test
GT
left_coast
> test
Welcome to the group. If you intended your test message to be posted to
"alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success. 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.
--
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.
freemont
> GT wrote:
>
>> test
>
> Welcome to the group. If you intended your test message to be posted to
> "alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success. 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.
What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
left_coast
WTF are you talking about? As long as it was intended to come to this group,
it does not matter if it was done with a script from a file. Nor do I need
proof because did not claim that the message as indeed intended for this
group. But given the idiotic things others have said to justify their
idiotic claims about test posts, I'm not surprised at your irrational
statement.
freemont
> freemont wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:37:11 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>>
>>> GT wrote:
>>>
>>>> test
>>>
>>> Welcome to the group. If you intended your test message to be posted to
>>> "alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success. 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.
>>
>> What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
>> bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>>
>>
> WTF are you talking about? As long as it was intended to come to this
> group, it does not matter if it was done with a script from a file. Nor do
> I need proof because did not claim that the message as indeed intended for
> this group. But given the idiotic things others have said to justify their
> idiotic claims about test posts, I'm not surprised at your irrational
> statement.
bwaaahahahahaha!!! So you ADMIT that you have NO PROOF that the post DID
NOT COME from a SCRIPT??? Of course you have no PROOF and that is why you
continue to ARGUE a POINT that you cannot PROVE!!! bwaaahahahahaaaaaa!!!!1!
Dan C
>>> What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
>>> bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>> WTF are you talking about? As long as it was intended to come to this
>> group, it does not matter if it was done with a script from a file. Nor do
>> I need proof because did not claim that the message as indeed intended for
>> this group. But given the idiotic things others have said to justify their
>> idiotic claims about test posts, I'm not surprised at your irrational
>> statement.
> bwaaahahahahaha!!! So you ADMIT that you have NO PROOF that the post DID
> NOT COME from a SCRIPT??? Of course you have no PROOF and that is why you
> continue to ARGUE a POINT that you cannot PROVE!!! bwaaahahahahaaaaaa!!!!1!
LOL! Now that's funny, right there. I caught the reference to a long ago
flamewar on that subject. LOL.
He's such a dimwit.
--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
patrick_darcy
this is my test
be nice
>
left_coast
It does not matter if it came from a script or not, only an idiot like you
or Dan C. would think it does.
> Of course you have no PROOF and that is why you
> continue to ARGUE a POINT that you cannot PROVE!!!
> bwaaahahahahaaaaaa!!!!1!
I'm not arguing if it came from a script or not because IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Only an idiot would think it does.
left_coast
Dan, you again add nothing of merit.
>
> He's such a dimwit.
Being called a dimwit by the likes of you is a complement.
freemont
You say it does not matter but HOW CAN YOU KNOW that the POST that was a
TEST did not come from a SCRIPT in a FILE????? Are you amnisen...
omnice... omniscen... some kinda knowitall???!? Once again you show that
YOU ARE STUPID and you PROVE that you know NOTHING AT ALL! NOTHING, i
tells ye, NOTHING! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!1!!1!
Dan C
>> I'm not arguing if it came from a script or not because IT DOES NOT
>> MATTER. Only an idiot would think it does.
> You say it does not matter but HOW CAN YOU KNOW that the POST that was a
> TEST did not come from a SCRIPT in a FILE????? Are you amnisen...
> omnice... omniscen... some kinda knowitall???!? Once again you show that
> YOU ARE STUPID and you PROVE that you know NOTHING AT ALL! NOTHING, i
> tells ye, NOTHING! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!1!!1!
Hehehe. This is funny.
Are you sure you're not really Matt_the_Mouth, replying to himself so he
has someone to argue with, since everyone else ignores him? LOL.
Thanks for the laughs!
Dave
> Hehehe. This is funny.
>
> Are you sure you're not really Matt_the_Mouth, replying to himself so he
> has someone to argue with, since everyone else ignores him? LOL.
Aka "sockpuppet". ;)
--
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 say it does not matter but HOW CAN YOU KNOW that the POST that was a
> TEST did not come from a SCRIPT in a FILE?????
I don't CARE.
> Are you amnisen...
> omnice... omniscen... some kinda knowitall???!?
Nope, just don't care if an anal person can't get over the FACT that it does
not matter if the person used a script, SLRN or any other method of
posting.
> Once again you show that
> YOU ARE STUPID and you PROVE that you know NOTHING AT ALL! NOTHING, i
> tells ye, NOTHING! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!1!!1!
Not stupid, don't care. The fact that you made an issue of it shows a lack
of knowledge on your part. Bet you are going to go off and play with your
JO buddy Dan C. now.
left_coast
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:59:08 -0500, Dan C wrote:
>
>> Hehehe. This is funny.
>>
>> Are you sure you're not really Matt_the_Mouth, replying to himself so he
>> has someone to argue with, since everyone else ignores him? LOL.
>
> Aka "sockpuppet". ;)
>
That would be Dan, since he has made no legitimate point and has only
insulted.
left_coast
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:52:07 -0400, freemont wrote:
>
>>> I'm not arguing if it came from a script or not because IT DOES NOT
>>> MATTER. Only an idiot would think it does.
>
>> You say it does not matter but HOW CAN YOU KNOW that the POST that was a
>> TEST did not come from a SCRIPT in a FILE????? Are you amnisen...
>> omnice... omniscen... some kinda knowitall???!? Once again you show that
>> YOU ARE STUPID and you PROVE that you know NOTHING AT ALL! NOTHING, i
>> tells ye, NOTHING! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!1!!1!
>
> Hehehe. This is funny.
Yeah, his total lack of knowledge and ignorance does come across as funny.
>
> Are you sure you're not really Matt_the_Mouth,
And yet you have repeatedly failed to find any fault with what I have
actaully said. You only insult which shows you are only reacting to your
hate.
> replying to himself so he
> has someone to argue with, since everyone else ignores him? LOL.
There is no argument.
>
> Thanks for the laughs!
Yeah, I agree. It is amazing how funny how the idiocy of freemont can be.
Dan C
>> Once again you show that
>> YOU ARE STUPID and you PROVE that you know NOTHING AT ALL! NOTHING, i
>> tells ye, NOTHING! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!1!!1!
> Not stupid, don't care. The fact that you made an issue of it shows a lack
> of knowledge on your part. Bet you are going to go off and play with your
> JO buddy Dan C. now.
You're WRONG again! Quit making such false "bets" (actually it's LYING),
when you have NO PROOF!
And we all know that you DO care.
No more LIES!!!!! LOL!
left_coast
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:45:31 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>>> Once again you show that
>>> YOU ARE STUPID and you PROVE that you know NOTHING AT ALL! NOTHING, i
>>> tells ye, NOTHING! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!1!!1!
>
>> Not stupid, don't care. The fact that you made an issue of it shows a
>> lack of knowledge on your part. Bet you are going to go off and play with
>> your JO buddy Dan C. now.
>
> You're WRONG again! Quit making such false "bets" (actually it's LYING),
> when you have NO PROOF!
No kie at all.
>
> And we all know that you DO care.
>
> No more LIES!!!!!
That would require you stop posting.
> LOL!
left_coast
> GT wrote:
>
>> test
>
> Welcome to the group. If you intended your test message to be posted to
> "alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success. 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.
>
Ahhhh, I speak the truth and look at the idiocy that gets spewed my
direction. Sure wish parents would take control of their computers. It
would clean up the idiotic claims about scripts...
Dan C
>> No more LIES!!!!!
> That would require you stop posting.
So what you're saying here (above, right in front of you, where you can't
deny it), is that unless I stop posting, you will continue lying.
There you have it folks. An absolute admission of LYING by
Matt_the_Mouth, and his intention to CONTINUE doing it unless I shut up.
