It's so bad that Dayseeds reading skills are so lacking, he would then see that this poor lady is the one with the dogs, who the neighbours tried to poison. Not the other way around, I guess when you write gang stalking skits too often you start to think like them too.

Here is the quote once more for those of us who are a little slow on the uptake.



And yes I did agree with my gang stalking peep, why would I not.

[quote="gangstalking"]It's so bad that Dayseeds reading skills are so lacking, he would then see that this poor lady is the one with the dogs, who the neighbours tried to poison.[/quote]

Actually, when you read the quote rather than blindly aping it, you'd notice that it is the first person voice "I loudly accused them of...and (loudly) told my SO how easy it would be to throw a chunk of liverwurst in their yard and they could whether or not it was poisoned."

Do you see how the narrator, with whom you side, is the one who wishes to throw the liverwurst into the other people's yard? Here's what I wrote in the shoutbox: "Plus, I'm glad you sided with the lady who was going to throw poisoned meat for somebody's dog to eat." I can't help it if you're as stupid as you are immoral. Perhaps instead of inventing new compliments for yourself or illustrating your social handicaps, you could advance past a grade 3 reading skill set and come to the conclusion that when the narrator announces HE/SHE wishes to throw poisoned meat (that would be the liverwurst dummy), it must be intended for the other person's dogs. Does your moronic chum plan on throwing yard meat for her neighbours to eat? Did the syphillis you caught getting glory-holed at the bus-station melt what little brain you began life with? Remember, the neighbours left poison (supposedly) for the narrator's dogs to step in. See my shoutbox comment for further help.



Which would be true provided that your fellow paranoid delusional was hoping her neighbours would question whether meat they discovered in their yard was intentionally poisoned before they devoured it. To the rest of us, with working mind and clear faculties, I betcha she was hoping her neighbour's dogs would eat it.

I'm glad you read the skit! I would have been disappointed had you not. And don't worry, I'm just talking about reading it; not necessarily comprehending it, making meaningful conclusions or being able to relate it to a larger context. I know you're not related to Superman. Or anybody literate.



I'm glad you included yourself in that. However, I think you may be the only one though...





Because she was planning on poisoning a dog you horrible dolt.

[quote="Dayseed"][quote="gangstalking"]It's so bad that Dayseeds reading skills are so lacking, he would then see that this poor lady is the one with the dogs, who the neighbours tried to poison.[/quote]

Actually, when you read the quote rather than blindly aping it, you'd notice that it is the first person voice "I loudly accused them of...and (loudly) told my SO how easy it would be to throw a chunk of liverwurst in their yard and they could whether or not it was poisoned."

Do you see how the narrator, with whom you side, is the one who wishes to throw the liverwurst into the other people's yard? Here's what I wrote in the shoutbox: "Plus, I'm glad you sided with the lady who was going to throw poisoned meat for somebody's dog to eat." I can't help it if you're as stupid as you are immoral. Perhaps instead of inventing new compliments for yourself or illustrating your social handicaps, you could advance past a grade 3 reading skill set and come to the conclusion that when the narrator announces HE/SHE wishes to throw poisoned meat (that would be the liverwurst dummy), it must be intended for the other person's dogs. Does your moronic chum plan on throwing yard meat for her neighbours to eat? Did the syphillis you caught getting glory-holed at the bus-station melt what little brain you began life with? Remember, the neighbours left poison (supposedly) for the narrator's dogs to step in. See my shoutbox comment for further help.



Which would be true provided that your fellow paranoid delusional was hoping her neighbours would question whether meat they discovered in their yard was intentionally poisoned before they devoured it. To the rest of us, with working mind and clear faculties, I betcha she was hoping her neighbour's dogs would eat it.

I'm glad you read the skit! I would have been disappointed had you not. And don't worry, I'm just talking about reading it; not necessarily comprehending it, making meaningful conclusions or being able to relate it to a larger context. I know you're not related to Superman. Or anybody literate.



I'm glad you included yourself in that. However, I think you may be the only one though...





Because she was planning on poisoning a dog you horrible dolt.[/quote]

Dayseed consider this a warning. I will ban you from my blog no questions asked if you decided to continue to be less than appropriate in your responses. I know we have all this wonderful mutual admiration between us from previous postings, however from what I have seen of you on CKA, you have a tendency to call people disrespectful names, make belittling comments, and then when found to be in the wrong, you refrain from appologising.

