|
|
"- Prof Jonez©" wrote:
> Cirque wrote:
>
>> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
>>
>>>Cirque wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>forevernitefan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sammie, aside from your bullcrap, my point is this. Why must
>>>>>you change your posting screename so m
|
|
|
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <7lh9e.121$Gn3.10464@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
> <!> wrote:
> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
> > > In article <8Bd9e.66$Gn3.6849@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
> > > <!> wrote:
> > > > Seth Breidbart wrot
|
|
|
In article <7lh9e.121$Gn3.10464@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
>Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> In article <8Bd9e.66$Gn3.6849@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
>> <!> wrote:
>> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> > > In article <wI19e.778$zX7.688
|
|
|
Cirque wrote:
> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> > Cirque wrote:
> >
> > > "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round ...
> > >
> > > You might try aiming for something more normal than their poop
>
|
|
|
Cirque wrote:
> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> > Cirque wrote:
> >
> > > "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The
> > > > Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained (SABCE)
> > > > reminds us that the Bible is a book without error.
> > >
>
|
|
|
Cirque wrote:
> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
>
> > Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round ...
>
> You might try aiming for something more normal than their poop chute.
God wouldn't have put the back door so close to the front door and
mad
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:26:34 -0600, " \"- Prof Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:40:22 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
>> <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > forevernitefan wrote:
>> >
>> > Still the top-pos
|
|
|
Cirque wrote:
> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> > The
> > Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained (SABCE) reminds
> > us that the Bible is a book without error.
>
> Yawn, the manual for my chainsaw has "errors" - so?
>
> Man writes, man mak
|
|
|
ent Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:26:34 -0600, " \"- Prof Jonez©\"" wrote:
> > Kent Wills wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:40:22 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""wrote:
> > > > forevernitefan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Still the top-posting retard,
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:16:48 -0600, " \"- Prof Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:57:16 GMT, Wayne Delia <waynedelia@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > forevernitefan wrote:
>> >
>> > > Yeah my irony mete
|
|
|
Cirque wrote:
> "- Prof Jonez©" wrote:
> > Cirque wrote:
> >
> > > "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cirque wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > forevernitefan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sammie, aside from your bullcrap, my point
|
|
|
The prosecution in the Jackson case has called 80 witnesses. Tip to future
prosecutors: if you call 80 witnesses in a case, you will lose the case.
--
Falky
San Diego, Calif.
----------------
Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law studen
|
|
|
\"- Prof Jonez©\" wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>dhm@best.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>This is a matter of concern.
>>>>
>>>>My DMV records are cleaner than a Colorado Supreme Court justice's
>>>
>>Is th
|
|
|
Sedate,
You seem to believe that "trademarking" is a business thing but that is
not the case anyone may apply for a trademark. However you won't be able to
trademark some phrase that is already in use. And you will need to defend
your trademar
|
|
|
n 4 May 2005, "Lobstah Man" <no@nada.foo> wrote:
> My 13-year-old niece lives with me on a small island
> in Maine. She attends the island . . . public school.
> The superindendent is requiring me to have ad
> litem legal guardianship of my niece
|
|
|
In uk.legal Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:31:42 GMT, axel@white-eagle.co.uk wrote:
>>>>Under joint and several liability, which this falls under, it's 100%/100%.
>>> How can two people *both* have 100% of the respon
|
|
|
Also, it seems to me that trademarks were intended for businesses,
and it would be a misapplication to allow them to be used for
churches. Maybe our current law allows it, I don't know. That's why
I'm here asking these ignorant questions. But, it
|
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:40:22 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
> <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
>
> > forevernitefan wrote:
> >
> > Still the top-posting retard, eh?
> >
> > > Jonez once again resorts to personal attacks on Kent. What Kent
|
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:57:16 GMT, Wayne Delia <waynedelia@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > forevernitefan wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah my irony meter blew when I read his post. Particularly
> > > about the part of "worthless subhuman scums
|
|
|
Cirque wrote:
> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> > Cirque wrote:
> >
> > > forevernitefan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sammie, aside from your bullcrap, my point is this. Why must
> > > > you change your posting screename so much?
