Hello Everybody,

It is Watergate all over again! Call it Watergate II!

"What [Democrats are] surmising from Barr’s comments to them thus far is
that the Mueller report is going to be redacted within an inch of its
life on the grounds that it contains a ton of grand jury information,
which William Barr is taking it upon himself to cut out, not only before
he shows to it to the public, but before he even shows it to Congress.
The Democrats want him instead to get a court order allowing for that
grand jury information to be disclosed. That is what happened in
Watergate. That is what happened in the Ken Starr report. That is what
has happened in every other investigation like this. That is what the
Democrats in Congress would like to happen now. So far, no response on
that from the attorney general whatsoever."
~ Rachel Maddow, 4/2/2019

The Democrats are gonna have a whale of a time between now and
Election Day. Subpoenaes after subpoenaes after subpoenaes. Just
like old times. Live television coverage coming your way! Each
and every day! Starting with testimony from the AG himself! Then
from Bob Mueller, the Marine captain who wrote the report! And
many others to follow! From now until The Orange One follows in
Richard Nixon's footsteps, or drowns in a mess of his own making ...

--Lee

--
Everybody Loves Our Buns

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

~ Rachel Maddow, 4/2/2019

Ah, yes, Rachel "I have his tax returns!" Maddow. The woman who cried on air when the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion. The woman whose ratings
plummeted 19% the day after Trump was exonerated. The Sean Hannity of leftists.

THAT Rachel Maddow?

At least now I know where you get your conspiracy theories from. Read, "Rachel Maddow's Conspiracy Brain" at Slate, 3/29/19:

slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello Nathanael,

~ Rachel Maddow, 4/2/2019

Ah, yes, Rachel "I have his tax returns!" Maddow. The woman who cried on

air

when the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion. The woman whose ratings plummeted 19% the day after Trump was exonerated. The Sean

Hannity

of leftists.

Her show has higher ratings than shows on other networks.
So she must be doing something right.

THAT Rachel Maddow?

The one and only. As far as I can tell. Unless it is a body double.

At least now I know where you get your conspiracy theories from. Read, "Rachel Maddow's Conspiracy Brain" at Slate, 3/29/19:

slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html

An interesting piece. From one perspective.

Rather than serving the public, as the AG was sworn to do, the
AG has decided to serve his beloved president. After all, he
had auditioned for the job by writing a love letter that won the
president's favor. And he knows full well what would happen if
he says anything his love interest does not like or approve.

In order to learn the truth, the Congress will use its power
of subpoena. And what do you think it will find, once it gets
what it wants?

The Mueller Report, in its entirety, unredacted, in all its glory.

Along with much, much more.

--Lee

--
Change Is Cumming

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 03 Apr 2019, Lee Lofaso said the following...

Hello Everybody,

It is Watergate all over again! Call it Watergate II!

"What [Democrats are] surmising from Barr’s comments to them thus far
is that the Mueller report is going to be redacted within an inch of its life on the grounds that it contains a ton of grand jury information, which William Barr is taking it upon himself to cut out, not only before he shows to it to the public, but before he even shows it to Congress.
The Democrats want him instead to get a court order allowing for that grand jury information to be disclosed. That is what happened in Watergate. That is what happened in the Ken Starr report. That is what
has happened in every other investigation like this. That is what the Democrats in Congress would like to happen now. So far, no response on that from the attorney general whatsoever."
~ Rachel Maddow, 4/2/2019

Rachel Maddow? The mouth of the left on PMSNBC, she is irrelevant, as shows like hers has been feeding it's viewers with lies. CNN is not doing any
better as Cartoon Network has been reported to have higher ratings then CNN.

The Democrats are gonna have a whale of a time.

No they will not, it's a fantasy because William Barr will not break the law and and give them the alleged ammo of words. They can subpoena all they wish, they will get nothing. (until they go judge shopping perhaps)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

Her show has higher ratings than shows on other networks.
So she must be doing something right.

So ratings are an arbiter of truth? OK, then. You know who has higher ratings that Maddow? Alex Jones.

In order to learn the truth, the Congress will use its power
of subpoena. And what do you think it will find, once it gets

Read Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, esp. 6(e)(2) and (3), and 18 U.S.C. p3322. Federal law prohibits Barr from releasing Grand Jury information; not even a Congressional subpoena can overcome 6(e)(2).

In order to see grand jury information, Barr would need to petition a federal court to grant an exception to Rule 6.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Her show has higher ratings than shows on other networks.
So she must be doing something right.

