Lies of the mayor of nothing and nowhere
Jim Polaski
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.ne
t!attbi_s71.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Apple Caught Stealing Again
Organization: City of R'lyeh
Message-ID: <b3b9h19oapcjkp86i...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.202.72.86
X-Complaints-To: ab...@asp.att.net
X-Trace: attbi_s71 1125428356 12.202.72.86 (Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:59:16
GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:59:16 GMT
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:59:16 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1163152
Check to make sure your wallet is still where it should be. Apple's
taking anything thats not bolted down these days.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Creative_Threatens_Apple_with_UI_Patent/1
125404963
Cuss, discuss and make up reasons why its ok when Apple does it.
--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
Jim Polaski
---------
I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
are outright lies.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Snit
jpolaski-62061E...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/31/05 12:29 PM:
> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>
> Jim Polaski
>
> ---------
> I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
> are outright lies.
Ahhh, he is sinking to Carrollesque levels. Of course, there are folks who
freak out when you react to such trolling:
1) Steve authored an admission:
I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring
elizabot... what of it?
2) Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me:
" - Snit"
3) I have quoted Steve's admission:
4) I have not, always, quoted Steve's dishonest attribution to me.
And this makes Wally turn purple with rage. What makes the trolls think
that people will be dumb enough to believe their BS?
--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... what
of it?" - Steve Carroll
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Dave Fritzinger
Just out of interest, did you ever say something similar? Is it
possible that he "quote-mined" something you said, pulling his sig
quote out of context? It is still dishonest, but it would then be a sin
of omission, rather than a sin of commission. Quote mining is something
that creationists like Clyde do on a regular basis.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
> jpolaski-62061E...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/31/05 12:29 PM:
>
> > "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
> >
> > Jim Polaski
> >
> > ---------
> > I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
> > are outright lies.
>
> Ahhh, he is sinking to Carrollesque levels. Of course, there are folks who
> freak out when you react to such trolling:
>
> 1) Steve authored an admission:
>
> I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring
> elizabot... what of it?
Yet you can't seem to post any proof of this claim - other than a post YOU made
with the line shown above. How typical.
>
> 2) Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me:
>
> " - Snit"
>
> 3) I have quoted Steve's admission:
>
> 4) I have not, always, quoted Steve's dishonest attribution to me.
>
> And this makes Wally turn purple with rage. What makes the trolls think
> that people will be dumb enough to believe their BS?
--
Tim
Mayor Of R'lyeh
If its a lie, Jim, its one you told. That's a direct quote from you.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
If its a lie, Jim, its one you told. That's a direct quote from you.
--
Dave Fritzinger
The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
Elizabot v2.0.2
>
> The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
> context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
> did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
> omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?dmode=source&hl=en
Polaski to Mayor:
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Dave Fritzinger
Elizabot v2.0.2 wrote:
> Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>
> >
> > The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
> > context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
> > did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
> > omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> Polaski to Mayor:
>
> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
> bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
> reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
> knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
>
So, Clyde did take a quote out of context. Indeed, he even had to chop
up a sentence to get the quote to read as he wished. Clyde again proves
that he is a liar. And Clyde sinks even lower in my opinion...
Thanks, Ebot
Jim Polaski
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dave, I guess I'm one of those who mostly doesn't "trim" things just for
reasons like this. That said, often in the past, the mayor of nothing
and nowhere has rearranged what I've posted creating was would be a lie
because he manipulated the original post. So, while nothing new, it's
more blatant even for him.
It only points to what a weasel he really is and with a streak of
fundamental dishonesty at a basic level which is often driven by his
bias and ego. Sad really.
Jim Polaski
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>
> >
> > The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
> > context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
> > did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
> > omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?dmod
> e=source&hl=en
>
> Polaski to Mayor:
>
> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
> bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
> reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
> knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
Thanks Liz...saved me the time and trouble.
Evidence is great, isn't it!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
> jpolaski-62061E...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/31/05 12:29 PM:
>
> > "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
> >
> > Jim Polaski
> >
> > ---------
> > I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
> > are outright lies.
>
> Ahhh, he is sinking to
... the tactics you employ on an hourly basis? Yes, we know.
(Snit's delusions snipped)
--
"I do not condone illegal downloading of music. I do not, however,
exaggerate the crime by calling it theft" - Snit
"I hate the fact that the shoes I buy are made with child
labor in sweat shops" - Snit
Snit
1125521584.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 8/31/05 1:53 PM:
>> --
>> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>>
>> Jim Polaski
>>
>> ---------
>> I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>> are outright lies.
>
> If its a lie, Jim, its one you told. That's a direct quote from you.
But it was in reference to Macs being able to be carriers for Windows
viruses... your snipping certainly does not reflect that.
A couple questions:
Was the original, in your mind, a trolling comment? If so, can you justify
that? If you are merely mocking a trolling statement then I have no real
problem with your actions. It does not appear that way, however - more
likely you are merely being a dishonest troll yourself.
--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... what
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1125521584.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 8/31/05 1:53 PM:
>
> >> --
> >> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
> >>
> >> Jim Polaski
> >>
> >> ---------
> >> I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
> >> are outright lies.
> >
> > If its a lie, Jim, its one you told. That's a direct quote from you.
>
> But it was in reference to Macs being able to be carriers for Windows
> viruses... your snipping certainly does not reflect that.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Was the original, in your mind, a trolling comment? If so, can you justify
> that? If you are merely mocking a trolling statement then I have no real
> problem with your actions. It does not appear that way, however - more
> likely you are merely being a dishonest troll yourself.
Sure... just like you are being by pretending that I admitted to posting
as sigmond with your sig below;)
>
>
> --
> "I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... what
> of it?" - Steve Carroll
--
"I do not condone illegal downloading of music. I do not, however,
exaggerate the crime by calling it theft" - Snit (Mr. Politically correct)
"I hate the fact that the shoes I buy are made with child
labor in sweat shops" -Snit (Mr. Politically correct)
"You have stated you are happy taking feminine roles in society
(being a house husband)" - Snit (Mr. Politically correct)
NashtOn
Are you that desperate to resort to such tactics, demagogue?
Nicolas
NashtOn
Funny how you frequently make references to purely Christian notions
when you consistently downplay anything religious.
Why is that?
Nicolas
NashtOn
> In article <11hc7r3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
>>>context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
>>>did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
>>>omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?dmod
>>e=source&hl=en
>>
>>Polaski to Mayor:
>>
>>"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
>>bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
>>reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
>>knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
>
>
> Thanks Liz...saved me the time and trouble.
>
> Evidence is great, isn't it!
>
Getting old and lonely and relying on premarin isn't;)
Nicolas
Dave Fritzinger
WTF are you talking about? When I saw that quote from Clyde, I figured
he had lied. I just wanted to find out what kind of lie it was. Ebot
did the work, and found out that Clyde truly did lie. I'm not sure
where you are coming from, however.
As far as the creationist quote mining tactic, look here for evidence
of what I am talking about:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
If you do a search on "creationist quote mining" on the talkorigins.org
site, you will get many other examples.
Dave Fritzinger
Nicky, I try not to talk about religion much at all. Now, talking about
evolution and creationism isn't really talking about religion, since
evolution is science. AFAIAC, religion is a private matter, and I tend
not to bring it up. What I will do is mention hypocrisy, where someone
who claims to be a Christian lies.
>
> Why is that?
See above...
Mike Dee
news:BF3B5463.2C09A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> Ahhh, he is sinking to
Your level :(
You do nothing but troll and spam this NG, Snitzle.
