As a well-earned round of I-told-you-so mockery greets Jussie Smollett’s arrest, the predictable response from the Left has been: “Oh, yeah? Well, what about Christopher Paul Hasson?”
Hasson is locked up on drug and weapons charges and is being treated as a “domestic terrorist.” A whole raft of additional charges is almost certainly on the way. He is done. Prosecutors — including federal ones appointed by Donald Trump — are going to bury that guy.
What do the progressives want the authorities to do? Build a prison cell inside his prison cell and another one inside of that to create a turducken of felonious intent? Execute him without trial? Parade him through the streets?
The guy is going away for a long time, possibly forever. His conviction will be universally cheered. As it should be.
Unlike in the matter of Jussie Smollett, you aren’t going to see a lot of serious-minded chin-strokers on cable-news shows saying, “Well, I don’t approve of the crime, of course, but you have to admit that Hasson had a point.” Because nobody believes that with the exception of a few fruity sandwich-boarders and atavistic cellar-dwellers whose presence is almost statistically inevitable in a nation of 320 million people.
So, yeah: What about Hasson?
Hasson has done for the argument against leftist violence what it is said Smollett had done for those who claim to have been assaulted; he muddies the waters. However, while Smollett is ANOTHER example of false accusations of racial violence in an effort to INCITE racial violence, Hasson is THE example of right wing political violence… that never happened, by the way.
@Deplorable Me:
Your answer raises an interesting point: When is a crime simply a “Left-wing” or a “Right-wing” crime? As the facts regarding a perpetrator’s motivation surface, sometimes it is discovered that a crime is financially motivated, sometimes racial, sometimes religious, sexual and on and on. When a white-supremacist-inspired white guy shoots up a church full of Black folk, sure, it’s probably a “hate crime” but is it racial or is it religious? The answer will likely be unequivocally discovered sooner or later, but it bears asking before it is known. Similarly, when a president is assassinated, is it automatically a “left-wing” or a “right-wing” crime, or can there be a larger context, a cause more fundamental to the assassin’s motivation than simply the president’s political party? I suggest that in EVERY case, even Hasson’s, there is an issue larger than simple politics that underlies the criminal’s intent.
I call attention to this legitimate question because most contributors here at FA seem content to categorize all crimes committed by Democrats as simply “left-wing” crimes, while they are quick to attribute an assortment of different motives to crimes committed by Republicans.
I will happily concede that more crimes are committed by Democrats than by Republicans. Because there are more of them, and because they tend to come from less advantaged backgrounds than their Republican counterparts, I would expect no less. But that doesn’t excuse labeling all crimes committed by Democrats as “left-wing,” and it doesn’t excuse writing off all but ONE crime committed by Republicans as something OTHER than “right-wing.”
@George Wells: We need to just call them crimes and punish as the law directs. Tearing the blindfold off lady justice and taking the scales from her right no sword in the left, serves no one.
Hasson the way the media portrays it seems to be a drug addict with very ignorant outlook. He was studying a mad mans manifesto, a guy that murdered 70 people but it did not in anyway serve his cause or anyone.
He had not harmed anyone…as yet , may never have harmed anyone, wasnt reportedly vocal or an activist type, no reported ties to any groups.
Not a ton of information but he checks off some boxes
Military, white male, arsenal worth thousands of dollars.
The last item really no big deal Ive seen the pictures and not really impressed. I have a 45 on my wish list that is thousands of dollars for 1 pistol, unless I win a lottery the wish list is where it remains along with viking appliances.
This Hasson seems to be a real crappt example of what aboutism.
@George Wells: I think the crimes described as “left wing” or “right wing” should be associated with political motive. Would the guy who shot up the Congressional baseball practice done so with a political motive? That was left wing. Did Smollett invent his “hate crime” and blame it on Trump supporters to get more air time or was he trying to strike a blow against Trump supporters and support for Trump?
