Re: Pathological Liar of the Month (May 2010) First Runner-up: Fischer
pnyikos
> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
> statement by Fischer:
>
> I don't give a shit about women
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/318c4191f3850693
And here is a repost of that post, complete with headers:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out01b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news-
xfer.nntp.sonic.net!posts.news.sonic.net!nnrp0.nntp.sonic.net!not-for-
mail
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.recovery.catholicism,alt.abortion
Subject: Re: A Thought Experiment on Abortion
References: <MPG.20e582785...@news.readfreenews.net> <FK-
dnd6BSNB0Rx7bn...@comcast.com>
<46849a26$0$14098$742e...@news.sonic.net>
<1183098020....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: rfisc...@sonic.net
Organization: Sonic.net, Inc.
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
From: rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Originator: rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Date: 29 Jun 2007 07:50:43 GMT
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <4684b9d3$0$14120$742e...@news.sonic.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jun 2007 07:50:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 94e89bf6.news.sonic.net
X-Trace: DXC=Lmo5Q;lfgBf?K?9`>4U>Cjm4K
\QM1CV^`1OYf0H`?;Xal2F27o6I]5n:oF=1i9HD6dS2M9dV9D2Ok^loLF=FjQfc
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 29, 1:35 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >>>> Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> >> osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>On Jun 25, 11:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >>>> >>>> Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>> >"t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> >>>> >> All religions, in the end, are about power and profit. All
>> >>>> >>>> >> religions
>> >>>> >>>> >> want to suffuse people in self-induced neuroses from which they
>> >>>> >>>> >> surrender some self control to the religion. All religions want
>> >>>> >>>> >> money
>> >>>> >>>> >> and control, and all religions want individuals either to abjure
>> >>>> >>>> >> science and rationality or to confine them in a mental
>> >>>> >>>> >> compartment
>> >>>> >>>> >> whose walls keep the religious compulsions intack.
>>
>> >>>> >>>> >Does Science explain everything?
>> >>>> >>>> >Answer: No
>>
>> >>>> >>>> Does religion? Hell no. It doesn't explain much of anything.
>>
>> >>>> >>>You're too narrow minded and short-sighted to understand.
>>
>> >>>> >> And so Asshole Heishman declares victory and runs away, as usual.
>>
>> >>>> >Lets discuss the question I asked you in another thread, just today,
>> >>>> >where
>> >>>> >you cut out the question and ran away.
>>
>> >>>> >Shall we?
>>
>> >>>> Here's a clue, moron: I'm not going to waste my time an every inane,
>> >>>> irrelevant, and stupid question you come up with.
>>
>> >>>What is so stupid about asking you if you would help and/or support a
>> >>>woman who wants to get an abortion?
>>
>> >> It's stupid because it is not relevant.
>>
>> >It is relevant, because it shows you to be aliar when you claim to care
>> >about people.
>>
>> I don't claim to care about people, you dumbshit asshole. That's you
>> hallucinating from those drugs you've been taking.
>
>We both know you don't care about anyone but yourself.
We know that you're a liar and a coward, asshole, and every time you
embarrass yourself you start lying about other people.
> This little
>charade you like to put on, caring about the welfare of women;
I don't give a shit about women, you stupid dumbshit. And you really
need to lay of the drugs, moron, because if you get caught it'll mean
the end of your career.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
------------------------- end of repost
pnyikos
performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
Pathological Liar award, but he only qualified for first runner-up
status.
It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
statement by Fischer:
I don't give a shit about women
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/318c4191f3850693
I recalled it in the following post, giving the above url:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/5b2e463551bf06b7
In his followup, Fischer deleted the url--note the dangling colon in
what he kept of what I had written--and took advantage of his deletion
to slanderously accuse me of lying:
----------------- begin excerpt
>And you said you don't give a shit about women:
nyioks is, of course, lying is sleazy ass off.
> Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
I explained it but you choose to keep being a lying sleazebag.
============= end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/c10d3b5ea090cc18
Note also the slanderous Subject line change to: "Nyikos shows himself
to be a lying sleazebag with no ethics"
Nothing daunted, I reposted both the url and the entire post in which
it appeared, calling Fischer's bluff above as follows:
------------------- begin excerpt
> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
> I explained it
Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
context of Ospery asking you "if you would help and/or support a woman
who wants to get an abortion?"
================= end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/c1b55e1f17bc7d24
His bluff successfully called, Fischer now resorted to deleting BOTH
the url for his "don't give a shit" remark AND the repost of the
article in which it appeared, slanderously (and in a Pee Wee
Hermanistic way) changing the Subject line to:
"Nyikos lies about giving a shit about women"
But what really clinched first runner-up for him [I'm still collecting
evidence on the winner] is the incredibly brazen lie that he added in
the following excerpt:
----------------- begin excerpt
>> >And you said you don't give a shit about women:
>> nyioks is, of course, lying is sleazy ass off.
>The following post shows what a shameless,
Asshole nyikos takes a trip in fantasyland and insists that somewhere
in some post is the proof he wants.
=============== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/8d3aa22ec6472dc0
If he had left the post in, that last comment of his would have
qualified for "Below-40-IQ Simulation of the Month (May 2010)" along
with the first runner-up award for Pathological Liar of the Month.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
>> statement by Fischer:
>>
>> I don't give a shit about women
And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
with no integrity. That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
deceptive.
But it's the sort of sleazy and malicious dishonesty we've come to
expect from the pedophile-protector nyikos.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
>performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at having
his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear mode,
spewing vile slanders left and right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
> >> statement by Fischer:
>
> >> I don't give a shit about women
[repost of url shamelessly deleted by Fischer]
> And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
> with no integrity.
...says a troll who deleted the url for the post and the post itself,
JUST AS HE DID LAST MONTH--compare:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/8d3aa22ec6472dc0
with the post of mine to which that was a follow-up:
> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
> deceptive.
Fischer shows his willingness to compete for the Pathological Liar
award for June: He deleted the whole post which shows the that he
meant exactly what he said. I called his bluff on this "out of
context" bit earlier, as related here:
.
.
------------------- begin excerpt
> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
.
> I explained it
Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
context of Ospery asking you "if you would help and/or support a woman
who wants to get an abortion?"
================= end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/c1b55e1f17bc7d24
.
.
Fischer keeps changing thread titles -- but he has nothing, nothing
whatsoever to back them up with. I do. But he is preying on the
natural assumption of casual readers that a flamewar is a flamewar is
a flamewar is a flamewar [apologies to Gertrude Stein] and there is no
way to tell which person is more to blame.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
What a troll you are! You couldn't justify any of the above if your
life depended on it. But readers can see for themselves that I've
presented an open and shut case for you being a liar in the first two
posts to this thread; the only question is whether there is another
who deserves the first-runner-up title better than you.
I'm open to sincere suggestions about rivals, but that leaves you out,
since you are totally insincere in this thread and also in the posts
I've provided urls for.
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
1f2531...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 8, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
>> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
>>
>> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at having
>> his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear mode,
>> spewing vile slanders left and right.
>
> What a troll you are! You couldn't justify any of the above if your
> life depended on it.
of course he could, as could any regular. all they'd need to do is refer to
your slanderous and malicious false accusations of plagiarism. if that
wasn't enough there's the matter of your posting email with bogus headers.
i think that would more than do it.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:815e9ece-daf1-4222-ad87-
> 1f25317e5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jun 8, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
> >> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
>
> >> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at having
> >> his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear mode,
> >> spewing vile slanders left and right.
>
> > What a troll you are! You couldn't justify any of the above if your
> > life depended on it.
>
> of course he could, as could any regular.
He would have to give evidence, as opposed to making unsupported
charges like you do below:
> all they'd need to do is refer to
> your slanderous and malicious false accusations
> of plagiarism.
Those are unsupported adjectives modifying "accusations". And merely
piling synonyms on them is not the same as giving support. Repeating
them in post after post after post, while deleting evidence to the
contrary, ad nauseam, as you have done, is downright infantile.
> if that
> wasn't enough there's the matter of your posting email with bogus headers.
"bogus" is unsupported except for two dubious claims by Galen Hekhuis,
the falsity of either one being enough to sink the adjective "bogus"
> i think that would more than do it.
The "Pathological Liar of the Month (May 2010) Winner" can only be
announced when one posts thorough documentation alongside, the way I
provided it on the thread that I set up for the first runner-up,
Fischer. This you have utterly failed to do, so I have changed the
Subject line to reflect that.
I posted urls for BOTH Fischer's posts and mine when I gave him the
First Runner-up award. I have yet to see you post an url for any of
my posts; au contraire, you delete their meat whenever you follow up
to them.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 12:54�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
>> >> statement by Fischer:
>>
>> >> I don't give a shit about women
>
>> with no integrity.
>
>...says a troll
And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
>> �That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
>> deceptive.
>
>Fischer shows his willingness to compete for the Pathological Liar
Nobody can beat you for that title, asshole.
>------------------- begin excerpt
>
>> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
>.
>> I explained it
>
>Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
Notice that even hear the pathological sociopath lies about the
explanation. So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
quotes and then lies about any clarification.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 12:55�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
>> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
>>
>> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at having
>> his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear mode,
>> spewing vile slanders left and right.
>
What an immoral asshole you are, coward. We all know that you're
being a malicious asshole because I dared to point out that you
support an organization that protects child molesters.
> You couldn't justify any of the above if your
>life depended on it.
I already did, pervert, but you're a patholigcal liar and so you
resort to all manner of filth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 10:36 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:815e9ece-daf1-4222-ad87-
>> 1f25317e5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
>> >> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
>>
>> >> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at having
>> >> his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear mode,
>> >> spewing vile slanders left and right.
>>
>> > What a troll you are! You couldn't justify any of the above if your
>> > life depended on it.
