us.legal

excellent ! "redc1c4" <redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote in message news:41D874FD.204CABC3@drunkenbastards.org.ies... > Agincourt the child molester wrote: > > (snip lame troll attempt) > > Aging cunt! long time no see...you been in jail

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:52:40 -0000, citizen142 wrote: [followups set] > What in God's name has this to do with cycling? Hi! Welcome to Usenet! Every so often there will be what is called a troll. You can recognize it by the massive crosspostin

What in God's name has this to do with cycling?

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:51:15 GMT, RTO Trainer <bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: >>You made a reasoned argument ? > > >Looked like an unsupported assertion to me. It a fully supported conclusion. If you consider by logic flawed please pos

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:36:53 GMT, Tank Fixer <paul.deekat.carrier@us.army.mil> wrote: >In article <o16jt0htthb3ntosckehg6sjn944cggmn2@4ax.com>, > on Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:09:40 +0000, > Agincourt agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net attempted to say ....

In article <6h8jt0pa92refm6ljklfpp8mn0k9p4klgt@4ax.com>, on Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:51:15 GMT, RTO Trainer bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil attempted to say ..... > On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:36:53 GMT, Tank Fixer > <paul.deekat.carrier@us.army.mil> wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:00:09 +0000, Agincourt <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:00:54 GMT, RTO Trainer ><bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: > > >>>I have posted plenty of links supporting the claim that the 5-4 v

In article <o16jt0htthb3ntosckehg6sjn944cggmn2@4ax.com>, on Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:09:40 +0000, Agincourt agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net attempted to say ..... > On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:37:22 GMT, "Buck" > <Buck@Buckarooville.cowtown.net> wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:37:22 GMT, "Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.cowtown.net> wrote: >PLONK!! Another person who cannot handle reasoned argument. -- Agincourt On! On! You noblest English.

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:17:19 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter@msn.com> wrote: >> A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN >> BUSH V. GORE >> > >And Lord Haw Haw was an impartial newsreader, here is a faq to prove it: > >Coz I said so. I haven'

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:00:54 GMT, RTO Trainer <bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: >>I have posted plenty of links supporting the claim that the 5-4 vote >>was partisan. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide >>cites supported by we

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:43:18 +0000, Agincourt <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:36:41 GMT, RTO Trainer ><bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: > > >>I thought that was pretty clear. Go look it up. You'll never bel

> US 'preparing to detain terror suspects for life without trial' > > Plan for permanent US prison reported http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=4262005 > Lugar Condemns Plan To Jail Detainees for Life http://www.washingtonpost.co

PLONK!! "Agincourt" <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote in message news:1mrgt01qmc6jlm567vqb8hru1iqekn9dje@4ax.com... > In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, > that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state

My Mom wishes to make a simple change to her will, basically changing $20,000 to $50,000. Does she need a whole new will or just some kind of amendment?

Agincourt wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:57 GMT, Troll <notgonna@tell.net> wrote: > >> Agincourt wrote: >>> In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, >>> that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state governed by Bus

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:36:41 GMT, RTO Trainer <bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: >I thought that was pretty clear. Go look it up. You'll never beleive >me if I just tell you and you may learn something. I have posted plenty of links suppo

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:10:22 +0000, Agincourt <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:21:20 GMT, RTO Trainer ><bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: > > >>>Consider the unsupportable supported. >> >>Forget the papers.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:21:20 GMT, RTO Trainer <bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: >>Consider the unsupportable supported. > >Forget the papers. Go look at the decisions in question, the actual >court documents. What are you saying: That

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 23:45:11 +0000, Agincourt <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:58:30 +0000, Jonathan Bryce ><jonathan@localhost.localdomain> wrote: >>They can also be members without necessarily being a democrac

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:57 GMT, Troll <notgonna@tell.net> wrote: >Agincourt wrote: >> In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, >> that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state governed by Bush's >> brother, should c

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:40:56 +0000, Agincourt <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:48:45 GMT, RTO Trainer ><bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: > > >>>That's as may be. They still ruled on partisan lines. >>> >>

n Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:57 GMT, Troll <notgonna@tell.net> wrote: >Agincourt wrote: >> In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, >> that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state governed by Bush's >> brother, should ce

Agincourt wrote: > In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, > that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state governed by Bush's > brother, should cease. This granted the Presidency to George W Bush. OK, I'll bite.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:48:45 GMT, RTO Trainer <bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: >>That's as may be. They still ruled on partisan lines. >> > >That statement is unsupportable. "The 5-4 decision was along conservative-liberal lines." h

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:32:52 +0000, Jonathan Bryce <jonathan@localhost.localdomain> wrote: >Agincourt wrote: > >>>Given the flaws shown in the US's "democracy" it is perhaps just as >>>well that the Commonwealth allows non-democratic states as memb

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:07:21 +0000, Agincourt <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:48:29 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter@msn.com> wrote: > >>Agincourt wrote: >>> In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines,

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 23:37:33 +0000, Gonzalez <speedy.gonzalez@nospam.basher.com> wrote: >On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 23:24:08 GMT, RTO Trainer ><bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: > > >>You should probably avoid commenting on things that you don't have

Oh, look: more prepaidlegal spam. In article <dpqBd.10484$qf5.6338@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, gary metz <garymetz@earthlink.net> wrote: >www.prepaidlegal.com/ who cares?

On 2 Jan 2005 08:55:35 -0800, "Johnr" <johnr@hot-shot.com> wrote: >This is something my business law 101 class just didn't cover. > >In your opinion would selling 45-second video clips of various video >games which instruct people how to cheat at sa

Agincourt wrote: >>Given the flaws shown in the US's "democracy" it is perhaps just as >>well that the Commonwealth allows non-democratic states as members. > > > And Pakistan membership is, of course, suspended from the > Commonwealth. It wa

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 23:45:11 +0000, Agincourt <agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:58:30 +0000, Jonathan Bryce ><jonathan@localhost.localdomain> wrote: > >>Agincourt wrote: >> >>> Individual US states would be well a

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:48:29 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter@msn.com> wrote: >Agincourt wrote: >> In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, >> that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state governed by Bush's >> brother, should cea