Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 5:15 PM:

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated yourself
on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about your
motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much only an idiot
would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since 2003 to
refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You know I
am right that you lie more in one day than I do in a decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme Court
justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself. Your
reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get more
attention (through your socks) by bringing up a debate from
*2006* where you cannot figure out that this law exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful money"
and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are trying,
though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you not, *2006* is
because you know you have completely humiliated yourself on the
current debates *and* you are desperate to get my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try to dig
yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the difference
between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and* explain why,
contrary to the view of the US courts, that the bills and coins in
my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try to
build a case so you can actually, finally, for once actually make a
point, we both know you will fail. Worth my laughing at you for
another couple of posts... but, I warn you, if you do not actually
try to support your claims then you will simply bore me and I will
ignore not just your main name but also your new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am just
doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets
are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a
U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and
Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S.
Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of
lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of
fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of
ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in
direct transactions between parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is legal
tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a difference?
We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and most Americans
are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you and pay taxes on
your lawful money (as you have to) and your legal tender
_which_you_do_not_have_to_.


I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these cases for
years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing these kinds of
arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do with your status. The
question really becomes: Does the pertinent section of Title 12 that
references the redeeming of FRN's in "lawful money" apply to the
person making the argument in court? This argument aside (and it
gets very involved), the opinion of the judge that Snit linked to
showed the judge misinterpreted the very thing that he referenced
from Title 12 as he claimed Rickman used "lawful money". Bringing
in things like Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the question is a
simple one: Are FRN "lawful money"? This is answered in Title 12,
not in Rickman or on an IRS website. What isn't so clear is: To whom
does it apply?

LOL!

(crickets chirping)


Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court. You would be
laughed at... as you are in CSMA.

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's names in
them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this subject? LOL!

Yeah, Steve, you self nuke over and over and over and over and over.

Now back to ignoring your begging... though if I give you occasional
responses it will keep you going longer and making a bigger fool of
yourself. Maybe I will do that.

Maybe not.

Whatever... depends on what amuses me at the moment.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Dec 4, 5:27*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 5:15 PM:





Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated yourself
on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about your
motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much only an idiot
would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since 2003 to
refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You know I
am right that you lie more in one day than I do in a decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme Court
justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself. Your
reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get more
attention (through your socks) by bringing up a debate from
*2006* where you cannot figure out that this law exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful money"
and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are trying,
though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you not, *2006* is
because you know you have completely humiliated yourself on the
current debates *and* you are desperate to get my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try to dig
yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the difference
between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and* explain why,
contrary to the view of the US courts, that the bills and coins in
my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try to
build a case so you can actually, finally, for once actually make a
point, we both know you will fail. Worth my laughing at you for
another couple of posts... but, I warn you, if you do not actually
try to support your claims then you will simply bore me and I will
ignore not just your main name but also your new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am just
doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets
are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a
U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and
Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S.
Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of
lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of
fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of
ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in
direct transactions between parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is legal
tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a difference?
We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and most Americans
are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you and pay taxes on
your lawful money (as you have to) and your legal tender
_which_you_do_not_have_to_.

I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these cases for
years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing these kinds of
arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do with your status. The
question really becomes: Does the pertinent section of Title 12 that
references the redeeming of FRN's in "lawful money" *apply to the
person making the argument in court? *This argument aside (and it
gets very involved), the opinion of the judge that Snit linked to
showed the judge *misinterpreted the very thing that he referenced
from Title 12 as he claimed Rickman used "lawful money". *Bringing
in things like Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the question is a
simple one: Are FRN "lawful money"? This is answered in Title 12,
not in Rickman or on an IRS website. What isn't so clear is: To whom
does it apply?

LOL!

(crickets chirping)

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my* theory.
Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's names in
them - Sandman's specifically. *Who put my name in this subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ? And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently
anyway.

On Dec 4, 5:27*pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

Whatever... depends on what amuses me at the moment.

It's that time of year again, Snit

Remember how you used to amuse yourself with this...


