multitude of things with
which you take issue.

Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication". It is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those three
are nothing short of liars.


You're missing the point, and you're trying my patience.

Suppose I said, "Basskisser, have you stopped eating what you pick out of
your
nose?"

There would be an *implication* that you had been eating whatever you
picked out
of your nose. Now, you know that you've *never* even picked your nose, and
therefore the implication is patently ridiculous. It can't be true or
false.
It's not a statement of fact. It's a question.

Should you ask me such a question, I would not accuse you of lying. You
simply
asked me a question. If you asked me the question, I could:

- do nothing

- respond with something like, "I've never eaten the stuff I pick out of
my
nose."

-go TOTALLY ****ING BANANAS and start asking you to PROVE your WILD ASSED
allegations and tell you what a LYING ASSHOLE you are and get the whole
damn
group LAUGHING at me for getting caught again.

Do you get my drift?

Asslicker is still trying to figure out that loud
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM MMMMMM
he keeps hearing over his head.


More evidence that he rightly deserves the title of "King of the NG idiots"




John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 05:43:38 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 12:03:46 -0800, wrote:



Now. No one has said you beat your wife,

Hmm, so you think, that if someone asks "do you STILL beat your
wife",
that that wouldn't conotate a lie????

That is correct.


Now, notice, John, he didn't ask
IF I had ever beat my wife. If he had, I would have answered. But,
being how Fritz isn't very bright, he IMPLICATED me, which is a
total
lie. Do you condone that behavior? Do you think someone who would
implicate me in a total fabrication would have integrity?

He could have tremendous integrity and be pulling your chain just to
see how
loudly you ring.

nor smoke pot,
Not true. Jim has, several times. Go look. Fritz even accused me of
smoking pot with my kids. Go look again. Jim has accused me of
growing
pot, of growing pot with my kids' knowledge, of buying seeds on the
internet, of having a "crop" of pot, and on and on. All lies. Do you
condone his lying about such? Do you think a person that would post
such lies would have integrity?

Show me where Jim has said that you smoke pot.

Here is where Smithers has STATED that I have a crop of pot, and suffer
from substance abuse, a TOTAL LIE:
Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd. wrote:
I am very concerned about his inability to control his temper, he
seems to
be snapping at everyone lately. I know this can be a side effect of
FAS,
but I think the drug abuse has aggravated it.

I hope no one turns him into Child Services. They would freak if
they found
his garden full of weed.



nor do nasty things with
your kids,

Nobody said "nasty things". See above.

nor live in a trailer,

Show me one instance where they've said you live in a trailer.


Again, Smithers, and NOYB have, without any facts.

nor any of the other multitude of things with
which you take issue.

Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication". It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.


You're missing the point, and you're trying my patience.

Suppose I said, "Basskisser, have you stopped eating what you pick
out of your
nose?"

There would be an *implication* that you had been eating whatever you
picked out
of your nose. Now, you know that you've *never* even picked your
nose, and
therefore the implication is patently ridiculous. It can't be true or
false.
It's not a statement of fact. It's a question.

But, the implication was still there, John. That is the part you aren't
grasping. An implication IS an accusation, and fully admissible in a
court of law. As such, Fritz, JimH, and Smithers are low class liars.
You see, by implication, if one is asked if he has *stopped* something,
it is then IMPLIED that he is doing that, or how else could he STOP?
It's not hard, I know it's going over Fritz's head, he doesn't realize
that by implication, he is a low life liar, but honestly, I thought
you'd have enough intelligence to understand.

Should you ask me such a question, I would not accuse you of lying.
You simply
asked me a question. If you asked me the question, I could:

- do nothing

- respond with something like, "I've never eaten the stuff I pick out
of my
nose."


Ah, so you DO condone, tolerate, and even like the idea of people lying
about other people?

On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication". It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow 'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You're missing the point, and you're trying my patience.

Suppose I said, "Basskisser, have you stopped eating what you pick
out of your
nose?"

There would be an *implication* that you had been eating whatever you
picked out
of your nose. Now, you know that you've *never* even picked your
nose, and
therefore the implication is patently ridiculous. It can't be true or
false.
It's not a statement of fact. It's a question.

