|
nobodys old friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: Mark, cutting I said: Geez, Mark, and I just thought we were getting to get to be buddies. Guess the engagement's off, huh? Stevie making a pass at me Nope. yep you are in plain langauge Nope. More of your delusions of grandeur, Markie. nope more of you your sexual harassment What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! Mark said: That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at the act of conception. If calling me a ******* makes you feel better, then have at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence. YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject to change! a nice clear death threat Nope. sure is Nope. Not then...Not today... was then and remains today Nope and nope. But your continuous ranting about it certainly substantiates my claims that you are paranoid. no way that is anything but a death threat It's a lot of things...A death threat isn't one of them. It can only be a death threat Nope. It has nothing to do with hamradio The what were YOU doing making your own "best shot" comments? shots do not always involve gun or killing No, they don't. But afterall, Markie, YOU have stated it's not what the "spaeker" intended, but what YOU perceived... A "shot" in the context you made YOUR comment, especially considering my military service, either meant a firearm or a punch...In either case, a violent act. nothing to with the topic "Cw it more than just a mode" What were you doing making slanderous comments? I was not making one Here we are again, Markie. YOU have stated it's not what the "spaeker" intended, but what (YOU) perceived... So...does that concept NOT apply to YOU...?!?! can't have been I could have been making libelous one, but I was doing that either Sure you were... The tone, content and delivery of your comments were ALL meant to incite and inflame. No more...no less... Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: Mark, cutting I said: Geez, Mark, and I just thought we were getting to get to be buddies. Guess the engagement's off, huh? Stevie making a pass at me Nope. yep you are in plain langauge Nope. More of your delusions of grandeur, Markie. nope more of you your sexual harassment What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! yours Mark said: That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at the act of conception. If calling me a ******* makes you feel better, then have at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence. YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject to change! a nice clear death threat Nope. sure is Nope. Not then...Not today... was then and remains today Nope and nope. sure a death and no one invites a death threat just like no one invites rape or any other crime |
Wondering if Markie will answer this question:
"Hey Markie...Do The "Rules" Not Apply To You Too...?!?!" nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! yours I repeat the question since you didn't answer it... What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! Mark said: That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at the act of conception. If calling me a ******* makes you feel better, then have at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence. YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject to change! a nice clear death threat Nope. sure is Nope. Not then...Not today... was then and remains today Nope and nope. sure a death "sure a death"...?!?! That wasn't English. Try again. and no one invites a death threat For once something we can agree on. just like no one invites rape or any other crime Who invited what crime? Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: Wondering if Markie will answer this question: "Hey Markie...Do The "Rules" Not Apply To You Too...?!?!" no question there nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! yours I repeat the question since you didn't answer it... I did you just did notlike the answer What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! Mark said: That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at the act of conception. If calling me a ******* makes you feel better, then have at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence. YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject to change! a nice clear death threat Nope. sure is Nope. Not then...Not today... was then and remains today Nope and nope. sure a death "sure a death"...?!?! That wasn't English. Try again. and no one invites a death threat For once something we can agree on. then you were lying in saying I invited it just like no one invites rape or any other crime Who invited what crime? any crime Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote:
Wondering if Markie will answer this question: "Hey Markie...Do The "Rules" Not Apply To You Too...?!?!" no question there nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! yours I repeat the question since you didn't answer it... I did you just did notlike the answer - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What "sexual harrassment"...?!?! Mark said: That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at the act of conception. If calling me a ******* makes you feel better, then have at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence. YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject to change! a nice clear death threat Nope. sure is Nope. Not then...Not today... was then and remains today Nope and nope. sure a death "sure a death"...?!?! That wasn't English. Try again. and no one invites a death threat For once something we can agree on. then you were lying in saying I invited it - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just like no one invites rape or any other crime Who invited what crime? any crime Steve, K4YZ |
|
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: Mark, cut no tlak by stevie of debate or tlaking at nothing but going on about shooting and killing Steve loves charades. His favorite is the "I'm almost going to make a threat, but I am going to make you think I made a threat" charade. --------------------- Brian said: "There never was an insinuation, Mr. Robeson. It was a case of your misunderstanding and a dose of your wishful thinking." Then Steve said: "I don't think that your previously archived comments might be read that way. For an offense to have occured, it onl;y requires that it be perceived as such." -------------------- Steve only has to perceive a threat, but he says the rest of us have to have the courts decide. In all fairness I beleive Stevie allows this power also the MMM Ah, those Morsemen. The Mighty Macho Morsemen! As long as they realize that the Dud (as in UXO) has bestowed such privelege upon them. |
an old friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote: quoting you stevie To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at the act of conception. If calling me a ******* makes you feel better, then have at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence. YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject to change! Unquote the last sentence is particularly ilumanting wrote: wrote: cut --------------------- Brian said: "There never was an insinuation, Mr. Robeson. It was a case of your misunderstanding and a dose of your wishful thinking." Then Steve said: "I don't think that your previously archived comments might be read that way. For an offense to have occured, it onl;y requires that it be perceived as such." -------------------- Steve only has to perceive a threat, but he says the rest of us have to have the courts decide. and therefore according to stevie as the one who received the threat I decide if it was threatening |
an Old friend wrote: an old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: quoting you stevie To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at the act of conception. If calling me a ******* makes you feel better, then have at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence. YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject to change! Unquote the last sentence is particularly ilumanting wrote: wrote: cut --------------------- Brian said: "There never was an insinuation, Mr. Robeson. It was a case of your misunderstanding and a dose of your wishful thinking." Then Steve said: "I don't think that your previously archived comments might be read that way. For an offense to have occured, it onl;y requires that it be perceived as such." -------------------- Steve only has to perceive a threat, but he says the rest of us have to have the courts decide. and therefore according to stevie as the one who received the threat I decide if it was threatening It would appear that way. But there's always a double-standard at work in this newsgripe, so the usual rules of logic don't always work. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com