<none>
f609.n257.z2.fidonet.org
left_coast
>
You did not include a message or Subject. If your message was not in error,
I assume you were making a test post. If you were indeed making a test post
and you intending the post to go to alt.os.linux.mandrake it was indeed
successful.
Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar. Why anyone
would feel the need to lie in such a way is beyond me. I will tell you that
many that state this lie do so repeatedly, even after the lie has been
pointed out. I suggest you note who tells such lies and treat their posts
accordingly.
That said, there are a number of test groups in usenet for testing purposes.
It is considered polite to post test messages to test groups. I point out
again, being impolite is NOT the same as the test post failing.
Just a side note, a smile at the end of a sentence does NOTHING to
determine if the statement is a lie or not. People lie with a smile and
humor all the time. Anyone making a claim to the contrary is just plain out
of touch with reality, perhaps because they watch too much science fiction.
--
Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
chose to go by.
Bit Twister
> Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar.
That statement is a deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie.
The definition of a liar is someone who tell lies.
Lies are statements which are spoken or written
which are not true in order to deceive someone.
That makes you the liar, LIAR.
No statements were written "in order to deceive anyone." except yours.
> Why anyone would feel the need to lie in such a way is beyond me.
Multipal lies there. You know the test post response is to inform
the poster of their probable netiquette mistake.
There is NO such "need to lie" and it is NOT beyond your comprehension.
Hmmm, that set of lies worked out to be 1 in every 5 words. Impressive.
> I will tell you that many that state this lie
There are two deliberate lies there, *many* and *state this lie*
That is a deliberate exaggeration. Just how *many* different people
were there _stating_ the lie.
> do so repeatedly, even after the lie has been pointed out.
Another deliberate lie. No statements were made to deceive anyone let
alone having a lie pointed out. You cannot point out a lie if no lie
was written.
> I suggest you note who tells such lies and treat their posts accordingly.
Wow!
Finally, One true statement in your deliberate libelous accusative lying post.
I will have to admit, that is some /damn fine advice/.
The original poster is invited to use
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
to research posts made by anyone making libelous accusations.
left_coast
> Multipal lies there. You know the test post response is to inform
> the poster of their probable netiquette mistake.
Yet you claim it is a FAILURE and NEVER mention NETIQUETTE. An error in
NETIQUETTE is NOT a technical failure. I know that you are DECEIVING these
people.
left_coast
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:11:22 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>> Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar.
>
> That statement is a deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie.
>
No, it is NOT. To claim that a successful test post is a failure because of
NETIQUETTE is a deliberate lie, period.
left_coast
>> I will tell you that many that state this lie
>
> There are two deliberate lies there, many and *state this lie*
> That is a deliberate exaggeration. Just how many different people
> were there stating the lie.
>
I am trying to give the impression that you are NOT the only LIAR making
these claims, so sue me.
left_coast
> Just how many different people
> were there stating the lie.
Ok, you are the ONLY one making this claim, nobody agrees with you.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> Multipal lies there. You know the test post response is to inform
>> the poster of their probable netiquette mistake.
>
> Yet you claim it is a FAILURE and NEVER mention NETIQUETTE.
Yet another lie, That a deliberat made up statement. I did not have to
mention netiquette, We both know why I made the response.
> An error in NETIQUETTE is NOT a technical failure.
Another lie to redirect focus away from your
deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie:
" Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar"
> I know that you are DECEIVING these people.
That is a lie. You have no such knowledge.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>>> Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar.
>>
>> That statement is a deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie.
>>
>
> No, it is NOT. To claim that a successful test post is a failure because of
> NETIQUETTE is a deliberate lie, period.
You are lying again. A lie is a statement meant to deceive someone.
NOONE is being deceived with my statements.
You are lying again to try to justify your libelous accusation and a
bald face lie.
left_coast
>> Yet you claim it is a FAILURE and NEVER mention NETIQUETTE.
>
> Yet another lie, That a deliberat made up statement. I did not have to
> mention netiquette, We both know why I made the response.
Then you admit YOU NEVER MENTION NETIQUETTE. You claim that *I* know, and
no, I do not know what you INTEND. All I know is that you make a statement
that IS NOT TRUE, that the post is a FAILURE. If you LIE about the failure
of the test, why would I believe you are suddenly telling the TRUTH when it
comes to the intent of your lie?
Still think other people's VALID solutions (valid according to the
developers of postfix, procmail, Kmail, Firefox and Mandria) are kludges
even if you don't know that the real problem is???? Bwahahahahah
Bit Twister
>
> I am trying to give the impression that you are NOT the only LIAR
Yet another lie. I am not the the liar, you are.
> making these claims, so sue me.
The thought has crossed my mind. Your constant libelous accusations is
providing a preponderance of evidence to substantiate my case.
left_coast
>> No, it is NOT. To claim that a successful test post is a failure because
>> of NETIQUETTE is a deliberate lie, period.
>
> You are lying again. A lie is a statement meant to deceive someone.
Which is what you do when you claim it is a failure.
> NOONE is being deceived with my statements.
>
The fact that nobody believes your lies does not make them less a lie. The
fact that nobody believes your lies is not proof that the lie was NOT
INTENDED.
> You are lying again to try to justify your libelous accusation and a
> bald face lie.
Gezzzz, i can almost see your face getting red and tears coming to your
eyes.
BTW
From an Websters: dictionarly "Usage:
Lie, Untruth. A man may state what is untrue from
ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an
untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging
him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every
untruth is a lie. Cf. Falsity.
[1913 Webster]
Note that the exceptions is to state out of "ignorance or misconception"
neither is what you are doing here. It does NOT CLAIM "A man may state what
is untrue from HUMOR". This is of course because humor can be used to lie.
left_coast
>> I am trying to give the impression that you are NOT the only LIAR
>
> Yet another lie. I am not the the liar, you are.
>
>> making these claims, so sue me.
>
> The thought has crossed my mind. Your constant libelous accusations is
> providing a preponderance of evidence to substantiate my case.
Try it. Go right a head and try it. I described a behavior, you would be
hard pressed to reach the legal threshold of libel based on a description
of behavior.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> Just how many different people
>> were there stating the lie.
