On Apr 14, 1:36 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of \"absolutely nothing of
value\"" cybersheet.com> wrote:

I'd be *real surprised* if you even had 39c, let alone $39.

Yeah, I'm sure you're an expert in continuing harassment when people
completely ignore you.

You know, Gordo, it's a damn good thing you're not much more than an
annoying irritant. Given your propensity for filing lawsuits which
cause people untold grief, if some people thought you were serious,
you would now have given them grounds to sue you, to get a declaratory
judgement that their comments were not hate speech and you have no
grounds of action. The fact you have repeatedly filed groundless
lawsuits which cause lots of trouble and expense, would now give them
standing to sue you to prevent you from filing another groundless
lawsuit if you at any time had ever complained that their comments
about you were hate speech.

The only way you could get out of such a suit would be to declare that
you would not under any circumstances sue them for their prior
comments. So either they get an indemnification or they get a court
to declare that you can't be defamed or maligned because of your own
misconduct, if not a clear ruling that the comments made to you do not
represent hate speech or anything actionable.

When you go around insulting people and being a miserable misanthrope
and quite possibly a prig, you leave yourself open to being insulted.
Your own unclean hands leave you with no real grounds to argue that
you've been harassed EXCEPT for that caused by your own misconduct,
e.g. if you say something stupid or insulting to someone, it's not
unreasonable for them to call YOU stupid or insult you back. That
it's rude to call someone stupid when they simply say something stupid
is beside the point; it's still not actionable.

You know, I really wish someone would call you on your bullshit and
shut you down. But unfortunately you're not enough of an irritant to
be worth the effort. You are sometimes quite funny with your robotic
rescreeds and how you're essentially a permanent victim, the whole
world hates you and you're the poor little waif who never did anything
wrong. Your comments too often remind me of the story of the man who
killed both his parents then asked the court for leniency because he's
an orphan.

The History Channel ran a program a while ago in which they attempted
a re-creation of the Kennedy Assassination, in which they put a guy in
a bucket truck at the right height as the window of the Texas School
Book Depository, with a Carcano rifle, and had some authentic dummies
made with ballistic gel and embedded hard items similar to bone, being
pulled in a structure similar to the limousine, at the same speed,
along a path similar to that of the Presidential limousine in front of
Dealey Plaza, firing at the exact time the same number of bullets.
You know what, they couldn't get an exact match to the movement of the
bullet, because one of the slugs in their demonstration chipped one of
the fake bones and was deflected by a few inches. Other than that,
the actions of the most important bullet in the reenactment were
*almost exactly identical* to that given in the "one bullet" theory
(one bullet went through Kennedy, ricocheted off a part of his anatomy
and hit Governor Connally, bounced around his anatomy and exited his
body, being lodged in the upholstery of the limousine). So while it
doesn't prove absolutely that the one bullet theory is correct, it
gives a very high level of confidence (above 90%% in my opinion) that
we can agree that it is reasonable for it to have happened and that
one person could have been solely responsible for the assassination.

So it is possible we may actually have evidence to argue that Kennedy
was simply killed by one man with a hell of a lot of anger (as someone
else here pointed out a while ago, Oswald had lots of reasons to want
to kill both Kennedy and Connally), I doubt we will ever be rid of
your innane and insane rants and raves.