There is the PROOF which he's so fond of asking for. Right there, above,
to be archived in Google for all time. Done.
Let's see how he tries to get out of this one... LOL!
(It's almost too easy sometimes)
left_coast
> So what you're saying here (above, right in front of you, where you can't
> deny it), is that unless I stop posting, you will continue lying.
No, you miss interpret, the only person telling lies here is you. In order
for there to be "No more LIES" You would have to stop posting. Everyone
knows the old saying "How can you tell when Dan C. is posting lies?... His
fingers are on the keyboard."
The fact of the matter is, you have NEVER been able to debate on the FACT
because you lose, so you make personal attacks. Your childish cut and past
attack from a few weeks ago just shows how immature and lacking of
knowledge you are.
left_coast
> You're WRONG again! Quit making such false "bets" (actually it's LYING),
> when you have NO PROOF!
>
For someone that bitches about people using caps, you sure use a lot! Just
more proof you're nothing but a hypocite
Dan C
>> You're WRONG again! Quit making such false "bets" (actually it's LYING),
>> when you have NO PROOF!
> For someone that bitches about people using caps, you sure use a lot! Just
> more proof you're nothing but a hypocite
A hypocite, huh? What exactly is a hypocite? Is it a chemistry term?
The caps were used in *sarcasm*, fool.
Dan C
>> So what you're saying here (above, right in front of you, where you can't
>> deny it), is that unless I stop posting, you will continue lying.
> No, you miss interpret, the only person telling lies here is you. In order
> for there to be "No more LIES" You would have to stop posting. Everyone
> knows the old saying "How can you tell when Dan C. is posting lies?... His
> fingers are on the keyboard."
That's all you got? You can't address my claims that you were lying?
Kinda hard when you're caught red-handed, huh? Go back and read it again,
and see how you were caught, liar.
> The fact of the matter is, you have NEVER been able to debate on the
> FACT because you lose, so you make personal attacks. Your childish cut
> and past attack from a few weeks ago just shows how immature and lacking
> of knowledge you are.
Wrong, and wrong. Thanks for playing.
left_coast
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:09:50 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>>> You're WRONG again! Quit making such false "bets" (actually it's
>>> LYING), when you have NO PROOF!
>
>> For someone that bitches about people using caps, you sure use a lot!
>> Just more proof you're nothing but a hypocite
>
> A hypocite, huh? What exactly is a hypocite? Is it a chemistry term?
>
> The caps were used in *sarcasm*, fool.
>
Then you admit you use caps FOR WHAT EVER REASON, while you are critical of
OTHERS. What a two faced ass you are.
left_coast
> That's all you got? You can't address my claims that you were lying?
Don't have to, you have NEVER proven the claim that you lie.
> Kinda hard when you're caught red-handed, huh? Go back and read it again,
> and see how you were caught, liar.
Of course the greatest lie you have ever made was that you killfiled me.
>
>> The fact of the matter is, you have NEVER been able to debate on the
>> FACT because you lose, so you make personal attacks. Your childish cut
>> and past attack from a few weeks ago just shows how immature and lacking
>> of knowledge you are.
>
> Wrong, and wrong.
And here is the proof that you LIE.
> Thanks for playing.
Wish you were fun to play with.
freemont
> Yeah, I agree. It is amazing how funny how the idiocy of freemont can
> be.
Ah so it's INSULTS now because you can not PROVE that anything I said was
NOT TRUE! That shows how desperate a big stupid dum dum you are when you
fail to make a valid arguement and resort to INSULTS, because you are TOO
STUPID to say anything else. bwaaaahahaha!! dum dum! But thats ok because
I enjoy watching you MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF!!! Do let me know when
you grow a brain and START THINKING for a change so that you can make
ARGUMENTS instead of INSULTS! Ya cumb dunt.
bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!!!!1!!!!11!
Wayne
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:09:50 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>>> You're WRONG again! Quit making such false "bets" (actually it's
>>> LYING), when you have NO PROOF!
>
>> For someone that bitches about people using caps, you sure use a lot!
>> Just more proof you're nothing but a hypocite
>
> A hypocite, huh? What exactly is a hypocite? Is it a chemistry term?
>
> The caps were used in *sarcasm*, fool.
I'm wondering who "miss interpret" is that he mentioned in another post.
I'd like to meet her, but then if she's a friend of dumb dumb, maybe not!
Wayne
--
Registered Linux user #375994
http://www.geocities.jp/rondonko/
left_coast
> Ah so it's INSULTS now because you can not PROVE that anything I said was
> NOT TRUE!
I don't need to prove anything about YOUR claims. You can not prove that
YOUR claims have any relevance to the discussion. Until you can prove what
you say is RELEVENT, then it is simply meaningless and I don't need to
prove anything about your meaningless drivel.
Be a man, back up your claims with PROOF.
left_coast
I know she would not have anything do do with the likes of you or Dan C. She
is a $2 whore but even she would not lower her standards to your level.
left_coast
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:37:11 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>> GT wrote:
>>
>>> test
>>
>> Welcome to the group. If you intended your test message to be posted to
>> "alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success. 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.
>
> What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
> bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>
Prove that the success of the test depends on if they use "SCRIPT from a
FILE" or not, or it is a meaningless point that does not require any proof
from me.
Or is it that you are one of the morons that simply don't know how a script
works, requiring me to once again post lessons on how scripts work? I know
it seems to be epidemic that people that don't even know the basics of
scripting try to make invalid points (as you have done above) about
scripting in these groups.
left_coast
> test
See, GT? Have you read though and seen what nasty things people say when I
addressed your test post honestly?
freemont
> freemont wrote:
>
>> Ah so it's INSULTS now because you can not PROVE that anything I said
>> was NOT TRUE!
>
> I don't need to prove anything about YOUR claims. You can not prove that
> YOUR claims have any relevance to the discussion. Until you can prove what
> you say is RELEVENT, then it is simply meaningless and I don't need to
> prove anything about your meaningless drivel.
>
> Be a man, back up your claims with PROOF.
Another admission that you have NO PROOF. You cannot admit when you are
WRONG, so you continue to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS aginst me. My but you are
funny. bwaaahahahaha!!! You say that you don't need to PROVE anything but
the truth is that you CAN NOT PROVE that the test post did not come from a
SCRIPT in a FILE!!! Go ahead and show us your IGNORANCE some more!!
left_coast
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:19:27 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>> freemont wrote:
>>
>>> Ah so it's INSULTS now because you can not PROVE that anything I said
>>> was NOT TRUE!
>>
>> I don't need to prove anything about YOUR claims. You can not prove that
>> YOUR claims have any relevance to the discussion. Until you can prove
>> what you say is RELEVENT, then it is simply meaningless and I don't need
>> to prove anything about your meaningless drivel.
>>
>> Be a man, back up your claims with PROOF.
>
> Another admission that you have NO PROOF.
I made no claim about what the person was using, I need not prove something
I never claimed.
> You cannot admit when you are
> WRONG,
Prove I am wrong. I made no claim that the person was using or not using a
script, I have nothing to prove.
> so you continue to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS aginst me.
I only ask you to prove that using a script makes a difference. I make no
accusation, I only ask for PROOF of YOUR claim that the script makes a
difference. If you can not prove your claim, that is YOUR problem.
> My but you are
> funny. bwaaahahahaha!!!
Yes, I am. Too bad you can't prove your point so you have to distact by
talking about my sense of humor, I will take it as an admition that you can
NOT prove that using makes a difference to the success of a test post.
> You say that you don't need to PROVE anything but
> the truth is that you CAN NOT PROVE that the test post did not come from a
> SCRIPT in a FILE!!!
I made no claim as to the method used to post the test post so I have
nothing to prove. Too bad you can prove it makes any difference if a script
is used or not.