Where does Hasson fall? Since he wanted, for some damned reason, to kill everyone makes his political affiliation up for grabs. Also, given the racist past of Democrats, being a white supremacist doesn’t necessarily make him right wing. Even IF right wing, based on numbers of occurrence, he doesn’t necessarily by any stretch represent the right.
No, a Democrat that drives drunk and kills someone does not make a Democrat crime. Likewise, a guy that happens to be Christian that shoots up a school has not committed a crime in the name of Christ. I would argue none of the discussions have stretched these definitions to this extent; correct me if I’m wrong.
@kitt: If Hasson was going to take on the entire world, he didn’t have much of an arsenal. What’s he got… a couple of .22’s, a couple of shotguns, a couple of rifles or undetermined caliber and a couple of AR’s or some such? Some pistols? I don’t mean to scare anyone, but that’s marginally more than I have. 1,000 rounds of ammunition? Sheesh…
Anyone making threat poses a threat nowadays, but I think this guy is more unhinged than dangerous. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t go to jail, but hopefully this is the most dangerous “right winger” they can find.
1000 rounds of ammo?
That’s ~ 1 metal ammo box full.
I know people with double-deep triple high metal boxes FILLED with ammo in the bottom of their lockable gun rack.
Visiting “bad” web sites?
Oh, no!
Back when Dr Charles Krauthemmer was alive he wrote stuff I liked, but guess what? The “white supremicists” over at the now defunct Daily Stormer loved his stuff, too!
Who gets to decide what a bad website is?
Is it bad just because some FBI undercover agents embedded in white supremicist orgs look at while undercover?
Seems they can thus force a card on the rest of us then, huh?
Every so-called white supremicist org I’ve ever heard of was completely filled with undercover FBI.
The Charlottesville incident was LED by undercover FBI agents on BOTH sides!
But, if he really wanted to go out and shoot everybody, it’s best he’s off the streets.
@ Kitt:
I agree with your assessment of Hasson. I suspect that steroids affected his judgement as much as anything else he was on, but I also know that sometimes a brain chemistry imbalance can have a similar effect WITHOUT external drug application. (No, I’m not one of those bleeding-heart liberals who thinks that anyone who commits a heinous crime is by definition “criminally insane” and thus deserving to be compassionately sequestered in an asylum for the duration at the taxpayer’s expense rather than be punished to the fullest extent of the Law.) Then there is the toxic combination of testosterone and other mind-altering drugs such as the military has more than dabbled in for the aggressive edge it gives warriors. (Dad, WWII pilot, amphetamines, major anger issues.)
The idea that law enforcement has to wait until someone actually COMMITS the crime being planned BEFORE an arrest can be made was always a bad one, and enough prep-stage laws have been put into place that THAT problem is now moot. And excusing the planning “crimes” (or granting lesser sentences for them) would encourage a World of would-be assassins to take all the time they need to get it right.
Any deficiency in the lethality of Hasson’s weaponry may be safely attributed to his deficient state of mind, and in my book (with apologies to George Orwell, and also the movie “Minority Report”) the plan is as criminal as its execution.
@George Wells:
Wrong because then you do have Orwell thought crimes, the new fad of red flag laws are an abomination to the constitution. Those laws are so easy to abuse.
The man did break laws and should be punished only for those crimes not anyones paranoid delusions or prejudices. Else we can just pick a group and willy nilly choose someone and watch them til they break one law from our massive legal code and prosecute them for what we think they might do.
What article said he had steroids, he had pill bottles marked HG most likely so he could take his narcotics at work.
@ Deplorable Me:
Well-said.
Minor pimple:
I suspect more like he had priority #1 reason, priority #2 reason, etc. (A combination.) He’d been working/playing in Hollywood for over 20 years (with a long inactive stretch during his teens) but hasn’t exactly on a fast track to leading-man status. It is possible that his first motivation was simply celebrity (equals cash in Hollywood) and thought he’s found a quick (and illegal) way to get it. While it is equally conceivable that his sexual orientation and Trump’s less-than accommodating positions on LBGT issues were his primary focus, I’d bet that the money angle was foremost – Hollywood IS money. Also liberal causes, sure, but you are nobody there without money.