--
dee
NashtOn
Right.
And the notion of sin, Dave, isn't within the sphere of religion?
I see another one went woooosh over your head.
Nicolas
Steve Carroll
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
Actually, it went over yours:
"What I will do is mention hypocrisy, where someone who claims to be a
Christian lies."
--
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the
records." - Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
> jpolaski-62061E...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/31/05 12:29 PM:
>
>> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>>
>> Jim Polaski
>>
>> ---------
>> I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>> are outright lies.
>
> Ahhh, he is sinking to Carrollesque levels. Of course, there are folks who
> freak out when you react to such trolling:
>
> 1) Steve authored an admission:
>
> I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring
> elizabot... what of it?
>
> 2) Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me:
>
> " - Snit"
>
> 3) I have quoted Steve's admission:
>
> 4) I have not, always, quoted Steve's dishonest attribution to me.
>
> And this makes Wally turn purple with rage. What makes the trolls think
> that people will be dumb enough to believe their BS?
>
Perhaps any "rage" will vapourise when you can explain how his comment can
be a quote attributed to you, yet at the same time be an admission from him!
There is but one way that I can see, and that would entail you believing you
are, or perhaps wishing that you were indeed Steve Carroll!.....dream on
Snit!
George Graves
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>
> >
> > The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
> > context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
> > did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
> > omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?dmod
> e=source&hl=en
>
> Polaski to Mayor:
>
> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
> bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
> reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
> knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
You're right. I remember that response! What else could it be since
there are NO Mac viruses? Yep, Mayor lies again. Like I said in a number
of posts Clyde is one of the most fundamentally dishonest people I've
ever seen.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
> In article <11hc7r3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Fritzinger wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
> > > context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
> > > did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
> > > omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?dm
> > od
> > e=source&hl=en
> >
> > Polaski to Mayor:
> >
> > "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
> > bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
> > reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
> > knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
>
> Thanks Liz...saved me the time and trouble.
>
> Evidence is great, isn't it!
And Clyde Stoekle, the bumpkin Yokel is BUSTED again. Pray your way out
of this one, O mayor of nowhere and nothing!
Wally
GKrRe.83110$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca, "NashtOn" <na...@na.ca>
wrote:
We will have to take your word for that....won't we?
Alan Baker
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And the answer (of course; did anyone really doubt that Clyde would be
lying?) is that it *is* taken out of context.
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. The
article reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any
understanding knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows
based Virus."
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacef
b?hl=en&>
This was Jim talking about how Windows viruses get emailed to his Mac.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Mayor of R'lyeh
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <11hc7r3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
>> > context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
>> > did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
>> > omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?dmod
>> e=source&hl=en
>>
>> Polaski to Mayor:
>>
>> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
>> bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
>> reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
>> knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
>
>Thanks Liz...saved me the time and trouble.
>
>Evidence is great, isn't it!
It sure is. There's all the evidence anyone needs to know that its a
direct quote from you.
--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
Jim Polaski
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
>Dave Fritzinger wrote:
Fritzinger the Fraud doesn't belief in sin. That's how he sleeps at
night knowing that by taking money away from real rersearchers he's
killing people.
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
>Dave Fritzinger wrote:
The amazing thing is that he's got the full post to look at in this
very thread and he still claims I'm lying. I guess once you go over to
evil so far that you don't mind killing people for money you lose
track of truth and lies.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<fret...@comcast.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
Where's the lie?
Mayor of R'lyeh
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
LOL! As if you calling anyone dishonest means anything. You want to
talk about dishonest, Jimbob? How about your constant whining about me
altering posts and you leaving out the facts that I only did it to you
and only after you started altering mine? Or is lying like a rug ok
when you do it?
You're nothing but a double standarded lying loonietune, Jim. You and
Fritzinger the Fraud make a nice couple. There's not a decent bone in
either of your bodies.
Jim Lee Jr.
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fritzinger the Fraud doesn't belief in sin. That's how he sleeps at
> night knowing that by taking money away from real rersearchers he's
> killing people.
The correct spellings are believe and researchers.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<peejs...@insightbb.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>In article <7nvch1plo5tf3rd0r...@4ax.com>,
The correct spellings are 'Its getting harder and harder to tell you
and Snit apart.'
David Fritzinger
So, caught lying, Clyde decides to lie some more. Why is that, Clyde?
And, why is it that one of the persons who claims to be a Christian is,
perhaps, the biggest liar on the group?
Give it up, Clyde. You are busted, again.
Snit
BF3C8953.5EA1%wa...@wally.world.net on 8/31/05 7:32 PM:
> On 1/9/05 3:34 AM, in article BF3B5463.2C09A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
>> jpolaski-62061E...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/31/05 12:29 PM:
>>
>>> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>>>
>>> Jim Polaski
>>>
>>> ---------
>>> I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>>> are outright lies.
>>
>> Ahhh, he is sinking to Carrollesque levels. Of course, there are folks who
>> freak out when you react to such trolling:
>>
>> 1) Steve authored an admission:
>>
>> I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring
>> elizabot... what of it?
>>
>> 2) Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me:
>>
>> " - Snit"
>>
>> 3) I have quoted Steve's admission:
>>
>> 4) I have not, always, quoted Steve's dishonest attribution to me.
>>
>> And this makes Wally turn purple with rage. What makes the trolls think
>> that people will be dumb enough to believe their BS?
>>
>
> Perhaps any "rage" will vapourise when you can explain how his comment can
> be a quote attributed to you, yet at the same time be an admission from him!
Steve wrote an admission. Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
Steve has admitted he dishonestly attributed his admission to me. These
facts are not in contention... other than some trolls have wanted to
re-categorize his admission as a non-admission. When a statement starts
with "I did", and continues to comment on wrong doing, it is clearly an
admission. You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
his admission to me, but also lied in making the admission at all... but
being that Steve has again, recently, been caught posting as Sigmond that
would be a very, very hard position for you to support.
> There is but one way that I can see, and that would entail you believing you
> are, or perhaps wishing that you were indeed Steve Carroll!.....dream on
> Snit!
Actually, Steve has both accused me of being CSMA moderator *and* stated he
wishes he was CSMA Moderator. Steve has made it clear he wishes he was me.
Then again, Steve has also made it clear that he commits the sins he
imagines others commit against him... he has a very bad case of victim
mentality - so bad he will think he is a victim when I point out how he has
admitted this.
--
"I AM married" -- Steve Carroll
"I stated I was unmarried" -- Steve Carroll
Snit
Xns96C46C65...@213.155.197.138 on 8/31/05 5:40 PM:
How do you categorize your trolling and spamming here? How do you
categorize your lie when you dishonestly stated:
"it was you that went to the police _well before_ eBot began threatening to
go to them."
Funny how you point fingers at me but cannot point to *any* support of your
claim, yet it is easy to show support that your accusation applies to you.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
David Fritzinger
Umm, no it didn't. I clearly stated that I don't often talk about
religion. Oh, and when are you going to tell us why Archy isn't a
transitional fossil?
Now, I must take my leave. I am off to NJ for a vacation (I know, that
sounds strange, Hawaii to NJ for a vacation, but there is family there),
as well as a trip to Germany to present results at an international
meeting. Do you hear that, Clyde? Since during most of my trip, I will
only have dial-up internet access, I probably won't frequent the
newsgroups much. See you on 9/18.
David Fritzinger
Our lying Clyde is apparently too stupid to realize that there are lies
of omission as well as lies of commission. When you take a quote out of
context, changing its meaning by leaving out the rest of the quote, that
is a lie of omission. It too is a lie, Clyde.
