"John Smith" wrote in message news:Hsk6c.34830$Cb.555454@attbi_s51...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...


John, you were wrong about bass growing 8' pot plants. As he stated he
could only grow 8" plants.
Bill

Damn it, I really hate it that I now have to wear reading glasses when
working on the computer. Either that or use MS magnifier for the blind.
; )

As I said when I got involved in the conversation, this is too funny to
believe. Bass keeps trying to justify his breaking the law, "because he
wanted to" exactly like his brother who enlisted in the army and then went
AWOL because his superiors were "too stupid" .. again the funny part is
that Bass tried to justify his brothers actions because like both Bass and
his brother are smarter than everyone else. It looks like their is a
pattern here.


What is too funny to believe is YOU, making wild allegations with no
fact, or evidence involved.

"John Smith" wrote in message news:hri6c.34240$J05.222049@attbi_s01...
Bass,

It sounds like you are the one making assumptions, and you are looking very
foolish.
I did not say you smoked pot. You did say you had 8' plants here is your
post from alt.drugs.pot :

"Please help! I have started a couple of plants, looking pretty good, they
are three leaved plants. My most important question...how to tell a male at
an early stage...the best one is bushy, about 8" tall so far."

Since you said you were growing pot inside, they would have to knock on the
door before busting in, it does not matter what door it is. See, when you
assume something you are making wrong assumptions.

Yep, right there, wrong in assuming. Where does it say indoors?

I did not say you were growing pot now, it is you making incorrect
assumptions again.

I did say the only reasons I could think that someone would want to grow pot
is to smoke it or sell it. I did not say you were doing either. Again, you
are making incorrect assumptions.

No, dummy, YOU are making the assumption that the only reason one
would grow pot is to sell it or smoke it. In fact, both of those are
incorrect.

Either way, growing pot is illegal, and it is shows extremely bad judgment
for anyone to grow it and then make a post in an open forum. It seems as if
both you and your brother make bad judgments.

You never intentionally break any laws?

Take care, and have a good day.

Same to you.


"basskisser" wrote in message
1. You asked me to tell you when you said you smoked pot, well I never
said
you smoked pot, I said you made a post where you wanted to tell the
difference between male and female plants. The topic of the thread was
that
the female plants have a higher concentration of THC. At no time did I
say
you smoked pot.

And in posting, you stated, in more ways than one, that I must be
smoking pot, because I was growing it. You are actually making my
point for me, thank you. Assuming something can make you look pretty
foolish.

2. You asked me to provide proof that you grew pot in your house. I
never
said you grew pot in your house. I only said you stated you had 8'
cannabis
plants and wanted to know how to tell male from female.

Never in my life said I had 8 foot tall pot plants. And, the house
part? You said that police would be knocking on my door. That is my
house door you are talking about? Wouldn't be my car door.

3. You asked me to provide proof that you sold pot. I never said you
sold
pot.
No, again, you assumed! You assumed I either smoke pot, or sell it,
because I once tried to grow some.

4. You asked me to provide proof that you were now growing pot. I
never
said you were now growing pot.

You statement was in the form of a question, something like, how much
pot are you growing now? What would that infer?

When someone can not follow a thread, but just keeps posting the same
ridiculous questions over and over again, I became bored with you.

Before I totally give up on you, why don't you see if you can answer a
few
of my questions.

1. Why were you growing pot?

Because I wanted to.

2. Why would anyone be stupid enough to make a post in an open forum
about
growing weed?

To find an answer to a question.

3. Why did you want to know how to tell the difference between male
and
female plants?

by nature, I'm curious. When I read about things, I like to learn.

Enquiring minds want to know.

You don't have an "enquiring mind". You are narrow minded, and live by
assumptions.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:33:18 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff) wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:17:32 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:01:00 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
...

basskisser wrote in message
om...
Here's the deal. Either you have some knowledge that I smoke pot, or
you are just a blow hard idiot. So, either provide facts, or be known
from now on, as the blow hard idiot, that makes wild, unproven
allegations about someone, just because something pops into your
feeble mind. Facts please. I'll be waiting.

Looks like you've been called out Henry.
Might be time to disappear for a few months, as is your usual mo.



Seems as if in the past, basskisser, stated he grew the dreaded weed. So,
would be a pretty safe assumption he smoked it, or he is farming for profit.

A couple of little flaws there, neighbor:

First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission (he hasn't, so
far as I can determine). Second, IF the first statement were true (and that's

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8q...nnrp1.deja.com

Relevance?

Joe Parsons

(Since Calif Bill's post has not hit my server, I'm responding here)

On 14 Mar 2004 06:56:49 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

[snip]

would be a pretty safe assumption he smoked it, or he is farming for
profit.

A couple of little flaws there, neighbor:

First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission (he
hasn't, so
far as I can determine). Second, IF the first statement were true (and
that's
open to question), you could not logically or reasonably infer both that
he used
the crop AND that he grows it to sell.

Since cannabis is not exactly renowned as a decorative houseplant, it is
reasonable to assume that EITHER of the two conclusions is true--but not
both.

Come to think of it, though, there ARE many people right her in Northern
California who do NOT use marijuana, but who grow it nevertheless--as a
medicine
that has proven benefits.

But I find an argument like this one to be very much a red herring: who
the hell
cares whether someone has used cannabis? It's quite a benign substance,
as
drugs go. I've just never seen a lot of attraction in anything that
basically
makes you stupid.

Give me a nice Balvenie any day.

Joe Parsons


I put the "OR" in the statement Joe. So he could be doing either OR both.

My bad...sorta. The "or" is binary--it does not allow for both. But I did make
an error, treating your "or" as though it were an "and."

I know some who did do both and some who just smoked the stuff. Never knew
nyone who grew, and did not partake.

I've known a number who did--right here in Northern California.

But my original statement stands: that the issue if whether an individual has
smoked pot is a red herring--who the hell cares, unless they're on some sort of
anti-drug campaign? Then, their use of that drug is simple hypocrisy.

But setting that aside, you are making an assumption that has yet to be
proven--that basskisser does, in fact, regularly smoke the killer weed. Until
and unless you do that, any assertions following are built on quicksand.

Joe Parsons


Bill

So, you NEVER knew anyone who tried to grow pot, but didn't smoke it,
huh? I realize you think you know it all, although you prove yourself
quite inept, usually, and again you are wrong. I grow radishes, too,
and wouldn't put one of those nasty things even close to my mouth.

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
(Since Calif Bill's post has not hit my server, I'm responding here)

On 14 Mar 2004 06:56:49 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

[snip]

would be a pretty safe assumption he smoked it, or he is farming for
profit.

A couple of little flaws there, neighbor:

First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission (he
hasn't, so
far as I can determine). Second, IF the first statement were true
(and
that's
open to question), you could not logically or reasonably infer both
that
he used
the crop AND that he grows it to sell.

Since cannabis is not exactly renowned as a decorative houseplant, it
is
reasonable to assume that EITHER of the two conclusions is true--but
not
both.

Come to think of it, though, there ARE many people right her in
Northern
California who do NOT use marijuana, but who grow it nevertheless--as
a
medicine
that has proven benefits.

But I find an argument like this one to be very much a red herring:
who
the hell
cares whether someone has used cannabis? It's quite a benign
substance,
as
drugs go. I've just never seen a lot of attraction in anything that
basically
makes you stupid.

Give me a nice Balvenie any day.

Joe Parsons


I put the "OR" in the statement Joe. So he could be doing either OR
both.

My bad...sorta. The "or" is binary--it does not allow for both. But I
did make
an error, treating your "or" as though it were an "and."

I know some who did do both and some who just smoked the stuff. Never
knew
nyone who grew, and did not partake.

I've known a number who did--right here in Northern California.

But my original statement stands: that the issue if whether an individual
has
smoked pot is a red herring--who the hell cares, unless they're on some
sort of
anti-drug campaign? Then, their use of that drug is simple hypocrisy.

But setting that aside, you are making an assumption that has yet to be
proven--that basskisser does, in fact, regularly smoke the killer weed.
Until
and unless you do that, any assertions following are built on quicksand.