>>
>> of course he could, as could any regular.
>
>He would have to give evidence, as opposed to making unsupported
>charges like you do below:
The immoral sleazbag now whines about "evidence", even though he
rarely provides any evidences for his filth and his smears.
>> all they'd need to do is refer to
>> your slanderous and malicious false accusations
>> of plagiarism.
>
>Those are unsupported adjectives modifying "accusations".
You are a malicious, slanderous, vile, lying, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
pathological liar that they are actually setting up new threads with
Subject: lines that maliciously advertise things that they cannot
deliver, and which are rip-offs of my own. But they cannot long hide
from the evidence.
On Jun 8, 11:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 8, 10:36 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:815e9ece-daf1-4222-ad87-
> >> 1f25317e5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Jun 8, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
> >> >> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
>
> >> >> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at having
> >> >> his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear mode,
> >> >> spewing vile slanders left and right.
>
> >> > What a troll you are! You couldn't justify any of the above if your
> >> > life depended on it.
>
> >> of course he could, as could any regular.
>
> >He would have to give evidence, as opposed to making unsupported
> >charges like you do below:
>
> The immoral sleazbag now whines about "evidence",
No whine, just the facts: you've been lying your head off about your
infamous "I don't give a shit about women" quote being taken out of
context, without daring to make claims about what the true context
was, and deleting both the url and the post at every opportunity so
people will believe this shameless cover-up of yours.
Folks, the url for the post where Fischer said it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/318c4191f3850693
----------------- begin excerpt
------------------- begin excerpt
.
.
His bluff successfully called, Fischer now resorted to deleting BOTH
the url for his "don't give a shit" remark AND the repost of the
article in which it appeared, slanderously (and in a Pee Wee
Hermanistic way) changing the Subject line to:
"Nyikos lies about giving a shit about women"
But what really clinched first runner-up for him [I'm still collecting
evidence on the winner] is the incredibly brazen lie that he added in
the following excerpt:
----------------- begin excerpt
>> >And you said you don't give a shit about women:
>> nyioks is, of course, lying is sleazy ass off.
>The following post shows what a shameless,
Asshole nyikos takes a trip in fantasyland and insists that somewhere
in some post is the proof he wants.
=============== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/8d3aa22ec6472dc0
.
.
.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 8, 12:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
> >> >> statement by Fischer:
>
> >> >> I don't give a shit about women
>
> >> And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
> >> with no integrity.
>
> >...says a troll
>
> And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
> retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
>
> >> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
> >> deceptive.
>
> >Fischer shows his willingness to compete for thePathologicalLiar
>
> Nobody can beat you for that title, asshole.
>
> >------------------- begin excerpt
>
> >> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
> >.
> >> I explained it
>
> >Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
>
> Notice that even hear the pathological sociopath lies about the
> explanation.
Note how Fischer never tries to justify anything he says in this post
of his. He does not give the explanation he gave long ago to Osprey,
in response to which Osprey nailed him, nor does he give any other
explanation, because the post where he said it is in evidence right on
this thread.
> So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
> quotes and then lies about any clarification.
Fischer makes no attempt to prove they are out of context. The full
post is the context, and I posted that, and he lies his head off here
in a way that would only seem plausible to someone who has killfiled
me but not him.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>Keegan and Fischer are so stung by my evidence that Fischer is a
nyikos is stung by evidence that he's a pedophile protector and a
malicious, lying sleazebag.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 11:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 8, 12:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
>> >> >> statement by Fischer:
>>
>> >> >> I don't give a shit about women
>>
>> >> And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
>> >> with no integrity.
>>
>> >...says a troll
>>
>> And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
>> retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
>>
>> >> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
>> >> deceptive.
>>
>> >Fischer shows his willingness to compete for thePathologicalLiar
>>
>> Nobody can beat you for that title, asshole.
>>
>> >------------------- begin excerpt
>>
>> >> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
>> >.
>> >> I explained it
>>
>> >Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
>>
>> explanation.
>
>Note how Fischer never tries to justify anything he says in this post
>of his.
Notice that the malicious asshole never justifies his libels and
smears.
> > So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
>> quotes and then lies about any clarification.
>
>Fischer makes no attempt to prove they are out of context.
Aside from the fact that the context is missing?!?
Wow. nyikos really is an IQ-50 moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 11:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 8, 12:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
>> >> >> statement by Fischer:
>>
>> >> >> I don't give a shit about women
>>
>> >> And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
>> >> with no integrity.
>>
>> >...says a troll
>>
>> And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
>> retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
>>
>> >> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
>> >> deceptive.
>>
>> >Fischer shows his willingness to compete for thePathologicalLiar
>>
>> Nobody can beat you for that title, asshole.
>>
>> >------------------- begin excerpt
>>
>> >> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
>> >.
>> >> I explained it
>>
>> >Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
>>
>> explanation.
>
>Note how Fischer never tries to justify anything he says in this post
>of his.
Notice that the malicious asshole never justifies his libels and
smears.
> > So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
>> quotes and then lies about any clarification.
>
>Fischer makes no attempt to prove they are out of context.
Aside from the fact that the context is missing?!?
james g. keegan jr.
news:7737b1a2-03ba-4f07...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 8, 10:36�pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:815e9ece-daf1-4222-ad87-
>> 1f25317e5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
>> >> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
>>
>> >> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at
>> >> having his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear
>> >> mode, spewing vile slanders left and right.
>>
>> > What a troll you are! �You couldn't justify any of the above if
>> > your life depended on it.
>>
>> of course he could, as could any regular. all they'd need to do is
>> refer to your slanderous and malicious false accusations of
>> plagiarism. if that wasn't enough there's the matter of your posting
>> email with bogus headers
>>
>> i think that would more than do it.
>
> He would have to give evidence,
which has been done repeatedly in both of the examples i cited. one of the
more amusing pathalogical aspects of your denials are that everyone knows
what i wrote was true, even you.
james g. keegan jr.
news:9fdb29cd-b635-4c5f...@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
> Keegan and Fischer are so stung by my evidence that Fischer
your post was cut at your first new lie.
james g. keegan jr.
2249a0...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 8, 11:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
>> retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
>>
>> >> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
>> >> deceptive.
>>
>> >Fischer shows his willingness to compete for thePathologicalLiar
>>
>> Nobody can beat you for that title, asshole.
>>
>> >------------------- begin excerpt
>>
>> >> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
>> >.
>> >> I explained it
>>
>> >Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
>>
>> Notice that even hear the pathological sociopath lies about the
>> explanation.
>
> Note how Fischer never tries to justify
gibe it up. your sick dishonesty has been exposed yet again
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 8, 11:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 8, 12:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
> >> >> >> statement by Fischer:
>
> >> >> >> I don't give a shit about women
>
> >> >> And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
> >> >> with no integrity.
>
> >> >...says a troll
>
> >> And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
> >> retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
Watch Fischer retreat from the following lie below, folks.
> >> >> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
> >> >> deceptive.
> >> >Fischer shows his willingness to compete for the Pathological Liar
>
> >> Nobody can beat you for that title, asshole.
>
> >> >------------------- begin excerpt
>
> >> >> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
> >> >.
> >> >> I explained it
>
> >> >Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
>
> >> Notice that even here the pathological sociopath lies about the
> >> explanation.
No explanation given here by Fischer, who knows how dishonest his
other one was.
> >Note how Fischer never tries to justify anything he says in this post
> >of his.
>
> Notice that the malicious asshole never justifies his libels and
> smears.
You left out the words "in this post of his," you pathological lying
copycat. Thus you came out with a bare-faced lie.
> > > So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
> >> quotes and then lies about any clarification.
>
> >Fischer makes no attempt to prove they are out of context.
>
> Aside from the fact that the context is missing?!?
That's your only excuse for viciously attacking me in post after post
for an "out of context" quote???? By that standard, every quote from
Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ that doesn't quote the whole play is "out of
context".
Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
that he had admitted to being a child molester.
I suppose you'll do the same to me now, you miss Osprey so much. And
then you'll post your usual bare-faced lie that you are doing exactly
what I did when I posted the quote without the rest of the post
wrapped around it, won't you?
> Wow. nyikos really is an IQ-50 moron.
I've reposted the original post in its entirety more than once and you
deleted it in its entirety more than once, so you are being flagrantly
insincere here.
But then, you are PROUD of how dishonest and insincere you are--and
you think I am a naive sucker for not being as dishonest as you,
aren't you?
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
important when he quoted others; so why should anyone
think that he thought it was important when HE was quoted?
That was the point being made. He never understood it,
and apparently neither do you, in your weird rush to
excuse anything Osprey did.
--
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a
priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil
government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of
which their civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes."
- Thomas Jefferson
james g. keegan jr.
83ebae...@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 9, 1:59 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > > So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
>> >> quotes and then lies about any clarification.
>>
>> >Fischer makes no attempt to prove they are out of context.
>>
>> Aside from the fact that the context is missing?!?
>
> That's your only excuse for viciously attacking me in post after post
you must be kidding!!!!! there are far better reasons for attacking
meanspirited lies and dishonesty than simply explaining one of your
tactics.
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 9, 1:59 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 8, 11:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 8, 12:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
>> >> >> >> statement by Fischer:
>>
>> >> >> >> I don't give a shit about women
>>
>> >> >> And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
>> >> >> with no integrity.
>>
>> >> >...says a troll
>>
>> >> And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
>> >> retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
>
>Watch
See asshole nyikos lie about old posts.
>> >> >> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
>> >> >> deceptive.
>
>> >> >Fischer shows his willingness to compete for the Pathological Liar
>>
>> >> Nobody can beat you for that title, asshole.
>>
>> >> >------------------- begin excerpt
>>
>> >> >> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
>> >> >.