(sung to: Frosty the Snowman)

Toasty the Snowbear

Sleeps in Snit's bed every night

But it's not by choice 'cuz he has no voice

Which is much to Snit's delight

Toasty the Snowbear

Has a very sore rear end

With a tear in his eye and a big supply

Of Preparation H to mend (it)

There must have been some magic

In the suppository pad he used

For when he put it into place

He forgot about being abused

Toasty the Snowbear

Was alive wishing it wouldn't last

Running here and there like a crazy bear

Hoping Snit couldn't run that fast.

He had a thing for Fluffy the Cat

So down to the basement he went

He hoped that bitch could help him out

while he hid in the laundry vent

Then that cat came strolling in

As soaked as it could be

Poor Toasty hadn't counted on

The plight he was too see

Toasty the Snowbear

Didn't get ****ed on like Snit's cat

Though his bottom was sore

And he wanted no more

He was glad not to deal with that

Thumpety thump thump

Thumpety thump thump

Just look at Toasty flee

Thumpety thump thump

Thumpety thump thump

Anything to avoid Snit's pee !!!!





--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 5:15 PM:





Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about
your motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much only
an idiot would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since
2003 to refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You
know I am right that you lie more in one day than I do in a
decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme
Court justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself.
Your reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get
more attention (through your socks) by bringing up a debate
from *2006* where you cannot figure out that this law exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful
money" and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are trying,
though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you not,
*2006* is because you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current debates *and* you are desperate to get
my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try to
dig yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the
difference between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and*
explain why, contrary to the view of the US courts, that the
bills and coins in my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try to
build a case so you can actually, finally, for once actually
make a point, we both know you will fail. Worth my laughing at
you for another couple of posts... but, I warn you, if you do
not actually try to support your claims then you will simply
bore me and I will ignore not just your main name but also your
new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am
just doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our
wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the
bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts,
Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve,
not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an
equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation
can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be
the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of
practicality it has little use in direct transactions between
parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is legal
tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a
difference? We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and
most Americans are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you
and pay taxes on your lawful money (as you have to) and your
legal tender _which_you_do_not_have_to_.

I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these cases
for years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing these
kinds of arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do with your
status. The question really becomes: Does the pertinent section
of Title 12 that references the redeeming of FRN's in "lawful
money" apply to the person making the argument in court? This
argument aside (and it gets very involved), the opinion of the
judge that Snit linked to showed the judge misinterpreted the
very thing that he referenced from Title 12 as he claimed Rickman
used "lawful money". Bringing
in things like Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the question is a
simple one: Are FRN "lawful money"? This is answered in Title 12,
not in Rickman or on an IRS website. What isn't so clear is: To
whom does it apply?

LOL!

(crickets chirping)

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my* theory.
Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ? And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently
anyway.

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

Whatever... depends on what amuses me at the moment.

It's that time of year again, Snit

Remember how you used to amuse yourself with this...


(sung to: Frosty the Snowman)

Toasty the Snowbear

Sleeps in Snit's bed every night

But it's not by choice 'cuz he has no voice

Which is much to Snit's delight

Toasty the Snowbear

Has a very sore rear end

With a tear in his eye and a big supply

Of Preparation H to mend (it)

There must have been some magic

In the suppository pad he used

For when he put it into place

He forgot about being abused

Toasty the Snowbear

Was alive wishing it wouldn't last

Running here and there like a crazy bear

Hoping Snit couldn't run that fast.

He had a thing for Fluffy the Cat

So down to the basement he went

He hoped that bitch could help him out

while he hid in the laundry vent

Then that cat came strolling in

As soaked as it could be

Poor Toasty hadn't counted on

The plight he was too see

Toasty the Snowbear

Didn't get ****ed on like Snit's cat

Though his bottom was sore

And he wanted no more

He was glad not to deal with that

Thumpety thump thump

Thumpety thump thump

Just look at Toasty flee

Thumpety thump thump

Thumpety thump thump

Anything to avoid Snit's pee !!!!





--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

LOL! Not _that_ is funny!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 5:59 PM:

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my* theory.
Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

So you would take your crackpot theories to court. I would love to witness
that... as your case gets tossed out or you are ripped to pieces. Remember,
you are not the first whacko to try to get out of paying taxes by twisting
words to fit your desires.

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ?

Who said you are not a hypocrite? Not I!

And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Poor Steve: you know I am better than you so when I do act in a way you do
you put it down.