So ratings are an arbiter of truth? OK, then. You know who has higher ratings that Maddow? Alex Jones.

Freddy Mercury easily beats that.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)

Freddy Mercury easily beats that.

:-)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello Greg,

It is Watergate all over again! Call it Watergate II!

"What [Democrats are] surmising from BarrGamm€™s comments to them

thus far

is that the Mueller report is going to be redacted within an inch of

its

life on the grounds that it contains a ton of grand jury information,
which William Barr is taking it upon himself to cut out, not only

before

he shows to it to the public, but before he even shows it to

Congress.

The Democrats want him instead to get a court order allowing for that
grand jury information to be disclosed. That is what happened in
Watergate. That is what happened in the Ken Starr report. That is

what

has happened in every other investigation like this. That is what the
Democrats in Congress would like to happen now. So far, no response

on

that from the attorney general whatsoever."
~ Rachel Maddow, 4/2/2019

Rachel Maddow?

Sean Hannity's nemesis.

The mouth of the left on PMSNBC, she is irrelevant, as shows
like hers has been feeding it's viewers with lies.

Apparently a growing number of folks find her stories more
amusing than what other networks (such as FoxNews and CNN) have
to offer.

CNN is not doing any better as Cartoon Network has been reported to have higher ratings then CNN.

I doubt any of the networks are competing with children.

The Democrats are gonna have a whale of a time.

No they will not, it's a fantasy because William Barr will not break the

law

and and give them the alleged ammo of words. They can subpoena all they wish, they will get nothing. (until they go judge shopping perhaps)

Failure to testify will mean contempt of Congress.
Which would be kind of funny in a sense. The AG in jail
for contempt of Congress, with Bob Mueller spilling the
beans in person so as not to follow in his boss'
footstapes.

--Lee

--
Laying Pipe Since '88

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

nathanael culver -> Lee Lofaso has brought this to us :

Her show has higher ratings than shows on other networks.
So she must be doing something right.

So ratings are an arbiter of truth? OK, then. You know who has higher ratings
that Maddow? Alex Jones.

MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) 1.56 million viewers
FoxNews (Sean Hannity) 1.54 million viewers
CNN (Anderson Cooper) 925,0000 viewers

Madddow beats Hannity, with Cooper lagging way behind.
You know what that means.
Lesbian on top, straight man in the middle, and gayboy on bottom.

For week of December 17-23, 2018.
Nielsen Media Research.

I do not see Alex Jones listed.
Do you think it is a conspiracy?

And to think Maddow did it again. And again. Into this year.

Could be Hannity is losing his touch ...

In order to learn the truth, the Congress will use its power
of subpoena. And what do you think it will find, once it gets

Read Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, esp. 6(e)(2) and (3),
and 18 U.S.C. p3322. Federal law prohibits Barr from releasing Grand Jury information; not even a Congressional subpoena can overcome 6(e)(2).

In order to see grand jury information, Barr would need to petition a federal
court to grant an exception to Rule 6.

When an individual who has been subpoenaed refuses to testify,
he/she is held in contempt of Congress. That means jail.

AG Bill Barr is the John Mitchell of our times. Rather
than serving the public, he has chosen to serve his president.
And now he is about to find out who is his real boss.

What fun days lie ahead.

When evidence is subpoenaed by the Congress, the Congress usually
gets what it wants. And sometimes that evidence is made public.
Such as The Starr Report. The full and unredacted report.

And let's not forget what happened in Nixon's day. Remember
the "Pentagon Papers"? Thanks to "Deep Throat", we all learned
the truth.

I wonder if Bob Woodward can be convinced to come out of retirement?
I hear he has one more story to tell ...

--Lee

--
Your Hole Is Our Goal

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 05 Apr 2019, Lee Lofaso said the following...

Rachel Maddow?

Sean Hannity's nemesis.

Are you kidding me Maddow? she couldn't scratch Sean Hannity balls...

Apparently a growing number of folks find her stories more
amusing than what other networks (such as FoxNews and CNN) have
to offer.

Amusing? perhaps, but when the realization hits the brain that they have been lied to and sold empty promises that turned out to be fake.
Ms. Smarty Pants will be off the air.

It is fake and has been from the get go. How can there be Trump Russian collusion when there is entrapment? When these lefty loons went to the fisa court - on two separate occasions with their overstuffed attache cases filled to the brim with lies they failed to mention who paid for what they were presenting to the court. - opps.

You know what they say "What comes around, goes around." - Tick Tock

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

For week of December 17-23, 2018.

Yay, let's play Cherry Pick!