>> >> >> I explained it
>>
>> >> >Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
>>
>> >> Notice that even here the pathological sociopath lies about the
>> >> explanation.
>
>No explanation
Seee asshole nyikos again lie about old posts. Too STUPID to address
comments when they are written, he has to rehard old posts and try to
rewrite events that have already passed.
>> >Note how Fischer never tries to justify anything he says in this post
>> >of his.
>>
>> Notice that the malicious asshole never justifies his libels and
>> smears.
>
>You left
Wrong again, you senile asshole.
>> > > So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
>> >> quotes and then lies about any clarification.
>>
>> >Fischer makes no attempt to prove they are out of context.
>>
>> Aside from the fact that the context is missing?!?
>
>That's your only excuse for viciously attacking me
That's enough, you malicious, lying asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
>take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
>context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
>that he had admitted to being a child molester.
And now asshole nyikos is lying outright once again. I never did so.
I always made it clear that the quote was taken out of context in
order to expose Asshole's blatant hypocrisy. A fact that the walking
turd was always too stupid to grasp.
But now you are showing the same sociopathic stupidity. One wonder if
you really aren't the very same Asshole heishman posting with a
different name.
>I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
he posted the same trolling twice.
But don't go away: my reply below does not duplicate anything in my
reply to his first post.
On Jun 9, 2:01 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 8, 11:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 8, 12:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> It began with the post where I recalled the following shocking
> >> >> >> statement by Fischer:
>
> >> >> >> I don't give a shit about women
>
> >> >> And there, once again, Nyikos whos hismself to be deeply dishonest
> >> >> with no integrity.
>
> >> >...says a troll
>
> >> And now the asshole chooses to be a coward, running away in full
> >> retreat from challenges to his deeply immoral acts.
> >> >> That is, of course, ripped from context and highly
> >> >> deceptive.
Fischer is lying though his teeth here: see below.
[...]
> > > So determined is he to lie that he uses out-of-context
> >> quotes and then lies about any clarification.
>
> >Fischer makes no attempt to prove they are out of context.
>
> Aside from the fact that the context is missing?!?
The context has always been there, in the website whose url I post
along with the quote at every opportunity, thus:
I don't give a shit about women
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/318c4191f3850693
The url takes readers right to the post from whence the quote comes.
In Google, it shows up in blue, and one click takes the reader to the
post in question.
> Wow. nyikos really is an IQ-50 moron.
Your flagrant insincerity here is evident from the way you delete the
url at every opportunity.
Do you wonder why I keep saying you are a troll?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:7737b1a2-03ba-4f07...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 10:36 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >> news:815e9ece-daf1-4222-ad87-
> >> 1f25317e5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Jun 8, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
> >> >> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
>
> >> >> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at
> >> >> having his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear
> >> >> mode, spewing vile slanders left and right.
>
> >> > What a troll you are! You couldn't justify any of the above if
> >> > your life depended on it.
>
> >> of course he could, as could any regular. all they'd need to do is
> >> refer to your slanderous and malicious false accusations of
> >> plagiarism. if that wasn't enough there's the matter of your posting
> >> email with bogus headers
>
> >> i think that would more than do it.
>
> > He would have to give evidence,
>
> which has been done repeatedly in both of the examples i cited.
The evidence is laughably inadequate. In the second case, Keegan has
only the say-so of a pathological joker, Galen Hekhuis, for one very
farfetched claim; and in the first case, Keegan has repeatedly run
away from two simple questions beginning with "Do you deny" to which
an answer of No would demolish his claim that he has shown himself
innocent of plagiarism.
Keegan has always deleted the questions. He is a pathological liar,
but even he seems to have his limits as to what lies he tells. He
knows damn well that a Yes answer to EITHER of the two questions
would result in him being in real hot water, because powerful
evidence would be thrust in his face that his Yes answer is a prime
example of "being in denial."
So, being between a rock and a hard place, he deletes the
questions, and continues to post slander like the Subject: line,
"peter nyikos" and his insanity defense
which I have changed to something truthful.
IOW, for over twenty posts (I lost count long ago) he has regressed to
the infantile illusion that if he just shuts his eyes [figuratively
speaking] to those two questions, they do not exist.
Questions reposted on request to this thread, by someone other than
Keegan. I no longer repost them in follow-up to Keegan, due to the
aforementioned infantile behavior of his.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
What were the contexts [no joke intended] for these claims of his?
Could it be that the contexts to which his claims applied were no more
important than the whole play _Hamlet_ is to numerous things people
like to quote out of it?
Can you cite even one example where he RIPPED a quote out of context
as flagrantly as Fischer did it to him, as described above?
>so why should anyone
> think that he thought it was important when HE was quoted?
Did the words "you'd lie through your teeth that he had admitted to
being a child molester." go completely over your head?
[That's your cue to whine about how I am supposedly trying to hold you
responsible for everything Fischer does.]
> That was the point being made. He never understood it,
I do believe he understood the difference between the two radically
different meanings of "out of context." Do you?
> and apparently neither do you, in your weird rush to
> excuse anything Osprey did.
Whine, whine, whine. I never tried to excuse *everything* Osprey
did; you muffed your biggest chance to get me to condemn Osprey when
you declined to tell us about NNTP posting hosts in connection with a
forgery Keegan alleged of Margolis.
[That's your cue to whine about how I am supposedly trying to hold you
responsible for everything Keegan does.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
>
> And now asshole nyikos is lying outright once again. I never did so.
If I repost a post where you did just that, will you delete the whole
post and then say something like,
Asshole nyikos takes a trip in fantasyland and insists
that somewhere in some post is the proof he wants.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/8d3aa22ec6472dc0
...like you did with the post where "I don't give a shit about women"
first appeared?
See first post to this thread for clues as to the context of that.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<54828b50-60a7-4bca...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 6:59 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> > innews:7737b1a2-03ba-4f07...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 8, 10:36 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> > >> news:815e9ece-daf1-4222-ad87-
> > >> 1f25317e5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > >> > On Jun 8, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >In almost any other month, the shabby (as the Brits would say)
> > >> >> >performance by Fischer documented below would qualify for the top
> >
> > >> >> The sleazy and malicious liar posting as nyikos, embarassed at
> > >> >> having his own immoral conduct highlighted, is now in full smear
> > >> >> mode, spewing vile slanders left and right.
> >
> > >> > What a troll you are! You couldn't justify any of the above if
> > >> > your life depended on it.
> >
> > >> of course he could, as could any regular. all they'd need to do is
> > >> refer to your slanderous and malicious false accusations of
> > >> plagiarism. if that wasn't enough there's the matter of your posting
> > >> email with bogus headers
> >
> > >> i think that would more than do it.
> >
> > > He would have to give evidence,
> >
> > which has been done repeatedly in both of the examples i cited.
> > one of the more amusing pathalogical aspects of your denials
> > are that everyone knows what i wrote was true, even you.
>
> The evidence is laughably inadequate.
your post was cut at your first new lie, sicko.
IAAH
Could it be that he was told that using only half a
sentence was taking it out of context and he claimed
that it didn't matter?
Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
it was.
james g. keegan jr.
<20d9d6bf-3399-483a...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> > Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
> > important when he quoted others;
>
> What were the contexts
osprey got caught lying and tried to use the context excuse. some
regulars followed up by using that tactic on him. everyone already knows
this.
but you're just looking for another diversion to deflect attention from
your sick, dishonest actions.
james g. keegan jr.
<0cb8c8d4-0c88-46f7...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Fischer was so proud of his dishonesty, insincerity and hypocrisy that
> he posted the same trolling twice.
quiz: how many lies are contained in the preceding sentence?
Ray Fischer
>Fischer was so proud of his dishonesty,
Two lies in one phrase. All to typical of the immoral old pervert
nyikos.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
>> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
>> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
>> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
>>
>> And now asshole nyikos is lying outright once again. �I never did so.
>
>If I repost a post where you did just that,
You won't.
> will you delete the whole
And so asshole nyikos runs away from his lie, justifying it with
another blatant lie.
Typical lake of morals.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
> >I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
>
> I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
I suppose you'd be deliriously happy if I started to do that.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
You didn't answer this question below--not a good beginning.
> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
> sentence was taking it out of context
Oh, you mean like cutting someone off in mid-sentence like Keegan and
Fischer do with alarming frequency?
>and he claimed
> that it didn't matter?
Well? Did it or didn't it matter in those cases?
Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
want to duck:
Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
Fischer right on this thread?
> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
> it was.
Documentation? Or at least some description that would turn a search
for these instances more promising than looking for a needle in a big
haystack?
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
You're just ignoring the fact that my prior post
actually answered all those questions.
>
> Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
> people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
> want to duck:
>
> Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
> Fischer right on this thread?
>
>> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
>> it was.
>
> Documentation? Or at least some description that would turn a search
> for these instances more promising than looking for a needle in a big
> haystack?
First you can satisfy me that I should waste my time
with this.
Oh, and you can either prove your libels or retract
them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
--
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is
rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon;
it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and
flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
IAAH
D'you know, I just found a post, from you, where you
acknowledge that Bipolar Bob did, in fact, take things
out of context and change the meaning of what was
written. That was as recently as June 10.
If you want to continue on with your usual ridiculous
litanies about how it's different when he does it
because he's so smart and your hero as well, you can
explain how his accusations against multiple people of
being convicted child molesters and drug abusers are
"just playing", as you so like to dub his others lies.
So we see that your entire set of demands has been a
sham. A prevarication, if you will. Perhaps even a
hypocritical attempt to blow smoke up others' asses.
So that puts this to rest, and you STILL have an
obligation to either prove or retract your libels. Get
off the pot, Nyikos.
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
>> sentence was taking it out of context
>>and he claimed
>> that it didn't matter?
>
>Well? Did it or didn't it matter in those cases?
NOtice that asshole adds the weasle words "in those cases".
