Anti-gun extremists use lies to justify rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinios....

[frigidweirdo]

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

Please, tell me what the insult was.

Also tell me what "Your bunch" is.

I'm getting a little lost here. You keep saying stuff and then not actually telling what it is.

No.

Nice.

So, you accuse me of something, but you can't say what it is.

FAKE NEWS!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

Please, tell me what the insult was.

Also tell me what "Your bunch" is.

I'm getting a little lost here. You keep saying stuff and then not actually telling what it is.

No.

Nice.

So, you accuse me of something, but you can't say what it is.

FAKE NEWS!

No news if FAKE NEWS? Imagine that. Just say NO.

 

[Sahba]

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Fixed magazine semi .22s are exempt. You hysterical ninnies don't even bother reading the ordinances before getting your knickers in a twist.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

There are 30.30 center fire tube mag rifles. Sort of makes things a bit hazy, don't it. And don't forget the venerable 44.40, 44 mag and 45 long colt tube fed rifles.

Actually I was sitting in the Senate chamber and one Senator was bitching about his antique gun 'the one that tamed the west' w/ I believe some magnum hand gun cal. that holds well in excess of 10 rounds in its tubular mag (yellow boy perhaps).. Forget his constituents... he was darn dedicated to make sure that he was 'grandfathered in' come the change in legislation... sad but hilarious, in person, to witness..

If it was an original 1866 Yellowboy, it was a 44 Cal Henry Rim Fire. If it was the "Rifle that won the West" it would be the 1873 chambered for the 44.40 center fire.

Thanks.. I would love to get my bf one before it becomes illegal in VT.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

Please, tell me what the insult was.

Also tell me what "Your bunch" is.

I'm getting a little lost here. You keep saying stuff and then not actually telling what it is.

No.

Nice.

So, you accuse me of something, but you can't say what it is.

FAKE NEWS!

No news if FAKE NEWS? Imagine that. Just say NO.

What's the point of saying something if you can't back it up?

No one's going to believe you.

No one believes you now. Fake news. Come back when you've got something REAL.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Absolute bullshit. Fixed magazine semi .22s are exempt. You hysterical ninnies don't even bother reading the ordinances before getting your knickers in a twist.

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

There are 30.30 center fire tube mag rifles. Sort of makes things a bit hazy, don't it. And don't forget the venerable 44.40, 44 mag and 45 long colt tube fed rifles.

Actually I was sitting in the Senate chamber and one Senator was bitching about his antique gun 'the one that tamed the west' w/ I believe some magnum hand gun cal. that holds well in excess of 10 rounds in its tubular mag (yellow boy perhaps).. Forget his constituents... he was darn dedicated to make sure that he was 'grandfathered in' come the change in legislation... sad but hilarious, in person, to witness..

If it was an original 1866 Yellowboy, it was a 44 Cal Henry Rim Fire. If it was the "Rifle that won the West" it would be the 1873 chambered for the 44.40 center fire.

Thanks.. I would love to get my bf one before it becomes illegal in VT.

YOu answered before I got to the edit. The 1866 was a Remington but it was chambered for the 44 Cal Henry Rim Fire. The 44.40 wasn't invented yet.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

Please, tell me what the insult was.

Also tell me what "Your bunch" is.

I'm getting a little lost here. You keep saying stuff and then not actually telling what it is.

No.

Nice.

So, you accuse me of something, but you can't say what it is.

FAKE NEWS!

No news if FAKE NEWS? Imagine that. Just say NO.

What's the point of saying something if you can't back it up?

No one's going to believe you.

No one believes you now. Fake news. Come back when you've got something REAL.

Just say NO.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Absolute bullshit. Fixed magazine semi .22s are exempt. You hysterical ninnies don't even bother reading the ordinances before getting your knickers in a twist.

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

There are 30.30 center fire tube mag rifles. Sort of makes things a bit hazy, don't it. And don't forget the venerable 44.40, 44 mag and 45 long colt tube fed rifles.

Actually I was sitting in the Senate chamber and one Senator was bitching about his antique gun 'the one that tamed the west' w/ I believe some magnum hand gun cal. that holds well in excess of 10 rounds in its tubular mag (yellow boy perhaps).. Forget his constituents... he was darn dedicated to make sure that he was 'grandfathered in' come the change in legislation... sad but hilarious, in person, to witness..

If it was an original 1866 Yellowboy, it was a 44 Cal Henry Rim Fire. If it was the "Rifle that won the West" it would be the 1873 chambered for the 44.40 center fire.

Thanks.. I would love to get my bf one before it becomes illegal in VT.

If you are talking about outlawing the 1866 model in VT, I don't think you have to worry too much. For one, they still make it. Cabella carries it. It's a reproduction so it's going to be up to modern standards and still accept the rim fired 44 henry ammo. But it's got a price tag on it of over 1000 bucks. They also have the repro of the 1873 44.40 at about 1500 bucks. Don't fall for the 45 long colt as genuine. The 45 Long Colt was not offered in a Bolt Action tube fed Rifle until 1973. It seem colt was might picky about their 45 colt cartridge.

 

[Sahba]

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

There are 30.30 center fire tube mag rifles. Sort of makes things a bit hazy, don't it. And don't forget the venerable 44.40, 44 mag and 45 long colt tube fed rifles.

Actually I was sitting in the Senate chamber and one Senator was bitching about his antique gun 'the one that tamed the west' w/ I believe some magnum hand gun cal. that holds well in excess of 10 rounds in its tubular mag (yellow boy perhaps).. Forget his constituents... he was darn dedicated to make sure that he was 'grandfathered in' come the change in legislation... sad but hilarious, in person, to witness..

If it was an original 1866 Yellowboy, it was a 44 Cal Henry Rim Fire. If it was the "Rifle that won the West" it would be the 1873 chambered for the 44.40 center fire.

Thanks.. I would love to get my bf one before it becomes illegal in VT.

If you are talking about outlawing the 1866 model in VT, I don't think you have to worry too much. For one, they still make it. Cabella carries it. It's a reproduction so it's going to be up to modern standards and still accept the rim fired 44 henry ammo. But it's got a price tag on it of over 1000 bucks. They also have the repro of the 1873 44.40 at about 1500 bucks. Don't fall for the 45 long colt as genuine. The 45 Long Colt was not offered in a Bolt Action tube fed Rifle until 1973. It seem colt was might picky about their 45 colt cartridge.

Daryl, correct me if I'm wrong here but last time I checked they were < than x 10 rounds... and that is just a 'neutered' puppy of a rifle... IMHO!
Any sellers of 'original'... I am open to an FFL transfer purchase... & am ok with the 3K that it's worth..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Please, tell me what the insult was.

Also tell me what "Your bunch" is.

I'm getting a little lost here. You keep saying stuff and then not actually telling what it is.

No.

Nice.

So, you accuse me of something, but you can't say what it is.

FAKE NEWS!

No news if FAKE NEWS? Imagine that. Just say NO.

What's the point of saying something if you can't back it up?

No one's going to believe you.

No one believes you now. Fake news. Come back when you've got something REAL.

Just say NO.

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

 

[Sahba]

No.

Nice.

So, you accuse me of something, but you can't say what it is.

FAKE NEWS!

No news if FAKE NEWS? Imagine that. Just say NO.

What's the point of saying something if you can't back it up?

No one's going to believe you.

No one believes you now. Fake news. Come back when you've got something REAL.

Just say NO.

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nice.

So, you accuse me of something, but you can't say what it is.

FAKE NEWS!

No news if FAKE NEWS? Imagine that. Just say NO.

What's the point of saying something if you can't back it up?

No one's going to believe you.

No one believes you now. Fake news. Come back when you've got something REAL.

Just say NO.

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

 

[Sahba]

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

Take it from 'the top' so to speak... specifically! point out where the 'OP' is lying and enlighten us...be warned though... objectivity is king.. not subjective, superlative maturations of your liberal ideology... lol I'm game if U are...
"They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois..." OP

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

Take it from 'the top' so to speak... specifically! point out where the 'OP' is lying and enlighten us...be warned though... objectivity is king.. not subjective, superlative maturations of your liberal ideology... lol I'm game if U are...

Been there, done that. It doesn't WORK because the OP doesn't give a shit.

 

[toobfreak]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

The ban on semi automatic rifles, and AR-15s in particular is unConstitutional.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

It's the old toe in the door ploy once again by the rabid Left. Go after the rifles right now while momentum is on their side then once they are banned, regular hand guns will be an easier target, all the while brain dead imbeciles like Daryl and Daryl tell us its "our" fault, we bring it on ourselves and to just relax, we don't want to ban all guns . . . .

. . . . just the "dangerous" ones we decide you don't need and we don't like.

 

[Sahba]

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

Take it from 'the top' so to speak... specifically! point out where the 'OP' is lying and enlighten us...be warned though... objectivity is king.. not subjective, superlative maturations of your liberal ideology... lol I'm game if U are...

Been there, done that. It doesn't WORK because the OP doesn't give a shit.

OK.. I'm picking up the torch... & I give a Sheite...

 

[Sahba]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

The ban on semi automatic rifles, and AR-15s in particular is unConstitutional.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

It's the old toe in the door ploy once again by the rabid Left. Go after the rifles right now while momentum is on their side then once they are banned, regular hand guns will be an easier target, all the while brain dead imbeciles like Daryl and Daryl tell us its "our" fault, we bring it on ourselves and to just relax, we don't want to ban all guns . . . .

. . . . just the "dangerous" ones we decide you don't need and we don't like.

But no... they aren't going after our guns... They assured us that the 2nd. is 'Sacrosanct'... lol
Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

Take it from 'the top' so to speak... specifically! point out where the 'OP' is lying and enlighten us...be warned though... objectivity is king.. not subjective, superlative maturations of your liberal ideology... lol I'm game if U are...

Been there, done that. It doesn't WORK because the OP doesn't give a shit.

OK.. I'm picking up the torch... & I give a Sheite...

You can try.

After the umpteenth time of "I'm not answering your question" ot "moron" or "idiot" of "dumbfuck" or whatever, you'll get bored.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No news if FAKE NEWS? Imagine that. Just say NO.

What's the point of saying something if you can't back it up?

No one's going to believe you.

No one believes you now. Fake news. Come back when you've got something REAL.

Just say NO.

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

 

[Sahba]

Crickets... yup 'cherp', 'cherp' more crickets... lol ... pathetic!

 

[Sahba]

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

Take it from 'the top' so to speak... specifically! point out where the 'OP' is lying and enlighten us...be warned though... objectivity is king.. not subjective, superlative maturations of your liberal ideology... lol I'm game if U are...

Been there, done that. It doesn't WORK because the OP doesn't give a shit.

OK.. I'm picking up the torch... & I give a Sheite...

You can try.

After the umpteenth time of "I'm not answering your question" ot "moron" or "idiot" of "dumbfuck" or whatever, you'll get bored.

I'm here... listening? what say you...