Of course I know why you hate me so, Clyde. I point out your constant
stupidity and lying ways. And, yet, you call yourself a Christian. That
is, apparently, another lie on your part.
Snit
1125521584.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 8/31/05 1:53 PM:
>> --
>> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>>
>> Jim Polaski
>>
>> ---------
>> I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>> are outright lies.
>
> If its a lie, Jim, its one you told. That's a direct quote from you.
But it was in reference to Macs being able to be carriers for Windows
viruses... your snipping certainly does not reflect that.
A couple questions:
Was the original, in your mind, a trolling comment? If so, can you justify
that? If you are merely mocking a trolling statement then I have no real
problem with your actions. It does not appear that way, however - more
likely you are merely being a dishonest troll yourself.
--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... what
of it?" - Steve Carroll
David Fritzinger
Aww!!!! Poor Clyde. He gets busted yet again. Yes, Clyde, George got it
right. You are one of the most dishonest people on this group. And, yet,
you are a big enouugh hypocrite to call yourself a Christian.
BTW, Clyde, the difference between you and me (thank God for the
differences) is that you have to make up shit to get anything on me,
while I just have to observe your behavior on this newsgroup.
8^)
And, no, I'll not be able to answer you now, so have at it. I am off on
vacation and to present my results at an international meeting. Since I
won't have broadband internet access during most of this trip, I
probably won't be spending much time here. But, you made my day by
getting *sooooooo* busted, again.
LOL
George Graves
It's you against everybody else, Clyde. EVERYONE notices your
dishonesty. Deny it all you want to, but people are on to you.
> You're nothing but a double standarded lying loonietune, Jim. You and
> Fritzinger the Fraud make a nice couple. There's not a decent bone in
> either of your bodies.
Says the Lying Christian.
George Graves
George Graves
David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
An ironic one, at that.
Mike Dee
news:BF3BE0EC.2C1C7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> How do you categorize your trolling and spamming here? How do you
> categorize your lie when you dishonestly stated:
>
> "it was you that went to the police _well before_ eBot began
> threatening to go to them."
Errm, because you did?
Who knows how your fuzzy logic of an excuse for a brain works, Snitzle?
I don't pretend to. You have a reading disorder? That's not my problem.
--
dee
Mike Dee
news:BF3BE072.2C1C6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
>
> Actually, Steve has both accused me of being CSMA moderator *and*
> stated he wishes he was CSMA Moderator. Steve has made it clear
> he wishes he was me.
It amuses me to see how you costantly put two+two together and end up
with minus one.
--
dee
Snit
Holy Cow! After all this time you still hold to your lie. I look forward
to your support... which, of course, will never, ever come. Not in a
million years. You simply cannot argue against the Google record:
Jan 25, 2004 - http://snipurl.com/hagj
Elizabot tracked me down to my home city and threatened to
make false allegations to my local police about me.
Feb 25, 2004 - http://snipurl.com/hagk
I made comments in CSMA about having reported her actions
to the police
Oct 11, 2004 - http://snipurl.com/hagm
Elizabot threatens to call my local police with made up
allegations of phone calls she has since admitted did
not have anything to do with me
Aug 27, 2005 - http://snipurl.com/hagn
Mike Dee dishonestly claims, "it was you that went to the
police _well before_ eBot began threatening to go to them."
All it takes, Mike, is you showing where I talked about having gone to the
police about anything Elizabot did before her threat on Jan 25, 2004. Good
luck - you will need it, being that your claim is 100% incorrect.
--
"I'M NOT DONE WITH YOU YET! BEND OVER AGAIN! I'LL GO GET MY
STRAP-ON FOR ANOTHER ROUND OF THE GOOD OLE' IN AND OUT!" - Elizabot
Snit
You will next explain why you think I am wrong.
Oh, wait - no you will not. You are simply not capable of reasoned
thought... but you will respond with trolling and flaming because you are my
little wind up monkey. Clap for me!
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
_________________________________________
Jim Polaski
Klyde, this is but ANOTHER of your lies. I don't change your posts. I
have no reason since I don't have your insatiable bias. Get past this
and admit you're the CSMA liar. Nothing less.
Lying is NOT ok, you seem to think so since you've been caught at it
before and here.
Oh, and you're outnumbered too. Everyone sees what you're doing.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Jim Polaski
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd spend a bit of time reading Elizabot's post if I were you klyde.
providing you can read and comprehend anything, it's pretty plain what
you've done and that is create another lie.
Mayor of R'lyeh
So you deny posting that? No surprise, Jimbob. you never did care for
the truth if it didn't suit your purposes.
--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
Jim Polaski
Mayor of R'lyeh
You just lost any pretense to cliam the moral high ground, Jimbob.
You're lying about that plain and simple.
>Lying is NOT ok, you seem to think so since you've been caught at it
>before and here.
Says one of the biggest liars I've ever come across.
>
>Oh, and you're outnumbered too. Everyone sees what you're doing.
You and Fritzinger the Fraud are making your lying claims. no
surprise. Like I said you two make a good pair. Neither of you have a
clue as to which way decency lies.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
<snip>
>> Perhaps any "rage" will vapourise when you can explain how his comment can
>> be a quote attributed to you, yet at the same time be an admission from him!
>
> Steve wrote an admission.
No! Unless you wish to claim that you know Steve originally had no intention
of enclosing the comment in quotation marks and adding "-Snit", do you? ;=)
> Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
No! He attributed a comment to you! giving the impression that it was *your*
admission! It is your position that the comment Steve posted conveyed the
idea that it was an admission from *both* you and Steve, the simple fact is
that Steve's post conveyed the idea of an admission from you alone....the
other admission was solely in your head!
> Steve has admitted he dishonestly attributed his admission to me. These
> facts are not in contention...
Au contraire! the *only* admission made by Steve was the posting of the
comment *complete* with the attribution to you, do you have another
admission from Steve that you wish to share....and of course I mean a real
one, not one that originated in one of your posts!
> other than some trolls have wanted to
> re-categorize his admission as a non-admission.
You have trolls reorganizing your thoughts?
> When a statement starts
> with "I did", and continues to comment on wrong doing, it is clearly an
> admission.
Really! then explain...I did not steal that loaf of bread.
Let me guess that is an admission that I did not steal......close?
> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
> his admission to me,
There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
> but also lied in making the admission at all...
Had it been his admission then you are right it was probably a lie until
such times as it was attributed to you...that is what you meant?
Is that an admission from you?
<side dishes snipped>
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1125521584.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 8/31/05 1:53 PM:
>
>>> --
>>> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>>>
>>> Jim Polaski
>>>
>>> ---------
>>> I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>>> are outright lies.
>>
>> If its a lie, Jim, its one you told. That's a direct quote from you.
>
> But it was in reference to Macs being able to be carriers for Windows
> viruses... your snipping certainly does not reflect that.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Was the original, in your mind, a trolling comment?
Can you not use your super powers that permit you to see when someone's
comment is actually meant as an admission to determine the answer for
yourself?
How long do those 'episodes' last?
Mike Dee
news:BF3BEDEA.2C1F3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> Holy Cow! After all this time you still hold to your lie. I look
> forward to your support... which, of course, will never, ever
> come. Not in a million years. You simply cannot argue against
> the Google record:
>
> Jan 25, 2004 - http://snipurl.com/hagj
> Elizabot tracked me down to my home city and
> threatened to make false allegations to my local
> police about me.
You are simply fabricating tales about what you think you read.