But, the implication was still there, John. That is the part you aren't
grasping. An implication IS an accusation, and fully admissible in a
court of law.

Again, where did you come up with this idea that a question such as I asked IS
an accusation? It is fully admissible in a court of law as what? A question? An
accusation? I think not.

As such, Fritz, JimH, and Smithers are low class liars.
You see, by implication, if one is asked if he has *stopped* something,
it is then IMPLIED that he is doing that, or how else could he STOP?

OR (now listen!) it is a question designed to pull someone's chain!

It's not hard, I know it's going over Fritz's head, he doesn't realize
that by implication, he is a low life liar, but honestly, I thought
you'd have enough intelligence to understand.

I don't really think my intelligence is the issue. Why are you 'implying' that I
don't have the intelligence to understand?

Should you ask me such a question, I would not accuse you of lying.
You simply
asked me a question. If you asked me the question, I could:

- do nothing

- respond with something like, "I've never eaten the stuff I pick out
of my
nose."


Ah, so you DO condone, tolerate, and even like the idea of people lying
about other people?

I condone and tolerate and sometimes laugh my ass off when people ask ridiculous
questions and someone else goes off the deep end.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication". It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow 'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You're missing the point, and you're trying my patience.

Suppose I said, "Basskisser, have you stopped eating what you pick
out of your
nose?"

There would be an *implication* that you had been eating whatever you
picked out
of your nose. Now, you know that you've *never* even picked your
nose, and
therefore the implication is patently ridiculous. It can't be true or
false.
It's not a statement of fact. It's a question.

But, the implication was still there, John. That is the part you aren't
grasping. An implication IS an accusation, and fully admissible in a
court of law.

Again, where did you come up with this idea that a question such as I
asked IS
an accusation? It is fully admissible in a court of law as what? A
question? An
accusation? I think not.

As such, Fritz, JimH, and Smithers are low class liars.
You see, by implication, if one is asked if he has *stopped* something,
it is then IMPLIED that he is doing that, or how else could he STOP?

OR (now listen!) it is a question designed to pull someone's chain!


Or designed to make asslicker drink his own bitter medicine.

It's not hard, I know it's going over Fritz's head, he doesn't realize
that by implication, he is a low life liar, but honestly, I thought
you'd have enough intelligence to understand.

I don't really think my intelligence is the issue. Why are you 'implying'
that I
don't have the intelligence to understand?

Pretty comical from someone who believes schnapps is whiskey.

(And he wonders why he retains the title of "King of the NG idiots")



Should you ask me such a question, I would not accuse you of lying.
You simply
asked me a question. If you asked me the question, I could:

- do nothing

- respond with something like, "I've never eaten the stuff I pick out
of my
nose."


Ah, so you DO condone, tolerate, and even like the idea of people lying
about other people?

I condone and tolerate and sometimes laugh my ass off when people ask
ridiculous
questions and someone else goes off the deep end.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime, PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/0/81efeb4984c10c9d86256c62007e99ae/$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.

On 3 Mar 2005 11:23:00 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime, PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/0/81efeb4984c10c9d86256c62007e99ae/$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.

Main Entry: im·pli·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "im-pl&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated b : close
connection; especially : an incriminating involvement
2 a : the act of implying : the state of being implied b (1) : a logical
relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is true
and the second is false (2) : a logical relationship between two propositions in
which if the first is true the second is true (3) : a statement exhibiting a
relation of implication
3 : something implied : as a : SUGGESTION b : a possible significance the book
has political implications

So you feel that the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" implicates
you or indicates an incriminating involvement in the beating of your wife?

Could, perhaps, the third definition above be more applicable?

I think so. I sincerely doubt if a court would find you guilty or even involved
in the beating of your wife simply because someone asked you the question.

Furthermore, I don't think a court would find you guilty of growing marijuana in
your back yard simply because someone asked how your crop was doing.

After reviewing your references, I conclude you are using the word 'implication'
erroneously. In the first case, a great deal of evidence implicated the
defendant. In the second, an allegation was made, the defendant pleaded guilty
and was punished.

In your case, implications were made in the form of definition 2, above. If
neither of the propositions is true, then the implication is false.

So, I don't think you need to worry about going to jail based 'solely' on the
questions (or implications) made by P. Fritz, et al.

