I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23182
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:It takes brains to be a narc? Maybe a successful undercover one but I'm not sure it's a requirement for the rest.
I don't know about narcs specifically, but several sources say the average IQ of police officers in general is slightly below 100. Probably depends on where you work and what you do. I've known some really bright officers, but somebody is out there bringing down the average. "Barney" probably wasn't that far from real.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Vrede wrote:
Average IQ by occupation

5. College professor (my dad and brother) 115.9
8. Attorney (O Really) 114.5
11. Statistician (my Mom) 111.4
19. Clergyman 108.9
21. Teacher 108.1
26. Sociologist 107.4 (my dad)
33. Dental hygienist 105.5 (surprisingly high, to me)
37. Government official 104.1
46. Police officer (Leo Lyons) 102.5
50. Sales representative (Supsalemgr, sort of) 101.6
69. Aircraft mechanic 96.3 ( :o , great)
79. Firefighter (nascarfan88/Bowhuntr) 94.6
91. Sailor (homerfobe) 90.4

There are several listed for healthcare, plus some of the other jobs I've done. You can guess.
I'm afraid I was quite more than a policeman.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you would rate a #65 spot with a 97.5 as an LPN. It appears that an Ombudsman nor a broken
missile-wannabe even made a grade, so I'm assuming their IQ levels are well into the basement with a -00.2.

Tough break guys; heaven knows you tried.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

Leo Lyons wrote:
Stinger wrote:
Leo Lyons wrote: I've not been where I am long enough for peoplefinders.com to lock onto me, not do I stay in one place too long.
Bullshit. If you did anything, you'd be on Google. You're not. You're full of shit.
So what's your claim to fame in life besides being a foul-mouthed "leader" of underprivileged "inner-city" youth (as you claim)?
With "leaders" like you, no wonder so many toilet-tongued kids turn to drugs, theft, and other violent crimes.

I never curse around my kids. Another stupid assumption on your part. The string continues.

I save my more colorful language for those who have no excuses for their stupidity.


You said: "He doesn't have the brains or the qualifications. He hasn't come up with one single thing that would even begin to make anyone think that he had anything to do with DEA. No busts. No nothing."

So when I joined here, was I supposed to list or brag about all my exploits over the years? That would make me a bigger asshole than you.
Bottom line shit-for-brains, I really don't give a rats ass what you believe, I'm not here to impress you or anyone else; unlike you and your clone Solarbudsman. You two are real "buds".....bloomin' idiot buds.

At least we don't have to go around lying about our pasts to impress people. It's really sad that you have to do that. It's even sadder that you're too chickenshit to admit it when you get caught.
No, you're not supposed to brag, but in a year's time, something intelligent and relevant would have been said. Like I said, you simply don't have the qualifications for the DEA.
I note that you're still running from a rational explanation for the assault vehicle and the troll infestation. I don't blame you. You really can't explain those away. Just keep running and deflecting. That's you're best option.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

Leo Lyons wrote:
Vrede wrote:
Average IQ by occupation

5. College professor (my dad and brother) 115.9
8. Attorney (O Really) 114.5
11. Statistician (my Mom) 111.4
19. Clergyman 108.9
21. Teacher 108.1
26. Sociologist 107.4 (my dad)
33. Dental hygienist 105.5 (surprisingly high, to me)
37. Government official 104.1
46. Police officer (Leo Lyons) 102.5
50. Sales representative (Supsalemgr, sort of) 101.6
69. Aircraft mechanic 96.3 ( :o , great)
79. Firefighter (nascarfan88/Bowhuntr) 94.6
91. Sailor (homerfobe) 90.4

There are several listed for healthcare, plus some of the other jobs I've done. You can guess.
I'm afraid I was quite more than a policeman.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you would rate a #65 spot with a 97.5 as an LPN. It appears that an Ombudsman nor a broken
missile-wannabe even made a grade, so I'm assuming their IQ levels are well into the basement with a -00.2.

Tough break guys; heaven knows you tried.
Well, since you're known for stupid assumptions, your streak remains unbroken. I'll put IQ scores, transcripts, test scores, or anything else up against yours. Since you don't have a degree, we'll give you an honorary DA (DumbAss) in Law Enforcement Wannabe.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

Leo Lyons wrote: but my job wasn't filled right out of high-school rolls.
Right. Where'd you get your DA again?