> > >
> > > Simple:
> > >
|
|
|
John Earl Gideon wrote:
> Ok, then declare at the port of entry that you have 300 Percocet
> tablets, for which you have no perscription, and see how "legal" it
> is.
You really are an idiot, aren't you "Earl" ?
>
>
> " "- Prof Jonez©"" <jone
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:28:14 -0400, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.net>
wrote:
>> That's like saying that two drivers each participated in the same
>> accident and must therefore be equally culpable because they both made
>> the decision to drive the
|
|
|
On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:31:42 GMT, axel@white-eagle.co.uk wrote:
>>>Under joint and several liability, which this falls under, it's 100%/100%.
>
>> How can two people *both* have 100% of the responsibility?
>
>Quite easily. If we take a different
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:12:55 -0400, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.net>
wrote:
>
>"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ov0i71l3mi7mr01fkpk78itgndou9gli42@4ax.com...
>> >Under joint and several liability, which this falls under, it'
|
|
|
international_mens_organisation@internationalmensorganisation.cjb.net
wrote:
>
> The case of Norman Scarth 78 year old war hero being persecuted in
> Leeds prisons makes Guantanamo pale by comparison.
> Our organisation are fully aware of the appal
|
|
|
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> Are there other class II drugs
Schedule 2.
>> legally available like, Seconol, Methadone, Diluded,
> LOL! -- good one!
>> Methaqualone etc. I'd really appreciate any hints /do's and don'ts.
A 'l
|
|
|
lawdog <nunyabusiness@nospam.com> wrote in
news:7e0j71t0e6h1d3cud1ak197er17lk4dhn4@4ax.com:
Please don't confuse my light (and sometimes snide) tone with
insincerity.
There might be legitimate reasons to protect the name of the Church,
however,
|
|
|
gordonb.n005j@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in
news:117j3bto42eso81@corp.supernews.com:
>
It's easy. If two churches argue over entitlement to the name,
their Gods fight a duel with lightning bolts at 30 paces. The loser
doesn't have a bui
|
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> "Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>
> > Ken Smith wrote:
> > > dhm@best.com wrote:
>
> > > > This is a matter of concern.
>
> > > My DMV records are cleaner than a Colorado Supreme Court justice's
>
> Is that because Ken's wife dr
|
|
|
Ok, then declare at the port of entry that you have 300 Percocet tablets,
for which you have no perscription, and see how "legal" it is.
" "- Prof Jonez©"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote in message
news:REqee.11$137.1572@news.uswest.net...
> John Earl Gi
|
|
|
John Earl Gideon wrote:
> No. This answer is wrong. When you return you can either declare the
> drugs and produce a perscription to justify your possession,
> surrender the drugs as contraband, or take the risk of getting caught
> for drug smuggling
|
|
|
No. This answer is wrong. When you return you can either declare the drugs
and produce a perscription to justify your possession, surrender the drugs
as contraband, or take the risk of getting caught for drug smuggling.
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jonez@
|
|
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:17:04 GMT, "Juana B. Sedated" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:
>lawdog <nunyabusiness@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:7e0j71t0e6h1d3cud1ak197er17lk4dhn4@4ax.com:
>
>Please don't confuse my light (and sometimes snide) tone with
>insincerity.
|
|
|
>I've been thinking about going public with my religion. But I have a
>concern about issues involving the protection of names. I see the
>problem from both sides. First, I think there is already a church, or
>group of churches using the name "Chu
|
|
|
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> Cirque wrote:
>
>>forevernitefan wrote:
>>
>>>Sammie, aside from your bullcrap, my point is this. Why must you
>>>change your posting screename so much?
>>
>>Simple:
>>
>>I get bored.
>>
>>I like new characters.
>>
|
|
|
I've been thinking about going public with my religion. But I have a
concern about issues involving the protection of names. I see the
problem from both sides. First, I think there is already a church, or
group of churches using the name "Churc
|
|
|
nospam wrote:
> I going on a cruise to Belize, Grand Camen
Where's that exactly?
>and Mexico. I've heard that
> Percocet can be bought in Mexico without a prescription. Is this
> true?
Yes.
>And what about Belize and Camen?
Don't know.
|
|