Elizabot made no threat. She made you a promise. There is a
distinction.
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:41:51 -0700
From: Elizabot <toolittletool...@poo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: An Example Of The Shoddy Work Of George Graves
Message-ID: <401461ff$0$70301$7586...@news.frii.net>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4e839a47a2031e74?dmode=source&hl=en>
<eBot>
You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a
promise.
</eBot>
Which made you poo your pants enough to send you scurrying like the
dickhead you are to the police. Why? because you actually thought
Elizabot might carry out her promise to you and you freaked thinking
your wife would find out what spaz things you get up to in your
spare time (which you obviously have an over abundance of).
From: Snit <s...@nospam-cableone.net>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to deal with obsessive people
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:22:06 -0700
Message-ID: <BC3AEF2E.3B7EC%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3c423b1861c1ff9f?dmode=source&hl=en>
<Snit>
I spoke with my local police department, showed them the posts from
both of us, and asked them what would happen if she were to call
with the false allegations she has alluded to or were to press
charges against me. It turns out I am in no danger from her at this
time...
</Snit>
Note the time stamps on those 2 posts. Approx. 23 hrs apart.
> Feb 25, 2004 - http://snipurl.com/hagk
> I made comments in CSMA about having reported her
> actions to the police
WTF has a Feb 25, 2004 post got to do with validating your [ahem]
argument, Snit? Apart from making it appear to be much longer
between Elizabot's promise to you and your going to the police
because of imagined threats. Typically this is the sneaky
obfuscating tactics you employ in backing up your holier than thou
BS.
Ebot made a promise to you on Jan 25 2004, and you being so wacko,
took it as a threat strong enough to go to the police over, if not
on the 25th, because the very next day, Jan 26 2004, you reported to
CSMA as having *done* just that, as evidenced by your post. It does
Not validate the actual date or time you did go to the police.
Sheesh get a grip or change glue brands or something.
--
dee
NashtOn
Why, there is no lie, just religious kooks that worship Apple and the
Mac, refer to Christian values without even realizing it and pound their
fists on tables declaring that evolution is the holy truth because they
were taught to think in this fashion.
Dave adds a certain je ne sais quoi in the mix, declaring like the
bourgeois he is, in his sig, that he lives in HI as if anybody gives a
rat's a**.
Nicolas
NashtOn
Hmm, I see you've corrected the religious reference (sin) in your statement.
What you fail to realize is that lying (which for the love of me, I
can't see where the Mayor lied here or anywhere else in csma) is
considered ethically wrong because of Judeo-Christian mores and values.
When you take a quote out of
> context, changing its meaning by leaving out the rest of the quote, that
> is a lie of omission. It too is a lie, Clyde.
There are worst things than quoting a Mac freak out of context.
>
> Of course I know why you hate me so, Clyde. I point out your constant
> stupidity and lying ways. And, yet, you call yourself a Christian. That
> is, apparently, another lie on your part.
Actually, hypocrisy is the worst sin, since you seem to abhor anything
derived from Christianity yet it seems to be your ethical and moral
substrate.
For solid evidence, see how you corrected your statement about sins of
omission/commission after having it pointed out to you.
There's still hope for you though, Honolulu Dave.
Nicolas
Snit
> You are simply fabricating tales about what you think you read.
> Elizabot made no threat. She made you a promise. There is a
> distinction.
What threat were you in reference to when you posted your lie:
-----
As much as you fail to mention that it was you that went to
the police _well before_ eBot began threatening to go to them.
-----
<SNIP />
> Which made you poo your pants enough to send you scurrying like the
> dickhead you are to the police. Why? because you actually thought
> Elizabot might carry out her promise to you and you freaked thinking
> your wife would find out what spaz things you get up to in your
> spare time (which you obviously have an over abundance of).
Wow - you can lie with the best... no... the worst of them.
Why not try to support your BS theory there? Being that it is clearly
asinine, you will, of course, do not such thing.
<SNIP />
> Note the time stamps on those 2 posts. Approx. 23 hrs apart.
Ahs - thanks. Good to see I dealt with Elizabot's threat more quickly than
I was able to find a post to show. I certainly did not remember how long it
was before I went to the police, no less posted about it. Good find -
thanks.
But do note, contrary to your dishonest claim (that for some odd reason did
not make it to your reply) this was after Elizabot's threat... not before.
Curious, what threat of Elizabot's were you in reference to when you posted
your lie:
-----
As much as you fail to mention that it was you that went to
the police _well before_ eBot began threatening to go to them.
-----
--
My computer is my main companion and I was talking shit about another person
on my computer and then she made me read her words ON MY COMPUTER IN THE
SAFETY OF MY OWN HOME and she got me very upset! My privacy has been
violated! - Elizabot
NashtOn
I'm done trying to discuss evolution with you.
Suffice it to say that the whole discussion concerning "Archy" is highly
reminiscent of Nebraska Man, the case when an ‘ape-man’ and his whole
family were reconstructed beyond any doubt from a pig’s tooth.
>
> Now, I must take my leave. I am off to NJ for a vacation (I know, that
> sounds strange, Hawaii to NJ for a vacation, but there is family there),
> as well as a trip to Germany to present results at an international
> meeting. Do you hear that, Clyde? Since during most of my trip, I will
> only have dial-up internet access, I probably won't frequent the
> newsgroups much. See you on 9/18.
Evolution is still not your field of expertise and it shows.
I suggest you read Darwin's enigma by Sunderland.
Nicolas
>
Snit
>> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
>> his admission to me,
>
> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
Agreed. Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me. There is no need
to argue against that point, even though in your post you spent an awful
long time doing just that.
--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... what
of it?" - Steve Carroll
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF3CE19A.5EFE%wa...@wally.world.net on 9/1/05 1:49 AM:
>
>>> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
>>> his admission to me,
>>
>> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
>
> Agreed. Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me. There is no need
> to argue against that point, even though in your post you spent an awful
> long time doing just that.
Actually I spent *some* time asking you questions, but you seem to have
'accidentally snipped them!
Let me help you.......
> Steve wrote an admission.
No! Unless you wish to claim that you know Steve originally had no intention
of enclosing the comment in quotation marks and adding "-Snit", do you? ;=)
> Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
No! He attributed a comment to you! giving the impression that it was *your*
admission! It is your position that the comment Steve posted conveyed the
idea that it was an admission from *both* you and Steve, the simple fact is
that Steve's post conveyed the idea of an admission from you alone....the
other admission was solely in your head!
> Steve has admitted he dishonestly attributed his admission to me. These
> facts are not in contention...
Au contraire! the *only* admission made by Steve was the posting of the
comment *complete* with the attribution to you, do you have another
admission from Steve that you wish to share....and of course I mean a real
one, not one that originated in one of your posts!
> other than some trolls have wanted to
> re-categorize his admission as a non-admission.
You have trolls reorganizing your thoughts?
> When a statement starts
> with "I did", and continues to comment on wrong doing, it is clearly an
> admission.
Really! then explain...I did not steal that loaf of bread.
Let me guess that is an admission that I did not steal......close?
> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
> his admission to me,
There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
> but also lied in making the admission at all...
NashtOn
> On 1/9/05 3:34 AM, in article BF3B5463.2C09A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>"Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
>>jpolaski-62061E...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/31/05 12:29 PM:
>>
>>
>>>"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>>>
>>>Jim Polaski
>>>
>>>---------
>>>I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>>>are outright lies.
>>
>>freak out when you react to such trolling:
>>
>>1) Steve authored an admission:
>>
>> I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring
>> elizabot... what of it?