You do not require correction.
@George Wells: I think we will see Smollett held as a martyr among his fellow liberals for what he TRIED to do. The goal is to strike a blow against Trump and he almost did it well. THEN some doors would have opened to him and he could have gotten that “big break”.
I would argue that being gay… or whatever… in the Hollywood culture is a bonus rather than a demerit. Damn, I wish Kevin Spacey hadn’t holed himself below his own waterline; I fear I’ll never see him in anything again and I regarded him as a GREAT actor. Being gay hasn’t held him back; his own proclivities did.
And, I wonder, what ARE Trump’s positions on LGBT issues that would rile Smollett so? Trump is initiating policy to address countries that harass, punish or kill citizens for being gay. He is also instituting polices to continue the fight against AIDS. Is this another case where if someone does not carry the gay banner before them they are homophobic?
@Deplorable Me:
That’s pretty cynical. Everything I’ve read in the gay media is horrified, and Smollett reviled. This sort of thing sets us back not moves us forward, and no deceit is worth the risk of discovery. That was Smollett’s miscalculation.
Almost well? That’s YOUR miscalculation. Once authorities started looking into the details, NONE of it clicked. Curt listed what, 18? 19? ways Smollett’s hoax obviously stunk. And if Curt can see it, it’s HUGE. It was never going to get to first base. The take-away? It WASN’T a conspiracy. If Smollett had received a shred of “professional” hoax guidance, it wouldn’t have ended up such a comic-book version of an amateur crime. It’s almost like he read a really bad script and decided to have a go t it all by himself. A low-budget indie, so-to-speak. They only succeed if they have something extraordinary, but Smollett didn’t. “Almost did well”? Never had a chance.
It used to be the kiss of death. Now, if you are brilliant, you shine regardless. That’s a welcome progressive development. It’s not exactly a positive in the military, but times, they are a-changing.
Trump isn’t the advocate that Obama (2nd term) was. He’s countered numerous LBGT-positive Obama-era executive orders with his own LBGT-negative executive orders. His AG has submitted “friend-of-the-Court” opinions opposing LBGT positions in litigations, and he has ordered the military to exclude Trans service members and recruits – not exactly an LBGT-friendly record.
What does that mean? What policy? Address how? If you’ve heard something more concrete than a placating sound-bite, I’d sure like to hear about it, because for his administration, it would be a first.
Not hardly. Trump speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, showing more political savvy in that regard than he usually does. For the record, so did Obama. If you are a politician addressing Liberty University, you talk about the threat homosexuality poses to “Family Values,” and if you are addressing a liberal-leaning group you squeal “I LOVE THE GAYS!” Most gays would prefer politicians to just leave them alone, but “most gays” did not contribute – materially or otherwise – to the gains in civil rights that culminated in SCOTUS Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell decision on same-sex marriage. And he did not carry a flag.
@George Wells:
Remember Alec Baldwin? He vilified his young daughter, blacks, women, gays and was exiled from the media scene. All he had to do was a poor imitation of Trump and he is a darling again. Regardless, he did what the left likes. The more he is punished, the more sympathy he will get from the left… for all the wrong reasons.
His lying left wing heart was in the right place, but no one is going to accuse him of being overly smart. Perhaps he should have staged his little play is a non-police state city.
It most certainly was. It was plotted and planned.
LGBT doesn’t need to be “advocated”. It needs to be protected as much as other personal preferences are and no more. These idiotic bathroom laws, opening restrooms to whichever sex were not only unnecessary but an affront. A dangerous affront. Not everyone is going to embrace same sex marriage and the gay community simply needs to accept the fact.