Eg. When you called Lily names, disrespected her and then had to get dissed by others, so much so that a community healing thread had to be started by Mustang1. I will not be going for that here in my own blog!

This was the reason I stopped speaking to you in the thread about gang stalking to begin with and this is the same reason that I will not hesitate again.

Having said that however, I think your ramblings require some kind of a response, this last time, however take note, if you choose to respond, and you can not keep a civil tounge in your head, I will not think twice about asking you to refrain from posting in this blog.



Dayseed you will quanitfy this remark with a suitable and appropriate response, or I will simply ask you to stop posting in my blog, period. Either I get an appropiate and suitable response, or just don't come back.

[quote="gangstalking"]Dayseed consider this a warning. I will ban you from my blog no questions asked if you decided to continue to be less than appropriate in your responses.[/quote]

Gangstalking, if you have to ban me from your blog, you go right ahead. I'm the sole point of interest in this blog as I'm the only one who comments on it. Moreover, you come across as hypocritical when you a) insinuate that my morals or faculties have "gone begging" and b) I've been visiting your janitor friend and he now itches or c) I'm a stray of some sort (it's your insult, but I doubt you understand what you wrote either) and d) I could have fleas so e) get my problem cleared up. Part of your social handicap is your inability to understand what you do and how it relates to criticisms you raise.



Another delusion.



Really? Methinks you need to do some more research. I haven't a problem admitting I'm wrong and I've done so on this very forum when it occurs. Now, if I were to prove you wrong on this very point, would you apologize for your erroneous assertions? I doubt it.



I think we should invite Mustang1 on here to discuss his actions concerning "community healing threads." There's no point in your or I discussing his motives. Perhaps some words directly from him would clear it up?



Again, you should practise what you preach.



Yet, for somebody demanding civility, you're very quick to issue threats. I disregard your threats anyway. "Ban" me if it's what you want. I have my own site too.



This smacks of logical problems. How does this lady know that there was "poison" on the ground? How would it be left for her dogs to step in? Are her dogs out unsupervised? How do you know this incident to be true? How does this lady know (by way of unassailble physical evidence which is both independent and verifiable...translation: her gut instinct doesn't count) these people did it? Why didn't the lady sample the "poison" and send it to an independent lab to verify her claims?





This lady levelled a clear and identifiable threat. As per Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code: Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Sorry Gangstalking, but when somebody conveys that meat left out for their dog (or for them even since apparently that's a route you're willing to pursue...) MAY be poisoned, it's a threat. This isn't for you to decide, debate or offer your uninformed opinion. Parliament already decided it.

Regardless, it's clear that you think that poisoning somebody or an animal is an appropriate threat to make in response. Nice.



Go ahead, make the crack. You'd be wrong as you initially began by insisting I didn't know what was going on in your creepy scenario, but now that you've backtracked a couple of times, I'm satisfied.



Questioning your moral standing is very justifiable. You insisted that making a joke about you giving the clap to a janitor was disgusting, beneath you and it was never to be mentioned again, but you have no problems bringing the situation up when it serves your purpose. Based on the evidence, one can only conclude that you have morals of convenience. Besides, you once again ask others to cease doing what you yourself cannot. All of this goes back to the central tenet of your entry; that poisoning people, threatening to poison people is an acceptable response under any circumstances.



People who "gang-stalk" will eat mystery meat they find on the ground? Besides, she conveyed a clear threat that the people who heard her could very well find themselves the victims of a poisoning, be it either themselves OR their pet. Either way, your "pal" threatened to poison people and you consider this rather becoming.



You want me to "quantify" the remark? Since you so nicely demanded me to "quantify" it, I give it a 7/10. Happy?

There was only one appropriate response, and it was not given. Just like last time I won't be letting it go.

I leave it as is. If someone is being stalked and a person discovers their animals are being put in danger of being poisoned and they get angry and makes a comment to her SO (spouce) about throwing liverwurst and letting the neighbours wonder if it's poisoned or not, then I support this stranger in her comments.

Since she never said she would actually poison anyone and she only intimated it, and the comment was made for her spouse I see no problem with it.

In this war it's fire for fire, too many targets have already been burnt.