> Go ahead and show us your IGNORANCE some more!!
Yes, I am ignorant of any possible LEGITIMATE point you can be making.
Until you can deal with the issue in
Message ID: <o4tlv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
you have no valid point.
freemont
> Until you can deal with the issue in
>
> Message ID: <o4tlv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
>
> you have no valid point.
You may think in your on mind that your points are the only valid points
but YOU ARE WRONG. I do not have to espress any admition of WRONGDOING as
I have done NOTHING WRONG!!! YOU are the one who continusly FAILS TO
PROVIDE PROOF!!!1!
I marvel at your ineptitude and incompetence!! But please continue to
carry on your POINTLESS NONSENSE. As it makes me laff out loud!!! So,
now, PROVE to us that you have PROOF that the test post CAME FROM A SCRIPT
in a FILE!!! BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
left_coast
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:07:57 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>> Until you can deal with the issue in
>>
>> Message ID: <o4tlv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
>>
>> you have no valid point.
>
> You may think in your on mind that your points are the only valid points
> but YOU ARE WRONG. I do not have to espress any admition of WRONGDOING as
> I have done NOTHING WRONG!!! YOU are the one who continusly FAILS TO
> PROVIDE PROOF!!!1
> > !
>
> I marvel at your ineptitude and incompetence!! But please continue to
> carry on your POINTLESS NONSENSE. As it makes me laff out loud!!! So,
> now, PROVE to us that you have PROOF that the test post CAME FROM A SCRIPT
> in a FILE!!! BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
>
My origional point was "If you intended your test message to be posted to
"alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success." Unless you can prove how
using a script or not using a script makes any difference to the claim I
made, you have no point. I made no claims about posting with a script so I
have no reason to prove if a script is used or not.
I do like how you ignore what is inconvenient to you, so again:
Until you can deal with the issue in
Message ID: <o4tlv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
you have no valid point.
--
freemont
> freemont wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:07:57 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>>
>>> Until you can deal with the issue in
>>>
>>> Message ID: <o4tlv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
>>>
>>> you have no valid point.
>>
>> You may think in your on mind that your points are the only valid points
>> but YOU ARE WRONG. I do not have to espress any admition of WRONGDOING
>> as I have done NOTHING WRONG!!! YOU are the one who continusly FAILS TO
>> PROVIDE PROOF!!!1
>> > !
>>
>> I marvel at your ineptitude and incompetence!! But please continue to
>> carry on your POINTLESS NONSENSE. As it makes me laff out loud!!! So,
>> now, PROVE to us that you have PROOF that the test post CAME FROM A
>> SCRIPT in a FILE!!! BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
>>
>>
> My origional point was "If you intended your test message to be posted to
> "alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success." Unless you can prove how
> using a script or not using a script makes any difference to the claim I
> made, you have no point. I made no claims about posting with a script so I
> have no reason to prove if a script is used or not.
Yet you claim that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether a post was posted using
a SCRIPT. If it makes no difference then WHY ARE YOU ARGUEING ABOUT
IT???!!! Why can you not admit when you are WRONG and someone else is
RIGHT??!? And here obviously I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!1! People
like you should stick with Windowz and leave us EXPERTS alone because you
are a FOOLISH FOOL!!! We all know the difference between a SCRIPT and a
FILE and a test post to usenet!!!!1! u wHINEY RUNT!
left_coast
> Yet you claim that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether a post was posted using
> a SCRIPT. If it makes no difference then WHY ARE YOU ARGUEING ABOUT
> IT???!!! ]
I'm not. I have simply stated that I do not need to prove what you ask me to
prove, there is no argument other than the inappropriate claims you are
making,.
Again, you ignore what is not convenient for you:
Message ID: <s45mv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
Why is it you can not address such simple things? Don't you even know what a
script is????
> Why can you not admit when you are WRONG and someone else is
> RIGHT??!?
I do, when I am wrong, but here, I am not.
> And here obviously I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!1!
PROVE IT.
> People
> like you should stick with Windowz and leave us EXPERTS alone because you
> are a FOOLISH FOOL!!!
Like the trolls that don't know that a script does not require a file? Were
you one of THOSE?
> We all know the difference between a SCRIPT and a
> FILE
PROVE IT. Prove that EVERYONE ("we all" is your claim) knows the difference
between a script and a file. Please, put up or shut up and PROVE at least
SOME of your claims.
> and a test post to usenet!!!!1! u wHINEY RUNT!
Then you would have known enough not to ask me to prove anything about a
script in this case. Your asking me to prove something about the OP posting
from a script contradicts your claim that you do indeed know what a script
really is.
It appears that you lost a debate to me a long time ago and are still
holding on to the anger. You have my pity that you are not adult enough to
get over your anger in all this time. It is must be a pitiful state for you
to be in.
freemont
I am the one in a pitiful state and yet you are the one who fails time and
time again to provide PROOF that you know that the OP's test post did not
come from a SCRIPT in a FILE???!! How am I supposed to keep a straight
face??? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! You are such a clueless LOSER!!! I bet
you make money by playing kazoo on the street for change u fisthumper!
bwaaahaha!!
left_coast
freemont
> Why is it you can not address such simple things? Don't you even know what
> a script is????
I am the one who knows what a script is, you are the one who can not admit
when YOU ARE WRONG!
http://tinyurl.com/fbttb
http://tinyurl.com/f88hf
http://tinyurl.com/k3oc4
Look how you get all wound up o'er me! It must be a torture to NOT HAVE
PROOF!!!!!!!2!!! PROVE to me that you have PROOF if you want to stop
looking FOOLISH!!!!! BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
left_coast
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:10:07 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>> Why is it you can not address such simple things? Don't you even know
>> what a script is????
>
> I am the one who knows what a script is, you are the one who can not admit
> when YOU ARE WRONG!
Then how come you can address THIS?
Message ID: <s45mv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
Now the proof that you know so little about scripts that you can't explain
it in your own words but can only post google search URLs!
Proves nothing about my point made in response to the OP. Does not even
discuss posting a test message to usenet via a script! Do you really know
THAT little about scripts? Do you really know so little about google that
you think that was a reasonable search? do you really know so little about
logic that you think that link proves ANYTHING? Bwahahahhahahhaahahahahah
Your Dan C. in drag, right?
Identical to the URL http://tinyurl.com/fbttb are you so childish as to
think repeatedly posting the same unrelated drivel makes a difference?
Wow, you put an "a" in front of "script", that narrows it down a lot! Still
absolutely NOTHING about posting a test message via a script.
>
> Look how you get all wound up o'er me! It must be a torture to NOT HAVE
> PROOF!!!!!!!2!!! PROVE to me that you have PROOF if you want to stop
> looking FOOLISH!!!!! BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Sorry, but all you have proven is that you know so little about what a
script is that you can not even do a google search that returns any
relevant information about posting test messages to usenet via a script!
again:
Message ID: <s45mv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
It is obvious that you learned NOTHING from my post about scripts. You may
want to actualy READ the tread I posted:
You may LEARN something! BTW, if you read the thread, you will notice that
there were people that did NOT KNOW That a script did not require a file.
Bwahahahahahah, your hate and inability to let go of simple things is
showing and it is providing for great amusement at this end, keep it up,
I'm always interested in seeing how idiotic people like you will get.
left_coast
the first link from your URL:
Bwahahahahahahahahah WTF does MOVIE scripts have to do with this discussion!
Bwahahahahahahahhahaha, you can't get ANYTHING right can you! Bwahahahahaha
Movie scripts, bwahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah.
Dan C
>> That's all you got? You can't address my claims that you were lying?
> Don't have to, you have NEVER proven the claim that you lie.
My ghod, do you even read what you're writing, or are you in such a big
hurry to hit "send" that you don't bother?