2018? Your numbers are old news. From April 2, 2019, The Wrap, "Tucker Carlson Topped All Cable News Shows Last Month in Key Demo Despite Ad Boycott":

For March, "Tucker Carlson Tonight" claimed cable news' top spot in the
25-54 demo for the first time in the program's history, with 537,000 viewers per night in that advertiser-coveted age range. His pal Sean Hannity was second
with 533,000.

Fox's current 9 o'clock series "Hannity" topped all of cable news
in total viewers for March, with 3.145 million, much like he did for the first quarter of 2019 (3.121 million).

When an individual who has been subpoenaed refuses to testify,
he/she is held in contempt of Congress. That means jail.

No, no. Put the goalposts down. We were discussing the Mueller report, not
Barr testifying, which he has already said he will do.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

For week of December 17-23, 2018.

Rather than running to last year's numbers, let's look at something a bit more current. Here are total viewers from Nielsen Media Research for the past two weeks. Mostly Hannity isn't just beating Maddcow - he's handing her her
ass, besting her several times by more that 1.5 million.

March 18 [not available]

March 19
Carlson: 2,852
Hannity: 2,800
Maddcow: 2,733

March 20
Carlson: 2,797
Hannity: 2,940
Maddcow: 2,810

March 21
Carlson: 2,800
Hannity: 2,788
Maddcow: 2,155

March 22
Carlson: 3,199
Hannity: 3,132
Maddcow: 2,904

March 25
Hannity: 4,005
Carlson: 3,886
Maddcow: 2,513

March 26
Hannity: 3,571
Carlson: 3,554
Maddcow: 2,301

March 27
Hannity: 4,303
Carlson: 3,485
Maddcow: 2,678

March 28
Hannity: 4,061
Carlson: 3,794
Maddcow: 2,450

March 29
Hannity: 2,939
Carlson: 2,656
Maddcow: 2,349

April 1
Hannity: 2,939
Carlson:
Maddcow: 2,489

April 2
Hannity: 3,082
Carlson: 2,938
Maddcow: 2,475

April 3
Hannity: 3,154
Maddcow: 2,915
Carlson: 2,887

April 4
Hannity: 3,937
Maddcow: 2,826
Carlson: 2,814

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello Nathanael,

For week of December 17-23, 2018.

Yay, let's play Cherry Pick!

2018? Your numbers are old news. From April 2, 2019, The Wrap, "Tucker Carlson Topped All Cable News Shows Last Month in Key Demo Despite Ad Boycott":

February 2019, age group 25-54

All agree - Maddow's numbers of 3.067 viewers, average 549,000.

MSNBC claims - Maddow's numbers are bigger than Hannity's of 3.024
million viewers, average 526,000.

FoxNews claims - Hannity drew total of 3.165 million viewers,
beating Maddow.

FNC claims - Carlson comes in first with 3.087 million viewers,
20,000 more than Hannity, leaving Maddow in last place.

So there. What's in a number? Depends on who, or what, you
want to believe. :)

For March, "Tucker Carlson Tonight" claimed cable news' top spot in the 25-54 demo for the first time in the program's history, with 537,000 viewers per night in that advertiser-coveted age range. His pal Sean Hannity was second with 533,000.

FoxNews is getting desperate, having to throw in a second
commentator to add on to Hannity's number to beat Maddow's
growing audience. :)

Fox's current 9 o'clock series "Hannity" topped all of cable news
in total viewers for March, with 3.145 million, much like he did for the first quarter of 2019 (3.121 million).

This is fun, watching different sites compile statistics to their
own advantage. Come November 2020 the outgoing president will be
claiming the election was rigged, with polls taken by FoxNews
showing he was clearly ahead in all of them ...

When an individual who has been subpoenaed refuses to testify,
he/she is held in contempt of Congress. That means jail.

No, no. Put the goalposts down. We were discussing the Mueller report,

not

Barr testifying, which he has already said he will do.

The AG can avoid being compelled to testify by turning in the entire
unredacted Mueller report to the Congress.

--Lee

--
Pork. The One You Love.

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Nathanael,

For week of December 17-23, 2018.

Rather than running to last year's numbers, let's look at something a bit more current.

The week of December 17-23, 2018 was the beginning of the end
for Hannity, according to cheatsheet, which clearly showed Maddow
beating the pants of him since then (head-to-head) by a score
of 3.9 million viewers to 3.1 miillion viewers.

Here are total viewers from Nielsen Media Research for the past two
weeks. Mostly Hannity isn't just beating Maddcow - he's handing her her

ass,

besting her several times by more that 1.5 million.