Leo Lyons wrote: don't sweat the fact that you, Stinger, or budman ridicule my past (or lack of it); you all fit right in with many of this nation's radical hate groups that hate the very thought of law enforcement and view LEO's as scum. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
Stupid dumbass. You've never heard me denigrate LEO's. I have a number of friends who work in GPD and ASO. I work closely with law enforcement agencies, ... on a daily basis. I have a cousin in law enforcement in Tennessee. I also have a couple of friends who are in federal agencies -- alphabet boys. I have nothing but respect for good law enforcement personnel. It's just that you're not one of them.

The only hate group I fit in is the group that hates liars.

So, the stupid, dumbass, illogical assumption on your part that someone who despises your lies also "hates the very thought of law enforcement and view LEO's as scum" shows who the dumbass is around here.

Plain and simple. You try to play with the big boys and end up looking like the dumbass you are.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Stinger wrote:
Leo Lyons wrote:
Stinger wrote:
Leo Lyons wrote: I've not been where I am long enough for peoplefinders.com to lock onto me, not do I stay in one place too long.
Bullshit. If you did anything, you'd be on Google. You're not. You're full of shit.
So what's your claim to fame in life besides being a foul-mouthed "leader" of underprivileged "inner-city" youth (as you claim)?
With "leaders" like you, no wonder so many toilet-tongued kids turn to drugs, theft, and other violent crimes.

I never curse around my kids. Another stupid assumption on your part. The string continues.
I save my more colorful language for those who have no excuses for their stupidity.

Yeah, I see it now...mild-mannered youth counselor by day; raging Keyboard Rambo by night! Damn, Stinger, I think there's a movie in there somewhere....or at least a debut on YouTube! I'll Google and see if you're famous yet. Nope, you're not.



You said: "He doesn't have the brains or the qualifications.
He hasn't come up with one single thing that would even begin to make anyone think that he had anything to do with DEA. No busts. No nothing."


So when I joined here, was I supposed to list or brag about all my exploits over the years? That would make me a bigger asshole than you.
Bottom line shit-for-brains, I really don't give a rats ass what you believe, I'm not here to impress you or anyone else; unlike you and your clone Solarbudsman. You two are real "buds".....bloomin' idiot buds.

At least we don't have to go around lying about our pasts to impress people.
We know that; we are aware of the other ways you attempt to grab attention though.

It's really sad that you have to do that. It's even sadder that you're too chickenshit to admit it when you get caught.
Know what you mean bro', it's tough. If you're that sad, you should carry Kleenex wherever you go.

No, you're not supposed to brag, but in a year's time, something intelligent and relevant would have been said.
Like I said, you simply don't have the qualifications for the DEA.


Like all the intelligent and relevancy you dish out? Because I don't brag of my former job or weave my past into these threads
doesn't qualify me? Because I don't curse and vilify someone for their experiences/knowledge doesn't qualify me? Like it or lump it, dude; as
said many times, I don't care what you think or believe. I don't believe any one posting in these boards is here to please you or beg you to reply to their posts, or even believe what they have posted. You just aren't that important; get over it. :oII


I note that you're still running from a rational explanation for the assault vehicle and the troll infestation. I don't blame you.
You really can't explain those away. Just keep running and deflecting. That's you're (sic) best option.


Because you found my comments "irrational", that points to your delusional immaturity. You were the only one to jump my ass
about that post, and you were the one whining about the trolls chasing you around. (it's good that your Mommy started leaving a night light on for you).
I said this before, and I'll say it again; I have the intelligence to read and research, which I did on that article. If you want to blow a hole in your
tightie-whities over it, go for it. :oII

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Ombudsman wrote:Dude you're losing it. Count to ten.
1..... 2..... 3..... 4..... 5..... 6.....7..... 8..... 9..... 10.

Ya feel better now?

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by rstrong »

Leo Lyons wrote:
Ombudsman wrote:Dude you're losing it. Count to ten.
1..... 2..... 3..... 4..... 5..... 6.....7..... 8..... 9..... 10.

Ya feel better now?
Damn. Now I owe Stinger $20.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

Leo Lyons wrote: Because you found my comments "irrational", that points to your delusional immaturity.

I'd say it points to your delusional immaturity that you think anyone bought that BS.

Try it again. Explain to us how you come to a forum, go back through 20 pages or more, thousands of threads, and just happen to pick a thread about a local sheriff (that you're not supposed to know anything about) and his assault vehicle, picking up exactly where Mr. X left off a few months earlier. (And explain why no other three- or four-months old threads were so interesting.)