Why would I want to "prove that I lie"?
Your stupidity just showed, again. LOL.
left_coast
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:36 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>>> That's all you got? You can't address my claims that you were lying?
>
>> Don't have to, you have NEVER proven the claim that you lie.
>
> My ghod, do you even read what you're writing, or are you in such a big
> hurry to hit "send" that you don't bother?
The truth? Most of the time I'm hanging on the phone helping people though
problems and very distracted. I don't have enough respect for you to give a
shit.
>
> Why would I want to "prove that I lie"?
I would be happy if you actually could prove ANYTHING and could do something
other that attack over TYPOs, but the truth is, you don't have the
knowledge of the technology to do anything BUT attack over typos.
Then again you have NEVER proven that I lie. You haven't proven ANYTHING
other than you lack any useful knowledge of Linux.
>
> Your stupidity just showed, again. LOL.
>
Naw, only the fact that I don't respect you enough to pay much attention to
my responses to your rabid attacks.
Dan C
>> Your stupidity just showed, again. LOL.
> Naw, only the fact that I don't respect you enough to pay much attention to
> my responses to your rabid attacks.
You apparently don't pay much attention to the replies you write to
*everyone*, as they are *all* full of mistakes and have the grammar of a
4th-grader. That's one of the reasons that nobody respects you, or pays
any attention to what you write. Another reason is the way you fly off
the handle, start shouting, and get demanding, in every single thread you
participate in. You have no credibility.
How about you just stop posting to Usenet altogether, and take some
remedial education classes? That way everyone will be happy, and you can
one day apply for a GED (that's still a few years away, but gives you
something to shoot for). Sound like a good plan?
Until you show me some *proof* of having attained your GED, please don't
waste any more of my time by responding. You bore me.
left_coast
> You apparently don't pay much attention to the replies you write to
> everyone, as they are all full of mistakes
PROVE "ALL" otherwise you are just telling lies again. I don't respect
people that have argued without knowing what they are talking about. There
are way to many here that do just that and you are their king. If you can
EVER find a place where you can debate me on TECHNICAL details and find
fault with my technical advise I would be amazed. But I can't recall you
EVER being able to do so. All I recall is your losing debates to me. You
are just another sore loser whining, crying and attacking however you can.
Dan C
>> You apparently don't pay much attention to the replies you write to
>> everyone, as they are all full of mistakes
> PROVE "ALL" otherwise you are just telling lies again. I don't respect
> people that have argued without knowing what they are talking about. There
> are way to many here that do just that and you are their king. If you can
> EVER find a place where you can debate me on TECHNICAL details and find
> fault with my technical advise I would be amazed. But I can't recall you
> EVER being able to do so. All I recall is your losing debates to me. You
> are just another sore loser whining, crying and attacking however you can.
It's quite obvious to anyone who speaks decent English, and has more than
a 4th-grade education. Yes, every single post of yours has a spelling or
grammar error (usually both) in it.
Your post above has 2 spelling errors and 1 punctuation error (that I
spotted with a quick glance; there may be more). That is actually FAR
better than most of your posts, since you were obviously trying to avoid
making any in this one. However, you failed again, as I suspect you do at
most everything in your life. Go back to school, boy.
freemont
> http://www.script-o-rama.com/
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahah WTF does MOVIE scripts have to do with this
> discussion! Bwahahahahahahahhahaha, you can't get ANYTHING right can
> you! Bwahahahahaha
>
> Movie scripts, bwahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah.
bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You
can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at
your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
left_coast
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:11:47 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>>> You apparently don't pay much attention to the replies you write to
>>> everyone, as they are all full of mistakes
>
>> PROVE "ALL" otherwise you are just telling lies again. I don't respect
>> people that have argued without knowing what they are talking about.
>> There are way to many here that do just that and you are their king. If
>> you can EVER find a place where you can debate me on TECHNICAL details
>> and find fault with my technical advise I would be amazed. But I can't
>> recall you EVER being able to do so. All I recall is your losing debates
>> to me. You are just another sore loser whining, crying and attacking
>> however you can.
>
> It's quite obvious to anyone who speaks decent English, and has more than
> a 4th-grade education. Yes, every single post of yours has a spelling or
> grammar error (usually both) in it.
Prove "every single post" or you are admitting that you are a liar.
left_coast
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:24:08 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>> http://www.script-o-rama.com/
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahahahah WTF does MOVIE scripts have to do with this
>> discussion! Bwahahahahahahahhahaha, you can't get ANYTHING right can
>> you! Bwahahahahaha
>>
>> Movie scripts, bwahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah.
>
> bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You
> can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at
> your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
You never have given me a REASON to prove ANYTHING, but that is what I would
expect from someone that does not know the difference between movie scripts
and shell scripts bwhajhahahhahahahahha. I have no proof because there is
NOTHING to prove, only you are too stupid to know it bwhahahahahahaha.
Movie scripts, how stupid.
Funking MOVIE SCRIPTS bwhahahahahahhah Just how STUPID are you to think
MOVIE scripts are the same as shell scripts!
left_coast
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:36:49 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>> freemont wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:37:11 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>>>
>>>> GT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> test
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the group. If you intended your test message to be posted to
>>>> "alt.os.linux.mandrake" it was indeed a success. 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.
>>>
>>> What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
>>> bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>>>
>>>
>> WTF are you talking about? As long as it was intended to come to this
>> group, it does not matter if it was done with a script from a file. Nor
>> do I need proof because did not claim that the message as indeed intended
>> for this group. But given the idiotic things others have said to justify
>> their idiotic claims about test posts, I'm not surprised at your
>> irrational statement.
>
> bwaaahahahahaha!!! So you ADMIT that you have NO PROOF that the post DID
> NOT COME from a SCRIPT??? Of course you have no PROOF and that is why you
> continue to ARGUE a POINT that you cannot PROVE!!!
> bwaaahahahahaaaaaa!!!!1!
>
You continue to argue the point without PROOF that it is even RELEVANT. By
your standards, auguring a point without proof, you are an IDIOT. Judged by
your own standards you are a stupid person that can't prove anything. Movie
scripts, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
left_coast
> What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
> bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Prove that I make any claims that the person was posting from a script. You
have no proof.
left_coast
> bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You
> can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at
> your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
bwhahahahahah you have not proof that he IS posting with a script,
Bahahahahah bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your
PROOF!!! You can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I
larf at your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You have no proof that I NEED to post anything!!! bwahahahahahaha you have
no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You can't PROVE anything
without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at your posts!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You have no proof of ANYTHING! bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF!
Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You can't PROVE anything without
PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at your posts!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Movie scripts, bwhahahahahahahahahah.
hg
> freemont wrote:
>
>> bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You
>> can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at
>> your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
>
> bwhahahahahah you have not proof that he IS posting with a script,
> Bahahahahah bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your
> PROOF!!! You can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I
> larf at your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> You have no proof that I NEED to post anything!!! bwahahahahahaha you have
> no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You can't PROVE anything
> without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at your posts!
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> You have no proof of ANYTHING! bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF!
> Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!! You can't PROVE anything without
> PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf at your posts!
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> Movie scripts, bwhahahahahahahahahah.
>
>
Do you drink ?
left_coast
No, I just have fun working idiots nerves. The person you should ask about
drinking is freemont, he is the one asking for proof of something that is
irrelevant and not listening to reason. He has failed to address even the
simplest points I have made:
Message ID: <s45mv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
But laying blame where it belongs isn't something you are willing to do, is
it?
freemont
> freemont wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:24:08 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.script-o-rama.com/
>>>
>>> Bwahahahahahahahahah WTF does MOVIE scripts have to do with this
>>> discussion! Bwahahahahahahahhahaha, you can't get ANYTHING right can
>>> you! Bwahahahahaha
>>>
>>> Movie scripts, bwahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah.
