OT: Nostradamus on Bush

David Gossman dgossman at gcisolutions.com
Sat Jan 6 16:11:11 EST 2001

Scott Nudds <af329 at freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:9375f0$cbi$12 at mohawk.hwcn.org...
> Subject: Re: OT: Nostradamus on Bush
> Newsgroups: bionet.agroforestry,alt.forestry,sci.environment
> Followup-To: bionet.agroforestry,alt.forestry,sci.environment
> References: <9204ea$ijb$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
<3A43D850.3F4575BA at livingston.net> <923ltg$2nb$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
<MPG.14b3dff1ddc7686098ad6e at news.teleport.com>
<3A4A9EE2.646A6D9E at sprynet.com>
<MPG.14b452544055b6d98ad72 at news.teleport.com>
<3a4abf7f.58666410 at news.escape.ca> <3A4AD958.5B03D664 at livingston.net>
<3a4b3248.1727016 at news.escape.ca>
<Krf36.47835$RC1.1836053 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<931tau$647$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
<Pm256.5847$3t2.239489 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<933sbt$e8a$1 at mohawk.hwcn.org
> > <9357e9$2gq$1 at ins21.netins.net>
> Distribution:
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-HWFN]
> : Scott Nudds <af329 at freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
> : >   Gun Grubbers like Gossman perpetually employ the big lie strategy.
> David Gossman (dgossman at gcisolutions.com) wrote:
> : What lie is that Nudds? You certainly have not identified any of these
> : statements as lies with these posts.
>   Are we to believe that Gossman can't read?  Or are we to believe that he
> is simply claiming that his lie, now exposed, has not been exposed?
>   In other words is Gossman a fool?  Or is he lying yet again?  His long
> history of lying in this newsgroup provides the most probable answer.

Actually Nudds, that you can not see that your posts proved nothing
regarding what I said simply demonstrates the serious state of self delusion
that you continue to find yourself in. Get help soon Nudds.
> : > Still, Kellermann hopes research like the Seattle study may lead to a
> : > time when "fewer Americans will choose to keep or carry a handgun, and
> : > the rate of death from firearm-related injuries will decline." SOURCE:
> : > American Journal of Public Health (1997;87(6):910-912, 974-978)
> Gossman Jabbers:
> : Nudds knows that correlation is not causation.
>   But apparently Gossman doesn't.  For it is not I who has attempted to
> argue that the cause of lowered murder rates is a higher gun ownership
> rate, it is gun grubbers like Gossman and the NRA.
>   What a shame the evidence is against him.
>   No doubt he will follow up with more fabrications and lies as he
> typically does.   Perhaps he will simply engage in denial - another common
> tactic among extremist conservatives like Gossman.

Actaully the studies that I am referring to compared demographically similar
states over the same time period where one state inacted concealed carry
laws and the other did not. The crime rates can then be compared without any
other factors screwing up the data. The study was extensive and carried out
by researchers who admitted being initially biased in the opposite
direction. I'm surprised the Nudds is not aware of these studies - but then
again, he probably is and this is just his special form of "honesty" coming
through. A form of - attack the messenger because you don't like the news
mentality. But then what else can we expect given the apparent self delusion
that Nudds finds himself in. Get help soon Nudds.
> David Gossman wrote:
> : I suspect that he also knows
> : that it is not the guns that cause violence but rather more likely that
> : those predisposed to violence or perhaps subject to threats of violence
> : more likely to provide for their self defense and /or arm themselves.
>   On several occasions I have asked Gossman to tell me what aspect of
> American life makes more murderous and less civilized than the rest of the
> first world.
>   To date he has been unable to produce a sentient response.
That you have been unable to understand is the issue. Just look at where gun
violence is high and where it is not - oops, that would have you looking at
the high violence areas of Chicago, New York, and DC where hand guns are
already banned - to bad Nudds, you loose. But keep trying, you are always
good for a laugh.
> Gossman Blathers:
> : Of
> : course banning guns would simply make it impossible for the law abiding
> : citizen to defend themselves. Could this be Nudds real objective?
>   Really?  I remember reading of an old woman defending herself with a hat
> pin.  Others defend themselves by calling for help.  But the sad fact of
> the matter is of course, that Gossman feels the need to be able to murder
> his fellow man.

Nudds now thinks that the elederly should defend themselves from home
invaders with hat pins. You are a hoot Nudds.
>   He has even been exposed as having a desire to murder arresting police
> officers.

Your delusions are getting the better of you Nudds. Oh, my mistake - what
"better". Get help soon Nudds. The lies you need to tell yourself and then
post for everyone who reads them to see is destroying whatever credibility
you ever had.
>   Quite a sad little Libertarian he is.
Poor Nudds feels a need to attack others in order to prop up his own weak
ego. Get help soon Nudds.
> Gossman blathers:
> : Nudds fails to show any concern for the welfare of the 1 to 2 million
> : Americans who use a gun each year to defend themselves.
>   The NRA needs to keep the American public believing that crime is
> rampant and that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from everyone
> else who has a gun.
>   I am just shocked that there isn't an underground organized campaign to
> bring the need to own wepons to the homes and offices of the NRA.
>   If we have NRA members killing abortion doctors, shouldn't we be seeing
> snipers picking off NRA members?
Poor Nudds can't deal with the issue raised and must now attack the NRA - a
group that has done far more collectively to support laws and enforcement of
laws needed to put criminals, including those who use guns in jail. To bad
Nudds can't see how damaging this approach is to hem personally. Get help
soon Nudds.
> Gossman yammers:
> : He has failed to
> : provide a straight answer on the issue of whether or not he would use
> : force to protect his spouse of child.
>   Last session, Gossman claimed that I hadn't answered.  In the session
> previous, he admitted that I had.
>   Liars are like that. They can never keep their lies consistant over
> time.

See, he still can not provide a straight answer. He apparently has
difficulty differentiating a real honest answser from one of his flip
responses. Come on, Nudds, I challenge you to repost your answer so everyone
can see the level of your "honesty".
> Gossman wrote:
> : As such his posts simply further identify him as a hypocrite - typical
>   Unlike Gossman, I don't promote or support murder of any kind, and
> Unlike Gossman, and Andrew Langer paid disinformation officer for the
> Competitive Enterprise Institute, I don't lie.

Hypocrite Nudds continues his personal attack agains others. We understand
his need to repeat these false accusations in order to hold together his
fragile self delusions, but Nudds, come up with a new line. You are geting
> Gossman defends murder on political grounds:
> --------------------------------------------
> "But you have been told that I do not support murder. Your claim that I
> do is a lie.  ...
> There is no right to life for someone that violates or threatens the
> right of others." - "David Gossman" <dgossman at gcisolutions.com> -
> austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment - Aug 9, 1999
Nudds, you have still not given a straight answer as to whether or not you
would use deadly force to protect yourself, your spouse or your child. As
such your continuing to post your wildly imaginative interpretations of what
I have said simply labels yourself a hypocrite. As such please feel free to
continue to do so - we will continue to laugh at your antics.

David Gossman

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list