THAT’S advocacy. If you’d rather he didn’t, speak up.
Oh. I seem to recall Obama AND Hillary speaking out against same sex marriage, Obama until he got elected and Hillary until she wanted to get elected. You may not believe it, but I do feel pity for those of you who have been played for such fools by them.
@Deplorable Me:
Still cynical. Not to mention comparing apples to oranges… Or blacks. Smollett has now been written out of Empire. Every Liberal/gay media source I have seen has condemned him and what he did. Do criminals sometimes find redemption? Yes. The Bible leaves that door open and offers a prescription for how to find it, our Law provides for it and our society accepts it. If you don’t, that’s your problem, not Smollett’s, not mine.
You didn’t answer my question. What has Trump DONE? “Trump is initiating policy” can mean nothing more than “He thought about it.” “IS Initiating” implies that something IS happening. WHAT is happening? And don’t say that “Initiating is happening” because that’s circular reasoning hogwash.
Regarding “conspiracy,” What I meant was that Smollett acted without guidance. (And I think I already made that point.) If Smollett had had something even remotely resembling competent guidance, he wouldn’t have lit up 19 red flags (Curt). Maybe you think otherwise, but in my mind, a conspiracy is a group activity, and there is nothing to suggest that Smollett’s hoax was anything more than the culmination of a series of bad plans and miscalculations committed by one sore amateur criminal, something no different than any other premeditated crime committed by an individual. Premeditation doesn’t equal conspiracy.
And I already alluded to that:
I said that ALL politicians preach/pander to their respective choirs, and that never gets the truth out. I never placed Obama (or any other politician) on a pedestal. I’m fully aware of and admit to the myriad mistakes made by every one of them. What I don’t do is worship politicians of one party or the other. Some people do.
@George Wells: I personally dont think any party should pander to any group giving them special status. No special rights, none everyone treated like everyone else. Everyone protected like everyone else. Everyone has a right to be what ever suits them until it affects someone else.
The federal government has no business in marriage to begin with none zip nada nil.
The centralization of power is what the whole thing was about.
@George Wells: Only my cynicism is based on historic fact.
Perhaps if the left sometimes showed some respect for apologies and redemption, I could show some myself, but I have been cynicized, to coin a phrase.
Who else has addressed the issue? Problem is, if the media would cover things that put Trump in a good light, it would raise awareness. Just like Bush’s policy to fight AIDS in Africa, which saved an estimated 10 million lives, the media refuses to cover what Republicans do that benefit one of the left’s pet interest groups.
I don’t know what he is doing, specifically. I just read of his interest in doing SOMETHING.
Smollett had at least two other guys he conspired with. That constitutes a conspiracy. Conspiracy “theories” abound about how maybe he conspired with Booker and Harris, two fools who jumped on the conclusion bandwagon, to reinforce passage of their law to make lynching even more illegal than it already is. But, time will tell about that.
And? Did it feel good to get lied to and used for votes? Perhaps liberal lies, since there are so many, just don’t carry that “sting”.
@Deplorable Me:
Thanks. It took courage to admit that. Miss America contestants speak of their “interest” in World Peace. Maybe Trump took a lesson. Nothing is actually happening, and won’t.
Fortunately for minorities, their rights do not depend upon spineless politicians . Equal rights victories come from the courts and from the voters.
@kitt: Hell, I’m still waiting for my HETERO rights. You know, the right to force others to call me by a pronoun I define and decide but which I don’t disclose, the right to destroy those who WILL NOT believe exactly as I demand they believe and the right to make anyone stop whatever they are doing if I decide it hurts my feelings. I don’t hold out much hope, though. Some say I’m “cynical”.
@George Wells:
So you don’t appreciate one bit that fact that he addresses what is a serious issue, if one cares about people being thrown off buildings for their sexual orientation? Oh, well, I guess I will care about it just about that much, if less.