And give it a rational twist this time.


You were the only one to jump my ass about that post, and you were the one whining about the trolls chasing you around. (it's good that your Mommy started leaving a night light on for you).

Um, how would you know anything about trolls chasing me around? That was a good six months before you showed up. But thanks for confirming your BS ... as BS.

And, for your information -- since you didn't get it the first 20 times -- I wasn't whining about them ... I was explaining to the stupid people who just couldn't figure it out. Like Mr. X ... and now, you.

You'd think that the fact that the moderator, with access to IP addresses, figured it out so quickly and got rid of all the trolls and left me would suggest something to folks with two or more working brain cells.

I take that back. You wouldn't think that ... because you don't have the requisite number of brain cells.



I said this before, and I'll say it again; I have the intelligence to read and research, which I did on that article. If you want to blow a hole in your tightie-whities over it, go for it. :

Right. You go back through thousands of threads looking for something interesting to comment on, and you find a thread about a sheriff's assault vehicle. Doesn't everyone do that? I know that whenever I join a forum, I never comment on an active thread. I usually go back a year or two, looking for just that special thread to make myself known.

Dumbass.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

rstrong wrote:
Leo Lyons wrote:
Ombudsman wrote:Dude you're losing it. Count to ten.
1..... 2..... 3..... 4..... 5..... 6.....7..... 8..... 9..... 10.

Ya feel better now?
Damn. Now I owe Stinger $20.
You didn't think he could do it, did you? I'll take it in LaBatt or Molson, if you don't mind.

I can't hold you to it. I think he might have used Google.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

rstrong wrote:
Leo Lyons wrote:
Ombudsman wrote:Dude you're losing it. Count to ten.
1..... 2..... 3..... 4..... 5..... 6.....7..... 8..... 9..... 10.

Ya feel better now?
Damn. Now I owe Stinger $20.
I guess it was worth getting up at 4:30 after all! :oII
Last edited by Leo Lyons on Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Stinger wrote:blah, blah, blah; sob, sob, sob, <gasp> <wheeze> whine, whine, whine.......
One thing about this forum you need to correct Bannination; more padding. One so that Stinger won't hurt himself while bouncing off the walls,
the other to absorb the echos; SOS over and over.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

Leo Lyons wrote:
Stinger wrote:blah, blah, blah; sob, sob, sob, <gasp> <wheeze> whine, whine, whine.......
One thing about this forum you need to correct Bannination; more padding. One so that Stinger won't hurt himself while bouncing off the walls,
the other to absorb the echos; SOS over and over.
Or a track so Lyin' Leo will have more room to run.

A thousand threads -- hundreds of threads with hot-and-heavy discussions of all sorts of topics of national interest -- and the most interesting one you could find to comment on was a three-month-old thread about a sheriff in a county you're supposed to know nothing about?

Image

And really stupid if you expect that explanation to work.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Stinger wrote:blah, blah, blah; sob, sob, sob, <gasp> <wheeze> whine, whine, whine.......
Image
Good show; your intelligence is showing again; at least you're good at something. I bet your kids are so proud of their daddy.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

Leo Lyons wrote:
Stinger wrote:blah, blah, blah; sob, sob, sob, <gasp> <wheeze> whine, whine, whine.......
Image
Good show; your intelligence is showing again; at least you're good at something. I bet your kids are so proud of their daddy.
I thought you were the one whining and playing the victim card: "I just show up on this forum, go back through thousands of threads, pull out the most interesting one I could find -- a thread about a sheriff in a county 2,500 miles from me that I know nothing about -- and fall right in where Mister X just left off, and that mean old Stinger goes and calls me on my lame bullshit. Of course, I can't offer a rational explanation for it, nor can I offer a rational explanation for having extensive knowledge of a troll infestation that happened six months before I came to the forum, but never mind all that. It's not that I keep running and dodging and bobbing and weaving and deflecting as fast as I can. It's all that mean old Stinger's fault."

Something like that.

Thanks for the chuckles.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Stinger wrote:blah, blah, blah; sob, sob, sob, <gasp> <wheeze> whine, whine, whine.......