In fact Asshoel heishman, more than once, insisted that context does
not matter.
>Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
Project much, you paranoid kook?
>Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
>Fischer right on this thread?
We can see your rabid insanity and malicious lies.
>> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
>> it was.
>
>Documentation?
Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
support one of your statements, fall back on context.
Asshole in <38be90cb-097d-4b17...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 10, 1:06 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
>> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
>> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
>> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
That is a malicious and bald -faced lie.
>[...]
>> >I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
>>
>> I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
>
>I suppose you'd be deliriously happy if I started to do that.
No, you malicious asshole: people are not as disgusting and filthy
as are you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 10, 1:06 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
>> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
>> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
>> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
>>
>> And now asshole nyikos is lying outright once again. I never did so.
>
>If I repost a post where you did just that, will you delete the whole
And notice that it was nyikos who deleted the challenge and repteaed
the lie without posting any evidence to support his libel. Once again
we see the malicious asshole who wallows in the filth he spews at
others.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> In article
> <20d9d6bf-3399-483a-80a1-4d1352175...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> > > Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
> > > important when he quoted others;
>
> > What were the contexts
>
> osprey got caught lying
Such claims, coming from you, are utterly worthless without
documentation.
And here, you don't even give a hint as to what that alleged lie might
have been. That would probably set a dangerous precedent--you might
feel impelled to actually name what lies you are alleging all the time
you accuse someone of lying.
And that would really cramp your style, wouldn't it?
> and tried to use the context excuse. some
> regulars followed up by using that tactic on him. everyone already knows
> this.
Kindly list "everyone". Obviously it does not include me, nor Mosco,
nor Sparks, nor Chris, nor Denise Noe, nor IT Helpdesk, and it
probably doesn't even include Quadibloc, nor Chilton, nor Jon Young
nor Lefty.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>> Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
> >>>> important when he quoted others;
.
> >>> What were the contexts [no joke intended] for these claims of his?
> >>> Could it be that the contexts to which his claims applied were no more
> >>> important than the whole play _Hamlet_ is to numerous things people
> >>> like to quote out of it?
>
> > You didn't answer this question below--not a good beginning.
>
> >> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
> >> sentence was taking it out of context
>
> > Oh, you mean like cutting someone off in mid-sentence like Keegan and
> > Fischer do with alarming frequency?
>
> >> and he claimed
> >> that it didn't matter?
>
> > Well? Did it or didn't it matter in those cases?
>
> You're just ignoring the fact that my prior post
> actually answered all those questions.
It must have been so prior that it was all the way back on another
thread. What you wrote in your posts to this thread so far said
diddly-squat about whether it mattered, as my first reply and my
following line up there makes clear.
Vague cowardly innuendo and misdirection don't count as answers.
> > Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
> > people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
> > want to duck:
>
> > Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
> > Fischer right on this thread?
And, true to form, you ducked this question.
> >> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
> >> it was.
>
> > Documentation? Or at least some description that would turn a search
> > for these instances more promising than looking for a needle in a big
> > haystack?
>
> First you can satisfy me that I should waste my time
> with this.
Your postings in 2010 strongly suggest that you don't care diddly-
squat about anyone outside the Cozy Clique believing that Osprey ever
told more than one or two lies in his whole Usenet "career."
If this is correct, why are you posting to this thread in the first
place?
If it is incorrect, why are you suddenly so all-fired reluctant to
talk after having posted something about answering "all the questions"
which is misleading at best and an out-and-out lie at worst?
[The Cozy Clique doesn't include ANY of the people I listed as not
being included in Keegan's "everyone" in my follow-up to him hereless
than an hour ago.]
> Oh, and you can either prove your libels or retract
> them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
First you can satisfy me that you know what the hell you are talking
about when you say "your libels."
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> IAAH wrote:
> > pnyikos wrote:
> >> On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>> Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
> >>>>> important when he quoted others;
>
> >>>> What were the contexts [no joke intended] for these claims of his?
> >>>> Could it be that the contexts to which his claims applied were no more
> >>>> important than the whole play _Hamlet_ is to numerous things people
> >>>> like to quote out of it?
>
> >> You didn't answer this question below--not a good beginning.
>
> >>> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
> >>> sentence was taking it out of context
>
> >> Oh, you mean like cutting someone off in mid-sentence like Keegan and
> >> Fischer do with alarming frequency?
>
> >>> and he claimed
> >>> that it didn't matter?
>
> >> Well? Did it or didn't it matter in those cases?
[...]
> >> Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
> >> people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
> >> want to duck:
>
> >> Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
> >> Fischer right on this thread?
>
> >>> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
> >>> it was.
>
> >> Documentation? Or at least some description that would turn a search
> >> for these instances more promising than looking for a needle in a big
> >> haystack?
> D'you know, I just found a post, from you, where you
> acknowledge that Bipolar Bob did, in fact, take things
> out of context and change the meaning of what was
> written. That was as recently as June 10.
2009?
Let's see you demonstrate this, regardless of which year it was. If
you actually meant 2010, then I suspect that it is as phony an example
as the one Keegan claimed he had, when he tried to make a deal with
me, right around June 10, 2010. I guessed what asinine thing he really
meant, and said I wished I could laugh in his silly face.
He massively deleted things in reply which made it clear that I was
right about the asinine thing he really meant.
[deletia of lots of crowing victory, but no demonstration]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
> >> sentence was taking it out of context
> >>and he claimed
> >> that it didn't matter?
>
> >Well? Did it or didn't it matter in those cases?
>
> NOtice that asshole adds the weasle words "in those cases".
See Arschloch Fischer, who has claimed to come from a scientific
background, betray that alleged background for the sake of a mess of
flaming [pottage].
Those cases, you insufferable jerk, were the places where OSPREY used
only half a sentence and was told, IN REFERENCE TO THOSE HALF
SENTENCES, that they were "taken out of context" [like every quote
you've ever seen from Shakespeare? or something worse, jerk?] and he
said, in direct reply to those "pointings out," that it didn't matter.
> In fact Asshoel heishman, more than once, insisted that context does
> not matter.
Are you relying on truncated statements in follow-ups by the likes of
you and Keegan when you remove all qualifiers from your blanket
description?
> >Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
[Pee Wee Hermanism by Fischer deleted here]
> >Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
> >Fischer right on this thread?
>
> We can see your rabid insanity and malicious lies.
You see nothing of the sort. Those cases were cases of you cutting
people off in mid sentence, nothing more, nothing less. Evidently
IAAH was afraid to make the comparison.
As are you. My question, which could have been dealt with easily by
the likes of you, with absolutely no prejudice to yourselves, remains
unanswered.
> >> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
> >> it was.
>
> >Documentation?
>
> Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> Asshole in <38be90cb-097d-4b17-a364-949d5d461...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
I can see Osprey's clear implication that the context did not matter
in the case under question.
But *did* it matter? Perhaps only God knows for sure at the moment.
Keegan, Fischer, and IAAH are so used to playing with the cards
practically welded to their chests, they aren't even trying to answer
THIS question.
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
> On Jun 14, 5:49 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
>>>>>> important when he quoted others;
>>>>> What were the contexts [no joke intended] for these claims of his?
>>>>> Could it be that the contexts to which his claims applied were no more
>>>>> important than the whole play _Hamlet_ is to numerous things people
>>>>> like to quote out of it?
>>> You didn't answer this question below--not a good beginning.
>>>> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
>>>> sentence was taking it out of context
>>> Oh, you mean like cutting someone off in mid-sentence like Keegan and
>>> Fischer do with alarming frequency?
>>>> and he claimed
>>>> that it didn't matter?
>>> Well? Did it or didn't it matter in those cases?
>> You're just ignoring the fact that my prior post
>> actually answered all those questions.
>
> It must have been so prior that it was all the way back on another
> thread. What you wrote in your posts to this thread so far said
> diddly-squat about whether it mattered, as my first reply and my
> following line up there makes clear.
Okay, most idiots would know that "prior post" refers
to this thread.
Why don't you?
As for you "making clear"; all that means to me is that
you decided to avoid the answers, because that is one
of your favourite tactics.
>
> Vague cowardly innuendo and misdirection don't count as answers.
>
>>> Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
>>> people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
>>> want to duck:
>>> Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
>>> Fischer right on this thread?
>
> And, true to form, you ducked this question.
No, I've already explained that until you either
retract or justify your libels, you get treated as I'm
treating you now.
>
>>>> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
>>>> it was.
>>> Documentation? Or at least some description that would turn a search
>>> for these instances more promising than looking for a needle in a big
>>> haystack?
>> First you can satisfy me that I should waste my time
>> with this.
>
> Your postings in 2010 strongly suggest that you don't care diddly-
> squat about anyone outside the Cozy Clique believing that Osprey ever
> told more than one or two lies in his whole Usenet "career."
>
> If this is correct, why are you posting to this thread in the first
> place?
So you can't satisfy me of that.
>
> If it is incorrect, why are you suddenly so all-fired reluctant to
> talk after having posted something about answering "all the questions"
> which is misleading at best and an out-and-out lie at worst?
>
> [The Cozy Clique doesn't include ANY of the people I listed as not
> being included in Keegan's "everyone" in my follow-up to him hereless
> than an hour ago.]
>
>> Oh, and you can either prove your libels or retract
>> them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
>
> First you can satisfy me that you know what the hell you are talking
> about when you say "your libels."
Don't play stupid, Nyikos, even if it's the only game
you can win at. You know exactly what I'm talking
about, since you've already replied (and avoided) on
that same topic.
IAAH
No, you tit.
2010. 4 days ago.
Look it up. Even YOU aren't so coincidentally prolific
and confused that you can't find your own be-damned posts.
Or are you denying that you said any such thing?
Now, prove or retract those libels, Nyikos.