>>
>> bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!!
>> You can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I larf
>> at your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>>
>>
> You never have given me a REASON to prove ANYTHING, but that is what I
> would expect from someone that does not know the difference between movie
> scripts and shell scripts bwhajhahahhahahahahha. I have no proof because
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NO PROOF!!!1!
"I have no proof", bwahahahahahahahaha!
left_coast
No proof is NEEDED. There is nothing wrong with having no proof when no
proof is needed. There is something wrong with the person that does not
understand that!
Movie scripts. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.
You have no proof that proof is NEEDED! bwhahahahahahahahahah.
You can't even address the SIMPLEST of points:
Message ID: <s45mv3-...@alta.sierrandays.org>
left_coast
Poor little freemomt, having to resort to posting thing out of context. You
are indeed pitiful.
Until you can prove I NEED to prove anything about the OP's posting method,
I don't need to prove ANYTHING. But You can't PROVE your claim.
hg
like a funny farm
left_coast
Take you're OWN advise. It is obvious that you want to blame me, holding
freemot blameless, even though freemot is the one making unreasonable
requests and not even responding to reasonable statements from me. I always
like how unwilling people in these groups are to address REALITY. It looks
like a "funny farm" because you can't address your comments to the person
that started and CONTINUES the debate by being UNREASONABLE. I stated the
TRUTH about test post and freemot went on the war path FOR NO LEGITIMATE
REASON. You are so much a part of the "funny farm" that you can't see that
REALITY.
freemont
> freemont wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:59:37 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>>
>>> freemont wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:24:08 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.script-o-rama.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwahahahahahahahahah WTF does MOVIE scripts have to do with this
>>>>> discussion! Bwahahahahahahahhahaha, you can't get ANYTHING right can
>>>>> you! Bwahahahahaha
>>>>>
>>>>> Movie scripts, bwahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah.
>>>>
>>>> bwahahahahahaha you have no PROOF! Bwahahahaha where is your PROOF!!!
>>>> You can't PROVE anything without PROOF!!! bwahahahahahaha. O how I
>>>> larf at your posts! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You never have given me a REASON to prove ANYTHING, but that is what I
>>> would expect from someone that does not know the difference between
>>> movie scripts and shell scripts bwhajhahahhahahahahha. I have no proof
>>> because
>>
>> BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NO PROOF!!!1!
>>
>> "I have no proof", bwahahahahahahahaha!
>>
>>
> No proof is NEEDED. There is nothing wrong with having no proof when no
Bwahahahahaha, you ALWAYS ask for PROOF but now you say there's NOTHING
WRONG with having NO PROOF! BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1!!!!3!!!
"I have no proof", bwahahaha!
"There is nothing wrong with having no proof", bwahahahahahaha!!
left_coast
You have no proof I NEED proof! bwhahahahahahahahah
left_coast
Mike Thomas
> Take you're OWN advise. It is obvious that you want to blame me, holding
> freemot blameless, even though freemot is the one making unreasonable
> requests and not even responding to reasonable statements from me. I
> always like how unwilling people in these groups are to address REALITY.
> It looks like a "funny farm" because you can't address your comments to
> the person that started and CONTINUES the debate by being UNREASONABLE. I
> stated the TRUTH about test post and freemot went on the war path FOR NO
> LEGITIMATE REASON. You are so much a part of the "funny farm" that you
> can't see that REALITY.
No way, I don't believe that the above is for real. It's just a joke -
you're just pretending to be bonkers. You're just writing mad twisted
nonsense about "funny farms" and "addressing reality" with LOTS OF CAPITAL
LETTERS because you know full well that's how the craziest of crazies are
supposed to write, but it's obviously just some sort of game that you're
playing. Maybe you're a student modelling a dysfunctional personality for a
psychology project and you want to see how people react to it. What is
simply not credible is that somebody could have enough sanity and
coordination to be able to compose a message on a computer and be able to
send it on Usenet and yet at the same time be as insane as you're
pretending to be.
left_coast
> No way, I don't believe that the above is for real.
Just read the tread and point out where I was wrong. Regardless of it being
a joke or not, he has NOT RESPONDED to REASON and you can not say he has.
left_coast
Insults but NOTHING SPECIFIC, but lots of unfounded insults. Using caps does
not make me WRONG. To attack based on your dislike of caps shows you to be
petty and vicious without legitimate facts to back you up. You are another
member of the "funny farm" and another reason why I take so few of you
seriously.
Mike Thomas
> Insults but NOTHING SPECIFIC, but lots of unfounded insults. Using caps
> does not make me WRONG. To attack based on your dislike of caps shows you
> to be petty and vicious without legitimate facts to back you up. You are
> another member of the "funny farm" and another reason why I take so few of
> you seriously.
You're not fooling me. The above is simply going too far with deranged
claptrap. Nobody really writes like that. You're just pretending to be
demented.
left_coast
Ahhh, I see, you can NOT provide specifics. You can NOT show where I was
wrong, but you attack anyway. You can not find fault so you attack what you
are too ignorant to understand.
Mike Thomas
> Ahhh, I see, you can NOT provide specifics. You can NOT show where I was
> wrong, but you attack anyway. You can not find fault so you attack what
> you are too ignorant to understand.
I think that you're actually quite sane and you're just acting like you're
bonkers. You didn't deny that it's all a joke. You can pretend to be
nuttier than a squirrel turd for all I care - but I still won't believe it.
left_coast
You can't even show how or why, SPECIFICALLY, where I have said anything
less that FACTUAL and you claim that *I* am acting bonkers? How can it be
bonkers if I am stating fact? Since it seems you can not distinguished
between fact (reality) and everything else, it seems you are the one that
is bonkers.
> You didn't deny that it's all a joke.
It is not a joke and you have never shown where I was factually in error.
Claiming that factual statements are a joke is delusional. There by, it is
you that is indeed delusional.
> You can pretend to be
> nuttier than a squirrel turd for all I care - but I still won't believe
> it.
Since you do not believe that I am pretending to be... Then you admit, what
I am doing and saying is NOT A JOKE. Since it is not a joke and you have
NEVER been able to depute a single thing I have said, your accusations are
signs of a disturbed mind.
Mike Thomas
> You can't even show how or why, SPECIFICALLY, where I have said anything
> less that FACTUAL and you claim that *I* am acting bonkers? How can it be
> bonkers if I am stating fact? Since it seems you can not distinguished
> between fact (reality) and everything else, it seems you are the one that
> is bonkers.
>
> It is not a joke and you have never shown where I was factually in error.
> Claiming that factual statements are a joke is delusional. There by, it is
> you that is indeed delusional.
>
> Since you do not believe that I am pretending to be... Then you admit,
> what I am doing and saying is NOT A JOKE. Since it is not a joke and you
> have NEVER been able to depute a single thing I have said, your
> accusations are signs of a disturbed mind.
You might think that the above act is all very clever and you've just
written a neat little encapsulation of an obsessive-compulsive. Wrong. It's
just toooo clichéd to be believable. As I said, nobody can be *that* insane
and yet be able to write on Usenet at the same time.
left_coast
Prove it is insane, prove that I have said anything that is not factually
correct. If you can not deal with factual REALITY, it is you that is
insane. The truth is, I am having a great laugh at how irrational you,
freemont, Dan C. and you are. Your inability to grasp simple truths is a
RIOT. What you "believe" is FAR from REAL or rational. In otherwords,
despite your aperent delusions of godhood, your believes are MEANINGLESS it
terms of PROOF. Your inability to understand that is proof that
you /*_are_*/ irrational, fun to laugh at, but irrational.
left_coast
> nobody can be that insane
> and yet be able to write on Usenet at the same time.