Now, stop worrying and enjoy your day!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 11:23:00 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand
"implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that
those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that
come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime,
PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance
of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense
is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.n...6c62007e99ae/=
$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.

Main Entry: im=B7pli=B7ca=B7tion
Pronunciation: "im-pl&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated b :
close
connection; especially : an incriminating involvement
2 a : the act of implying : the state of being implied b (1) : a
logical
relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the
first is true
and the second is false (2) : a logical relationship between two
propositions in
which if the first is true the second is true (3) : a statement
exhibiting a
relation of implication
3 : something implied : as a : SUGGESTION b : a possible significance
the book
has political implications

So you feel that the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
implicates
you or indicates an incriminating involvement in the beating of your
wife?

Could, perhaps, the third definition above be more applicable?

I think so. I sincerely doubt if a court would find you guilty or
even involved
in the beating of your wife simply because someone asked you the
question.

Oh, but alas, you STILL don't understand the qualifier Fritz used:
STILL. Now, what in the WORLD would that IMPLY to you? Now, I never
said that a court could convict me on anything that Fritz said. You
aren't grasping things here, John. I am conveying to you that
implication IS strong enough to be used in all of the courts, thus, he
IS a liar.

Furthermore, I don't think a court would find you guilty of growing
marijuana in
your back yard simply because someone asked how your crop was doing.

Same response, read above.

After reviewing your references, I conclude you are using the word
'implication'
erroneously. In the first case, a great deal of evidence implicated
the
defendant. In the second, an allegation was made, the defendant
pleaded guilty
and was punished.

In your case, implications were made in the form of definition 2,
above. If
neither of the propositions is true, then the implication is false.

So, I don't think you need to worry about going to jail based
'solely' on the
questions (or implications) made by P. Fritz, et al.

Again, I never, ever said I was worried about "going to jail based on
the implications made by Fritz. You are running off on a different
tangent again. What does that to you? Booze? I am again, conveying to
you that an implication can be a LIE. You said so yourself, if neither
proposition is true, then the implication is false, ie: a low class
lie.

Now, stop worrying and enjoy your day!

Why do you think I am "worrying"? Those three buffoons are the least of
my worries.

On 3 Mar 2005 12:40:35 -0800, wrote:




Why do you think I am "worrying"? Those three buffoons are the least of
my worries.

Go back to your posts of the previous hour in which you 'implied' several things
about one of the individuals who has made implications about you.

Notice his response to the ridiculous implications you made...none.

Did he start asking you for proof? Did he start calling you 'capital letter'
names? Did he act as though he was totally bent out of shape? No.

Take a lesson from that. Can you not see that you are biting at any bait put in
front of you? It is laughable.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2005 11:23:00 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime, PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/0/81efeb4984c10c9d86256c62007e99ae/$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.

Main Entry: im·pli·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "im-pl&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated b : close
connection; especially : an incriminating involvement
2 a : the act of implying : the state of being implied b (1) : a logical
relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is
true
and the second is false (2) : a logical relationship between two
propositions in
which if the first is true the second is true (3) : a statement exhibiting
a
relation of implication
3 : something implied : as a : SUGGESTION b : a possible significance the
book
has political implications

So you feel that the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
implicates
you or indicates an incriminating involvement in the beating of your wife?

Could, perhaps, the third definition above be more applicable?

I think so. I sincerely doubt if a court would find you guilty or even
involved
in the beating of your wife simply because someone asked you the question.

Furthermore, I don't think a court would find you guilty of growing
marijuana in
your back yard simply because someone asked how your crop was doing.

After reviewing your references, I conclude you are using the word
'implication'
erroneously. In the first case, a great deal of evidence implicated the
defendant. In the second, an allegation was made, the defendant pleaded
guilty
and was punished.

In your case, implications were made in the form of definition 2, above.
If
neither of the propositions is true, then the implication is false.

So, I don't think you need to worry about going to jail based 'solely' on
the
questions (or implications) made by P. Fritz, et al.

Now, stop worrying and enjoy your day!

Asslicker once again proves why he hold the title of "King of the NG idiots"

We can see why he would have never made it through law school LMAO




John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."