IAAH
By the way, you haven't yet explained how Bipolar Bob's
libels about others being child molesters and convicted
criminals somehow aren't worth your attention. Why is that?
>
> Peter Nyikos
IAAH
D'you know, that question was answered LITERALLY years
ago. You missed it and can't be arsed to look it up.
Well, boo-fucking-hoo, Nyikos. It's obvious by now that
for all your inglorious protestations that all you want
is a "fair trial" for Bipolar Bob, what you REALLY want
is that he should be given the benefit of all doubt
against all evidence.
So your little hard-on for the group's favourite and
most easily-demolished punching-bag isn't really
carrying that much weight.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 1:06 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
> >> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
> >> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
> >> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
> >[...]
> >> >I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
>
> >> I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
>
> >I suppose you'd be deliriously happy if I started to do that.
>
> No,
I can think of at least three good reasons (one primarily to do with
me, one primarily to do with Bill Mosco and secondarily with Sparks,
and one primarily to do with you and my other self-chosen enemies) why
you would be deliriously happy, and NONE why you would not be.
The children? but you were so busy with much more important things
[from your POV] on that thread about the 13-year-old victim of forced
abortion in Italy, that you couldn't waste [from your POV] any time on
any sympathy for her.
The "much more important things" had to do with scoring debating
points against pro-lifers and others you have a bone to pick with, and
that seems to be all you care about.
[worthless FischerDebatingPoints deleted here]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
something happened so that a CC would automatically go to him.
Strangely enough, I didn't notice any such thing in my first follow-
up, and I fixed it this time so that NO CC goes to him.
Any e-mails I've ever sent to a Musketeer since I resumed posting in
2008 were by pure accident, as might have happened with my first
follow-up.
On Jun 14, 10:24 pm, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
...about the "lesson" people pretended Osprey needed about context, a
"lesson" provided by the malicious example "I am a child molester",
mentioned in excerpt from old post bel.
> >> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
> >> sentence was taking it out of context
> >>and he claimed
> >> that it didn't matter?
[...]
> >> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
> >> it was.
>
> >Documentation?
>
> Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> Asshole in <38be90cb-097d-4b17...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
What a laugh! This comment had NOTHING to do with the description
IAAH provided--it had to do with Spartakus clinging for dear life to
his fantasy that the "forgery" of a letter posted by Osprey just HAD
TO be intended as an e-mail (!) coming from the New York Times.
Here is Osprey's statement, IN CONTEXT, making it clear that Osprey
was referring to Spartakus's desperate clinging to his fantasy:
On Jul 28, 3:38 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
> > > > to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
> > > > about two or three years earlier, to that effect from Osprey, in
> > > > his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
> > > > including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
> > > > it.
>
> > > > What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> > > > so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> > > > referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
> > > Are you really this dumb? Since the "email" purported to be from the
> > > NYTimes is an obvious forgery,
>
> > Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
>
> Context, Bobby, context.
Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
support one of your statements, fall back on context.
----------------- end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/a059ace4fecf6d5a
See, folks? No half sentences up there, none whatsoever.
Later on, Spartakus did say that context is important--by recalling
all the fun that people HAD ALREADY HAD with "I am a child molester"
but that example was so utterly different from what is going on in the
excerpt above, that it illustrates beautifully the radically different
meanings of "taken out of context".
Here is what Spartakus said:
> Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
> forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
> molester" that came from your keyboard.
See, Spartakus even neglected to say "before you try claiming
*again*". Did Osprey EVER make the claim that context does not
matter?
Or are those just words that Spartakus is hoping to con him into
saying here, perhaps with qualifiers that Fischer and Keegan and their
ilk can conveniently delete?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Because your claim that you made such a post is a bare-faced lie.
Thanks for removing all doubt about that.
> As for you "making clear"; all that means to me is that
> you decided to avoid the answers,
...which you don't even have the guts to repeat, because those
"answers" were cop-outs, not "yes" or "no" answers.
>
> > Vague cowardly innuendo and misdirection don't count as answers.
>
> >>> Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
> >>> people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
> >>> want to duck:
> >>> Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
> >>> Fischer right on this thread?
>
> > And, true to form, you ducked this question.
>
> No, I've already explained that until you either
> retract or justify your libels, you get treated as I'm
> treating you now.
Which in this case consisted of ducking the question.
>
>
> >>>> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
> >>>> it was.
> >>> Documentation? Or at least some description that would turn a search
> >>> for these instances more promising than looking for a needle in a big
> >>> haystack?
> >> First you can satisfy me that I should waste my time
> >> with this.
>
> > Your postings in 2010 strongly suggest that you don't care diddly-
> > squat about anyone outside the Cozy Clique believing that Osprey ever
> > told more than one or two lies in his whole Usenet "career."
>
> > If this is correct, why are you posting to this thread in the first
> > place?
>
> So you can't satisfy me of that.
NOTHING could satisfy ANYONE who fits the description above, in the
way you suggest. And you evidently continue to fit it.
[...]
> >> Oh, and you can either prove your libels or retract
> >> them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
>
> > First you can satisfy me that you know what the hell you are talking
> > about when you say "your libels."
>
> Don't play stupid, Nyikos, even if it's the only game
> you can win at. You know exactly what I'm talking
> about,
The only alleged libel I can think of is something I've come pretty
close to proving, and if that isn't good enough for you, you'll get
another shot of argument about once every two months. Meanwhile, you
can use my delay as an excuse to go on refusing to be a source of
evidence of Osprey's dishonesty.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
In your follow-up, you claimed it was four days ago, but you deleted
all of the following:
> > Let's see you demonstrate this, regardless of which year it was. If
> > you actually meant 2010, then I suspect that it is as phony an example
> > as the one Keegan claimed he had, when he tried to make a deal with
> > me, right around June 10, 2010. I guessed what asinine thing he really
> > meant, and said I wished I could laugh in his silly face.
> > He massively deleted things in reply which made it clear that I was
> > right about the asinine thing he really meant.
>
> > [deletia of lots of crowing victory, but no demonstration]
The deletion, coupled with the setting of CC's to your weird and
probably phony e-mail address, strongly suggests that I am correct up
there, far more correct than Fischer was about his quote having
anything to do with your purposely vague description on this thread of
anything Osprey did.
> By the way, you haven't yet explained how Bipolar Bob's
> libels about others being child molesters and convicted
> criminals somehow aren't worth your attention. Why is that?
I've explained it. Look it up yourself.
Turnabout is fair play.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
It did not, not the way Spartakus desperately wanted it to.
> Perhaps only God knows for sure at the moment.
That was then. This is now. See my last follow-up to Fischer for why
this quote is totally inappropriate for what IAAH has been alleging.
> > Keegan, Fischer, and IAAH are so used to playing with the cards
> > practically welded to their chests, they aren't even trying to answer
> > THIS question.
>
> D'you know, that question was answered LITERALLY years
> ago. You missed it
No, I just didn't want to stop in the middle of my follow-up. Google
asks "are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?" if I
click on the blue line below the ellipsis. And sometimes, it
malfunctions and doesn't get me back to the page.
> and can't be arsed to look it up.
This either fits you, or else you knew damn well that the quote had
NOTHING to do with documenting what you wrote.
>
> Well, boo-fucking-hoo, Nyikos. It's obvious by now that
> for all your inglorious protestations that all you want
> is a "fair trial" for Bipolar Bob, what you REALLY want
> is that he should be given the benefit of all doubt
> against all evidence.
Against nonexistent (AFAIK) evidence, and it's obvious by now that you
don't care one iota about whether REAL evidence exists or not.
But then, what do you expect of someone so cowardly, he gives an
obviously phony e-mail address, and gives us no hint as to what his
real name, occupation, city of location, or place of work are.
In short, "IAAH" fits the description of "cowardly anonymous poster"
that Keegan and Humphrey pretend to think constitutes instant
disqualification of anyone--when it suits them to pretend it.
Of course, they are VERY content to have just such an anonymous coward
playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" where they and
Fischer and Spartakus are concerned, and flaming the bejesus out of
some of their opponents.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 14, 11:57 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>> > On Jun 14, 5:49 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >> You're just ignoring the fact that my prior post
>> >> actually answered all those questions.
>>
>> > It must have been so prior that it was all the way back on another
>> > thread. What you wrote in your posts to this thread so far said
>> > diddly-squat about whether it mattered, as my first reply and my
>> > following line up there makes clear.
>>
>> Okay, most idiots would know that "prior post" refers
>> to this thread.
>>
>> Why don't you?
>
>Because your claim that you made such a post is a bare-faced lie.
That coming from a malicious liar and asshole. Now you're trying to
pretend that you didn't see the answwers.
It's getting old and less convincing each time you try it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 14, 10:24 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
>> >> sentence was taking it out of context
>> >>and he claimed
>> >> that it didn't matter?
>>
>> >Well? Did it or didn't it matter in those cases?
>>
>> NOtice that asshole adds the weasle words "in those cases".
>
>See Arschloch Fischer,
See the asshole try to shift blame for his own corruption onto ANYBODY
else except on himself where it belongs.
>> In fact Asshoel heishman, more than once, insisted that context does
>> not matter.
>
>Are you relying on truncated statements
No.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
coming from him.
>On Jun 14, 10:24 pm, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
>> support one of your statements, fall back on context.
>> Asshole in <38be90cb-097d-4b17...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
>
>What a laugh! This comment had NOTHING to do with the description
So asshole nyikos also insists that context isn't relevant. Except, of
course, when he wants to use it to smear others. I guess that I shall
have to find some useful quotes of asshole's to demonstrate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 14, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 10, 1:06 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
>> >> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
>> >> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
>> >> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
>[...]
Notice that AGAIN the malicious asshole repeats his lie while running
away from any challenges. Obvouisly his hatred has corrupted him.