Oh, and you and Sandman started putting my name in threads long before I did
so to either of you... and you two whined like little babies. And still
are.

Remember, this "discussion" started out talking about topics - such as your
idiotic view that if A=B and B=C then AC.... but you are now just to name
calling... after you ran to a topic you brought up in 2003... and showed you
were lost on that topic as well.

Or prove me wrong and take your tax evasion BS to a court. Tell me how that
works out for you, OK? LOL!

Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

I simply have let you show you are a crackpot on a topic of no interest to
me... as you beg me to talk to you about it.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently
anyway.

LOL!

I was not discussing it much at all - I was just letting you make an idiot
of yourself. As you always do.

But do share when you take your tax evasion BS to a court... I want to hear
how it works for you. You and I both know you would not get anywhere... or
you would have already gone to court.

But, hey, you got another post from me... you are getting the attention you
crave and beg for. Call it a win for you... you are making an ass out of
yourself but getting attention. A gold star for you!

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Dec 4, 6:13*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 5:59 PM:

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my* theory.
Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

So

So lock it... early.

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ?

Who said

Not "said"... -asked- ... I asked you a question.


And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Poor Steve: you know I am better than you

Well... I've certainly never seen anyone create more thread's "with
people's names in them" than you have.


Oh, and you and Sandman started putting my name in threads long before I did
so to either of you...

A lie. Next you'll be telling me that you didn't have a website about
me.

Remember, this "discussion" started out talking about topics -

Uh.. sure, Snit... whatever you say (GEEZUS you're high tonight!).


Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

I simply have

I know.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently
anyway.

LOL!

I was not discussing it much at all -

I agree... you were basically sticking your fingers in your ears and
your hands over your eyes, like you usually do when the facts come a
callin'


But, hey, you got another post from me

Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me when
you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years?

On Dec 4, 5:59*pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 5:15 PM:

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about
your motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much only
an idiot would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since
2003 to refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You
know I am right that you lie more in one day than I do in a
decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme
Court justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself.
Your reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get
more attention (through your socks) by bringing up a debate
from *2006* where you cannot figure out that this law exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful
money" and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are trying,
though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you not,
*2006* is because you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current debates *and* you are desperate to get
my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try to
dig yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the
difference between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and*
explain why, contrary to the view of the US courts, that the
bills and coins in my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try to
build a case so you can actually, finally, for once actually
make a point, we both know you will fail. Worth my laughing at
you for another couple of posts... but, I warn you, if you do
not actually try to support your claims then you will simply
bore me and I will ignore not just your main name but also your
new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am
just doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our
wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the
bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts,
Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve,
not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an
equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation
can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be
the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of
practicality it has little use in direct transactions between
parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is legal
tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a
difference? We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and
most Americans are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you
and pay taxes on your lawful money (as you have to) and your
legal tender _which_you_do_not_have_to_.

I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these cases
for years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing these
kinds of arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do with your
status. The question really becomes: Does the pertinent section
of Title 12 that references the redeeming of FRN's in "lawful
money" apply to the person making the argument in court? This
argument aside (and it gets very involved), the opinion of the
judge that Snit linked to showed the judge misinterpreted the
very thing that he referenced from Title 12 as he claimed Rickman
used "lawful money". Bringing
in things like Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the question is a
simple one: Are FRN "lawful money"? This is answered in Title 12,
not in Rickman or on an IRS website. What isn't so clear is: To
whom does it apply?

LOL!

(crickets chirping)

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my* theory.
Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ? And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently
anyway.

LOL!

How long do you think it'll take 'em to either kill this guy,
discredit him in some way or publicly ridicule him into the political
corner with Ron Paul:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/4501.htm

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 6:13 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 5:59 PM:

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my*
theory. Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

So

So lock it... early.

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ?

Who said

Not "said"... -asked- ... I asked you a question.


And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Poor Steve: you know I am better than you

Well... I've certainly never seen anyone create more thread's "with
people's names in them" than you have.


Oh, and you and Sandman started putting my name in threads long
before I did so to either of you...

A lie. Next you'll be telling me that you didn't have a website about
me.

Remember, this "discussion" started out talking about topics -

Uh.. sure, Snit... whatever you say (GEEZUS you're high tonight!).


Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

I simply have

I know.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it
intelligently anyway.

LOL!

I was not discussing it much at all -

I agree... you were basically sticking your fingers in your ears and
your hands over your eyes, like you usually do when the facts come a
callin'


But, hey, you got another post from me

Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me when
you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years?

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:59 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 5:15 PM:

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about
your motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much only
an idiot would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since
2003 to refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You
know I am right that you lie more in one day than I do in a
decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme
Court justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself.
Your reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get
more attention (through your socks) by bringing up a debate
from *2006* where you cannot figure out that this law
exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and
dues. Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful
money" and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are
trying, though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you
not, *2006* is because you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current debates *and* you are desperate to get
my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try
to dig yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the
difference between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and*
explain why, contrary to the view of the US courts, that the
bills and coins in my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try
to build a case so you can actually, finally, for once
actually make a point, we both know you will fail. Worth my
laughing at you for another couple of posts... but, I warn
you, if you do not actually try to support your claims then
you will simply bore me and I will ignore not just your main
name but also your new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am
just doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a
baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our
wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the
bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts,
Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve,
not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an
equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as
inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is
said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes
of practicality it has little use in direct transactions
between parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is
legal tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a
difference? We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and
most Americans are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you
and pay taxes on your lawful money (as you have to) and your
legal tender _which_you_do_not_have_to_.

I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these cases
for years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing these
kinds of arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do with your
status. The question really becomes: Does the pertinent section
of Title 12 that references the redeeming of FRN's in "lawful
money" apply to the person making the argument in court? This
argument aside (and it gets very involved), the opinion of the
judge that Snit linked to showed the judge misinterpreted the
very thing that he referenced from Title 12 as he claimed
Rickman used "lawful money". Bringing
in things like Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the question is
a simple one: Are FRN "lawful money"? This is answered in Title
12, not in Rickman or on an IRS website. What isn't so clear
is: To whom does it apply?

LOL!

(crickets chirping)

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my*
theory. Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ? And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it
intelligently anyway.

LOL!

How long do you think it'll take 'em to either kill this guy,
discredit him in some way or publicly ridicule him into the political
corner with Ron Paul:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/4501.htm

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 8:29 PM:

But, hey, you got another post from me

Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me when
you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years?

And that is your full goal.

You clearly do not strive to be honest; you lie more in one day than I do in
a decade.

You clearly do not strive to be accurate; you make up stories and contradict
basic logic on a regular basis.

You clearly do not strive to have a conversation; you snip content whenever
it makes you uncomfortable.

Your "win" is to get responses from me - no matter how pathetic you have to
be. Even making up stupid "songs" about me and your own perverted acts.

As for your desire to get attention: This is shown by your use of sock
puppets, etc. Oh, and I went months without reading your posts or
responding - and still do not to your primary name. I respond to your sock
just to see how pathetic you will be. Oh, and I know you deny it - but you
goofed and posted content (and not just LOL) through your sock account and
then when I responded you did not notice your mistake. If there was any
question as to if you or one of your buddies was posting with this sock
(maybe you share an account), it is now 100% clear it was you.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 8:29 PM:

But, hey, you got another post from me

Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me
when you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years?

And that is your full goal.

I enjoy watching you ruin your reputation.

You clearly do not strive to be honest; you lie more in one day than
I do in a decade.

Nope.

You clearly do not strive to be accurate; you make up stories and
contradict basic logic on a regular basis.

Nope.

You clearly do not strive to have a conversation; you snip content
whenever it makes you uncomfortable.

I snip your crap to see you cry.

Your "win" is to get responses from me - no matter how pathetic you
have to be. Even making up stupid "songs" about me and your own
perverted acts.

The song was from Elizabot as you know. You begged for her attention so she
gave you some.

As for your desire to get attention: This is shown by your use of sock
puppets, etc.

I do not use socks.

Oh, and I went months without reading your posts or
responding - and still do not to your primary name.

You read my every post.

I respond to
your sock just to see how pathetic you will be. Oh, and I know you
deny it - but you goofed and posted content (and not just LOL)
through your sock account and then when I responded you did not
notice your mistake.

That is not proof.