>
> Ok, you are the ONLY one making this claim,
You are still lying.
I never made the claim, you did.
I never made the lie you are lying about.
> nobody agrees with you.
That yet another lie, it has no merit and contains no proof and is
ment to deceive.
left_coast
>> Ok, you are the ONLY one making this claim,
>
> You are still lying.
Bwhahahahahahah, you claim that nobody else is making the claim now you are
claiming that you are not the only one Bwhahahahahahhahaha, which is it?
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> Yet you claim it is a FAILURE and NEVER mention NETIQUETTE.
>>
>> Yet another lie, That a deliberat made up statement. I did not have to
>> mention netiquette, We both know why I made the response.
>
> Then you admit YOU NEVER MENTION NETIQUETTE. You claim that *I* know, and
> no, I do not know what you INTEND. All I know is that you make a statement
> that IS NOT TRUE, that the post is a FAILURE. If you LIE about the failure
> of the test, why would I believe you are suddenly telling the TRUTH when it
> comes to the intent of your lie?
That paragraph is total attempt to direct attention away from your
deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie.
The definition of a lie is a statement written
which is not true in order to deceive someone.
I was not deceiving anyone. You are trying your double talk in
another lame lying attempt to get out your lie.
<snipped lame attempt to change topic from your libelous accusation>
left_coast
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:54:09 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>> Bit Twister wrote:
>>
>>>> Yet you claim it is a FAILURE and NEVER mention NETIQUETTE.
>>>
>>> Yet another lie, That a deliberat made up statement. I did not have to
>>> mention netiquette, We both know why I made the response.
>>
>> Then you admit YOU NEVER MENTION NETIQUETTE. You claim that *I* know, and
>> no, I do not know what you INTEND. All I know is that you make a
>> statement that IS NOT TRUE, that the post is a FAILURE. If you LIE about
>> the failure of the test, why would I believe you are suddenly telling the
>> TRUTH when it comes to the intent of your lie?
>
> That paragraph is total attempt to direct attention away from your
> deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie.
Nope, It is THE TRUTH.
>
> The definition of a lie is a statement written
> which is not true in order to deceive someone.
No, it was not intended to be deceiving and it is not an "untruth".
>
> I was not deceiving anyone.
1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone. Your claims may have had
consequences you are not aware of. So, unless you know for sure that
EVERYONE the world around was not deceived, your statement is at best an
untruth, at worst and my personal believe it is a lie.
> You are trying your double talk in
> another lame lying attempt to get out your lie.
Just because you can not follow simple logic does not make it double talk.
>
> <snipped lame attempt to change topic from your libelous accusation>
As far as I'm concerned that translates to "I can't think of an untruth to
refute the statments made."
left_coast
>> Ok, you are the ONLY one making this claim,
>
> You are still lying.
I still can't git over this, I AGREE with you and you still call me a liar!
bwahahahahah
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> No, it is NOT. To claim that a successful test post is a failure because
>>> of NETIQUETTE is a deliberate lie, period.
>>
>> You are lying again. A lie is a statement meant to deceive someone.
>
> Which is what you do when you claim it is a failure.
That is a lie. The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post.
> The fact that nobody believes your lies does not make them less a lie. The
> fact that nobody believes your lies is not proof that the lie was NOT
> INTENDED.
What bull$h1t. There was no INTENT to lie. Any normal person able to
setup their news reader and make a Usent post could see what I was
pointing out.
It is your hatred of me which makes you post your lies.
> Gezzzz, i can almost see your face getting red and tears coming to your
> eyes.
Oh, you got that right, alright.
I am laughing my head off, and wiping the tears of laugher off my face.
I own you and I am playing you for the lying fool that you are.
>
> BTW
>
> From an Websters: dictionarly "Usage:
> Lie, Untruth. A man may state what is untrue from
> ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an
> untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging
> him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every
> untruth is a lie. Cf. Falsity.
> [1913 Webster]
Hmmm, 1913. Seems a litte out of date. Let's look in the
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=45936&dict=CALD
Definition
lie (SPEAK FALSELY)
verb [I] lying, lied, lied
to say or write something which is not true in order to deceive someone:
> It does NOT CLAIM "A man may state what
> is untrue from HUMOR". This is of course because humor can be used to lie.
There you are lying again.
You injected the humor crap to deceive, then try to imply intent.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> Ok, you are the ONLY one making this claim,
>>
>> You are still lying.
>
> Bwhahahahahahah, you claim that nobody else is making the claim now you are
> claiming that you are not the only one Bwhahahahahahhahaha, which is it?
Well, we see you lying hard and fast.
My response was to one of your lies was
>> Just how many different people were there stating the lie.
and you made the response
> Ok, you are the ONLY one making this claim,
and now you are trying to twist it into I made the statement.
Pretty lame, pretty lame.
left_coast
>> Which is what you do when you claim it is a failure.
>
> That is a lie. The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post.
>
PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what somebody
else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha, how low will you go to try to paint ME as
the bad guy here? How many minds will you claim you can read???
left_coast
> Well, we see you lying hard and fast.
>
> My response was to one of your lies was
>
>>> Just how many different people were there stating the lie.
>
Something I do NOT need to prove, But since you claim that YOU are not the
ONLY one, there MUST be OTHERS, my original claim thus STANDS.
Bit Twister
>
> 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone. Your claims may have had
> consequences you are not aware of. So, unless you know for sure that
> EVERYONE the world around was not deceived, your statement is at best an
> untruth, at worst and my personal believe it is a lie.
More BS. You claim I lied there was no intent to deceive anyone.
You are making more lies by dragging in crap like
claims may have had consequences
and unless you know for sure
EVERYONE the world around was not deceived
and my personal believe it is a lie
>> <snipped lame attempt to change topic from your libelous accusation>
>
> As far as I'm concerned that translates to "I can't think of an untruth to
> refute the statments made."
Hehehe topic change attempt failed so you resort to personal attack.
Guessing it is not far to trying the wonded victim ploy and you were
just trying to defend yourself.
left_coast
>> 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone. Your claims may have had
>> consequences you are not aware of. So, unless you know for sure that
>> EVERYONE the world around was not deceived, your statement is at best an
>> untruth, at worst and my personal believe it is a lie.