March 18 [not available]

March 19
Carlson: 2,852
Hannity: 2,800
Maddcow: 2,733

Throwing in a third commentator, in a different time slot,
even though from the same network, is not fair comparison.

Head-to-head matchup means Maddow vs. Hannity. Cheatsheet
says Maddow wins hands down. And has been doing so consistently
since December 2018.

--Lee

--
It Ain't Payday If It Ain't Nuts In Your Mouth

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Throwing in a third commentator, in a different time slot,
even though from the same network, is not fair comparison.

Head-to-head matchup means Maddow vs. Hannity.

Which is exactly what I gave you. Sheesh! You'll grasp at any straw.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

for Hannity, according to cheatsheet, which clearly showed Maddow
beating the pants of him since then (head-to-head) by a score

You keep reaching for old numbers. This is not Jan or Feb, it's April.

"While number #1 to Sean's rare #2 spot over the quarter [1Q19], it is worth noting that since the March 22 handing over to the DOJ of former FBI
Director's nearly 400-page still secret report, Maddow has seen her ratings go down and Trump pal Hannity rebound."
Note that Maddcow having edged out Hannity in 1Q19 was an anomaly, and that
it was the 25-54 demographic only; Hannity has generally led Maddcow for at least the past two years.

"In that total viewer slot, Hannity was number one in the quarter [1Q19] with 3.12 million watching to Maddcow's 3.05 million."

Deadline Hollywood, "Fox News Wins Cable News Ratings War, Again; Maddow Tops 'Hannity' in Demo" (meaning in the 25-54 demographic) 2 April '19.

So I will grant that Maddcow led Hannity for one quarter in a specific demo- graphic. But that's the only good news Maddcow had, and it's over. She never led in total viewers, and even her lead in the 25-54 demo lasted less than
a full quarter.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello Nathanael,

Throwing in a third commentator, in a different time slot,
even though from the same network, is not fair comparison.

Head-to-head matchup means Maddow vs. Hannity.

Which is exactly what I gave you. Sheesh! You'll grasp at any straw.

44 straight months at #1 and then the hoax queen pulls
a fast one. I found it funny. Especially when her numbers
tanked by 20% after the AG issued his 4-page summary of
the Mueller report.

MSNBC wants to promote their guy.
FoxNews wants to promote their guy.
CNN wants to promote their guy.
And so on and so on.

Each will lie, beg, and steal to get what they want.
Without ever actually lying, or begging, or stealing.

There are people who have made entire careers out
of doing such things. And they are very, very, good
at it.

This is not limited to politics.

Pharmaceutical companies do it.
Clinical trials are not what you think they are.
Here is an example -

No statin drug has ever passed clinical trials under
transparent conditions. That is why no new statin drugs
have ever been approved since 2006.
The only reason some statin drugs remain on the market
today is because the FDA refuses to pull the plug on them,
as statins up to 2006 had already been approved (under
non-transparent conditions).

One way pharmaceutical companies cheated in regards
to statins is by using two target groups rather than one.
More accurately, one control group and two target groups.

Let's say one target group being young healthy people.
With the other target group being old, sickly people.
By manipulating the results of each group, then discarding
the sickly group, the pharmaceutical company can show
their statin is safe for everybody with minimal side
effects.

Of course, we are told there was only one target group.

Pharmaceutical companies in the EU objected to this
practice, and an agreement in 2006 was reached with the
US to make clinical trials transparent - by allowing
verification by both sides.

With 100 million Americans on statins, why would
the FDA ban statins? Even if none of them are safe,
there is just too much money to be made. A $29 billion
dollar industry. Not that yours (or anybody else's)
health matters ...

BTW, Donald Trump is 73 years old and on massive
dosages of statins. Other than that, healthy as a
horse. According to his doctor, who upped his
dosage earlier this year.

BTW, Trump has already started writing his memoirs.

--Lee

--
Every Bottom Needs A Top

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Nathanael,

for Hannity, according to cheatsheet, which clearly showed Maddow
beating the pants of him since then (head-to-head) by a score

You keep reaching for old numbers. This is not Jan or Feb, it's April.

MSNBC says Maddow is #1.
FoxNews says Hannity is #1.
FNC says Tucker is #1.

All depends on who, or what, a viewer wants to believe.

"While number #1 to Sean's rare #2 spot over the quarter [1Q19], it is

worth

noting that since the March 22 handing over to the DOJ of former FBI Director's nearly 400-page still secret report, Maddow has seen her

ratings

go down and Trump pal Hannity rebound."