If there was any question as to if you or one
of your buddies was posting with this sock (maybe you share an
account), it is now 100% clear it was you.

Go to hell.

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 8:29 PM:

But, hey, you got another post from me

Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me
when you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years?

And that is your full goal.

I enjoy watching you ruin your reputation.

You clearly do not strive to be honest; you lie more in one day than
I do in a decade.

Nope.

You clearly do not strive to be accurate; you make up stories and
contradict basic logic on a regular basis.

Nope.

You clearly do not strive to have a conversation; you snip content
whenever it makes you uncomfortable.

I snip your crap to see you cry.

Your "win" is to get responses from me - no matter how pathetic you
have to be. Even making up stupid "songs" about me and your own
perverted acts.

The song was from Elizabot as you know. You begged for her attention
so she gave you some.

As for your desire to get attention: This is shown by your use of
sock puppets, etc.

I do not use socks.

Oh, and I went months without reading your posts or
responding - and still do not to your primary name.

You read my every post.

I respond to
your sock just to see how pathetic you will be. Oh, and I know you
deny it - but you goofed and posted content (and not just LOL)
through your sock account and then when I responded you did not
notice your mistake.

That is not proof.

If there was any question as to if you or one
of your buddies was posting with this sock (maybe you share an
account), it is now 100% clear it was you.

Go to hell.


(crickets chirping)


--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:59 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 5:15 PM:

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about
your motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much
only an idiot would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since
2003 to refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You
know I am right that you lie more in one day than I do in
a decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme
Court justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself.
Your reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get
more attention (through your socks) by bringing up a
debate from *2006* where you cannot figure out that this
law exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal
Reserve Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve
banks and national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and
dues. Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful
money" and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are
trying, though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you
not, *2006* is because you know you have completely
humiliated yourself on the current debates *and* you are
desperate to get my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try
to dig yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the
difference between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and*
explain why, contrary to the view of the US courts, that the
bills and coins in my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try
to build a case so you can actually, finally, for once
actually make a point, we both know you will fail. Worth my
laughing at you for another couple of posts... but, I warn
you, if you do not actually try to support your claims then
you will simply bore me and I will ignore not just your main
name but also your new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am
just doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a
baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our
wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the
bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All
Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal
Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged
for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as
inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is
said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes
of practicality it has little use in direct transactions
between parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is
legal tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a
difference? We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and
most Americans are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you
and pay taxes on your lawful money (as you have to) and your
legal tender _which_you_do_not_have_to_.

I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these
cases for years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing
these kinds of arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do
with your status. The question really becomes: Does the
pertinent section of Title 12 that references the redeeming of
FRN's in "lawful money" apply to the person making the
argument in court? This argument aside (and it gets very
involved), the opinion of the judge that Snit linked to showed
the judge misinterpreted the very thing that he referenced
from Title 12 as he claimed Rickman used "lawful money".
Bringing in things like Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the
question is
a simple one: Are FRN "lawful money"? This is answered in Title
12, not in Rickman or on an IRS website. What isn't so clear
is: To whom does it apply?

LOL!

(crickets chirping)

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my*
theory. Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ? And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it
intelligently anyway.

LOL!

How long do you think it'll take 'em to either kill this guy,
discredit him in some way or publicly ridicule him into the political
corner with Ron Paul:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/4501.htm

LOL!


(crickets chirping)


--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 6:13 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 5:59 PM:

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my*
theory. Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

So

So lock it... early.

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ?

Who said

Not "said"... -asked- ... I asked you a question.


And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Poor Steve: you know I am better than you

Well... I've certainly never seen anyone create more thread's "with
people's names in them" than you have.


Oh, and you and Sandman started putting my name in threads long
before I did so to either of you...

A lie. Next you'll be telling me that you didn't have a website
about me.

Remember, this "discussion" started out talking about topics -

Uh.. sure, Snit... whatever you say (GEEZUS you're high tonight!).


Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

I simply have

I know.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it
intelligently anyway.

LOL!

I was not discussing it much at all -

I agree... you were basically sticking your fingers in your ears and
your hands over your eyes, like you usually do when the facts come a
callin'


But, hey, you got another post from me

Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me
when you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years?

LOL!


(crickets chirping)


--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch