| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
May 27th 05, 03:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote: You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life. ***** First I never stated that our system was the only way to go. While it has its problems, the good of our system overrides the bad. What I have stated is that if the citizens do not stand in vigilance of their elected officials this government will degrade into Facism or a dictatorship. Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it or not. Third if I don't like what the elected officials are doing I DO VOTE against them. Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs protection. Fifth I don't ask that everything that I want to be enacted. I do waccept the rule of the majority. I do expect the majority to hear the voice of the minority and compromise. james |
|
#2
June 2nd 05, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:42:00 GMT, james wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life. ***** First I never stated that our system was the only way to go. While it has its problems, the good of our system overrides the bad. What I have stated is that if the citizens do not stand in vigilance of their elected officials this government will degrade into Facism or a dictatorship. That cannot happen as long as the Constitution remains in effect. We the people elect our leaders and we can elect new ones if we don't like the old ones. Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it or not. Yes you do. But you have to come to terms with the fact that a larger number of people disagree with you. Third if I don't like what the elected officials are doing I DO VOTE against them. And what happened? Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs protection. No, because the majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. No matter what decision you make politically, someone will not like it. A good politician is one who learns to **** off the least amount of people. Fifth I don't ask that everything that I want to be enacted. I do waccept the rule of the majority. I do expect the majority to hear the voice of the minority and compromise. That's fair as long as the majority is not expected to abandon its core ideological values. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#3
June 2nd 05, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it
or not.) Yes you do. But you have to come to terms with the fact that a larger number of people disagree with you. Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own are somehow of the minority. It's people like you that are unable to come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate. The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with this administration. Recently, a meeting with Greenspan regarding the Bush administration's way-off predictions concerning the economy went something like this: Greenspan: "We certainly were wrong on those figures. We were all wrong." Hillary Clinton: "Just for the record, we weren't -all- wrong with our predicted calculations. " Of course, slavery was accepted by the majority, also. One shouldn't have to provide countless examples of how "majority" does not equate morality in any manner, yet you continue to confuse the two. That's fair as long as the majority is not expected to abandon its core ideological values. It goes both ways. You illustrate perfectly the current political majority is not only rabid, but has zero tolerance toward any view other than their own. Like the Bush admin prostitutes religion, you do the same thing with morals, invoking -your- values as the litmus test and justification to sit in judgement of others. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#4
June 3rd 05, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#6
June 3rd 05, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:11:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:33:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own are somehow of the minority. The last election pretty much confirms this. Exactly, as a certain faction (like yourself) who voted for Bush continue to mistakenly believe Bush had a majority of the people in the US vote for him (he didn't) Then how do you explain how he won? and that he achieved a mandate (again, he did not, unless you can explain Gannon). It's people like you that are unable to come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate. It is you who are in the minority, but somehow think you are in the majority despite evidence, Yes, evidence showing YOU are in the minority not the majority as relates here among these pages. A perfect example is your shining belief that speeders are criminals simply because they break a certain law, You just keep repeating that lie in the hopes that it'll suddenly become true. I NEVER ever made the statement that speeders are criminals. such as the last couple of elections, which show exactly the opposite. Democrats are still losing seats in congress, despite the unpopular war in Iraq. The desperation of these same democrats who just can't understand why they are losing, has become so obvious, that they don't even try to hide their crass, shrill, and unprofessional attacks against Republicans. Goes bothways,,,,like Delay and the comments he made regarding hatred and his threats against judges that you couldn't even locate on your own. Which pales in comparison to the vitriol spouted by the likes of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and others. In fact, you weren't even aware your own party acknowledged global warming, You're lying again. so you have pretty much ascertained to the group that even though you fancy yourself as educated on such subjects, you fall way short. Well, sure, when held against your wild imagination, I do fall short. But when held against the truth, I do just fine. That only makes the people rebel against them even more. At least one democrat understands this. It's interesting to watch Hillary Clinton try to reinvent herself as a "moderate", As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush... A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many". and to distance herself from some of her more vocal compadres. I guess she figures that we'll all forget her former leftist politics, and that farce that was supposed to be universal heathcare. That you consider healthcare for our own people as leftist politics while we continue to offer free health care to all the Iraqis who simply ask for it illustrates your level of comprehension. As is typical for you, you divert from one issue to another. I oppose all forms of socialized medicine whether it be for us or Iraqi's. The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with this administration. What is considered right and wrong is usually relative and depends upon the perspective of the majority. Wrong. Rights are not inherent to any majority group, despite what they and you feel. you are not special,....rights extend to all in this country, not merely your imagined moral majority. That has nothing to do with the concept of what is "right or wrong" and who sets the standard by which this is gauged. And, like it or not, from the time we are little kids in school, we learned that life is not always fair, and that those in the majority set the fads, trends, and rules whether the rest of us agree or not. Take slavery for example. I already did. Get your own examples to illustrate how majority rule is not always right. Majority rule is always right in the context of the time it is enacted. During the time of slavery, the majority believed it was an acceptable practice. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided that it was no longer an acceptable practice. In no time in recent history has the minority successfully bent the will of the majority on major issues. Change occurs when the majority recognizes that the time is right for a different direction. It is not a sudden thing, rather it is a gradual transition. Liberals have been attempting to affect political and social change through the indoctrination of young people and by the dissemination of liberally biased news for some time. Fortunately, events such as the rise of talk radio, the ability of people to seek alternative news sources through the internet, and exposure of some of the purveyors of liberal bias, has slowed down, if not reversed, this trend. As another example, I personally think the TV show, "American Idol" (and most "reality" shows for that matter) is a complete waste of time and a total example of vapid vicarious superficiality, and voyeurism. Exactly, yet, such audio voyeurism is something you find "juicy". In fact, it was only a few years ago you claimed practicing audio voyeurism turned you on, That is yet another lie. I never made any such claim. I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. listening to underaged girls talk about sex on their cordless phones. In this example, you not only had to be made aware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. Any scanner user could do it. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Which is exactly what they did for the cell phone band. We've been all through this before. (As usual) You don't know what you are talking about. Don't embarrass yourself by bringing it up again. I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became effective and what it covers. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#7
June 6th 05, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:11:32 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:33:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own are somehow of the minority. The last election pretty much confirms this. Exactly, as a certain faction (like yourself) who voted for Bush continue to mistakenly believe Bush had a majority of the people in the US vote for him (he didn't) Then how do you explain how he won? =A0 That you mistake the majority of registered voters who actually voted for the majority of the people in the US is your problem. That you fall victim to the deliberate disinformation campaign that Bush had a mandate is a bonus. It's people like you that are unable to come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate. It is you who are in the minority, but somehow think you are in the majority despite evidence, Yes, evidence showing YOU are in the minority not the majority as relates to many, many positions among these pages. A perfect example is your shining belief that speeders are criminals simply because they break a certain law, You just keep repeating that lie in the hopes that it'll suddenly become true. I NEVER ever made the statement that speeders are criminals. You did in many fashion. For instance, you responded (concerning the speeder being called a criminal) "if the shoe fits" and you have indeed labeled those who commit civil infractions as "criminal". The speeding analogy was used to exterminate your poor analogy that dx'ers and freebanders are criminals. You changed the equation by adding additional parameters invoking that dx and freebanding can lead to other charges in certain instances,..same with speeding. You are still unable to comprehend neither offense is a criminal offense. Democrats are still losing seats in congress, despite the unpopular war in Iraq. The desperation of these same democrats who just can't understand why they are losing, has become so obvious, that they don't even try to hide their crass, shrill, and unprofessional attacks against Republicans. Goes bothways,,,,like Delay and the comments he made regarding hatred and his threats against judges that you couldn't even locate on your own. Which pales in comparison to the vitriol spouted by the likes of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and others. =A0=A0 60% of this majority you continue to invoke as justifications for whatever the Bush camp does agree with stem cell research, yet, in the third week of May, Bush said, addressing this situation "There is no such thing as a spare embryo" while attempting to explain his reasoning for opposing it. In the first place, what about this majority now, Dave? In the second place, each and EVERY single company that is involved with assisting infertile couples conceive tosses away countless embryos on a regular and ongoing basis. What the hell is Bush talking about? Now we have found abuses at Gitmo concerning the koran -were- true. As always, more lipservice from Bushyboy, downplaying it as "a few isolated incidences"...yes, incidents that are becoming commonplace and part of a pattern of this administration. In fact, you weren't even aware your own party acknowledged global warming, You're lying again. Which are you claiming isn't true, now? The fact that you weren't aware of global warming, asked for proof, was shown, then changed your claim to one of how much effect it actually has on the world, or the fact that you were not aware your own party acknowledged such? Either one is there for the reading. You have pretty much ascertained to the group that even though you fancy yourself as educated on such subjects, you fall way short. Well, sure, when held against your wild imagination, Try not and let your anger dictate your posts become personal because as much as you need to believe it, global waming is not my imagination. I do fall short. But when held against the truth, I do just fine. When the truth is presented, you attack it, the poster, change the subject, snip it, or claim the information is incorrect..Lol. Such was done with your wild ants that democracy was not only taking place in Iran, but that Iraq was improving. You asked for reports and were given several. On other occasion, you ask for what you mistakenly misrepresent to yourself as "proof", and when such is given, you claim the information is wrong because "mistakes happen",,,lol...I agree, and the only mistake here is made by yourself..repeatedly. That only makes the people rebel against them even more. At least one democrat understands this. It's interesting to watch Hillary Clinton try to reinvent herself as a "moderate", As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush... A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many". Well respected senators, generals, advisors and others on the front line not constitute uncertain doubters. Ditton for all those defectors who resigned from the Bush admin. and to distance herself from some of her more vocal compadres. I guess she figures that we'll all forget her former leftist politics, and that farce that was supposed to be universal heathcare. That you consider healthcare for our own people as leftist politics while we continue to offer free health care to all the Iraqis who simply ask for it illustrates your level of comprehension. .As is typical for you, you divert from one issue to another. Something is very wrong with you, as -you- brought up health care. As is standard with your incompetence you blame another for your goofy gaffes. I oppose all forms of socialized medicine whether it be for us or Iraqi's. Yet, instead of being proactive (as you prefer to imagine yourself) and doing something about it or even speaking out about it, you choose to ignore the wild spending of health care spent on Iraq, and instead choose to whine and snivel and continue to be impotently REactive about history that has no relation to the present situation. Frank has demonstrated the reason you employ this particular method is because you can not discuss current political situations due how little informed you are of current affairs. The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with this administration. What is considered right and wrong is usually relative and depends upon the perspective of the majority. Wrong. Rights are not inherent to any majority group, despite what they and you feel, you are not special,....rights extend to all in this country, not merely your imagined moral majority. That has nothing to do with the concept of what is "right or wrong" and who sets the standard by which this is gauged. My gosh, you finally did it. You talked yourself into a circle. It has everything to do with it. The fact that you feel you have a right to deny others their rights under the impossible guise that your morals are somehow superior to those who do not subscribe to your core beliefs makes about as much sense as your position that rights have nothing to do with the concept of right or wrong. And, like it or not, from the time we are little kids in school, we learned that life is not always fair, and that those in the majority set the fads, trends, and rules whether the rest of us agree or not. You are dead wrong. Fashion trends and fads have indeed been set by extreme minority factions on many, many occasions. You're blathering. Take slavery for example. I already did. Get your own examples to illustrate how majority rule is not always right. Majority rule is always right in the context of the time it is enacted. Slavery was never right, David, no matter what the time -or- the context, nor is beating your wife, but you go on and argue how you agree these laws were right simply because they were enacted by what you refer the majority. Perhaps such a ****ed up core belief system is what was responsible for your marital and personal woes in the first place. During the time of slavery, the majority believed it was an acceptable practice. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided that it was no longer an acceptable practice. In no time in recent (a relative term you can apply to mean any length of time you wish) history has the minority successfully bent the will of the majority on major issues. That's -exactly- what happened on countless issues. Most recently it happened with the taking of God and religion out of the schools. The will bends and this majority you continue to misrepresent changes the law, especially when it is shown the law is -wrong- or poorly constructed by those you hold as the -majority-. History is rife with examples of laws that were enacted by the "majority" but were struck down as unconstitutional and you denying such takes place on a regular basis is nothing short of astounding. Change occurs when the majority recognizes that the time is right for a different direction. Often brought on by the minority bending the "will" of the majority. It is not a sudden thing, rather it is a gradual transition. Aw gee,,,,you're off and ranting,,er, running on yet another topic. Liberals (snip) Liberals founded this country and the fact that Bush has successfully forced you to accept his redefined albeit incorrect definition of "liberal" is almost as funny as your blaming everyone but the current leaders of this country for everything,,you blamed the liberals, you blamed the queers, you blamed the democrats, hell Dave, you blamed everyone but the leader of this country for all the problems we face. It must be nice to go through life believing the person you voted for has done no wrong, is the leader of this country, and responsible for nothing except good things. As another example, I personally think the TV show, "American Idol" (and most "reality" shows for that matter) is a complete waste of time and a total example of vapid vicarious superficiality, and voyeurism. Exactly, yet, such audio voyeurism is something you find "juicy". In fact, it was only a few years ago you claimed practicing audio voyeurism turned you on, That is yet another lie. No, it's not. Google it. I never made any such claim. =A0 =A0You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age finds sex talk of minors "juicy". Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world, David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you disagree. You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, but what you can't comprehend is those people -are- the majority of posting regs in this group, I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. =A0 It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy". In this example, you not only had to be made aware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are extremely ignorant. Any scanner user could do it. No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago, when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young, the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim "any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then. In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner". All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO! If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband. It was always a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting. We've been all through this before. (As usual) You don't know what you are talking about. As usual, you get so caught up in your lies, you begin to blame others for your problems. Don't embarrass yourself by bringing it up again. That's awful nice of you, but I prefer to let you, on occasion, talk sideways for the entertainment of all,..now tell us once again how it was legal for you to eavesdrop on private cordless telephone conversations (when scanners were using crystals) using an electronic device, when cordless phones were of a frequency which scanners did not come with. I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became .effective and what it covers. Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you permission to violate the law. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated about the law you break and penalties you face. David T. Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
|
#8
June 7th 05, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:59:06 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Exactly, as a certain faction (like yourself) who voted for Bush continue to mistakenly believe Bush had a majority of the people in the US vote for him (he didn't) Then how do you explain how he won? I explained this to you before -- read about Ivan the Terrible (assuming you can find it on the internet). It probably also had something to do with election fraud in Ohio and a few other states, the extent of which will probably not be fully known until after the Dems regain the WH. snip As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush... A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many". Dave, are you friggin' blind? The Republican party is splitting in half and you don't even see it? and to distance herself from some of her more vocal compadres. I guess she figures that we'll all forget her former leftist politics, and that farce that was supposed to be universal heathcare. That you consider healthcare for our own people as leftist politics while we continue to offer free health care to all the Iraqis who simply ask for it illustrates your level of comprehension. As is typical for you, you divert from one issue to another. I oppose all forms of socialized medicine whether it be for us or Iraqi's. I suppose you are able to pay for all your medical bills -- even catastrauphic injuries -- right out of your own pocket, huh? The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with this administration. What is considered right and wrong is usually relative and depends upon the perspective of the majority. Wrong. Rights are not inherent to any majority group, despite what they and you feel. you are not special,....rights extend to all in this country, not merely your imagined moral majority. That has nothing to do with the concept of what is "right or wrong" and who sets the standard by which this is gauged. Well, in the "right or wrong" category you are certainly in the minority in this newsgroup. In fact, you -are- the minority. And, like it or not, from the time we are little kids in school, we learned that life is not always fair, and that those in the majority set the fads, trends, and rules whether the rest of us agree or not. Take slavery for example. I already did. Get your own examples to illustrate how majority rule is not always right. Majority rule is always right in the context of the time it is enacted. During the time of slavery, the majority believed it was an acceptable practice. Wrong. There was bitter debate about slavery during the Constitutional Congress. The reason slavery was left to the states was because they felt that unity was far more important than slavery. The issue was ultimately resolved during the Civil War, but existed long before. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided that it was no longer an acceptable practice. Wrong again. The 'majority' prior to the Civil War included only white male citizens. After emancipation the 'majority' suddenly included blacks as well as whites, and a much better representation of the majority could be counted (although still not very well until after the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, and the civil rights movement of the 1960's). In no time in recent history has the minority successfully bent the will of the majority on major issues. Again, wrong. You claim that a majority of people wanted Bush to be president, yet only 30% of registered voters actually voted in the election (some of them not voting because they were prevented from voting, with the Supreme Court declaring that citizens do -not- have any right to vote). Just 15% is not a "majority" by any stretch of the imagination. Enough with the semantics, Dave -- address the facts. Change occurs when the majority recognizes that the time is right for a different direction. It is not a sudden thing, rather it is a gradual transition. Liberals have been attempting to affect political and social change through the indoctrination of young people and by the dissemination of liberally biased news for some time. Fortunately, events such as the rise of talk radio, the ability of people to seek alternative news sources through the internet, and exposure of some of the purveyors of liberal bias, has slowed down, if not reversed, this trend. Oh good God -- you've been brainwashed, Dave. Either that or you're a bona-fide paranoid. Get some professional help already. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#9
June 3rd 05, 09:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:52:46 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs protection. No, because the majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. This is not a minority/majority issue, Dave. Civil rights apply to each and every individual. If the majority makes a decision that affects those civil rights then it affects everyone -including- the majority. And last time I checked, the word 'all' encompasses the ultimate majority. But the people do have a choice. If they want to prohibit gay marriage based on their religious beliefs then they must be willing to give up their freedom of religion. So are -you- prepared to sacrifice -your- freedom to practice -your- religion in order to preserve this "sacred tradition"? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Roger Beeps 100% ILLEGAL | CB | |||
Hybrid Mode
