🚀 go-pugleaf

Rackles Shitsorferd wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:28 -0400, Gary L. Burnore
> <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:35:17 -0400, Rackles Shitsorferd
> ><massive@penesisisNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 28 May 2006 16:58:48 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce"
> >><mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote:
> >>
> >>>pedo creep Gary gLitter Burnore wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:16:04 GMT, "Rusty Shackleford"
> >>>> <nospam@bunnyhole_entertainment.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >In the Thursday May 25 N&O in the 'Local' section (B) a column asserts that
> >>>> >a buyer was just about to close on a house when the real estate agent
> >>>> >received an anonymous call that the person living next door was a registered
> >>>> >sex offender.  The information was verified on the NC website so it was
> >>>> >true. Of course, that killed the deal but the buyer could have lost the
> >>>> >$3000 earnest money deposit. The seller knew about the 'defect' but did not
> >>>> >disclose it. It turns out the NC law does not require this information to be
> >>>> >disclosed! Given that diclosure is mandatory for any other defect in the
> >>>> >property that may affect its value such as airline noise, even bad odors
> >>>> >from a sanitary landfill, why is this disclosure about something that could
> >>>> >make it impossible to re-sell the property, exempt from the rules?
> >>>>
> >>>> A law would need to be crafted stating it a a defect.
> >>>>
> >>>> > Do other  states allow non-disclosure of regisered sex-offenders near/around the
> >>>> >property intended for sale?  It also brings up the possibility of lawsuits
> >>>> >against sex offenders who move into neighborhoods on the basis of severely
> >>>> >depreciated home values.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about people known for breaking and entering?  How about people
> >>>> convicted of Murder?  Manslaughter?   If not, why not?
> >>>
> >>>Is that a sore point for you, pedo creep?
> >>>
> >>><snip> Ooops! That's all there was!
> >>
> >>Yes, we apparently pushed the right button on that one.
> >
> >Noting you and he couldn't answer a simple question, I think it's
> >laughable that you think it pushed a button.
> >
> >
> >>It somehow bothers Gary to know that regardless of how he is categorized in NC,
> >>he is still a sex offender
> >
> >It does?  Heh. Funny, no one told me that.
> >
> >> which means that regardless of where he lives from this day forward, all real estate within one mile of him
> >>will immediately drop in value, anyone who does business with him will
> >>find their reputation in decline,  and ultimately little old ladies
> >>will yearn to spit on his haircut.
> >
> >Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  Dumbass.
> >
> >>
> >>Sorry but that's just a fact of life.
> >
> >Only in your feeble little mind.  In the real world, I'm doing just
> >fine and it pisses you off. :)
> >
> >> It has not yet occurred to him that the only way to change this fact
> >
> >It's not a fact so nothing heeds changing.
> >
> >>is spend the rest of his life being a nice person (as opposed to a NG trolling self
> >>appointed net cop) and then convincing everyone around him that he is a changed man.
> >
> >Unlike you, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  But do
> >dream on, I like a good laugh at your expense.
>
> Thanks for publicly demonstrating that nobody pushed your buttons,
> pedoman.  Your responses, or lack therof, will ultimately demonstrate
> whether or not you care.

I'd say he's in "denail"! A0L!!

> Oh wait, let me take a moment to quote you
>
> " >Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
>
> The simple fact you put so much emotion into your response
> demonstrates to the group that you could not, for a moment, care less
> that everyone in society unanimously hates you for the lecherous old
> troll that you are.  Thanks for sharing :)

Based on some of his comments in trigen, business must be bad. Real bad.