>
> More BS. You claim I lied there was no intent to deceive anyone.
You know the statement was not true, to state a statement that is NOT true
when YOU KNOW it to be not true is a LIE according to Websters:
Usage: Lie, Untruth. A man may state what is untrue from
ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an
untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging
him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every
untruth is a lie. Cf. Falsity.
[1913 Webster]
You can state an "untruth" and it not be a lie if it is "from ignorance or
misconception". Since your statement was NOT out of ignorance or
misconception, it was a LIE according to Websters. You will have to excuse
me for using REPUTABLE sources for backing up MY claims. BTW, there are
many definitions, I am stating the one that *I* intended when described the
BEHAVIOR (not mentioning your name at all).
But you still have not answered the question, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT EVERYONE
THAT HAS READ YOUR POST THINKS? How many minds are you claiming you can
read?
Dave
> You are still lying.
> I never made the claim, you did.
> I never made the lie you are lying about.
You might also want to also add that you, BT, might be the only person
left in the newsgroup that's reading matt_the_mouths drivel direct,
without relying on people quoting him.
Put it another way... "matt" is quickly running out of people who'll read
his twisted accusations.
What's the line? "Starve a troll?" "matt" is well overdue a diet.
--
Linux: because I work with Windows, and that's bad enough.
AOLM FAQ - http://blinkynet.net/comp/faq_aolm.html
RLU #300033 - MDK 10.2 - WindowMaker 0.92.0
left_coast
>> You are still lying.
>> I never made the claim, you did.
>> I never made the lie you are lying about.
>
> You might also want to also add that you, BT, might be the only person
> left in the newsgroup that's reading matt_the_mouths drivel direct,
> without relying on people quoting him.
>
Ahhh, look, another NAME CALLING troll.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> Well, we see you lying hard and fast.
>>
>> My response was to one of your lies was
>>
>>>> Just how many different people were there stating the lie.
Damn, out of tissues from laughing so hard.
> Something I do NOT need to prove,
I never said or asked proof. You lied trying to imply I made the statement.
> But since you claim that YOU are not the ONLY one,
There is a new lie, I did not say it, You made the lying statement
"I will tell you that many that state this lie"
> there MUST be OTHERS,
Hahaha. back your lying derriere back up a bit. In
Message-ID: <slrnej0dte.6...@wb.home.invalid>
I asked for proof with
>> Just how many different people were there stating the lie.
And you agreed you have made your
deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie with this statement
> Ok, you are the ONLY one making this claim,
Now you are going with this complete set of lies
"Something I do NOT need to prove, But since you claim that YOU are not the
ONLY one, there MUST be OTHERS, my original claim thus STANDS."
to imply you had substantiated your lie.
Making up lies as proof does not make it true.
You are STANDind with you head up your derriere and if you have an
intestinal burp, your brains will be in your shorts.
left_coast
> I never said or asked proof. You lied trying to imply I made the
> statement.
you're denying that you said " Since the post showed up here, the test
failed. "? Wow.
Bit Twister
> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what somebody
> else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha,
Let's see, I do not have to prove what they know or not know and fake
laughter in a lame attempt to humiliate or hurt. Getting desperate I see.
I did not claim to know what someone else knows. I said
"The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post"
You are deliberately lying again.
> how low will you go to try to paint ME as the bad guy here?
You are making up lies left and right.
Paint, hell, your swimming in the paint for me.
No effort required on my part.
You are doing a fine job of it if I may say so.
left_coast
>> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what
>> somebody else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha,
>
> Let's see, I do not have to prove what they know or not know and fake
> laughter in a lame attempt to humiliate or hurt. Getting desperate I see.
>
If you have no proof, then you lie when you make claims about what they
know. Thanks for admitting you are a liar.
left_coast
> I did not claim to know what someone else knows. I said
> "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post"
How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post" if you
don't know what they "knew"? Damn, you are making far less sense than
USUAL. This is even worse than that DNS thing.
Bit Twister
>> More BS. You claim I lied when there was no intent to deceive anyone.
> You know the statement was not true,
More BS. I know that statement is true even using your logic.
Think about it. Diagram it, even you cannot say that
"You claim I lied when there was no intent to deceive anyone."
is a lie. You want to play stupid word games twist words I can play
the game if I want. I just have no desire to anal about it as you are.
People lie to deceive people.
I know when I made the test post response, I had no intention
of deceiving anyone.
> to state a statement that is NOT true when YOU KNOW it to be not
> true is a LIE according to Websters:
<snipped 1933 def and giving a more modern def from>
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
lie (SPEAK FALSELY)
verb [I] lying, lied, lied
to say or write something which is not true in order to deceive someone:
See, I can repeat it over and over as many times as you can.
Knowledge advances superceeding older information.
You go back far enough and the fact is that the world is flat.
My proof trumps your proof.
> But you still have not answered the question, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT EVERYONE
> THAT HAS READ YOUR POST THINKS?
Yet another stupid attempt at misdirection and lame attempt to change topic.
It just is not going to happen.
Robert M. Riches Jr.
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:04:46 -0500, Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> You are still lying.
>> I never made the claim, you did.
>> I never made the lie you are lying about.
>
> You might also want to also add that you, BT, might be the only person
> left in the newsgroup that's reading matt_the_mouths drivel direct,
> without relying on people quoting him.
>
> Put it another way... "matt" is quickly running out of people who'll read
> his twisted accusations.
>
> What's the line? "Starve a troll?" "matt" is well overdue a diet.
Maybe there should be a FAQ entry or a FAQ-like regular
posting to inform those new to the group that they should
put left_coast and a few others in their kill/Score files
and leave them there.
--
Robert Riches
spamt...@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
Dan C
>> I know that you are DECEIVING these people.
> That is a lie. You have no such knowledge.
Oh, ghod. Not again. Already? I figured the moron formerly known as
Matt_the_Mouth would be quiet again for a month or so before his next
explosion. He just finished a marathon flamefest (telling lies) with
Aragorn, and now it seems he's found another "cause".
<sigh>
Guess I was mistaken about how long it would take him to catch his breath.