@Deplorable Me:
Trump doesn’t get to pay lip-service to the topic of Muslim atrocities against gays and then trash the civil rights of Americans.
You already agreed that what happens in Riyadh stays in Riyadh. We have bases in Muslim countries and hundreds of $billions invested and will not jeopardize that over inflammatory publicity of gay-bashing in those locals. Lip service is worthless. What Trump does here vis-à-vis human rights is what matters.
@George Wells: Is it? So you would rather him simply pretend it doesn’t exist, like Obama did?
@George Wells:
What civil rights has Trump trashed?
@kitt:
Trump has rolled back LGBT protections that Obama instituted on MANY fronts and continues to harass gays through myriad bureaucratic rule “adjustments” that will keep lawyers and the courts busy for years. Just today I learned of a selective application of a “rule” that has absolutely no basis in the law, where gay families – but not straight ones – must prove DNA relations with adopted children or forfeit their citizenship rights. Leaves one wondering why, of course, but otherwise I have to admit that it is a good diversionary tactic in a war against a minority that has at best 2% of the population and money that the majority has. I won’t presume to speak for racial minorities, as my experience doesn’t inform me of what is happening on that front. But I personally see and understand what is being done to the LGBT community by the Trump administration, and it is no picnic.
@George Wells: So, the government deciding who is important and who isn’t; good thing or bad thing?
@Deplorable Me:
A two-edged sword. It is done every day. Money buys power. Power is important. Government IS power, and government runs on money.
When a president gets a sniffle or has a pain, he is rushed to Walter Reed Army Hospital to be attended by a coterie of the finest doctors, yet a poor person on government healthcare gets but a trifle of medical attention. That is in essence the government deciding who is important, and I have no problem with it. The president is essential to the security of the nation, the poor person is not – expendable, if you will. That is not an isolated example, it is just the first of many that come to mind. Even our concept of “equality under the law” is co-opted by the wealth=importance of the person in question, with the legal service provided by public defenders no match for teams of corporate lawyers.
Good thing or bad? Again a two-edged sword. Good in that the most essential/valuable/important assets get the best protection, bad that we can’t really afford the equality that our Constitution nobly promises.
What say you?
@George Wells: I will need some type of link to the affonts to the gays you speak of. Are the protections you speak of extra rights?
You can join the service and say you are the opposite sex and get catered to? Enter into a bathroom not of your birth sex ect? What is the adopted thing about?
@George Wells: Bad. Each individual has the RIGHT to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The government’s job is to get out of the way. When we have citizens creating self-described and self-serving “rights” out of thin air, it is not the government’s duty or right to add those demands to a never ending and ever growing list of “rights” many of which tend to negate another “right” belonging to someone else.
And in the context you argued in favor of earlier, life or death, it is terrible.
@ Deplorable Me:
Huh?
@George Wells: Still waiting on that link George how gays lost rights under Trump, and some adoption claptrap nonsense.
@kitt:
A case was just decided: Two gay men married. One was an American Citizen, one a foreign national. Time was that the USA wouldn’t extend citizenship to a foreign spouse, but the courts disallowed that discrimination, and that case was then dropped because the Supreme Court was expected to agree with that ruling.
Anyway, the two MARRIED dudes arranged to have surrogate mothers give birth to two babies, one inseminated by each male, and then the couple was to adopt them both. In a ruling that the court found to be remarkably mean-spirited and unjustified by any existing statute, the US State Department (Under Trump) decided that the baby fathered by the foreign national was ineligible for US citizenship ON THE BASIS OF A (NON-EXISTENT) REQUIREMENT THAT THE BABY’S DNA MATCH THAT OF A CITIZEN. No such requirement exists for babies born of or adopted by straight parents.