>>
>>
>> " - Snit"
>>
>>3) I have quoted Steve's admission:
>>
>>4) I have not, always, quoted Steve's dishonest attribution to me.
>>
>>And this makes Wally turn purple with rage. What makes the trolls think
>>that people will be dumb enough to believe their BS?
>>
>
>
> Perhaps any "rage" will vapourise when you can explain how his comment can
> be a quote attributed to you, yet at the same time be an admission from him!
> are, or perhaps wishing that you were indeed Steve Carroll!.....dream on
> Snit!
>
You and Carroll need to get a room.
Nicolas
Snit
> On 1/9/05 6:58 PM, in article BF3C2CE2.2C242%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> BF3CE19A.5EFE%wa...@wally.world.net on 9/1/05 1:49 AM:
>>
>>>> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
>>>> his admission to me,
>>>
>>> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
>>
>> Agreed. Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me. There is no need
>> to argue against that point, even though in your post you spent an awful
>> long time doing just that.
>
> Actually I spent *some* time asking you questions, but you seem to have
> 'accidentally snipped them!
We have reached, on the primary issue of this discussion, a place of
agreement:
Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
Beyond that, Wally, your trolling has reached the level of being more boring
that I care to respond to. I am simply not interested in your game here any
longer. Let us end this now that we have agreed my view is the correct one:
Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
You were, for a change, correct when you wrote that there is no reason to
argue with that.
--
>
> Let me help you.......
>
>> Steve wrote an admission.
>
> No! Unless you wish to claim that you know Steve originally had no intention
> of enclosing the comment in quotation marks and adding "-Snit", do you? ;=)
Note your bizarre lack of logic. There is no reason to assume that Steve
did not mean to dishonestly attribute the admission he wrote to me even as
he was writing it.
>
>> Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
>
> No! He attributed a comment to you! giving the impression that it was *your*
> admission! It is your position that the comment Steve posted conveyed the
> idea that it was an admission from *both* you and Steve, the simple fact is
> that Steve's post conveyed the idea of an admission from you alone....the
> other admission was solely in your head!
Note your bizarre lack of logic. There is no reason to assume that Steve
tried to convey they idea that the admission he wrote came from both of us.
He clearly - and dishonestly - tried to attribute his admission to me.
>
>> Steve has admitted he dishonestly attributed his admission to me. These
>> facts are not in contention...
>
> Au contraire! the *only* admission made by Steve was the posting of the
> comment *complete* with the attribution to you, do you have another
> admission from Steve that you wish to share....and of course I mean a real
> one, not one that originated in one of your posts!
Steve has admitted his attribution was dishonest. That is not in
question... even if Steve had continued to insist his lie was a not a lie,
as he generally does, the Google record would not be on his side (it almost
never is!)
>
>> other than some trolls have wanted to
>> re-categorize his admission as a non-admission.
>
> You have trolls reorganizing your thoughts?
You are trying... and failing to.
>
>> When a statement starts
>> with "I did", and continues to comment on wrong doing, it is clearly an
>> admission.
>
> Really!
Yes - barring some silly trolling games such as:
> then explain...I did not steal that loaf of bread.
> Let me guess that is an admission that I did not steal......close?
>
>> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
>> his admission to me,
>
> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
Agreed. Yet you repeatedly question it. What a dishonest little troll you
are!
>
>> but also lied in making the admission at all...
>
> Had it been his admission
Again - who do you think wrote what Steve posted? Of course it was his
admission... he, and he alone, is responsible for what he posts.
> then you are right
I am right about *my* point:
Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
> it was probably a lie until such times as it was attributed to you...that is
> what you meant? Is that an admission from you?
How would my pointing out Steve's actions be an admission from me?
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
UwBRe.83270$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 9/1/05 4:23 AM:
> You and Carroll need to get a room.
I am essentially done playing with Wally... unless he stops trolling me he
is the next to make it to my "ignore" list. Sad, though, being that he has
- unlike Steve and Tim - shown he can also be a reasonable person at times.
When I stop responding to his current round of trolling I will likely still
read his posts for a while. If he actually says something of value I might
respond.
--
I am supposed to be the troll - Wally
Wally
UwBRe.83270$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca, "NashtOn" <na...@na.ca>
wrote:
> You and Carroll need to get a room.
>
> Nicolas
How would you know what anybody ...needs?
--
"My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"
Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> Actually I spent *some* time asking you questions, but you seem to have
>> 'accidentally snipped them!
>
> We have reached, on the primary issue of this discussion, a place of
> agreement:
>
> Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
Wrong ..AGAIN!
"No! He attributed a comment to you! giving the impression that it was
*your* admission! It is your position that the comment Steve posted conveyed
the idea that it was an admission from *both* you and Steve, the simple fact
is that Steve's post conveyed the idea of an admission from you alone....the
other admission was solely in your head!"
--
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> stated in post
> UwBRe.83270$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 9/1/05 4:23 AM:
>
>> You and Carroll need to get a room.
>
> I am essentially done
--
Snit
> On 1/9/05 7:29 PM, in article BF3C3423.2C25A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Actually I spent *some* time asking you questions, but you seem to have
>>> 'accidentally snipped them!
>>
>> We have reached, on the primary issue of this discussion, a place of
>> agreement:
>>
>> Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
>
> Wrong ..AGAIN!
From another post:
-------------------------
-----
>> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
>> his admission to me,
>
> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
-----
Feel free to flip-flop. :)
-------------------------
Alrigthy, Wally... now that you are busy arguing with yourself I will let
you do so without my intervention. Feel free to get the last words in...
just try to not argue to much with yourself. :)
In a week or so I will start reading your posts again. Hopefully by they
you will have moved on from your self debate here.
--
"'You and I have agreed' means that no such thing has ever been said or
inferred" -- Wally
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF3D0BC8.5F51%wa...@wally.world.net on 9/1/05 4:49 AM:
>
>> On 1/9/05 7:29 PM, in article BF3C3423.2C25A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually I spent *some* time asking you questions, but you seem to have
>>>> 'accidentally snipped them!
>>>
>>> We have reached, on the primary issue of this discussion, a place of
>>> agreement:
>>>
>>> Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me.
>>
>> Wrong ..AGAIN!
>
> From another post:
>
> -------------------------
> -----
>>> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
>>> his admission to me,
>>
>> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
From the same post...
> Steve has admitted he dishonestly attributed his admission to me. These
> facts are not in contention...
"Au contraire! the *only* admission made by Steve was the posting of the
comment *complete* with the attribution to you, do you have another
admission from Steve that you wish to share....and of course I mean a real
one, not one that originated in one of your posts!"
That was before the part that you listed......
So obviously when you said...
"You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
his admission to me,"
I had already clearly shown that the admission that you speak of was in my
opinion in your head! ;=)
>> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
Is a fact!
NashtOn
> In article <7nvch1plo5tf3rd0r...@4ax.com>,>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:13:41 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> chose to bless
>>us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim Polaski
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---------
>>>>>>I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>>>>>>are outright lies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
>>>>context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
>>>>did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
>>>>omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Dave Fritzinger
>>>>Honolulu, HI
>>>>
>>>
>>>Funny how you frequently make references to purely Christian notions
>>>when you consistently downplay anything religious.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nicolas
>>
>>Fritzinger the Fraud doesn't belief in sin. That's how he sleeps at
>>night knowing that by taking money away from real rersearchers he's
>>killing people.
>
>
> So, caught lying, Clyde decides to lie some more. Why is that, Clyde?