For any innocent bystanders who may be watching this idiot, please
disregard anything he says, and just ignore/killfile his dumb ass. He's a
certified net-lunatic, rapidly approaching the status of Alan Connor, for
those who may know that name. Absolutely friggin bonkers.
After a while, it's not even funny to read his blatherings any more.
--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
left_coast
>> You know the statement was not true,
>
> More BS. I know that statement is true even using your logic.
What ever dude, you're claiming you know what people you do not know, have
never met know. That's just NUTS. The above claim is NUTS. You are OUT OF
CONTROL. You are saying anything, regardless of FACT, to attack me. You are
acting as a child.
Bit Twister
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:04:46 -0500, Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> You are still lying.
>> I never made the claim, you did.
>> I never made the lie you are lying about.
>
> You might also want to also add that you, BT, might be the only person
> left in the newsgroup that's reading matt_the_mouths drivel direct,
> without relying on people quoting him.
I have had experience with Matt's type before. :)
Matt is my first who wants me bad. If you plug in matt_left_coast you
will see him stalking me for more than a year.
> Put it another way... "matt" is quickly running out of people who'll read
> his twisted accusations.
Look out, Matt will be in here DEMANDING proof.
He used to demand proof. Once we started providing proof, he'd weasle
out with that with some like that is not enough proof. :)
> What's the line? "Starve a troll?" "matt" is well overdue a diet.
I hear what you are saying. O:-)
That is not the solution. Matt appears to want to argue for sake of
argument. He will jump on some statement, argue about it and then
start moving the goal post, twist statements, inject crap and if that
does not work, start with a bunch of stupid if statements winding up
with the target is AFU. Other tatcics, acts like a victim just
defending himself, anyone not supporting his argument is a friend of
the target, when provide with proof, idicate it is forged or
says I do not believe you and starts over again.
The only solution is everyone needs to report his AUP/TOS violations
hoping his ISP's abuse department will terminate his account.
left_coast
> Oh, ghod. Not again. Already?
Who cares what YOU think? I am confronting a culture of misinformation, I
expect to be attacked by those threatened by the TRUTH, that would include
YOU.
left_coast
>> You might also want to also add that you, BT, might be the only person
>> left in the newsgroup that's reading matt_the_mouths drivel direct,
>> without relying on people quoting him.
>
> I have had experience with Matt's type before. :)
Yeah, you FALSELY claimed MY help to others is WRONG without even knowing
the TRUTH, without even knowing what the real problem was. As far as I am
concerned you LIED about my help. You KNEW you did not know if my help was
valid or not, but you still made false claims, evidently to discredit me
and my advise.
left_coast
>> What's the line? "Starve a troll?" "matt" is well overdue a diet.
>
> Maybe there should be a FAQ entry or a FAQ-like regular
> posting to inform those new to the group that they should
> put left_coast and a few others in their kill/Score files
> and leave them there.
Yeah, why not, the FAQ in this group is not really a FAQ anyway.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> I never said or asked proof. You lied trying to imply I made the
>> statement.
>
>
> you're denying that you said " Since the post showed up here, the test
> failed. "?
Yet another lying tactic:
A selective "out of context cut" about _your lie_ with
lame attempt to make my statement seem to be about something else.
left_coast
>> you're denying that you said " Since the post showed up here, the test
>> failed. "?
>
>
> Yet another lying tactic:
>
> A selective "out of context cut" about _your lie_ with
> lame attempt to make my statement seem to be about something else.
Yes, that is what you are doing. The fact remains, your arguments have
relied on the ability to MIND READ AND the statement "Since the post showed
up here, the test failed." is a LIE. Nothing about the context changes any
of that.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what
>>> somebody else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha,
>>
>> Let's see, I do not have to prove what they know or not know and fake
>> laughter in a lame attempt to humiliate or hurt. Getting desperate I see.
>>
>
> If you have no proof, then you lie when you make claims about what they
> know. Thanks for admitting you are a liar.
Hehe, just gets funnier and funnier.
Inject some crap statement
"If you have no proof,"
to pose your lie
"then you lie when you make claims about what they know."
and close with another a bigger lie
"Thanks for admitting you are a liar."
A complete set of lies from the get go.
hg
My last attempts, I promise.
Bill & left_xxxxx .. it's like people getting naked in public (chez moi
on dirait des exibitionistes)
I'm sure there are clubs for you gents to enjoy yourselves without
having to bug the whole world with your exactions.
hg
left_coast
>> If you have no proof, then you lie when you make claims about what they
>> know. Thanks for admitting you are a liar.
>
> Hehe, just gets funnier and funnier.
Yes, you claim to READ MINDS and know what someone you have never met KNOWS.
It would be sooo funny if you were not such a pitiful person.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> I did not claim to know what someone else knows. I said
>> "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post"
>
> How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post"
Why do keep trying to imply I knew what they know. I never said
I knew what was in their mind.
> if you don't know what they "knew"?
You are just trying to put words in my mouth. Just is not going to happen.
> Damn, you are making far less sense than USUAL.
No, you made a stupid lying attempt to put words in my mouth and having
failed that, are going back to personal attacks.
left_coast
> "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."
IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about what
they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you don't get
it, simple stuff is too complex for you.
left_coast
>> How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post"
>
> Why do keep trying to imply I knew what they know. I never said
> I knew what was in their mind.
>
Because you claimed to know what knowledge level the have when you state:
To quote you:
"The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a statement
about what "The poster" "knew". You know "The poster _knew_" You stated you
knew what the knew EXPLICITLY. I know you don't like to stand behind the
claims you make but this is ABSURD, you are denying something you
EXPLICITLY stated. But what would I expect from a freak that thinks he can
read minds.
left_coast
> I'm sure there are clubs for you gents to enjoy yourselves without
> having to bug the whole world with your exactions.
Don't like what we have to say? Too bad, Linux is about FREEDOM including
FREEDOM of speech and ideas. Don't like what we have to say? don't read it.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> You know the statement was not true,
>>
>> More BS. I know that statement is true even using your logic.
>
> What ever dude, you're claiming you know what people you do not know, have
> never met know. That's just NUTS. The above claim is NUTS.
Hmmm, let's see, I stated the fact
"I know that statement is true even using your logic."
about this statement
"You claim I lied when there was no intent to deceive anyone."