Like so many other cases that run along these same lines, there are both subtle similarities and subtle differences. Ultimately, the final arbiter in each case decides which “rights” are germane and which are not. In cases such as those being asked to resolve complex questions raised by new perspectives like those pertaining to transgenderism, a careful balance between individual rights to pursue happiness and the rights of others to pursue religious freedom is sought. After a decision of such momentous import as the one granting same-sex couples the right to marry, the courts may be expected to allow considerable time for societal adjustment before extending similar rights. No, not “special” rights not enjoyed by anyone else, but rights that other people have. (And please do not expect me to respond if you need to re-litigate on the argument that gay people ALREADY had the right to marry. The courts heard that argument and rejected it. It’s settled Law.)
Anyway, Trump’s State Department invented the DNA rule for the above case – not a very LGBT-sensitive move – and the court hearing the case called them on it. The State Dept.’s move was such a blatantly discriminatory one obviously motivated by nothing beyond animus that the court’s decision will undoubtedly be upheld if the government chooses to lose more money appealing it. Never mind that Deplorable Me thinks that somehow this takes away from his right to do anything other than discriminate against people who are different from him. That right – to discriminate – is safely enshrined in the Constitution.
And please, Kitt, cool, the impatience. I appreciate that you really are interested in and have many questions about gay issues, but life has other imperatives that occasionally must be attended to. Also, insults (“Claptrap”? really?) don’t exactly encourage conversation. If you need hostility, you won’t get it from me. Neither will you get my respect.
@George Wells: Dont need anything from you other than proof for confusing or misleading posts. There are a ton of these adoption cases? It was by Trumps direct orders that the child would have no citizenship? Where was birth mommy from? Or were the buying an alien rent a womb then trying to get the kid across the border?
I am aware they are doing DNA testing for people dragging kids through the desert and crossing a river with dangerous undertow so they are less likely to be quickly deported.
This one case is hardly proof of Trump ripping away the “communities” rights.
Do you have any of that?
I know how hard it is to get a foreign spouse legal its very expensive as well, my Nephew married a girl from Okinawa while in the service, they met when she was attending college in Las Vegas. He said it was way easier to get his rescue dog into the states.
@kitt:
I read about the court decision just today. Sorry I didn’t print out the details. Suffice it to say that the judge was incredulous at the government’s indefensible stand. Yes, maybe the judge was biased – wouldn’t be the first time. But it was Trump’s State dept. doing something Obama’s would never do. That was my take-away. I’ll search for it and pass along a link if I can find one, since you don’t like my imprecise reporting.
Oh… and it WAS Trump’s Dept. of State. That’s enough – as Truman said “The buck stops here.” If Trump doesn’t like something, it gets the “You’re FIRED”
@George Wells: What if Trump said he only learned about it when he read about it on FA? That used to work very well for a previous President.
@George Wells: Its all good but this is hardly tearing away of RIGHTS for the entire community. A judge should always wear a blind fold when deciding a case.
What is the current law? They should not infringe the law.
@kitt:
Here is a different cut on the same case:
Part of the issue was that DNA requirements did not existed for straight parents when adopting in the same situation otherwise. I hope that it and other cases like it are appealed and find their way to the SCOTUS, because until they do, this will just keep repeating like a sandwich with too many onions.
I’m not meaning to make this out as a big deal – it isn’t. It is but a very small detail among quite a few that exhausts anyone looking to catalog them, much less fund the defense against this sort of discrimination in every case. It isn’t the case itself that alarms, it is the pattern that it is a part of. What gay people bristle at is when the “rules” are DIFFERENT for them for no other reason but that they are themselves different.
@George Wells:but it does show how far some people will go to have a baby er fetus um…er… clump of cells.
If the mommy was a citizen how did it happen in the first place?
I think the judge made the correct decision but if the child is 2 years old, the original decision to not grant the baby citizenship might not have been made by the Trump admin.
Was or did Israel have a hand in this? Hard to tell.
Gays are not allowed to adopt in Israel, nor marry.
@George Wells:
Pardon me, but cite an example of straight parents in the same situation. Good grief.
@kitt #33:
If it were up to me, I wouldn’t let the government or even private insurance pay for pregnancy by artificial means, but our society feels otherwise, and we applaud couples who pursue extraordinary measures to successfully reproduce their own genetic information. Since that IS the case, yes, the judge made the correct call, and yes, it was a Trump Admin. issue and not Obama’s. It will also be up to Trump et.al. to appeal or not. My guess is they won’t press it, because if they do and lose, that would establish precedence at whatever level the case reaches, and they might rather wait for an even more accommodating SCOTUS, such as if Ginsburg dies and gives Trump a third SCOTUS justice nomination. If THAT happens, the Dems would have to wait until THEY control both the Whitehouse AND the full congress and then change the Law. It’s not an important issue as issues go, but, given how many of Obama’s initiatives Trump has reversed, they’d do it.
@Deplorable Me #34:
That’s precisely my point, as it was the judge’s. The DNA rule did not exist and was never applied to straight couples. It was INVENTED exclusively to be applied to gay couples. What did the judge in the case understand that you don’t?
@George Wells: But, due to the couple’s choices, one sibling was conceived of a foreign national and one of a citizen. I assume the surrogate was foreign as well, as this is the only way this would be a problem.
So, WHAT THE HELL? Were they TRYING to create a situation that was almost impossible to interpret? Can’t people just leave things the F**K alone? There are two sexes and there is but one way to naturally and normally conceive a baby. Just because something CAN be done doesn’t mean it SHOULD be done.
Maybe to ease the burden on society they should ALL be killed?
George I dont know what you have against babys, My family celebrates them, little gifts. My daughter had a difficult time we were so excited when she finally became pregnant, that pregnancy had to be terminated and remove a tube., Then a year later and some minor fertility treatments She was pregnant again the doctor had given her very little hope. That guy is grandmas little prince (yes I spoil him rotton, not as bad as my mom does but she has more experience) I am his daycare except Mondays, my moms day, so tuesday – friday. Im glad you are not in charge of what private insurance would pay or not pay for.
So nice you could find something that was such a wide ranging abuse of the “community”
I’d say your 1 case which has IMO questionable origins fails to back your point completely.
@kitt:
FYI George Wells can’t post on Flopping Aces. You have censorship here?
@Paul Balg: There is no censorship unless someone steps out of bounds. George is not being moderated. He can email me at floppingaces@gmail.com to explain the problem he is having to comment.
@Paul Balg: See #36 looks like he has been posting to me. I know it s monitored, but cenored…ask Curt.
@Curt: You rock Curt, I was having problems with servers earlier but could be weather related. windy icy ect that was early a.m.
@kitt: Test
@George Wells: 1 2 3 roger reading you loud an clear lol
Kitt:
I just tried with George’s name and email address, and got “400 Bad Request Cookie too big” and some such nonsense. Yet this time, “Test” did get posted. Maybe it IS the weather, but we have only gentle rain here in Virginia, and my 2 posts went through with no problem. It’s only the George Wells ones that are having problems.
Why are you trying to comment as George?
@Paul Balg: Time to empty your cookies out maybe?
When is the last time you did a clean of your browser cache…ever?
@Paul Balg:
Clean out your cookies. I was getting that, too.
@Deplorable Me: coooookies yummmmmm
@ Kitt:
Let’s see if this works. I tried to dump 10GB+ of unnecessary files/internet files/cookies, but computer stumbled 1/3 of the way through and froze. I really enjoy our… chats, and hope this isn’t the end of them.
@Curt:
My apologies for thinking my problem was yours. My computer needs Spring cleaning. Your site is in good working order and excellent. Thanks.
@George Wells: Yes it might run a bit faster after your cleaning. try to use a different search engine and set you privacy settings higher, default is just asking for it.
I remember when my son said 2 gig mom you will never ever fill all that memory, 2 years later you couldnt get a 2 gig the smallest was 4.