> And, why is it that one of the persons who claims to be a Christian is,
> perhaps, the biggest liar on the group?
>
> Give it up, Clyde. You are busted, again.
>
You have a vested ideological interest in discrediting everything PC
aficionados post in this ng, not limited to and often characterized by
feeble attempts at character assassination.
Doesn't work but thanks for playing. In the end, it makes you look like
a complete a%%.
Nicolas
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Just for the record...
"'You and I have agreed' means that no such thing has ever been said or
inferred" -- Wally
In its original (Pre-Snit) form read...
"I think I am getting the hang of this...." You and I have agreed" means
that no such thing has ever been said or inferred .....right?
ROTFL"--Wally
And how right I was.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF3D0315.5F43%wa...@wally.world.net on 9/1/05 4:12 AM:
>
> > On 1/9/05 6:58 PM, in article BF3C2CE2.2C242%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> > "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> >> BF3CE19A.5EFE%wa...@wally.world.net on 9/1/05 1:49 AM:
> >>
> >>>> You may want to argue that Steve not only dishonestly attributed
> >>>> his admission to me,
> >>>
> >>> There is no need to argue that which Steve has already admitted!
> >>
> >> Agreed. Steve dishonestly attributed his admission to me. There is no
> >> need
> >> to argue against that point, even though in your post you spent an awful
> >> long time doing just that.
> >
> > Actually I spent *some* time asking you questions, but you seem to have
> > 'accidentally snipped them!
>
> We have reached
...the point where you will ignore any and all realities that get in the
way of your circus? Yes, we know... that was reached after your first
post in csma.
--
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the
records." - Snit
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mike Dee" <mik...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> Xns96C4A64...@81.174.12.30 on 8/31/05 11:18 PM:
>
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> > news:BF3BE0EC.2C1C7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> >
> >> How do you categorize your trolling and spamming here? How do you
> >> categorize your lie when you dishonestly stated:
> >>
> >> "it was you that went to the police _well before_ eBot began
> >> threatening to go to them."
> >
> > Errm, because you did?
> >
> > Who knows how your fuzzy logic of an excuse for a brain works, Snitzle?
> > I don't pretend to. You have a reading disorder? That's not my problem.
>
> Holy Cow! After all this time you still hold to your lie. I look forward
> to your support... which, of course, will never, ever come. Not in a
> million years. You simply cannot argue against the Google record:
>
> Jan 25, 2004 - http://snipurl.com/hagj
> Elizabot tracked me down to my home city and threatened to
> make false allegations to my local police about me.
>
This isn't the "Google record", it's your misrepresentation of it. In
order for your lie here to work, you have to prove that Elizabot knew
the allegations were false when she made this statement AND you have to
prove that what she did was issue a threat. Forgetting about the first
part for the time being, that second part will be rather tricky to do
because the "Google record" that you point to here shows her making you
"a promise":
"You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to contact
the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise. "
Now that we've covered reality... let's address your delusion. That a
person possibly standing on the wrong side of the law would be
"threatened" by a promise such as this isn't surprising, in fact, it's
rather telling... but, given the wording Ebot used, that clearly was not
her intent. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ebot would have done exactly
as she promised had she felt you crossed that line... and, obviously,
you had no doubt, either. I've got an idea... why not cross that line?
Then we'll see what's what;) See your problem here yet?
(snip of more meaningless drivel by Snit)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mike Dee" <mik...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> Xns96C4A6AA7...@213.155.197.138 on 8/31/05 11:23 PM:
>
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> > news:BF3BE072.2C1C6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> >
> >>
> >> Actually, Steve has both accused me of being CSMA moderator *and*
> >> stated he wishes he was CSMA Moderator. Steve has made it clear
> >> he wishes he was me.
> >
> > It amuses me to see how you costantly put two+two together and end up
> > with minus one.
>
> You will next explain why you think I am wrong.
What's his incentive? To be treated to another round of denial... I
don't think so;)
Steve Carroll
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
I think you and Snit are more suited for that ;)
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
No shit! If you're not the type to killfile people, Mayor had the best
Snit advice I've seen to date:
"Whenever Snit is involved double check everything"
K E
> "I AM married" -- Steve Carroll
> "I stated I was unmarried" -- Steve Carroll
What's with the sig? People get married and divorced ya know
* posted via http://www.mymac.ws
* please report abuse to http://xinbox.com/mymac
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Wally
fretwizz-63BB6C...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Steve Carroll"
<fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <BF3D1709.5F68%wa...@wally.world.net>,
> Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/05 7:56 PM, in article BF3C3A93.2C269%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Just for the record...
>>
>> "'You and I have agreed' means that no such thing has ever been said or
>> inferred" -- Wally
>>
>> In its original (Pre-Snit) form read...
>>
>> "I think I am getting the hang of this...." You and I have agreed" means
>> that no such thing has ever been said or inferred .....right?
>> ROTFL"--Wally
>>
>> And how right I was.
>
> No shit! If you're not the type to killfile people, Mayor had the best
> Snit advice I've seen to date:
>
> "Whenever Snit is involved double check everything"
Good advice, but I am not sure how that would work in this example..
First Snit claims that a comment you made was attributed to him, he knows
this because of the "-Snit" following the comment...that's fair enough
But, after he is ridiculed on the subject he decides that the " -Snit"
wasn't to be considered part of the comment after all, because the comment
was actually now an admission by you and the " -Snit" should be considered
separate to the comment! so while double checking as Mayor suggests the
question arises..
1) Was Snit lying when he made his original and subsequent accusations,
because he did not consider "-Snit" part of the comment, therefore he had no
reason to suspect the comment was attributed to him at all?
2) Or was he lying later when he decided that it was in his interest to
separate the comment from the attribution thereby being able to label the
comment as your admission?
3) Or another possibility is both of the above! Yup...3) does it for me!
Alan Baker
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> > Umm, no it didn't. I clearly stated that I don't often talk about
> > religion. Oh, and when are you going to tell us why Archy isn't a
> > transitional fossil?
>
> I'm done trying to discuss evolution with you.
> Suffice it to say that the whole discussion concerning "Archy" is highly
> reminiscent of Nebraska Man, the case when an Śape-maną and his whole
> family were reconstructed beyond any doubt from a pigąs tooth.
Assuming your talking about archeopteryx (sp?), they found a fossil of a
complete skeleton, did they not?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Steve Carroll
tube...@comcast-dot-net.no-spam.invalid (K E) wrote:
> > --
>
> > "I AM married" -- Steve Carroll
>
> > "I stated I was unmarried" -- Steve Carroll
>
> What's with the sig? People get married and divorced ya know
The quote "I AM married" came from a statement that explained it better
than Snit did by cutting it up the way he has:
"See, my position is not in error here. I told a poster, in a
conversation where we were talking about nationally recognized
marriages,(seen this thread's title lately? Yeah... it's called context)
that I was unmarried. I also reminded Snit of the idea of common law
marriage because it was obvious he was overlooking it (another poster
even brought it up, I believe, before I did). I AM married via common
law in Colorado..."
The second quote provided by Snit came from:
"I didn't 'insist' any such thing... in fact, that I stated I was
unmarried (in any ceremonially, nationally recognized sense of the word)
lends credence to the idea that I would agree with you that, outside of
Colorado, I'm not considered married."
Apparently, Snit is unaware of what a common law marriage. Somehow, I
doubt anyone will be too surprised to find there are yet more holes in
Snit's knowledge. Then again, Snit could fool everyone and point to text
that shows he knows the topic, but doing so would be a tacit admission
that he was being dishonest. Personally, I think Snit would rather
appear ignorant, he so good at it... of course, he's rather good at
dishonesty, too, so it's a tossup;)
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
3) gets my vote.