The fact that you are posting to usenet disproves that claim!!!
Dan C
>> I think that you're actually quite sane and you're just acting like you're
>> bonkers. You didn't deny that it's all a joke. You can pretend to be
>> nuttier than a squirrel turd for all I care - but I still won't believe
>> it.
> You can't even show how or why, SPECIFICALLY, where I have said anything
> less that FACTUAL and you claim that *I* am acting bonkers? How can it be
> bonkers if I am stating fact? Since it seems you can not distinguished
> between fact (reality) and everything else, it seems you are the one that
> is bonkers.
Screw it. I really do think you're a fucking whacko. No kidding.
Into the killfile you go, 30 days. You're too big of an idiot to even be
funny to watch any more. Your keep repeating the same crap, over and
over. It's boring.
Don't respond.
--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Mike Thomas
> Prove it is insane, prove that I have said anything that is not factually
> correct. If you can not deal with factual REALITY, it is you that is
> insane. The truth is, I am having a great laugh at how irrational you,
> freemont, Dan C. and you are. Your inability to grasp simple truths is a
> RIOT. What you "believe" is FAR from REAL or rational. In otherwords,
> despite your aperent delusions of godhood, your believes are MEANINGLESS
> it terms of PROOF. Your inability to understand that is proof that
> you /*_are_*/ irrational, fun to laugh at, but irrational.
And don't think that throwing in a shitload of unconvincing spelling and
grammar errors will change my mind.
left_coast
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:46:45 -0700, left_coast wrote:
>
>>> I think that you're actually quite sane and you're just acting like
>>> you're bonkers. You didn't deny that it's all a joke. You can pretend to
>>> be nuttier than a squirrel turd for all I care - but I still won't
>>> believe it.
>
>> You can't even show how or why, SPECIFICALLY, where I have said anything
>> less that FACTUAL and you claim that *I* am acting bonkers? How can it be
>> bonkers if I am stating fact? Since it seems you can not distinguished
>> between fact (reality) and everything else, it seems you are the one that
>> is bonkers.
>
> Screw it. I really do think you're a fucking whacko. No kidding.
Considering the source, I consider it a complement. Being called a whacko by
a whacho is nothing to take seriously!
>
> Into the killfile you go, 30 days.
Yeah, right.
> You're too big of an idiot to even be
> funny to watch any more.
Then don't, nobody is forcing you to read what I say, but you seem to be too
stupid to figure THAT simple fact out.
> Your keep repeating the same crap, over and
> over.
There is nothing wrong with repeating the TRUTH over and over. If you think
there is something wrong with repeating the truth, then there is something
wrong with YOU.
> It's boring.
Yeah, I'm sure you are board trying to read concepts you can not possibly
understand.
>
> Don't respond.
>
Don't tell me what to do.
left_coast
I see, you can not actually show anywhere that I was factually inaccurate,
so you call ME a whacko! Is that what you do whenever you can't actually
prove someone wrong? Call them a whacko? Your even more of an idiot than I
ever thought.
left_coast
Of course not, you deal only with your beliefs, not with reality. Until you
become RATIONAL and deal with the REAL world, nothing will change your
mind.
I see you STILL can not find any FACTUAL errors with what I said.
Andy
after so may of yours posts I forget what you testing
?
Good luck anyway
left_coast
That's the rub, all this is over my posting the TRUTH about posting "test"
posts to usenet! A riot, isn't it?
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> freemont wrote:
>
>> What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
>> bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>
> Prove that I make any claims that the person was posting from a script.
> You have no proof.
What you fail to see is that what /freemont/ writes is totally irrelevant;
it is *how* he writes it that matters. /Dan/ has tried tot tell you that -
albeit in the heat of the flamewar between the two of you - by saying that
it was sarcasm. Indeed Matt, /freemont/ is only yanking your chain by
duplicating some of that stuff in your own style that you've already
scattered over the Usenet in the last few years.
Now I have certainly had my issues with you and I even had you /killfiled/ -
as I reformatted everything when I installed Mandrake 10.0 (due to a
different partition layout) I currently don't have any /killfilters/ set
up, nor do I wish to go through the trouble of doing that since this
install is only temporary anyway - but I don't like it when people are
bullying or provoking others. And that *is* what is going on here right
now, although you're probably the only one who doesn't see it - which makes
the situation even worse in my opinion, and that's why I chose to vent my
opinion on the matters here and now.
I can't say that you haven't really warranted any such reactions. Your
hostile behavior in the past - you even went so far as to stalk me and
attempt to discredit me in /comp.os.linux.advocacy,/ you've accused me of
lots of ludicrous and untruthful things in the past, you've even reacted in
a hostile and totally misunderstanding way not too long ago when I actually
said something to your defense in another even so ridiculous flamewar
between you and several others on this newsgroup, and you also appear to be
stalking /Bit/ /Twister/ - have all brought this upon you. But there has
to be a limit to everything, and I don't necessarily believe in "an eye for
an eye".
Enough is enough, and you guys could go on forever flaming eachother, only
to cool down for a few weeks or months, until the next occasion arises to
have a go at eachother's throat again, but it does nothing else than make
fools out of you and fill up the Google archives with mroe useless drivel.
As far as your spelling goes, I have said it before and I will repeat it
once more: you sound intelligent enough in many posts - you actually
retained your calm for a long time in this thread eventhough everyone could
already see for days that /freemont/ was trying to paraphrase your "writing
style" from the occasions where you go off the deep end (and you already
resorted to that again elsewhere in this thread, I see) - so that
corroborates what I've said about your spelling and grammar earlier.
You obviously are afflicted with dyslexia, albeit that it's still in a very
mild form compared to some of my friends here, and they're not dumb either.
Having dyslexia is not a shame. My brother's daughter has it too and she's
a very intelligent girl. Therefore, your spelling and grammar may warrant
a funny and harmless remark here and there, but they are no grounds to
bully you on. Nothing is ever a ground to bully someone on, ever, period.
On the other hand, if you were to get off your high horse and try looking at
yourself with the criticism required to remain humble, you would see that
you are by far not without flaw, and that your previous outbursts in this
and other newsgroups, your false accusations/allegations against people,
your habit of stalking them and of digging up horses already beaten to
death hundreds of years ago are all what have gotten you into this trouble
in the first place.
It is only because I detected the injustice in people attacking you over
your spelling and of attempting to yank your chain by duplicating your own
writing style - which you didn't even see! - that I chose to address you in
this thread. In my humble opinion, this was uncalled for. But at the same
time, /Bit/ /Twister's/ somewhat pedantic reply to a "test" post - and your
even so pedantic reply to his reply - were what got this going.
People should learn how to think about themselves a bit more, rather than to
rush out to manifest their egos at the first occasion they get. I'm saying
this to you as well as to everyone else.
Just my two cents worth of unbiased opinion. You are free to yours, and you
are free to disregard anything I say. Just don't come back later telling
me that I never told you so.
<getting off my beer case again>
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
left_coast
> On Monday 09 October 2006 21:05, left_coast stood up and addressed the
> masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
>
>> freemont wrote:
>>
>>> What if they post the TEST using a SCRIPT from a FILE without PROOF?????
>>> bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>>
>> Prove that I make any claims that the person was posting from a script.
>> You have no proof.
>
> What you fail to see is that what /freemont/ writes is totally irrelevant;
> it is *how* he writes it that matters. /Dan/ has tried tot tell you that
Bwhahahahahahahah, you take ME that seriously???????????
Bwahahahahahahahahajh
I'm having a laugh at freemont's, Dan C.'s and YOUR expense. I posted a
simple TRUTH about test messages and freemont started to try to harass me
with meaningless nonsense. I was simply seeing how long he would go on and
how idiotic he would get. You and Dan are too stupid to see that! Count how
many people are jumping all over me, it's a RIOT! Bwahahahahahahahhaha,
GOTCHA.