Let's see if anyone can spot a lie:
"You claim I lied"
that is true, you even try to show a 1933 definitation. Nope, no lie there.
"when there was no intent to deceive anyone."
is also true because I never intended to to deceive anyone. Nope, no lie there.
Your "NUTS" lie, failed the truth test yet again.
> You are OUT OF CONTROL.
You are the one SCREAMING and doing the lying left and right.
> You are saying anything, regardless of FACT,
No, just pointing out each of your lies as you write them.
> to attack me.
Yep, another lie. You attacked me, even agreed a few replies back that
your post was directed at me, not "many", and now your are playing at
being the victim.
Nope, those are crocodile tears and is not going to hack it.
> You are acting as a child.
Back to personal attacts in another lame attempt to discredit me.
Pithful, just pithful....
left_coast
> "You claim I lied"
And stand by it.
Bit Twister
> Oh, ghod. Not again. Already? I figured the moron formerly known as
> Matt_the_Mouth would be quiet again for a month or so before his next
> explosion. He just finished a marathon flamefest (telling lies) with
> Aragorn, and now it seems he's found another "cause".
Uh, now what proof do you have that he is finish with the other thread.
I think he is just too busy trying to cover his lastest bunch of lies
here instead of beating up one of our finest, upstanding, helphful, Usenet
citizens.
Such a shame there is no easy way to terminate the bully's account quickly.
I do not think mentioning Godwin's Law will work as well as last time
in the 140 response thread. :(
Bit Twister
>
> My last attempts, I promise.
>
> having to bug the whole world with your exactions.
I feel for you, but I am pretty sure if you look around in
Thunderbird you may find a message filter tool where you can set it
to kill the thread containingg a subject of <none>
Abuse departments need proof a user is violating their Acceptable Use
Policy before they will terminate a persons account.
Blinky the Shark
I think it's safe to say that we all have news clients with killfile
capabilities. Some of us just need to learn how to plug The Mouth into
them.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>>
>> lame attempt to make my statement seem to be about something else.
>
> Yes, that is what you are doing.
Lying again. I have to keep copying in the statements to show your
twisting then into lies.
> The fact remains, your arguments have relied on the ability to MIND READ AND
No, you lying yet again by trying to push those words into my mouth.
> the statement "Since the post showed up here, the test failed." is a LIE.
> Nothing about the context changes any of that.
Your repeated attempts to change the Cambridge Dictionary's defination is not
going to make your orignial post true or make the other lies in it go away.
Bit Twister
> Maybe there should be a FAQ entry or a FAQ-like regular
> posting to inform those new to the group that they should
> put left_coast and a few others in their kill/Score files
> and leave them there.
Oh no, not the FAQ. that one ran to something like 144 or something
reply thread. :(
Bit Twister
>>
>> Hehe, just gets funnier and funnier.
>
> Yes, you claim to READ MINDS and know what someone you have never met KNOWS.
No, you are repeating yourself over and over and over. You keep trying
to put those words in my mouth. Repeating it is not going to turn your
lies int truths.
> It would be sooo funny if you were not such a pitiful person.
Back to personal attacks I see.
Dan C
>> After a while, it's not even funny to read his blatherings any more.
> I think it's safe to say that we all have news clients with killfile
> capabilities. Some of us just need to learn how to plug The Mouth into
> them.
True. He's in mine.
Dan C
>> Oh, ghod. Not again. Already? I figured the moron formerly known as
>> Matt_the_Mouth would be quiet again for a month or so before his next
>> explosion. He just finished a marathon flamefest (telling lies) with
>> Aragorn, and now it seems he's found another "cause".
> Uh, now what proof do you have that he is finish with the other thread.
Umm, I don't have any proof. But I wasn't intentionally lying. ;)
> I think he is just too busy trying to cover his lastest bunch of lies
> here instead of beating up one of our finest, upstanding, helphful,
> Usenet citizens.
Not sure if you're referring to yourself, Aragorn, or /me.... but I'll
take it as a compliment, anyway. ;)
> Such a shame there is no easy way to terminate the bully's account
> quickly.
Is he a bully, or just a moron? Please don't lie if you answer that.
> I do not think mentioning Godwin's Law will work as well as last time in
> the 140 response thread. :(
Nah, won't work with him.
freemont
nazis
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
left_coast
>> Yes, that is what you are doing.
>
> Lying again.
Yes, you are lying again.
left_coast
>> Yes, you claim to READ MINDS and know what someone you have never met
>> KNOWS.
>
> No, you are repeating yourself over and over and over.
Yes, the truth deserves to be repeated./
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."
>
> IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about what
> they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you don't get
> it, simple stuff is too complex for you.
More lies. I never claim to know what they know. You made the twisted
lying statement and you are continuing to attempt to push that lie
down my throat. Drop the attempt, it is getting old.
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post"
>>
>> Why do keep trying to imply I knew what they know. I never said
>> I knew what was in their mind.
>>
>
> Because you claimed to know what knowledge level the have when you state:
>
> To quote you:
>
> "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a statement
> about what "The poster" "knew".
Very good. See you know the "poster knew" why do you continue to say
"you know"
> You know "The poster _knew_" You stated you knew what the knew EXPLICITLY.
You sentence is junk. My statement states a fact. Unless the poster is
asleep the poster knows what they are doing." nothing in my statement
implies or says "I know or knew" what is in their mind.
> I know you don't like to stand behind the claims you make but this is ABSURD,
> you are denying something you EXPLICITLY stated.
No, you are saying I know what they knew, and I said no such thing.
Read this out loud
"The poster knew what s/he were doing when they make the post."
It does not say I know what the poster knew when they made the post.
> But what would I expect from a freak that thinks he can read minds.
Yep, create the lie and follow up with another lie with personal
attack no less.
Walter Mautner
Walter Mautner
Walter Mautner
Walter Mautner
Christopher Hunter
> The only solution is everyone needs to report his AUP/TOS violations
> hoping his ISP's abuse department will terminate his account.
This has got to be the only real solution. He's "changed identity" once in
the last year, so it's possible he /was/ kicked off one ISP. Anyone traced
the origin of his posts? (He'll tell that it's /impossible/ ).