I thought you were the one whining and playing the victim card: "I just show up on this forum, go back through thousands of threads, pull out the most interesting one I could find -- a thread about a sheriff in a county 2,500 miles from me that I know nothing about -- and fall right in where Mister X just left off, and that mean old Stinger goes and calls me on my lame bullshit. Of course, I can't offer a rational explanation for it, nor can I offer a rational explanation for having extensive knowledge of a troll infestation that happened six months before I came to the forum, but never mind all that. It's not that I keep running and dodging and bobbing and weaving and deflecting as fast as I can. It's all that mean old Stinger's fault."

Something like that. Thanks for the chuckles.
Geeze, the damn echo in here is overwhelming.

As I said, "Good show; your intelligence is showing again; at least you're good at something. I bet your kids are so proud of their daddy." You shouldn't be thinking, you'll hurt yourself.
First off, Einstein, when I first starting posting, I was living in Columbus, NC (that's really in NC if you really want to know).

Your "troll infestation" wasn't exactly secret, lamebrain, every time you posted, your supposed "dopplegangers" would repeat your post and you would whine and spew about it until you got your wet nurse's attention....I mean geeze, get real.

Now let's consider this for a moment: In the BRN forums, someone couldn't come along and use the same avatar that someone else was already using, so it stands to reason that you were your own troll. You would copy & paste your post and change the screen name to Winger, Banger, or Dingalinger or some far out shit like that, them piss and moan that you had a troll following you around.

As I said before, I did a lot of reading before I ever began posting, unlike you who showed up from your defunct forum and immediately started cursing and belittling everyone coming and going. Yep, you're a real piece of work when it comes to intelligence.

"Rational behavior and lame bullshit"?????.... you ought to think about your "irrational behavior and lame bullshit" before you belittle someone else.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Vrede wrote:Can we create a separate forum for Leo Lyons and Stinger with the moderators empowered to move their spitting matches to it? :P
Stinger started it. Image

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

ban us both. Maybe one of his dopplegangers, with some sense, will replace him.
Last edited by Leo Lyons on Fri May 03, 2013 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Stinger »

Leo Lyons wrote: Your "troll infestation" wasn't exactly secret, lamebrain, every time you posted, your supposed "dopplegangers" would repeat your post and you would whine and spew about it until you got your wet nurse's attention....I mean geeze, get real.

It wasn't a secret to anyone who was on the forum, . . . but it wouldn't be readily-available knowledge for someone who joined more than 6 months later, Dumbass.

Unless you want to claim that while you were "researching" -- i.e. going back through scores of pages, reading the titles of threads, looking for something interesting to post about like assault vehicles -- you actually READ some thousands of threads.

Think about your explanation now, Dumbass. You have to have gone back six months -- thousands of threads, some 20 pages long -- and read all of those thousands of threads and tens of thousands of pages to acquire the knowledge you keep spouting.

Thanks for proving yourself a dimwitted liar ... again.


Now let's consider this for a moment: In the BRN forums, someone couldn't come along and use the same avatar that someone else was already using,

Why not? People did use the same avatar, dolt.

so it stands to reason that

What the fuck would you know about reason? Your own "reasoned" explanations prove you a liar. Dumbass.

you were your own troll.

Right, stupid. That's why the moderator -- who has access to IP addresses, e-mail addresses, names, etc. -- got rid of all of the trolls and left me.

It stands to reason that you're a lying dumbass who can't come up with an explanation for that.

The mod -- who has access to all the information -- was smart enough to figure it out. Everyone else was smart enough to figure it out, except Mister X ... and you.


You would copy & paste your post and change the screen name to Winger, Banger, or Dingalinger or some far out shit like that, them piss and moan that you had a troll following you around.

As I said before, I did a lot of reading before I ever began posting, unlike you who showed up from your defunct forum and immediately started cursing and belittling everyone coming and going. Yep, you're a real piece of work when it comes to intelligence.

Sorry, lying dumbass, but I didn't show up and immediately start cursing and belittling everyone coming and going.

And no one's stupid enough to believe you lame lie that you sat and read the forum for over six months before making a post.


"Rational behavior and lame bullshit"?????.... you ought to think about your "irrational behavior and lame bullshit" before you belittle someone else.

You ought to think about the stupid, lame-ass lies you tell. Thong and Butt Ugly are gone. There's no one left who's stupid enough to fall for it.
Image

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: I support background checks, wait, no, no I don't.

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

There's that echo again. SSS,DD.

Do you store all those cute pictures you post on your computer down at the youth center?

They must be really hard up for youth leaders in Tallahassee, no pun intended.

Post Reply