Joe Parsons


Bill

So, you NEVER knew anyone who tried to grow pot, but didn't smoke it,
huh? I realize you think you know it all, although you prove yourself
quite inept, usually, and again you are wrong. I grow radishes, too,
and wouldn't put one of those nasty things even close to my mouth.


Maybe we are just giving him the benefit of doubt. We may doubt he is
extremely stupid, and only appears this way because of the killer weed.
Bill

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:17:14 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:33:18 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff) wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:17:32 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:01:00 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
Seems as if in the past, basskisser, stated he grew the dreaded weed. So,
would be a pretty safe assumption he smoked it, or he is farming for profit.

A couple of little flaws there, neighbor:

First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission (he hasn't, so
far as I can determine). Second, IF the first statement were true (and that's

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8q...nnrp1.deja.com

Relevance?

Um, I thought it was obvious. Why are you asking for relevance? You
said: "First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission
(he hasn't, so far as I can determine). "

That post is where he admitted it.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:17:14 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:33:18 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff) wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:17:32 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:01:00 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
Seems as if in the past, basskisser, stated he grew the dreaded weed. So,
would be a pretty safe assumption he smoked it, or he is farming for profit.

A couple of little flaws there, neighbor:

First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission (he hasn't, so
far as I can determine). Second, IF the first statement were true (and that's

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8q...nnrp1.deja.com

Relevance?

Um, I thought it was obvious. Why are you asking for relevance? You
said: "First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission
(he hasn't, so far as I can determine). "

That post is where he admitted it.

Steve

I state in that post that I smoke pot? No, you are wrong.

On 22 Mar 2004 04:30:00 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:17:14 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:33:18 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff) wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:17:32 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:01:00 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
Seems as if in the past, basskisser, stated he grew the dreaded weed. So,
would be a pretty safe assumption he smoked it, or he is farming for profit.

A couple of little flaws there, neighbor:

First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission (he hasn't, so
far as I can determine). Second, IF the first statement were true (and that's

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8q...nnrp1.deja.com

Relevance?

Um, I thought it was obvious. Why are you asking for relevance? You
said: "First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission
(he hasn't, so far as I can determine). "

That post is where he admitted it.

I state in that post that I smoke pot? No, you are wrong.

No, you state in the post that you grow pot, which is the "First" part
of Joe's post.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 22 Mar 2004 04:30:00 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:17:14 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:33:18 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff) wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:17:32 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:01:00 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
Seems as if in the past, basskisser, stated he grew the dreaded weed. So,
would be a pretty safe assumption he smoked it, or he is farming for profit.

A couple of little flaws there, neighbor:

First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission (he hasn't, so
far as I can determine). Second, IF the first statement were true (and that's

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8q...nnrp1.deja.com

Relevance?

Um, I thought it was obvious. Why are you asking for relevance? You
said: "First, you'd have to show that basskisser made such an admission
(he hasn't, so far as I can determine). "

That post is where he admitted it.

I state in that post that I smoke pot? No, you are wrong.

No, you state in the post that you grow pot, which is the "First" part
of Joe's post.

Steve

Wrong AGAIN!!! I said I've GROWN pot. Didn't ever say that I'm growing
it now. You are buying into the dumb asses that think because they
assume things, and make wild allegations, that those allegations
become true.

In article , (basskisser) wrote:

(Henry Blackmoore) wrote in message news:ncG4c.18806$%
Here's the deal. Either you have some knowledge that I smoke pot, or
you are just a blow hard idiot. So, either provide facts, or be known
from now on, as the blow hard idiot, that makes wild, unproven
allegations about someone, just because something pops into your
feeble mind. Facts please. I'll be waiting.

Do you deny that you have used and currently use recreational drugs?

Uh, sorry, there Henry. Again, YOU are the one in this newsgroup, who
has made SEVERAL statements pertaining to me and pot. Now, I ask
AGAIN, please show any evidence and or facts that back up your wild
allegations.

So you don't deny any allegations about you and continuing drug use?

However you have in the past alluded to President Bush having used
cocaine where no direct evidence exists but where he didn't exactly deny
the allegations either right?