What goes up, must go down. And vice versa.
Although sometimes things keep going up and up and up.
Or down and down and down ...

Note that Maddcow having edged out Hannity in 1Q19 was an anomaly,

Was it? Or a sign of things to come?

and that it was the 25-54 demographic only;

The sweet spot. What sells it to advertisers, who buy the time.

Hannity has generally led Maddcow for at least the past two years.

44 straight months, by most counts. Until Maddow upset his
apple cart.

"In that total viewer slot, Hannity was number one in the quarter [1Q19] with 3.12 million watching to Maddcow's 3.05 million."

1st Quarter 2019, 25-54 group, Maddow 549,000 viewers, Hannity 547,000.

Then came the AG's 4-page summary of the Mueller report.

Maddow's numbers dropped by 20%.

Now the hoax queen has to find a new angle.
I hear she is sniffing out boxes of tax returns ...

Deadline Hollywood, "Fox News Wins Cable News Ratings War, Again; Maddow Tops 'Hannity' in Demo" (meaning in the 25-54 demographic) 2 April '19.

How numbers are counted and interpreted are not the same by all.
Each has its own method, or various methods. Sometimes, it does
not matter.

So I will grant that Maddcow led Hannity for one quarter in a specific

demo-

graphic. But that's the only good news Maddcow had, and it's over. She

never

led in total viewers, and even her lead in the 25-54 demo lasted less

than

a full quarter.

Depends on how you count the votes, and interpret those votes.
Kind of like elections. Especially when it comes to chads.

--Lee

--
Big Or Small We Lay Them All

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Parmaceutical companies do it.

No one is discussing pharamaceuticals. We're discussing comparative
viewerships of Hannity and Maddcow. Unless you're intentionally trying to divert the conservation. You know, what they call a red herring.

How numbers are counted and interpreted are not the same by all.

But I cited figures from Nielsen Media Research, the very same organization
you cited in broaching this discussion. Either my numbers are credible, or yours aren't, either. In which case you have no argument.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello Nathanael,

Parmaceutical companies do it.

No one is discussing pharamaceuticals. We're discussing comparative viewerships of Hannity and Maddcow. Unless you're intentionally trying to divert the conservation. You know, what they call a red herring.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
~ attributed to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain

Although the quote was misattributed, its meaning is clear -
a literal meaning that suggests statistics can be used to mislead
even more than the worst form of untruth.

It does not matter if the subject is politics, or sports, or
medicine, etc. That is something that flew way over your head.
And I mean waaaaaaaay over.

"How to Lie With Statistics", by Darrell Huff.

Find a copy. Read it. And be amazed.

"How to Lie With Maps", by Mark Monmonier.

Find a copy. Read it. And be even more amazed.

I have both. And they still amaze me.

How numbers are counted and interpreted are not the same by all.

But I cited figures from Nielsen Media Research,

Their methodology is flawed.

the very same organization you cited in broaching this discussion.

Sure is.

Either my numbers are credible, or yours aren't, either.

I never said anybody's numbers are credible, regardless of where
they came from.

In which case you have no argument.

https://www.vulture.com/2011/01/why-nielsen-ratings-are-inaccurate-and -why-theyll-stay-that-way.html

You're busted. Read the entire piece. Alan Wurtzel sums it
all up quite nicely. In excruciating detail.

Here is a quote by him in the above article -

"Listen, Nielsen is a monopoly. They're the only game in town.
[They're ratings] are the only currency."

There is much more he explains, and easy for anybody to understand.

Do yourself a favor and read the article, and draw your own
conclusions.

All ratings are scam. Otherwise, nobody would play football pools.

It is not about being right or wrong. It is about what people
believe.

President Trump has publicly stated the Democrats won a majority
of seats in the House because the election was rigged. Of course,
he cited no evidence to support his wild claim. But his fan base
ate it all up. Music to their ears. If Trump said it, it must
be true.

President Trump has also made a number of other false claims.
Such as building a wall. His supporters believe whatever he tells
them. Facts and evidence have nothing to do with it. He is their
god, and they are his loyal followers.

These people (the cult of Trump) are so braindead they would follow
him straight over a cliff, all of them chanting "Trump is always right!
Trump is always right!" - until they go <splat!> when they hit rock
bottom.

--Lee

--
Often Licked, Never Beaten

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

You're busted.

LOL! *I'M* busted? You are now claiming the numbers you cited for your own argument aren't credible, thereby admitting you have no argument and never did,
and you think that means *I'M* busted.

Umm, okee-dokee...

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)