>> >> >I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
>>
>> >> I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
>>
>> >I suppose you'd be deliriously happy if I started to do that.
>>
>> No,
>
>I can think
Obvious not or you wouldn't be such a sleazy, transparent, malicious
asshole. It's hardly surprising that you also choose to support an
organization that protects child molesters.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
IAAH
You say that every time you simply don't agree with it.
That's gotten old pretty fast.
Thanks for removing all doubt about that.
>
>> As for you "making clear"; all that means to me is that
>> you decided to avoid the answers,
>
> ....which you don't even have the guts to repeat, because those
> "answers" were cop-outs, not "yes" or "no" answers.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Remember, anything but "yes" or "no" is a cop-out, Nyikos.
>
>>> Vague cowardly innuendo and misdirection don't count as answers.
>>>>> Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
>>>>> people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
>>>>> want to duck:
>>>>> Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
>>>>> Fischer right on this thread?
>>> And, true to form, you ducked this question.
>> No, I've already explained that until you either
>> retract or justify your libels, you get treated as I'm
>> treating you now.
>
> Which in this case consisted of ducking the question.
No, it consists of exactly what I told you. See, that's
how honesty looks.
Now, in YOUR case it pretty much always consists of
ducking the question.
>
>>
>>>>>> Yes, it could. Actually, that's pretty much exactly how
>>>>>> it was.
>>>>> Documentation? Or at least some description that would turn a search
>>>>> for these instances more promising than looking for a needle in a big
>>>>> haystack?
>>>> First you can satisfy me that I should waste my time
>>>> with this.
>>> Your postings in 2010 strongly suggest that you don't care diddly-
>>> squat about anyone outside the Cozy Clique believing that Osprey ever
>>> told more than one or two lies in his whole Usenet "career."
>>> If this is correct, why are you posting to this thread in the first
>>> place?
>> So you can't satisfy me of that.
>
> NOTHING could satisfy ANYONE who fits the description above, in the
> way you suggest. And you evidently continue to fit it.
"Wah! The mean ol' Internet won't let me call anything
I want evidence without asking questions! Wah!"
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>>>> Oh, and you can either prove your libels or retract
>>>> them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
>>> First you can satisfy me that you know what the hell you are talking
>>> about when you say "your libels."
>> Don't play stupid, Nyikos, even if it's the only game
>> you can win at. You know exactly what I'm talking
>> about,
>
> The only alleged libel I can think of is something I've come pretty
> close to proving, and if that isn't good enough for you, you'll get
> another shot of argument about once every two months. Meanwhile, you
> can use my delay as an excuse to go on refusing to be a source of
> evidence of Osprey's dishonesty.
Ah, the usual weasel words from the coward Nyikos. You
don't even have the courage to face up to your
scurrilous libels.
Gee, who does *that* remind people of?
IAAH
Yes, I did, and I deleted the rest, as I did here,
because my point is made, and if you can't even look up
one of YOUR OWN POSTS from (now) five days ago, then
you'll simply be making plain that you are too stupid
to use a computer.
>
>> By the way, you haven't yet explained how Bipolar Bob's
>> libels about others being child molesters and convicted
>> criminals somehow aren't worth your attention. Why is that?
>
> I've explained it. Look it up yourself.
>
> Turnabout is fair play.
Ah, so when YOU do something that you claim is *bad*
when others do it, it's okay?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Nyikos. Thanks for that
confirmation.
(You've really decided not only to defend Bipolar Bob
but adopt all of his mendacious little character
traits, haven't you?)
IAAH
Oh noes, your browser is to messed up you CAN'T OPEN
ANOTHER WINDOW.
>
>> and can't be arsed to look it up.
>
> This either fits you, or else you knew damn well that the quote had
> NOTHING to do with documenting what you wrote.
>
>> Well, boo-fucking-hoo, Nyikos. It's obvious by now that
>> for all your inglorious protestations that all you want
>> is a "fair trial" for Bipolar Bob, what you REALLY want
>> is that he should be given the benefit of all doubt
>> against all evidence.
>
> Against nonexistent (AFAIK) evidence, and it's obvious by now that you
> don't care one iota about whether REAL evidence exists or not.
All the evidence is there, and I have supplied much of
it, to you, more than once in some cases. You've been
given links to messages where ol' Fishbreath admits
forging posts under others' names, you've been shown
that his story about those forged posts coming from
someone else is vanishingly unlikely, you've been given
evidence that he accused people of being child
molesters and convicted felons and claimed that he used
law enforcement resources to "find" that information,
and *still* you pule about "lack".
What you've evidently decided is that for some reason
Bipolar Bob should be judged differently (most likely
because you and he evidently share more than a few
regrettable and unpleasant character traits).
Now, as for the matter of whatever my identity is,
should I tell you that my name is Donald Withiers,
living in Moosonee, as an alpaca farmer; what possible
difference could that make?
None at all. You just need something to moan about.
I keep my identity to myself because otherwise people
like you and Bipolar Bob use it to harass me in other
venues than Usenet.
james g. keegan jr.
<1bc1b919-d039-4707...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:26�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> >I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
> >
> > >> I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
> >
> > >I suppose you'd be deliriously happy if I started to do that.
> >
> > No, you malicious asshole: people are not as disgusting and
> > filthy as are you.
>
> I can think of at least three good reasons (one primarily to do with
> me, one primarily to do with Bill Mosco and secondarily with Sparks,
> and one primarily to do with you and my other self-chosen enemies) why
> you would be deliriously happy, and NONE why you would not be.
you just demonstrated the accuracy of fischer's comment.
james g. keegan jr.
<34ceef69-8f7a-4630...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
your post was cut at your first new lie.
james g. keegan jr.
IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > In your follow-up, you claimed it was four days ago, but you deleted
> > all of the following:
>
> Yes, I did, and I deleted the rest, as I did here,
> because my point is made, and if you can't even look up
> one of YOUR OWN POSTS from (now) five days ago, then
> you'll simply be making plain that you are too stupid
> to use a computer.
i don't think the person posting as peter nyikos is too stupid to look
up one of his/her posts. he/she is simply too dishonest and he/she has
repeatedly demonstrated when ignoring facts inconsistent with his/her
misrepresentations.
he/she is, however, too stupid to participate in newsgroups without such
lies and misrepresentations.
james g. keegan jr.
<809ad5b5-f7ff-4720...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 5:49 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
[...]
> > Oh, and you can either prove your libels or retract
> > them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
>
> First you can satisfy me that you know what the hell you are talking
> about when you say "your libels."
are you running away from your repeated false claims of plagiarism and
libel?
before you seriously jeopardize yourself, you might want to have an
informal chat with usc's general counsel since you so often use a
signature block linking you with the university.
james g. keegan jr.
IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
[...]
> >>>> you can either prove your libels or retract
> >>>> them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
> >>> First you can satisfy me that you know what the hell you are talking
> >>> about when you say "your libels."
> >> Don't play stupid, Nyikos, even if it's the only game
> >> you can win at. You know exactly what I'm talking
> >> about,
> >
> > The only alleged libel I can think of is something I've come pretty
> > close to proving, and if that isn't good enough for you, you'll get
> > another shot of argument about once every two months. Meanwhile, you
> > can use my delay as an excuse to go on refusing to be a source of
> > evidence of Osprey's dishonesty.
>
> Ah, the usual weasel words from the coward Nyikos. You
> don't even have the courage to face up to your
> scurrilous libels.
>
>
> Gee, who does *that* remind people of?
indeed.
the person posting as peter nyikos has him/herself in pretty deep this
time. i wonder if his employers have suggested that he take a posting
break?
james g. keegan jr.
<1aa325c6-006a-44de...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:12 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <20d9d6bf-3399-483a-80a1-4d1352175...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> > > > Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
> > > > important when he quoted others;
> >
> > > What were the contexts
> >
> > osprey got caught lying
>
> Such claims, coming from you, are utterly worthless without
> documentation.
of course documentation has been posted hundreds of times.
documentation which you responded to.
thus, your dishonest defenses of osprey's lies are simply a diversion
from your more serious libels.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>
> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
> coming from him.
Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
this baseless and juvenile and comment. NOTHING he says below even
remotely approaches an attempt to prove it.
...nor, of course, to justify his infantile tit-for-tat Subject: line
"Re: Pathological Liar Nyikos" which is a base lie and which I've
changed to reflect the reality of what he does below.
> >On Jun 14, 10:24 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> >> support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> >> Asshole in <38be90cb-097d-4b17-a364-949d5d461...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
>
> >What a laugh! This comment had NOTHING to do with the description
>
> So asshole nyikos also insists that context isn't relevant.
I haven't done a thorough job of checking over low-IQ simulations of
June, but this one of Fischer's ranks high on any list of candidates.
Of course, he had to cut me off in mid-sentence to make it look even
remotely credible to those who have killfiled me and not him.
And even those would have to be eating out of Fischer's hand to the
extent of assuming that he deleted all the evidence for his stick-out-
like-a-sore-thumb accusation, just to save space and not because he is
deleting the evidence that would make him look like a below-40-IQ
simulator AND a pathological liar if he had left it in.
> Except, of
> course, when he wants to use it to smear others. I guess that I shall
> have to find some useful quotes of asshole's to demonstrate.
I'm ready to look at useful quotes of Osprey's any time, on this
thread--which makes it a pretty safe bet that Fischer will not post a
credible example on this thread.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 14, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 10, 1:06 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
> >> >> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
> >> >> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
> >> >> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
> >[...]
>
> Notice that AGAIN the malicious asshole repeats his lie while running
> away from any challenges. Obvouisly his hatred has corrupted him.
>
> >> >> >I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
>
> >> >> I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
>
> >> >I suppose you'd be deliriously happy if I started to do that.