<snipped a bunch of drivel from someone hooked and landed>
Just how much will the trolls like freemont attack me for posting a TRUE
message about test posts? bwahahahahahahahha
left_coast
> <getting off my beer case again>
You really should stay OFF the beer.
left_coast
> Your
> hostile behavior in the past
Mine???????? GFR. I posted the TRUTH about test messages, that it is a
matter of netiquette, NOT a matter of technical failure and look at how
much I get attacked for TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!
You need to get over your petty prejudices and start dealing with REALITY,
buddy.
freemont
> Enough is enough, and you guys could go on forever flaming eachother, only
Ok, ok, ok. I'll leave him alone. ;-) bwahahah... *cough* *cough* *hack*
left_coast
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:05:12 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> Enough is enough, and you guys could go on forever flaming eachother,
>> only
>
> Ok, ok, ok. I'll leave him alone. ;-) bwahahah... *cough* *cough* *hack*
>
Yeah, because you LOST.
left_coast
<snip>
BTW, please put me back in your killfile, I quite listening to your pompous
lecturing a LONG TIME AGO. Evidently you feel you are god's gift to usenet
and are anointed to lecture everyone regardless of how disconnected from
the truth you are. You lecture me about being hostile but act as if Dan C.
is not hostile at all, in fact you reference what he says! Your selective
morality labels you as just another selfrighteous zealot that really is not
worth listing or reading. I know you will never believe what I have to say,
you are too busy spewing massive volumes of pompous drivel to listen to
apposing views.
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> Your hostile behavior in the past [...]
>
> Mine???????? GFR. I posted the TRUTH about test messages, that it is a
> matter of netiquette, NOT a matter of technical failure and look at how
> much I get attacked for TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!
>
> You need to get over your petty prejudices and start dealing with REALITY,
> buddy.
I wasn't referring to your replies about test messages. I have no comments
about those.
What I was referring to goes back a much longer way, although it does keep
surfacing here and there on occasion, i.e. your tendency to always come out
the winner of any debate, even at the expense of twisting the truth or
twisting what other people have said/done to suit your case. That, and
your paranoia, of course.
_Note:_ I am not trying to start a flamewar with you. I was in fact trying
to end the flamewar in progress.
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> <getting off my beer case again>
>
> You really should stay OFF the beer.
I normally don't consume alcoholic beverages, except once or twice a year.
But thanks for the advice anyway. <sarcastic grin>
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> What you fail to see is that what /freemont/ writes is totally
>> irrelevant; it is *how* he writes it that matters. /Dan/ has tried tot
>> tell you that
>
> Bwhahahahahahahah, you take ME that seriously???????????
> Bwahahahahahahahahajh
People with Asperger's Syndrome - such as myself - do take everyone
seriously, yes. It's our only available option for assessing a social
situation. And I still believe that I was on target there.
> I'm having a laugh at freemont's, Dan C.'s and YOUR expense.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. You're just saying that to cover yourself
up for the fact that you were offended by this thread - I know I would be
if I were in your shoes.
And besides, why would you have a laugh at *my* expense - as you say - when
I wasn't even involved in the thread to begin with? For all you knew, I
could just as easily have reinstated all my /killfilters/ after I installed
this machine with MDK 10.0.
> I posted a simple TRUTH about test messages and freemont started to try to
> harass me with meaningless nonsense.
Despite your pedantic tone in the follow-up to Bit Twister's also somewhat
pedantic reply to the test message, there was indeed nothing wrong with
your post about the test message. It only showed that you deliberately or
undeliberately misinterpret Bit Twister's mildly sarcastic standard reply
to everyone who posts a "test" post to this group, but even if you
purposely misinterpreted Bit Twister's reply, then there's still nothing
wrong with that, since you are welcome to having a different opinion. Not
to spite Bit Twister, but as far as I know he's neither a NetCop, nor the
moderator of this newsgroup.
Freemont did indeed post "meaningless nonsense" as a follow-up to your post,
and this is what I was trying to make clear to you. He was doing an
impersonation of *you.* In my humble opinion, this impersonation was quite
amusing and could be construed as somewhat of an attempt of confronting you
with yourself, but in my just as humble opinion, it was unwarranted at that
particular moment. And as I tried to explain to you, *this* - and my firm
belief that you _were_ actually falling for the _content_ of what he wrote,
rather than for the _way_ he wrote it - is the sole reason why I chose to
intervene.
I'm not choosing sides. I'm just trying to be fair to everyone, including
you. I would be a very bad human being if I were to close my eyes whenever
I feel there's something unjust going on, and being afflicted with
Asperger's Syndrome, I have a somewhat compulsive-obsessive drive to
correct injustice when it lies within my ability to do so.
> I was simply seeing how long he would go on and how idiotic he would get.
> You and Dan are too stupid to see that!
While this is a plausible explanation, I beg to differ. I believe that you
did indeed not see through it - at least, not from Freemont's first reply
to you on - and that's one of the two things that made it unfair in my
opinion, the other thing - I seem to keep on repeating myself - being that
I felt that he was attacking you when it was uncalled for. Or perhaps I
should say: more than was required. He could just as easily have
criticized your point of view in a more civilized manner - which is what I
would have done, were I feel the need to give my opinion on test posts -
yet he chose to provoke you.
> Count how many people are jumping all over me, it's a RIOT!
Now *that* is something I agree with.
Aragorn
masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
> BTW, please put me back in your killfile, I quite listening to your
> pompous lecturing a LONG TIME AGO. Evidently you feel you are god's gift
> to usenet and are anointed to lecture everyone regardless of how
> disconnected from the truth you are.
While you couldn't be any farther from the truth about me there with that
above statement, I do see where this is coming from. Once again, I must
emphasize - and I know that some here will be bored by my bringing it up
again - that I have Asperger's Syndrome, and that coming across as "pompous
little professors" is something very typical of Aspies.
Yet it is a total misconstruction of our intentions or motives. It is my
experience that people often think of a person as being "pompous" when said
person shows signs of high intellect or eloquence, and I don't wish to brag
but I know that I posses both. I am however most likely to be the last
person in the world whom you - or anyone else for that matter - could
justly call arrogant. My mind simply doesn't work that way.
My brain works much more like a computer, in fact. I'm not sure whether
you're familiar with the Vulcans on the various "Star Trek" series and
movies, but I'm very much like them. I do not think in terms of my ego,
but in terms of logic, order and harmony. Like a computer, indeed. And if
not a Vulcan - although Vulcans do have emotions, and so do I - then
perhaps maybe more like Lt. Commander Data on "Star Trek: The Next
Generation".
To me, ego manifestations are senseless wastes of time, intended to feel
better about oneself - I could also correctly spell it as "one's self" in
this context - at the expense of someone else, or in an attempt to
intimidate the other person. It's like dogs barking at eachother, or a
showdown between a herd of gnus and a lion on the African savanna.
Human beings are blessed with the ability to reason, and thus such animal
behavior - although present in the part of our brain that we call the
cerebellum (or otherwise known as "the reptile brain") - is therefore
obsolete. For many humans, who are still very much in touch with their
cerebellum instincts - ego manifestations are an easy resort. For me, they
are illogical, senseless and irrelevant.
> You lecture me about being hostile but act as if Dan C. is not hostile at
> all, in fact you reference what he says! Your selective morality labels
> you as just another selfrighteous zealot that really is not worth listing
> or reading.
I have indeed dereferenced Dan C's comment that it was sarcasm, although I
also only selected _that_ part of what he said - since it was obviously
true. This does however by no means imply that I agreed with the rest of
what he wrote, as usual.