In the meantime, it /might/ be worth explaining the principles of killfiles
to all the newbies - we don't want them scared off by all the vitriol!
Chris
Bit Twister
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> The only solution is everyone needs to report his AUP/TOS violations
>> hoping his ISP's abuse department will terminate his account.
>
> This has got to be the only real solution. He's "changed identity" once in
> the last year,
In fairness, Matt did indicate the name change.
> so it's possible he /was/ kicked off one ISP.
I do not know about Redwood City California, but here in Dallas Texas we
have only one high speed internet cable provider to choose from.
Having to go back to a lower speed connection would tend to at least
reduce the chatter turn around.
> Anyone traced the origin of his posts?
No trace required, so far.
Ip address has been the same under both names.
> (He'll tell that it's /impossible/ ).
Please, no mindreading. 8-)
> In the meantime, it /might/ be worth explaining the principles of killfiles
> to all the newbies - we don't want them scared off by all the vitriol!
I have not read the current document posted by Blinky but I think it
might have something like
"How to make killfiles for use with various newsreaders."
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm
"What is a troll, what do they do, why do they do it, and
what can one do about them? (Anti Troll FAQ)"
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
left_coast
>> The only solution is everyone needs to report his AUP/TOS violations
>> hoping his ISP's abuse department will terminate his account.
>
> This has got to be the only real solution. He's "changed identity" once
> in the last year, so it's possible he was kicked off one ISP.
Easy to confirm, look at the headers of the two identifies, and ban, we find
that you are WRONG. Yet another person trashing me with unfounded
speculation.
You really should get some FACTS before you try to discredit someone with
innuendo and/or speculation.
left_coast
>> Because you claimed to know what knowledge level the have when you state:
>>
>> To quote you:
>>
>> "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post."
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a
>> statement about what "The poster" "knew".
>
> Very good. See you know the "poster knew" why do you continue to say
> "you know"
>
Geezzz no wonder you give such BAD advice, you can't even follow a thread,
much less understand basic Linux concepts. No, I do not know anything about
the poster, I was just pointing out a claim that YOU made that you could
not know unless you were a mindread.
The fact that you have to resort to petty falsehoods just confirms my
believe that you are a deliberate liar.
As long as the test post ends up in the group it was intended to go to, the
claim "Since the post showed up here, the test failed." Is a lie, no mater
how many false accusations you hurl at me.
left_coast
> Such a shame there is no easy way to terminate the bully's account
> quickly.
>
Yeah, it would be nice to terminate the accunts of people that try to bully
new people by saying "Since the post showed up here, the test failed. '
left_coast
>> IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about
>> what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you
>> don't get it, simple stuff is too complex for you.
>
> More lies. I never claim to know what they know. You made the twisted
> lying statement and you are continuing to attempt to push that lie
> down my throat. Drop the attempt, it is getting old.
Yes, your inability to remember what you said is getting OLD. But it just
confirms my impression that you don't know what you are talking about.
left_coast
> After a while, it's not even funny to read his blatherings any more.
>
> I think it's safe to say that we all have news clients with killfile
> capabilities. Some of us just need to learn how to plug The Mouth into
> them.
Ahhh, more name calling from people that believe that Bit can mind read
bwhahahahahahah, and you guys wonder why I don't take ANY of you seriously.
Your claims about me are about as worthless as claims from the inmates at a
sanitarium.
SINNER
> Bit Twister wrote:
>> Such a shame there is no easy way to terminate the bully's account
>> quickly.
> Yeah, it would be nice to terminate the accunts of people that try to bully
> new people by saying "Since the post showed up here, the test failed. '
Nice spelling error you got there. Not a flame, it really made me
chuckle
Youve heard of taking things out of context? Thats what you do by
quoting half the post and calling it a lie.
How often does a lie actually inform somone of something correctly?
Never since its a lie, but BT's response is no such thing as it imparts
information to the poster, but you knew this all along, semantics is
your game and the wole of usenet is wise to you, so why continue?
--
David
Are you a turtle?
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Christopher Hunter wrote:
>
>>> The only solution is everyone needs to report his AUP/TOS violations
>>> hoping his ISP's abuse department will terminate his account.
>>
>> This has got to be the only real solution. He's "changed identity" once
>> in the last year, so it's possible he was kicked off one ISP.
>
> Easy to confirm, look at the headers of the two identifies, and ban, we
> find that you are WRONG. Yet another person trashing me with unfounded
> speculation.
That was not trashing. However, it was speculation, but then again, that is
one of the little virtues we have in a free world.
> You really should get some FACTS before you try to discredit someone with
> innuendo and/or speculation.
Look who's talking! If you can't take the heat, then step away from the
fire, dude! Or to put it plainly and simply: if you don't want people to
make innuendos about *you,* then kindly refrain from making innuendos about
*them,* as you seem to be doing with every single one of Bit Twister's
replies to a test post, not to mention the plethora of lies you scatter
around - repeated /ad/ /nauseum/ - about other people.
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:00:02 +0100, <@f609.n257.z2.fidonet.org> wrote:
>
> Welcome to the group.
> Since the post showed up here, the test failed. :)
> Do you know about the 400+ test groups on Usenet.
That sentence requires a question mark in the end, Bit. Perhaps time to fix
the bug and bump the version by one minor? ;-þ
However, I believe that the lack of a subject line or content would be
rather indicative of an involuntarily posted message, i.e. by an erroneous
mouse click - e.g. via a misbehaving rodent such as mine - or an accidental
keypress. ;-)
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:54:09 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>> Bit Twister wrote:
>>
>>>> Yet you claim it is a FAILURE and NEVER mention NETIQUETTE.
>>>
>>> Yet another lie, That a deliberat made up statement. I did not have to
>>> mention netiquette, We both know why I made the response.
>>
>> Then you admit YOU NEVER MENTION NETIQUETTE. You claim that *I* know, and
>> no, I do not know what you INTEND. All I know is that you make a
>> statement that IS NOT TRUE, that the post is a FAILURE. If you LIE about
>> the failure of the test, why would I believe you are suddenly telling the
>> TRUTH when it comes to the intent of your lie?
>
> That paragraph is total attempt to direct attention away from your
> deliberate libelous accusation and a bald face lie.
Yup, that's what he always does.