>
> >> No,
>
> >I can think
>
> Obvious not
All evidence since I resumed posting in November 2008 strongly
supports the thesis that I am a far better thinker than Fischer. Just
for starters, try comparing my expositions of Dirty Debating Tactics
with his boring repetition of unsupported insults like "Declare
victory" and "Asshole" etc.
>or you wouldn't be such a sleazy, transparent, malicious
> asshole.
"Garbage in" to go with the "Garbage out" of "Obvious [*sic*] not.
>It's hardly surprising that you also choose to support an
> organization that protects child molesters.
It never did, only some despicable bishops protected them, and I never
had anything to do with those bishops except to put Archbishop Rembert
Weakland on the spot about ten years ago on his softness towards
abortion.
That was when he was riding high in esteem and nobody had any inkling
he had shielded a child molester.
Anyway, you've just confirmed ONE of the three reasons you would be
deliriously happy if I turned out to be one--I could never show my
face on Usenet again.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out WHY you would be
deliriously happy about that.
By the way, I've just thought of a fourth reason why you would be
deliriously happy. HInt: think of the dynamics of the LC-Jon Young
feud..
The other two, I've already talked about in the sentence where you cut
me off at "think".
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>>
>> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
>> coming from him.
>
>Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
>> >On Jun 14, 10:24 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
>> >> support one of your statements, fall back on context.
>> >> Asshole in <38be90cb-097d-4b17-a364-949d5d461...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> >What a laugh! This comment had NOTHING to do with the description
>>
>> So asshole nyikos also insists that context isn't relevant.
>
>I haven't done a thorough job of checking over low-IQ simulations of
Spare us the cowardly waffling, asshole. You have demonstrated
repeatedly that you don't care about context.
>> Except, of
>> course, when he wants to use it to smear others. I guess that I shall
>> have to find some useful quotes of asshole's to demonstrate.
>
>I'm ready to look at useful quotes of Osprey's any time,
I was referring to you, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
This is the first time I've said it about any such thing, So your
"it" even lacks a tangible referent.
> That's gotten old pretty fast.
YOU are doing a two-liner here whose structure is so stereotyped, it
got old long ago.
> Thanks for removing all doubt about that.
And thIs third line only tries to add credibility to the two-liner
garbage that preceded it.
> >> As for you "making clear"; all that means to me is that
> >> you decided to avoid the answers,
>
> > ....which you don't even have the guts to repeat,
and, true to form, IAAH did not have the guts to repeat them this time
around either, because it would have deprived him of the opportunity
to do a juicy low-IQ simulation below, which would have turned into a
below-40-IQ simulation if he HAD repeated them.
> > because those
> > "answers" were cop-outs, not "yes" or "no" answers.
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Stop playing dumb, IAAH: my questions could have been answered in one
of those two ways without any negative effects for the answerer,
provided he was telling the truth.
> Remember, anything but "yes" or "no" is a cop-out, Nyikos.
Such juvenile jumping to conclusions about my standards is not only a
low-IQ simulation, it illustrates why I call IAAH a one-dimensional
dummy-analogue of the ventriloquist-analogue who actually types the
words that appear under the IAAH handle.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 15, 1:35 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 14, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 10, 1:06 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >Back when Osprey was around, you and your fellow scoundrels used to
>> >> >> >take great delight in posting something that was RIPPED out of
>> >> >> >context: "I am a child molester" and then you'd lie through your teeth
>> >> >> >that he had admitted to being a child molester.
>> >[...]
>>
>> Notice that AGAIN the malicious asshole repeats his lie while running
>> away from any challenges. Obvouisly his hatred has corrupted him.
>>
>> >> >> >I suppose you'll do the same to me now,
>>
>> >> >> I suppose you'll start molesting children now.
>>
>> >> >I suppose you'd be deliriously happy if I started to do that.
>>
>> >> No,
>>
>> >I can think
>>
>> Obvious not
>
>All evidence since I resumed posting in November 2008 strongly
>supports the thesis that I am a far better thinker than Fischer.
Stamp your foot when you write that and somebody might be impressed.
Volume and ego do not correspond to quality.
> Just
>for starters, try comparing my expositions of Dirty Debating Tactics
Whines do not equate to quality.
>>or you wouldn't be such a sleazy, transparent, malicious
>> asshole.
>
>"Garbage in" to go with the "Garbage out" of "Obvious [*sic*] not.
Yeah, that's a real quality argument. You get to be a sleazy,
malicious liar because you hate how other people keep spanking your
ass.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 11:57 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Jun 14, 5:49 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 10, 6:37 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
> >>>>>>>> important when he quoted others;
> >>> ..
> >>>>>>> What were the contexts [no joke intended] for these claims of his?
> >>>>>>> Could it be that the contexts to which his claims applied were no more
> >>>>>>> important than the whole play _Hamlet_ is to numerous things people
> >>>>>>> like to quote out of it?
> >>>>> You didn't answer this question below--not a good beginning.
Nor did IAAH make any progress in subsequent posts. IAAH's low-IQ
simulation later in this post [see my expose in my first reply to this
post a minutes ago] strongly supports the suspicion that Osprey used
in contexts where the prior context really did NOT apply, and IAAH is
doing a low-IQ simulation above.
> >>>>>> Could it be that he was told that using only half a
> >>>>>> sentence was taking it out of context
IAAH never bothered to give any evidence of a "yes" answer, and
Spartakus gave a totally different answer of sorts, already dealt
with.
> >>>>> Oh, you mean like cutting someone off in mid-sentence like Keegan and
> >>>>> Fischer do with alarming frequency?
"See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" of Fischer or Keegan by
IAAH.
[...]
> >>>> Oh, and you can either prove your libels or retract
> >>>> them. Shit or go blind, Nyikos.
> >>> First you can satisfy me that you know what the hell you are talking
> >>> about when you say "your libels."
> >> Don't play stupid, Nyikos, even if it's the only game
> >> you can win at. You know exactly what I'm talking
> >> about,
>
> > The only alleged libel I can think of is something I've come pretty
> > close to proving, and if that isn't good enough for you, you'll get
> > another shot of argument about once every two months. Meanwhile, you
> > can use my delay as an excuse to go on refusing to be a source of
> > evidence of Osprey's dishonesty.
IAAH fails to allege any other libels by me. No surprise:
> Ah, the usual weasel words from the coward Nyikos.
On the contrary, you only critiqued ONE of my arguments, and that
consisted of an alibi which you exploded yourself when you answered to
comments that I addressed to "IAAAH" and "IAAAAH" even though nobody
using those handles has ever posted to Usenet.
I think you caught on when I addressed yet another comment to
"IAAAAHH"--you left the thread altogether!
Had you answered to that comment, I could have then added the last of
the extra letters you added to "ambulance" by addressing a comment to
"WIAAAAHH."
> You
> don't even have the courage to face up to your
> scurrilous libels.
>
> Gee, who does *that* remind people of?
If there were any truth to your previous comment, it SHOULD remind
everyone of Keegan, Fischer, Spartakus and Humphrey.
But you safely pretend it doesn't, by your stock response to
challenges to comment on this and that behaviour by them by ignoring
them, as above, or whining that we are trying to hold you responsible
for everything they do.
Or demanding that someone prove -- really PROVE beyond a reasonable
doubt-- statements that you call libels [but don't even have the guts
to describe] before commenting on them, as in the part I deleted.
You even capped that performance by flagrantly lying "See, that's how
honesty looks" and playing tit-for-tat. I've reposted your despicable
performance here:
------------------------- begin repost, names added in brackets:
[Nyikos:]
>>>>> Now for a much tougher question--which you, who are paranoid about
>>>>> people making you responsible for what Keegan and Fischer post, may
>>>>> want to duck:
>>>>> Did it matter MORE than in the cases you can see from Keegan and
>>>>> Fischer right on this thread?
[Nyikos two posts later:]
>>> And, true to form, you ducked this question.
[IAAH:]
>> No, I've already explained that until you either
>> retract or justify your libels, you get treated as I'm
>> treating you now.
[Nyikos:]
> Which in this case consisted of ducking the question.
No, it consists of exactly what I told you. See, that's
how honesty looks.
Now, in YOUR case it pretty much always consists of
ducking the question.
=========== end of repost
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
Yeah, that's not even remotely true, and my referents
are just fine, thanks.
pnyikos
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 8:12 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <20d9d6bf-3399-483a-80a1-4d1352175...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> > > > > Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
> > > > > important when he quoted others;
>
> > > > What were the contexts
>
> > > osprey got caught lying
>
> > Such claims, coming from you, are utterly worthless without
> > documentation.
>
> of course documentation has been posted hundreds of times.
>
> documentation which you responded to.
Documentation of things you blatantly CALL lies, but not of anything
that would SHOW that they are lies.
Just like your "documentation" that I *falsely* accused you of
plagiarism.
And even that "documentation" was incomplete--you never documented my
original words in any of the hundreds of posts you made on the
subject--I mean, after your initial follow-up to where I first made
them--did you?
> thus, your dishonest defenses of osprey's lies are simply a diversion
Your claim of "diversion" is simply a diversion from the fact that I
have never defended the one thing (the false claim about his Desert
Storm service) that can credibly be called a lie by Osprey for which
I've seen the evidnece that it IS a lie.
Thanks, by the way, for so nicely illustrating what I called LC's
"horse to water" concept yesterday on another thread.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<3e359ed5-ff58-474e...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > So asshole nyikos also insists that context isn't relevant.
>
> I haven't done a thorough job of checking over low-IQ simulations of
> June
now the person posting as peter nyikos claims not t have read his june
posts.
james g. keegan jr.
<8b5c905f-3a16-48c3...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
> All evidence since I resumed posting in November 2008 strongly
> supports the thesis that I am a far better thinker than Fischer.
this one is almost funny.
james g. keegan jr.