Perhaps you've also missed the thread not too long ago where Dan C and
myself had a serious off-topic disagreement about US world politics and
George W. Bush, which got nasty enough for me to decide to abandon the
thread. It was not that Dan had proved me wrong, but that I felt that it
had no use trying to convince him when he was very obviously headstrong
about his Republican and anti-European convictions.
Either way, the above is just all to show you that I don't necessarily have
to agree with Dan C on everything - especially not about his hostility
towards some posters, although I must admit that every once in a while,
it's actually justifed - just because I use one simple phrase from a post
that he made.
This whole thread is a pure example of escalation. A guy posts a test
message. Bit Twister replies to it with his standard funny and friendly
yet somewhat pedantic reply. You disagree with Bit Twister and you post a
slightly more pedantic reply. Freemont starts making fun of you. Dan C
jumps in on the thread.
He accused me of taking a cheap and opportunistic shotat President Bush in
the thread I spoke of earlier - note to Dan: No Dan, I'm not going to go
there again, albeit that I hope you've been following the news lately - but
jumping in on this thread after Freemont had chosen to provoke you is just
as cheap and opportunistic in my book - even more so, because I still do
not agree with my comments about Bush having been opportunistic. Cheap?
Well, maybe it was on sale... <grin>
The bottom line is that I'm not a zealot, that I'm not selfrighteous - nor
pompous for that matter - and that I certainly don't have any selective
morality. I always try to treat everyone with equal prejudice. Had that
not been the case, then I would not even have jumped in on this thread, now
would I have?
I could just as easily have butted in and taken a cheap shot at you, just
like the rest. I chose not to. Being afflicted with autism, I was bullied
in school - I believe I've already documented that quite elaborately on
Usenet - and as the matter of fact, I only got a call just yesterday from a
guy who used to be in my class group all throughout highschool, inquiring
about whether I was coming to the reunion on the last Saturday of October -
it's been 25 years now since we all graduated from highschool - and while
he was one of the guys I never had any problems with, I explained to him in
short why I have never attended any highschool reunion so far, and why I do
not intend to ever show up there again if I can help it.
With my past as a bully victim, the phonecall from that guy and the
highschool's invitation letter from about a week ago all still freshly in
mind, together with the fact that I don't take too kindly upon bullying, I
just felt that I needed to step in.
> I know you will never believe what I have to say, you are too busy spewing
> massive volumes of pompous drivel to listen to apposing views.
That is not true, and now *you* are the one taking an unwarranted shot at
*me* here. If what you say is true, then who would I be to disagree with
you, and why would I feel a need to?
Arguing for the sake of arguing is an ego manifestation, Matt. It's
childish, and I don't play that game. In fact, I don't play _any_ such
games.
It's pointless, like _every_ war.
left_coast
> On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:13, left_coast stood up and addressed the
> masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
>
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> What you fail to see is that what /freemont/ writes is totally
>>> irrelevant; it is *how* he writes it that matters. /Dan/ has tried tot
>>> tell you that
>>
>> Bwhahahahahahahah, you take ME that seriously???????????
>> Bwahahahahahahahahajh
>
> People with Asperger's Syndrome - such as myself - do take everyone
> seriously, yes. It's our only available option for assessing a social
> situation. And I still believe that I was on target there.
>
But you were lecturing me not to take freemont seriously! Evidently
your "Asperger's Syndrome" is very selective. You can tall freemont is not
serious but not me. what a bunch of BS. If you take everyone seriously you
have no business trying to say that freemont is not to be taken seriously
while taking me seriously. Your excuses do not match your actions. It is
time to stop insulting people then hiding behind "Asperger's Syndrome" when
they call you on your BS.
I resent that you do not respect the limitations of "Asperger's Syndrome"
enough to realize that you may not want to lecture someone when you can not
tell if they are SERIOUS or NOT. SAME ON YOU. I have many people with
disabilities and all of them would be insulted by your behavior.
Sorry, but your selective morality and selective "Asperger's Syndrome" make
it impossible to respect anything you say.
left_coast
> On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:13, left_coast stood up and addressed the
> masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
>
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> <getting off my beer case again>
>>
>> You really should stay OFF the beer.
>
> I normally don't consume alcoholic beverages, except once or twice a year.
> But thanks for the advice anyway. <sarcastic grin>
Too bad this must have been one of those times you drank. You can take me
seriously while you don't take freemont seriously, rather SELECTIVE
disability you have. But I guess it gives you a great level of security
that you can lecture anyone you want and hide behind Asperger's Syndrome
eh? If you take everyone seriously, you should refrain from pompous
lectures on behavior.
left_coast
>> You need to get over your petty prejudices and start dealing with
>> REALITY, buddy.
>
> I wasn't referring to your replies about test messages.
Yeah right, you just wanted to do one of your pompous lectures even though
you claim you can't tell if I am to be taken seriously how argent of you.
> I have no
> comments about those.
That is what this thread is all about. So, you just wanted to do one of your
pompous lectures. Make you feel like a man when you lecture people on
behavior when you claim you can only take them seriously????? If you truly
suffer from something that makes it so you can only take people seriously,
you should refrain from lecturing them on behavior. You should also refrain
from telling them not to take someone else seriously, it sort of blows your
creditability.
left_coast
> While you couldn't be any farther from the truth about me there with that
> above statement,
Ahhh, I see you can dish out criticism but you CAN NOT TAKE IT. It is very
true from my point of view. Saying you take everyone seriously while not
taking freemont seriously. Your credibility is ZERO.
left_coast
> bringing it up
> again - that I have Asperger's Syndrome,
Correction: should read "hiding behind Asperger's Syndrome again"· You have
the ability to not take freemont seriously, so I simply do not believe that
you lack that ability with ME.
left_coast
> It is my
> experience that people often think of a person as being "pompous" when
> said person shows signs of high intellect or eloquence,
GET FUCKING REAL. You can't even tell if they are being serious! If you
can't ever distinguish if they are joking, how can you be sure of their
true motives?????
left_coast
> It is my
> experience that people often think of a person as being "pompous" when
> said person shows signs of high intellect or eloquence, and I don't wish
> to brag but I know that I posses both.
It is MY experience that pompous people are so arrogant that they refuse to
accept criticism from anyone and have a very skewed view of their own
experience, intellect and eloquence.
Chris
> Too bad this must have been one of those times you drank. You can take me
> seriously while you don't take freemont seriously, rather SELECTIVE
> disability you have. But I guess it gives you a great level of security
> that you can lecture anyone you want and hide behind Asperger's Syndrome
> eh? If you take everyone seriously, you should refrain from pompous
> lectures on behavior.
Speaking as someone else with Asperger's, Aragorn /can/ effectively lecture
us all on behaviour - it's part of the Syndrome to be pedantically accurate
and unwaveringly impartial (sufferers view everybody equally /at/ /first/
until they /really/ show their true colours!).
Bizarrely, it /is/ actually selective. In the Real World, I'm an
electronics engineer, and my Asperger's gives me an eidetic memory - I have
a /selectively/ photographic memory facility - I can accurately remember
circuit designs I worked on 20 or more years ago, and re-draw them
completely, including component values, with 100% accuracy.
It's a really weird ability, and it also works with maps - my Wife says
she's always astonished that I "always know the way", no matter where we're
going!
This persistent complaint about "Test" posts has become tedious. Yes -
we're all aware that "Test" posts are poor netiquette, and we're even more
aware that flaming uninformed users is an even worse breach of netiquette.
This silly flamewar really ought to stop - it will discourage new visitors
to this newsgroup.
We should /all/ get on with helping one another when our chosen FOSS doesn't
work as advertised and presenting a united front to the world to show that
there /really/ is a *cohesive* *open* and *free* *software* *movement* and
that we're not all high-tech types - it will further encourage the take up
of FOSS.
Chris