> The definition of a lie is a statement written
> which is not true in order to deceive someone.
Yup, that's what he always does. Reminds me of a politician's picture on a
billboard sign: "The others are all wrong, only I am the good guy". And
the fact that he already throws himself up as such before any real harm is
done makes his attempt to gain sympathy by discrediting others even more
useless, immature and suspicious.
> I was not deceiving anyone. You are trying your double talk in
> another lame lying attempt to get out your lie.
Yup, that's what he always does.
Dan C
>> Yeah, it would be nice to terminate the accunts of people that try to bully
>> new people by saying "Since the post showed up here, the test failed. '
> Nice spelling error you got there. Not a flame, it really made me
> chuckle
LOL.
> Youve heard of taking things out of context? Thats what you do by
> quoting half the post and calling it a lie.
Yes, that's what The_Mouth does best. Misquote and lie.
> How often does a lie actually inform somone of something correctly?
> Never since its a lie, but BT's response is no such thing as it imparts
> information to the poster, but you knew this all along, semantics is
> your game and the wole of usenet is wise to you, so why continue?
My guess is that he has nothing else. If it wasn't for this interaction
with others on Usenet, he'd be stuck in his basement room, with only his
computer and his right hand for entertainment. Quite pathetic, really.
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> I was not deceiving anyone.
>
> 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone.
No, *you* *prove* that he *was,* or else you better shut up. And you might
as well shut up, because your claims are by nature false and deceiving.
In our Western legal system, a man is innocent until proven guilty, and with
notably _you_ as a prosecutor, there's very little credibility to your
case.
Perhaps you should apply for a job at Microsoft's P.R. department. That
would be right up your alley.
Aragorn
in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:49:11 -0500, Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> I know that you are DECEIVING these people.
>
>> That is a lie. You have no such knowledge.
>
> Oh, ghod. Not again. Already? I figured the moron formerly known as
> Matt_the_Mouth would be quiet again for a month or so before his next
> explosion. He just finished a marathon flamefest (telling lies) with
> Aragorn, and now it seems he's found another "cause".
Quite possibly, he was still rabidly foaming at the mouth at the time when
I /plonked/ the thread, and the fact that I would not have read his
subsequent drivel on that thread anymore - I noticed that there were at
least 16 or so more posts "unaccounted for" in /KNode/ after I had hit
"I(gnore thread)" - has rendered him a rabies seizure.
> <sigh>
>
> Guess I was mistaken about how long it would take him to catch his breath.
People like Matt ALL_UPPERCASE never catch their breath. They're like
hungry serpents, always on the lookout for another prey.
> For any innocent bystanders who may be watching this idiot, please
> disregard anything he says, and just ignore/killfile his dumb ass. He's a
> certified net-lunatic, rapidly approaching the status of Alan Connor, for
> those who may know that name. Absolutely friggin bonkers.
I must protest here. As pedantically paranoid as Alan Connor may be, he's
got nothing on Matt The Liar. If and when Alan Connor indulges in one of
his paranoid outbursts, it'll be a once-in-so-many-days occasion.
On the other hand, when Matt breaks loose, he'll go on forever if his
acquired target doesn't issue a /plonk./
> After a while, it's not even funny to read his blatherings any more.
It's never _been_ funny. If anything, it's pathetic... :-/
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:13:13 -0500, Dan C wrote:
>
>> Oh, ghod. Not again. Already? I figured the moron formerly known as
>> Matt_the_Mouth would be quiet again for a month or so before his next
>> explosion. He just finished a marathon flamefest (telling lies) with
>> Aragorn, and now it seems he's found another "cause".
>
> Uh, now what proof do you have that he is finish with the other thread.
I feel that I must apologize to you... :-/ I feel responsible now, because
I also believe that my /plonking/ of that useless "test" thread has caused
him to rapidly seek another victim, i.e. the one he was already aiming at
covertly in the other thread.
So it's like it's my fault that he's come after you now... :-/ Sorry,
Bro... :-/
> I think he is just too busy trying to cover his lastest bunch of lies
> here instead of beating up one of our finest, upstanding, helphful, Usenet
> citizens.
Apparently, conflict is what the guy gets off on. :-/
> Such a shame there is no easy way to terminate the bully's account
> quickly.
>
> I do not think mentioning Godwin's Law will work as well as last time
> in the 140 response thread. :(
Oh my $DEITY! Did you guys have to invoke Godwin's Law to get him to shut
up in the other thread? Whoa! :-/
Aragorn
in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:26:34 -0500, Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> Such a shame there is no easy way to terminate the bully's account
>> quickly.
>
> Is he a bully, or just a moron? Please don't lie if you answer that.
Well, I don't know if you'd value _my_ opinion on Matt, but I would say that
he's not a standard bully. A standard bully knows all too well what he's
doing.
Matt on the other hand does bully, but without realizing that this is what
he's doing. In *his* eyes, _we_ are all the bad guys and _he_ is the sole
good person on Usenet.
It's both pathetic _and_ pathological. So I guess that would rather
classify him as "a bullying moron", rather than as "a moronic bully".
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> After a while, it's not even funny to read his blatherings any more.
>>
>> I think it's safe to say that we all have news clients with killfile
>> capabilities. Some of us just need to learn how to plug The Mouth into
>> them.
>
> Ahhh, more name calling from people that believe that Bit can mind read
> bwhahahahahahah, and you guys wonder why I don't take ANY of you
> seriously. Your claims about me are about as worthless as claims from the
> inmates at a sanitarium.
Ever thought of going back there?
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> Which is what you do when you claim it is a failure.
>>
>> That is a lie. The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post.
>
> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what somebody
> else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha, how low will you go to try to paint ME as
> the bad guy here? How many minds will you claim you can read???
Just like you can read Bit Twister's mind and ascertain that he was
deliberately misleading the OP? Funny how you continuously project your
own vices onto others and then make up lies in order to call them liars.
There has never been a greater liar on this newsgroup - Wintrolls not
included - than you, Matt. And we *all* know that.
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:25:16 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>> Bit Twister wrote:
>>
>>>> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what
>>>> somebody else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha,
>>>
>>> Let's see, I do not have to prove what they know or not know and fake
>>> laughter in a lame attempt to humiliate or hurt. Getting desperate I
>>> see.
