Lying Fergus was Re: The Mailbombing Tavishes Lie Again
Yale F. Edeiken
> re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
> ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> >> re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
> >> ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> Yes. Tavish's activities were violations of the criminal law.
> >> >> >> The conspiracy has been admitted at this point by Tavish who states
> >> >> >> that two "friends" at Pheonix were protecting him. Apparently their
> >> >> >> activities included deliberately lying to the Texas Department of
> >> >> >> Public Safety.
> >
> >> >> didn't you say once to me that Tavish and the two people he mentioned
> >> >> had all left Phoenix and that you would have more news? That was many
> >> >> months ago - any news yet? Any evidence you can post for example?
> >> > No Tavish claimed that.
> >> I repeat. Didn't YOU, Yale Edeiken, say it *to me*?
> > No. Tavish claimed that.
> Not to me. You said it to me.
Yes you lying shithead. I told you that "
Tavish" said that.
> > And the Shame of Scotland was answered.
> Well I was not.
That's your opinion. But, as usual, your opinions suck.
> >> 2. Any evidence you can post?
> > And the Shame of Scotland was told it was none of his business.
> I think this means that Mr Edeiken has nothing he can post yet - as
> was the case several months ago.
Indeed I have plenty.
> >> > Worried about you correspondence with the criminal Giwer becoming
> >> >public?
> >> What does this mean? And how could it relate to what I had written
> >> above?
> > Notice how the Shame of Scotland won't answer the question?
> When you answer my questions Mr Edeiken, maybe I will answer yours.
I have answered your questions. You were told that they were none of
your business.
> >> Is Yale Edeiken attempting to:
> >> (1) threaten to post something he has invented as a way of smearing
> >> me?
> > Notice how the Shame of Scotland does not deny his correspondence
> >with the criminal Giwer?
> Still no reply from the criminal Edeiken.
Please state which laws I have violated. be very specific.
> >> (2) Smear by association - by implying that I have written things to
> >> Matt Giwer which are things I would not want posted?
> > And would you want them posted?
> So, to use Edeiken's methodology, he admits, by not denying, that he
> is attempting to smear me by implying I have written things that I
> would not want posted.
Well, do you want them posted?
> >> (3) Making a fishing expedition to see if I have ever written any
> >> e-mails to Matt Giwer that I would not want posted?
> > The Shame of Scotland forgets that a demand for the production of
> >documents was made to GTE.net, asking for e-mails sent by the criminal Giwer.
> Is this a claim that he has copyrighted material of mine>
No. It's a statement of fact. I filed a request for the production of
documents with GTE.net asking for all of the criminal Giwer's e-mail.
> >> It looks like defamation, attempted intimidation, and a claim to
> >> possession of private e-mail which he should not have - if it exists.
> He does not reply to this, merely repeats his previous assertion about
> discovered documents. So, we have an admission to defamation and
> attempted intimidation - plus a repeated claim to possession of
> documents.
Yo're babbling incoherently.
> > The Shame of Scotland forgets that a demand for the production of
> >documents was made to GTE.net, asking for e-mails sent by the criminal Giwer.
He also blusters: e-mail are not "private" documents.
> There is no bluster. Why is the word private quoted. What is public
> about e-mail, over and above what is public about a letter?
Plenty. E-mails are not private documents.
> >> But then, he is not called a liar and a criminal for nothing.
> > Only by a lying sack of shit known as the Shame of Scotland.
> There are many who call Edeiken a liar; and, by his own perverted
> reasoning, he is a criminal.
You're lying again, you filthy sack of shit.
Come clean, Fergus. Drop your pretenses and tell everybody what you
and the criminal Giwer were e-mailing each other about in April and May of last
year. Does the date June 6, ring a bell?
> > By the way, Shame, how many psuedonyms have you used when
posting to this newgroup?
> Speak to me civilly you silly little man,
Sorry you lying odious sack of shit. I'll speak to a lying asshole like you
any way I please.
>and you might get answers.
I doubt it. You're far too dishonest.
> There were all on one day anyway, and have been discussed at length
> with John Morris and Gord McFee, so I suggest if you want a count you
> ask either of them - or look on DejaNews. Try 6th June last year.
Then tell everybody publically what you did, who you did it with and who
suggested it to you.
> Fool.
Go fuck yourself, Fergus.
> By the way, about now is when you generally rise (or sink) to
> tooth-grinding and higher order swear words isn't it? (Some request
> for mono-procreation and comparison to a donkey's nasal cavities, or
> ears, or mouths, I seem to remember).
Sure. Go fuck yourself, you lying sack of shit.
--YFE
> >
> > --YFE
>
>
>>>>