<d69ff998-d08f-4524...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 11:25 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > of course documentation has been posted hundreds of times.
> > documentation which you responded to.
>
> Documentation of things you blatantly CALL lies, but not of anything
> that would SHOW that they are lies.
your post was cut at your first new lie.
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 15, 11:25 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1aa325c6-006a-44de-b308-47a1167f6...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Jun 10, 8:12 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <20d9d6bf-3399-483a-80a1-4d1352175...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > On Jun 10, 8:21 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> > > > > Osprey said more than once that context wasn't
>> > > > > important when he quoted others;
>>
>> > > > What were the contexts
>>
>> > > osprey got caught lying
>>
>> > Such claims, coming from you, are utterly worthless without
>> > documentation.
>>
>> of course documentation has been posted hundreds of times.
>>
>> documentation which you responded to.
>
>Documentation of things you blatantly CALL lies, but not of anything
You are a sleazy, malicious liar. You lie with such regularity that
it is safest to assume that everything you write is a lie until shown
to be otherwise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>
> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
> >> coming from him.
>
> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
>
> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis, you can get any number of
conclusions.
Anyway, here you seemed not to have filled your July quota, and were
getting antsy because the month was almost up.
> >> >On Jun 14, 10:24 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> >> >> support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> >> >> Asshole in <38be90cb-097d-4b17-a364-949d5d461...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
>
> >> >What a laugh! This comment had NOTHING to do with the description
>
> >> So asshole nyikos also insists that context isn't relevant.
>
> >I haven't done a thorough job of checking over low-IQ simulations of
>>June, but this one of Fischer's ranks high on any list of candidates.
>>Of course, he had to cut me off in mid-sentence to make it look even
>>remotely credible to those who have killfiled me and not him.
>>And even those would have to be eating out of Fischer's hand to the
>>extent of assuming that he deleted all the evidence for his stick-out-
>>like-a-sore-thumb accusation, just to save space and not because he is
>>deleting the evidence that would make him look like a below-40-IQ
>>simulator AND a pathological liar if he had left it in.
> Spare us the cowardly waffling, asshole.
You sound like a hate-driven lunatic. How could anyone mistake the
above for "cowardly waffling" unless he had more than a few screws
loose?
> You have demonstrated
> repeatedly that you don't care about context.
I'm still waiting for what you think of as an example.
> >> Except, of
> >> course, when he wants to use it to smear others. I guess that I shall
> >> have to find some useful quotes of asshole's to demonstrate.
I"m still waiting, and what I say below applies to me in place of
Osprey.
> >I'm ready to look at useful quotes of Osprey's any time,
>
> I was referring to you, asshole.
You left off an article, so I thought you'd forgotten to capitalize
your favorite nickname for Osprey.
The fact that you nicknamed him that illustrates a number of things
about you, including the depth of your addiction to flinging insults.
I'll say one thing for IAAH: his insults don't usually sound like they
are coming from a snotty pre-teen whose mouth is on automatic pilot.
His are mostly stereotyped Internet Vandal style insults, typical of a
considerably older age group.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Show me ONE place where I categorically said anything like "It must
have been so prior that it was all the way back on another thread." I
predict you'll never do it.
And if that isn't what your "You say that every time..." referred to,
I'd like to know what it DID refer to.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>>
>> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
>> >> coming from him.
>>
>> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
>>
>> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
>> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
>
>Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis,
You've proven yourself to be a sleazy, malicious liar and all-round
asshole. That is fact. Your insane denials don't alter that fact.
Your sleazy whines don't alter that fact. Your desperate attempt to
blame others for your lack of morals doesn't change that fact.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
a phd would surely understand what you just wrote, right?
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>
> >> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
> >> >> coming from him.
>
> >> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
>
> >> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
> >> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
>
> >Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis,
>
> You've proven yourself to be a sleazy, malicious liar and all-round
> asshole. That is fact. Your insane denials don't alter that fact.
> Your sleazy whines don't alter that fact. Your desperate attempt to
> blame others for your lack of morals doesn't change that fact.
Ranting and raving like this, with absolutely nothing to back it up
with, strongly suggests you've lost your marbles.
You never really addressed the damning evidence against you in the
very first post to this thread, whose original Subject: line I've
restored, minus your name. The evidence in that post is the sort of
evidence you need to back up any of your hate-crazed insults, and you
not only lack it, you don't even pretend to have it in this post.
Calling your slanders facts just adds up to another unsupported denial
of the truth on your part.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article <4c7f4031$0$1658$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>
> > >> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
> > >> >> coming from him.
>
> > >> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
>
> > >> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
> > >> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
>
> > >Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis,
>
> > You've proven yourself to be a sleazy, malicious liar and all-round
> > asshole. That is fact. Your insane denials don't alter that fact.
> > Your sleazy whines don't alter that fact. Your desperate attempt to
> > blame others for your lack of morals doesn't change that fact.
>
> a phd would surely understand what you just wrote, right?
Slander is generally very easy to understand, especially the way
Fischer words it. I think even the average ten year old could
understand what Fischer is saying here.
The trick is to try to back it up, but all the backing up seems to
flow in the opposite direction, the way I backed up the fact that you
slandered me by alleging that I had run away from a challenge by
Humphrey when, in fact, I FULLY met the challenge:
----------- begin relevant excerpt, including Humphrey's challenge---
> > Chilton's
> > reaction should be especially enlightening. He has said he thinks the
> > age of consent should be lowered to 14.
> > Peter Nyikos
> Maybe you should prove that cheap shot, Fraud of "Professor".
Maybe you should stop trying to discredit me by hook or crook, you
patholgical liar and "Fraud of an Adult".
But thanks for saying it is a cheap shot to attribute that opinion to
Chilton; it makes the following documentation all the sweeter:
"However,
I do think that the age of consent should be lowered to 14. When
my girlfriend and I were dating in our mid-teens, she was VERY
knowledgeable about sex at that age."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/fb1b39428fa86f7a
Message-ID: <4q31055n40f7cfgmi478p861a4n1132...@4ax.com>
the last three symbols before the @ are fae
============= end of excerpt from:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/783d896309dfda0b
Those were Chilton's words I was quoting. Now watch how you lied in
DIRECT FOLLOW-UP to the above. You lied that I had run away from
Humphrey's challenge, when anyone can see that I met it PERFECTLY.
-------------- begin included post
In article
<e64a97f1-9738-4e6c-bde0-77ae4f937...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:19 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
[...]r".
> Maybe you should stop trying to discredit me by hook or crook
see how the plagiarizing, lying nyikos runs away from another
challenge
to one of his lies.
=========== end of post that can be found in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/14424a75b38895b0
Message-ID: <jgkeegan-083828.15170723082...@news.individual.net>
the last three symbols before the @ are 010
By the way--aren't you curious to know who the winner of the
Pathological Liar of the Month (May 2010) is? I never did say who it
was. But the other shoe will drop eventually, probably this month.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<1c3d7d06-a09a-4c16...@a11g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 10:54 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <4c7f4031$0$1658$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
> >
> > > >> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
> > > >> >> coming from him.
> >
> > > >> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
> >
> > > >> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
> > > >> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
> >
> > > >Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis,
> >
> > > You've proven yourself to be a sleazy, malicious liar and all-round
> > > asshole. That is fact. Your insane denials don't alter that fact.
> > > Your sleazy whines don't alter that fact. Your desperate attempt to
> > > blame others for your lack of morals doesn't change that fact.
> >
> > a phd would surely understand what you just wrote, right?
>
> Slander is generally very easy to understand, especially the way
> Fischer words it.
your post was cut at your first new lie, plagiarist.
james g. keegan jr.
<b041f7fa-aa97-45ec...@q18g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:12 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
> >
> > >> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
> > >> >> coming from him.
> >
> > >> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
> >
> > >> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
> > >> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
> >
> > >Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis,
> >
> > You've proven yourself to be a sleazy, malicious liar and all-round
> > asshole. That is fact. Your insane denials don't alter that fact.
> > Your sleazy whines don't alter that fact. Your desperate attempt to
> > blame others for your lack of morals doesn't change that fact.
>
> Ranting and raving like this, with absolutely nothing to back it up
> with, strongly suggests you've lost your marbles.
it might, if that were the case. but it is not. you're simply lying
again, you plagiarizing fraud.
Ray Fischer
>On Sep 2, 10:54 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <4c7f4031$0$1658$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > >> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>>
>> > >> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
>> > >> >> coming from him.
>>
>> > >> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
>>
>> > >> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
>> > >> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
>>
>> > >Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis,
>>
>> > You've proven yourself to be a sleazy, malicious liar and all-round
>> > asshole. That is fact. Your insane denials don't alter that fact.
>> > Your sleazy whines don't alter that fact. Your desperate attempt to
>> > blame others for your lack of morals doesn't change that fact.
>>
>> a phd would surely understand what you just wrote, right?
>
>Slander is generally very easy to understand, especially the way
>Fischer words it.
Truth by sleazy innuendo.
As usual.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Sep 2, 2:12 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 15, 1:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >This is my second follow-up to this post by Fischer,
>>
>> >> >> Asshole nyikos is goint to sling more shit and pretend that it isn't
>> >> >> coming from him.
>>
>> >> >Fischer obiously hadn't filled his quota of June insults when he made
>>
>> >> Boo hoo, asshole. If you act like a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole
>> >> then expect to be called a sleazy, shit-slinging asshole.
>>
>> >Heck, from a contrary to fact hypothesis,
>>
>> You've proven yourself to be a sleazy, malicious liar and all-round
>> asshole. That is fact. Your insane denials don't alter that fact.
>> Your sleazy whines don't alter that fact. Your desperate attempt to
>> blame others for your lack of morals doesn't change that fact.
>
>Ranting and raving like this,
Quit whining, asshole. Grow a pair and own up to your own filth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net