>>>
>>
>> If you have no proof, then you lie when you make claims about what they
>> know. Thanks for admitting you are a liar.
>
> Hehe, just gets funnier and funnier.
>
> Inject some crap statement
> "If you have no proof,"
> to pose your lie
> "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."
> and close with another a bigger lie
> "Thanks for admitting you are a liar."
>
> A complete set of lies from the get go.
Typical for paranoid schizophrenics. Twist the facts, bend the truth,
totally disregard the meaning of anything and blend it all into something
of which only you - i.e. the schizophrenic, in this case Matt - can still
make any sense.
The guy doesn't even understand (or speak) colloquial English... All is
allowed for as long as _he_ feels good about it. Speaking of
egotripping...
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> If you have no proof, then you lie when you make claims about what they
>>> know. Thanks for admitting you are a liar.
>>
>> Hehe, just gets funnier and funnier.
>
> Yes, you claim to READ MINDS and know what someone you have never met
> KNOWS. It would be sooo funny if you were not such a pitiful person.
And that would be so entirely different from what *you* are doing... how
exactly?
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>>> Yes, you claim to READ MINDS and know what someone you have never met
>>> KNOWS.
>>
>> No, you are repeating yourself over and over and over.
>
>
> Yes, the truth deserves to be repeated./
I'm glad you feel that way. Then why don't you *start* telling the truth,
instead of continuously slandering people while making use of bold-faced
lies, twists of their words and deliberate misinterpretations of perfectly
colloquial English?
But then again, someone with as little respect for his own language as you
and whose posts are filled to the top with grammatical and spelling errors
and twisted representations of the truth - whatever it takes to serve your
cause, right? - can't possibly be expected to really read what the other
guy is saying.
After all, why would you if you can manufacture a perfectly new meaning to
someone's words to better suit your case?
left_coast
>> Yeah, it would be nice to terminate the accunts of people that try to
>> bully new people by saying "Since the post showed up here, the test
>> failed. '
>
> Nice spelling error you got there. Not a flame, it really made me
> chuckle
Oh, look, another troll that has NEVER been able to prove ANY of his nasty
little claims about me, other than that he somehow knows WHAT happened om
MY computer without ever seeing it. Bit and sinner, mind readers both!
And people wonder why I don't take the lies of Sinner and bit seriously!
left_coast
> Easy to confirm, look at the headers of the two identifies, and ban, we
>> find that you are WRONG. Yet another person trashing me with unfounded
>> speculation.
>
> That was not trashing.
This from the person that claims to be NEUTRAL by taking sides and does not
even know what the words mean. Glad to see you changed the subject because
it describes you to a tee.
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."
>
> IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about
> what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you don't
> get it, simple stuff is too complex for you.
Like understanding colloquial English - the language you were raised in - is
too complex for you to both read and write?
Oh, and we know Bit Twister is not a mindreader, but so *you* *are* one
then?
left_coast
>> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what
>> somebody else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha, how low will you go to try to
>> paint ME as the bad guy here? How many minds will you claim you can
>> read???
>
> Just like you can read Bit Twister's mind and ascertain that he was
> deliberately misleading the OP?
Nope If you read what I said, I said:
"Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar."
Again, PROOF that you make false claims about me to the point where there is
no other explanation than you are a deliberate LIAR.
left_coast
>> Yes, you claim to READ MINDS and know what someone you have never met
>> KNOWS. It would be sooo funny if you were not such a pitiful person.
>
> And that would be so entirely different from what you are doing... how
> exactly?
He is telling lies, I am defending myself from them.
left_coast
>> A complete set of lies from the get go.
>
> Typical for paranoid schizophrenics.
Yes, that is what Bit and you are.
left_coast
>>
>> Ahhh, more name calling from people that believe that Bit can mind read
>> bwhahahahahahah, and you guys wonder why I don't take ANY of you
>> seriously. Your claims about me are about as worthless as claims from the
>> inmates at a sanitarium.
>
> Ever thought of going back there?
I don't want to visit you.
left_coast
>> Is he a bully, or just a moron? Please don't lie if you answer that.
>
> Well, I don't know if you'd value my opinion on Matt, but I would say that
> he's not a standard bully. A standard bully knows all too well what he's
> doing.
So, you know you are bulling then.
left_coast
>> 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone.
>
> No, you prove that he *was,*
I never made the claim that he was. I only claimed that he lied. And I
posted a definition from a dictionary that showed a lie does not require
deceit. You know, a DICTIONARY, the reputable source that you ignore
because it disagrees with what you say.
left_coast
>> IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about
>> what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you
>> don't get it, simple stuff is too complex for you.
>
> Like understanding colloquial English - the language you were raised in -
> is too complex for you to both read and write?
What language did you git you definition of NEUTRAL from? Your hate and
anger are showing though!
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> More lies. I never claim to know what they know. You made the twisted
>> lying statement and you are continuing to attempt to push that lie
>> down my throat. Drop the attempt, it is getting old.
>
> Yes, your inability to remember what you said is getting OLD.
Like your inability to remember that you were stalking me on /C.O.L.A.,/ and
that you re-routed a thread which I posted on /A.O.L.Mandriva/
to /C.O.L.A.,/ both of which were nothing other than deliberate attempts to
discredit me in a newsgroup I had only just recently joined as an active
poster?
Like your inability to remember that you're in half of the /killfiles/ all
over Usenet because of the very same thing, i.e. the facts that you use
lies to call other people liars and that you're a confrontational, hateful
and malevolently sick person?
> But it just confirms my impression that you don't know what you are
> talking about.
It is actually *you* who doesn't know what he's talking about, since you let
yourself be guided by those /impressions./ The kind of impressions *you*
have are known in the psychiatric world as "delusions".
But even if they're not deluding you, then you still wouldn't mind using
them, as after all you're nothing but an opportunistic fool without any
selfrespect. It doesn't even matter what you have to do or say, as long as
you come out the winner - and this is important! - *in* *your* *own* *eyes.
Well, I guess it's as good a way as another to turn an absolute loser into a
winner. Must be a very lonely feeling, hearing the echoes of you being the
only one who applauds for yourself.