Jim Polaski
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:05:46 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <llvch1putulqel2uh...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:46:01 -0500, Jim Polaski
> >> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >In article <11hc7r3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> > "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dave Fritzinger wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that
> >> >> > Jim
> >> >> > did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
> >> >> > omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacef
> >> >> b?d
> >> >> mod
> >> >> e=source&hl=en
> >> >>
> >> >> Polaski to Mayor:
> >> >>
> >> >> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
> >> >> bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
> >> >> reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any
> >> >> understanding
> >> >> knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
> >> >
> >> >Thanks Liz...saved me the time and trouble.
> >> >
> >> >Evidence is great, isn't it!
> >>
> >> It sure is. There's all the evidence anyone needs to know that its a
> >> direct quote from you.
> >
> >I'd spend a bit of time reading Elizabot's post if I were you klyde.
> >providing you can read and comprehend anything, it's pretty plain what
> >you've done and that is create another lie.
>
> So you deny posting that? No surprise, Jimbob. you never did care for
> the truth if it didn't suit your purposes.
As has been pointed out to you klyde, you snipped things to suit YOUR
sad purrpose. It's a quote totally out of context. That however doesn't
bother you a bit being the liar that you are.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Jim Polaski
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:46:01 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <11hc7r3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dave Fritzinger wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
> >> > context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
> >> > did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
> >> > omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3c8f8a107eacefb?d
> >> mod
> >> e=source&hl=en
> >>
> >> Polaski to Mayor:
> >>
> >> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
> >> bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
> >> reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
> >> knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus."
> >
> >Thanks Liz...saved me the time and trouble.
> >
> >Evidence is great, isn't it!
>
> It sure is. There's all the evidence anyone needs to know that its a
> direct quote from you.
And a quote taken out of contet by you to suit your sad purpose.
You're a liar klyde, a big LIAR.
Snit
u1125...@aknode.invalid on 9/1/05 7:38 AM:
>> --
>
>> "I AM married" -- Steve Carroll
>
>> "I stated I was unmarried" -- Steve Carroll
>
> What's with the sig? People get married and divorced ya know
Oh, this came from a conversation Steve and I had:
Steve: Colorado has, as of yet, no recognition of my common law marriage.
Show me where I claimed 'not to be married'.
So I showed him this quote of his:
We are not married by either church or state and do not
get the entitlements that our married neighbors get.
Steve never did either thank me nor admit his error. I just like shoving
his nose in his messes. :)
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "K E" <tube...@comcast-dot-net.no-spam.invalid> stated in post
> u1125...@aknode.invalid on 9/1/05 7:38 AM:
>
> >> --
> >
> >> "I AM married" -- Steve Carroll
> >
> >> "I stated I was unmarried" -- Steve Carroll
> >
> > What's with the sig? People get married and divorced ya know
>
> Oh, this came from a conversation Steve and I had:
>
> Steve: Colorado has, as of yet, no recognition of my common law marriage.
> Show me where I claimed 'not to be married'.
As I am the person who made the above statement it obviously applies to
me. I suppose for a person who can't read, such as yourself, it needed
to written as follows:
Colorado has, as of yet, given ME no recognition of my common law
marriage.
In other words, they haven't 'formally' recognized it with anything that
would lead me to believe they are aware of the existence of it. This
isn't uncommon, however, as many states don't issue formal statements of
recognition for common law marriages. There does exist, among other
things, a lengthy record of cohabitation, as well as a lengthy
reputation of being married, thereby fulfilling the only two
requirements to form a common law marriage in Colorado.
> So I showed him this quote of his:
>
> We are not married by either church or state and do not
> get the entitlements that our married neighbors get.
>
> Steve never did either thank me nor admit his error. I just like shoving
> his nose in his messes. :)
What mess? This is true... we don't get the entitlements our married
neighbors get. Get a new paper bag... the old one isn't absorbing any of
the glue any longer and you're getting too big a dose;)
NashtOn
> In article <x6BRe.83258$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>>Umm, no it didn't. I clearly stated that I don't often talk about
>>>religion. Oh, and when are you going to tell us why Archy isn't a
>>>transitional fossil?
>>
>>I'm done trying to discuss evolution with you.
>>Suffice it to say that the whole discussion concerning "Archy" is highly
>>family were reconstructed beyond any doubt from a pig¹s tooth.
>
>
> Assuming your talking about archeopteryx (sp?), they found a fossil of a
> complete skeleton, did they not?
You're like the child that interjects that 1+1=2 when the adults are
talking about quantum mechanics.
Nicolas
GreyCloud
>
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:03:42 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jim Polaski
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---------
> >> >> > I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
> >> >> > are outright lies.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just out of interest, did you ever say something similar? Is it
> >> >> possible that he "quote-mined" something you said, pulling his sig
> >> >> quote out of context? It is still dishonest, but it would then be a sin
> >> >> of omission, rather than a sin of commission. Quote mining is something
> >> >> that creationists like Clyde do on a regular basis.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Dave Fritzinger
> >> >> Honolulu, HI
> >> >
> >> >reasons like this. That said, often in the past, the mayor of nothing
> >> >and nowhere has rearranged what I've posted creating was would be a lie
> >> >because he manipulated the original post. So, while nothing new, it's
> >> >more blatant even for him.
> >> >
> >> >It only points to what a weasel he really is and with a streak of
> >> >fundamental dishonesty at a basic level which is often driven by his
> >> >bias and ego. Sad really.
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL! As if you calling anyone dishonest means anything. You want to
> >> talk about dishonest, Jimbob? How about your constant whining about me
> >> altering posts and you leaving out the facts that I only did it to you
> >> and only after you started altering mine? Or is lying like a rug ok
> >> when you do it?
> >> You're nothing but a double standarded lying loonietune, Jim. You and
> >> Fritzinger the Fraud make a nice couple. There's not a decent bone in
> >> either of your bodies.
> >
> >Klyde, this is but ANOTHER of your lies. I don't change your posts. I
> >have no reason since I don't have your insatiable bias. Get past this
> >and admit you're the CSMA liar. Nothing less.
>
> You just lost any pretense to cliam the moral high ground, Jimbob.
> You're lying about that plain and simple.
>
> >Lying is NOT ok, you seem to think so since you've been caught at it
> >before and here.
>
> Says one of the biggest liars I've ever come across.
>
> >
> >Oh, and you're outnumbered too. Everyone sees what you're doing.
>
> You and Fritzinger the Fraud are making your lying claims. no
> surprise. Like I said you two make a good pair. Neither of you have a
> clue as to which way decency lies.
>
You sure have become popular lately. :-)))))
Steve Carroll
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <x6BRe.83258$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> > NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Umm, no it didn't. I clearly stated that I don't often talk about
> >>>religion. Oh, and when are you going to tell us why Archy isn't a
> >>>transitional fossil?
> >>
> >>I'm done trying to discuss evolution with you.
> >>Suffice it to say that the whole discussion concerning "Archy" is highly
> >>reminiscent of Nebraska Man, the case when an ‘ape-man1 and his whole
> >>family were reconstructed beyond any doubt from a pig1s tooth.
> >
> >
> > Assuming your talking about archeopteryx (sp?), they found a fossil of a
> > complete skeleton, did they not?
>
> You're like the child that interjects that 1+1=2 when the adults are
> talking about quantum mechanics.
If that's him, you're like the pet frog in the kid's pocket.
George Graves
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So you deny posting that? No surprise, Jimbob. you never did care for
> the truth if it didn't suit your purposes.
>
>
>
> --
> "I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>
> Jim Polaski
Does anyone other than me find Clyde using the word "truth" in a
sentence to be more than a little ironic?
George Graves
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:03:42 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
<snip>
>
> >Lying is NOT ok, you seem to think so since you've been caught at it
> >before and here.
>
> Says one of the biggest liars I've ever come across.
That's actually funny coming from Clyde.
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:00:09 -0600, Steve Carroll
>> <fret...@comcast.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>In article <04tRe.83159$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>>>NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>NashtOn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jim Polaski
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>---------
>>>>>>>>>I guess he's so pittifully bored that all he can do is create sig's that
>>>>>>>>>are outright lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If its a lie, Jim, its one you told. That's a direct quote from you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The question is whether it is a complete quote, or was it taken out of
>>>>>>>context. I tend to believe it is, since it is highly unlikely that Jim
>>>>>>>did indeed have lots of viruses on his Mac. Remember, Clyde, a sin of
>>>>>>>omission is as bad as a sin of commission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Dave Fritzinger
>>>>>>>Honolulu, HI
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Funny how you frequently make references to purely Christian notions
>>>>>>when you consistently downplay anything religious.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nicky, I try not to talk about religion much at all. Now, talking about
>>>>>evolution and creationism isn't really talking about religion, since
>>>>>evolution is science. AFAIAC, religion is a private matter, and I tend
>>>>>not to bring it up. What I will do is mention hypocrisy, where someone
>>>>>who claims to be a Christian lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>See above...
>>>>>--
>>>>>Dave Fritzinger
>>>>>Honolulu, HI
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Right.
>>>>
>>>>And the notion of sin, Dave, isn't within the sphere of religion?
>>>>
>>>>I see another one went woooosh over your head.
>>>
>>>Actually, it went over yours:
>>>
>>>"What I will do is mention hypocrisy, where someone who claims to be a
>>>Christian lies."
>>
>>
>> Where's the lie?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Why, there is no lie, just religious kooks that worship Apple and the
>Mac, refer to Christian values without even realizing it and pound their
>fists on tables declaring that evolution is the holy truth because they
>were taught to think in this fashion.
Why do you still listen to Fritzinger the Fraud anyway? He's far too
tedious and self righteous to be entertaining. He's far too stupid to
educate. There just doesn't seem to be a point.
>
>Dave adds a certain je ne sais quoi in the mix, declaring like the
>bourgeois he is, in his sig, that he lives in HI as if anybody gives a
>rat's a**.
Fritzinger the Fraud's main purpose in existence seems to be to sing
the praises of Fritzinger the Fraud. There are a few people who think
Hawaii is some kind of paradise. Doubtless its to impress those easily
impressed souls.
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
>David Fritzinger wrote:
>> In article <vpvch1p2b0mhe38kl...@4ax.com>,
>> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:46:36 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> chose to bless
>>>us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>
And I take being labelled an apostate by an atheist with a personal
grudge as seriously as I should, which is to say that I pay it no
mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>See above...
>>>>>--
>>>>>Dave Fritzinger
>>>>>Honolulu, HI
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Right.
>>>>
>>>>And the notion of sin, Dave, isn't within the sphere of religion?
>>>>
>>>>I see another one went woooosh over your head.
>>>>
>>>>Nicolas
>>>
>>>The amazing thing is that he's got the full post to look at in this
>>>very thread and he still claims I'm lying. I guess once you go over to
>>>evil so far that you don't mind killing people for money you lose
>>>track of truth and lies.
>>
>>
>> Our lying Clyde is apparently too stupid to realize that there are lies
>> of omission as well as lies of commission.
>
>Hmm, I see you've corrected the religious reference (sin) in your statement.
>What you fail to realize is that lying (which for the love of me, I
>can't see where the Mayor lied here or anywhere else in csma) is
>considered ethically wrong because of Judeo-Christian mores and values.
>
> When you take a quote out of
>> context, changing its meaning by leaving out the rest of the quote, that
>> is a lie of omission. It too is a lie, Clyde.
>
>There are worst things than quoting a Mac freak out of context.
>
>>
>> Of course I know why you hate me so, Clyde. I point out your constant
>> stupidity and lying ways. And, yet, you call yourself a Christian. That
>> is, apparently, another lie on your part.
>
>Actually, hypocrisy is the worst sin, since you seem to abhor anything
>derived from Christianity yet it seems to be your ethical and moral
>substrate.
>For solid evidence, see how you corrected your statement about sins of
>omission/commission after having it pointed out to you.
>
>There's still hope for you though, Honolulu Dave.
>
>Nicolas
Mayor of R'lyeh
I followed all the proper rules. I even used the three ellipses to
show that it was taken from a whole sentence. I guess you're not the
top man in the journalism field, eh Jim.
And as to being a liar, you gave up any right to be outraged by that
long ago. You want to talk about lies? Let's talk about the way you
constantly insinuate that I alter everyone's posts when I only did it
to you and only after you started altering mine.
Face it, Jimbob. If you want to see the biggest liar in this group you
only need to walk as far as the closest mirror.
--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
Jim Polaski
TravelinMan
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I take being labelled an apostate by an atheist with a personal
> grudge as seriously as I should, which is to say that I pay it no
> mind.
>
Of course not. Given that you're STILL using that dishonest signature
which misrepresents what Jim said, it's not surprising that the concept
of 'honesty' is too difficult for you.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Waaahh! Waaaahh! So you say. I say it wasn't.
>
>You're a liar klyde, a big LIAR.
Says the biggest liar in this group. When are you going to quit
insinuating that I regularly alter posts? When are you going to admit
that I only did it to a few of yours and only after you started
altering mine, Jimbob?
After you do that and quit telling lies about me I'll listen to your
whining about me producing a direct quote from you being a 'lie'.
Until then the best view of the biggest liar in this group is only a
walk to the mirror away for you, Jimbob.
--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
Jim Polaski
NashtOn
Funny, I thought I saw Snit posting here recently. Go follow him, will you?
Nicolas
Steve Carroll
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
(snip)
> >>You're like the child that interjects that 1+1=2 when the adults are
> >>talking about quantum mechanics.
> >
> >
> >
> > If that's him, you're like the pet frog in the kid's pocket.
> >
>
> Funny, I thought I saw Snit posting here recently. Go follow him, will you?
Great comeback, Nic... no wonder you're the king;)
Snit
VFKRe.83623$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 9/1/05 2:47 PM:
>> If that's him, you're like the pet frog in the kid's pocket.
>>
>
> Funny, I thought I saw Snit posting here recently. Go follow him, will you?
Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, and Wally are all busy slapping each others' backs
congratulating each other for a good job of trolling. This is what they
do... even just reading a couple of their copious amounts of posts today it
is clear they are just licking their own wounds... and each others.
Quite repulsive, but is simply what they do. Too bad, being that Wally has
the intelligence to be better than the other two.
--
"I admitted to posting as sigmond" - Steve Carroll
NashtOn
Your credibiliy is mud.
You'd say anything to discredit a PC user.
Still running those PCs at OSECO?
Nicolas
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> stated in post
> VFKRe.83623$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 9/1/05 2:47 PM:
>
> >> If that's him, you're like the pet frog in the kid's pocket.
> >>
> >
> > Funny, I thought I saw Snit posting here recently. Go follow him, will you?
>
> Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, and Wally are all busy slapping
... you around? Yes, we know;)