How sweet it is...
Dan
<S9x57V9C0qgyB46E...@readersemporium.com/.net/.org>,
"Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
> .. to be an idiot. Two idiots dancing the light fandango:
>
> In article <XAUWb.1831$_g....@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
>
>
> > Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
>
> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
> robot with no logical thought process.
Classic Kadaitcha Man response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
robot with no logical thought process.
Dan
Dan
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
>Non sequitur.
Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
robot with no logical thought process.
Dan
Edwin
"Dan" <m...@here.net> wrote in message
news:me-D5E23B.07...@28-74.newscene.com...
Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
Edwin
tho...@antispam.ham
> Dan wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Non sequitur.
>> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>> robot with no logical thought process.
> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
What does that have to do with OS/2, Edwin?
Edwin
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:NnaXb.2487$_g....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
Edwin
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>>>> robot with no logical thought process.
>>> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
>>> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> What does that have to do with OS/2, Edwin?
> Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't request enlightenment, Edwin.
Marty
> Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
Edwin
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
> > Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>
> It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>>>>>> robot with no logical thought process.
>>>>> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
>>>>> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>>>> What does that have to do with OS/2, Edwin?
>>> Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't request enlightenment, Edwin.
> Incorrect.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Marty
Classic Timbol-esque response. I see you have ignored the other ways to
gain Enlightenment. Figures.
I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
Elizabot
What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Edwin writes:
>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>> Incorrect.
Ask the person who chose the cross-posting, Elizabot.
Elizabot
I am, Tholen.
tho...@antispam.ham
Elizabot
So you deny choosing to cross-post to csma.
Curious.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>> Edwin writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>> I am, Tholen.
I deny choosing the newsgroup distribution, Elizabot.
> Curious.
What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
Elizabot
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>> Edwin writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot with no logical thought process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>>>>>>>>>>>> What does that have to do with OS/2, Edwin?
>>>>>>>>>>> Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't request enlightenment, Edwin.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>>> What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>>>>>> Ask the person who chose the cross-posting, Elizabot.
>>>>> I am, Tholen.
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> So you deny choosing to cross-post to csma.
>> I deny choosing the newsgroup distribution, Elizabot.
> What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
You should know, Elizabot, given that you asked me that question in
a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>>> Curious.
>> What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
> What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
Dan
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> You should know, Elizabot, given that you asked me that question in
> a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "Elizabot",
TholenBot.
Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a bot.
Larry Chauvet,
The OS/2 Guy
tho...@antispam.ham
>> You should know, Elizabot, given that you asked me that question in
>> a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "Elizabot",
Incorrect, given the attribution line, Dan. Suffering from reading
comprehension problems?
> TholenBot.
You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "TholenBot", Dan.
> Classic TholenBot response,
You're still erroneously presupposing the existence of some "TholenBot",
Dan.
> laced with paranoia,
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> as expected from a bot.
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm a "bot", Dan.
> Larry Chauvet,
> The OS/2 Guy
Odd that the attribution line says you're "Dan", Dan. Classic
schizophrenia.
While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
Edwin
Prove it, if you think you can.
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
> > Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<402d5d69$1...@news.cadence.com>...
> >
> >>Edwin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
> >>
> >>It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
> >
> > Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
>
> Classic Timbol-esque response.
Classic invective, laced with irony.
> I see you have ignored the other ways to gain Enlightenment.
You erroneously presuppose the existencce of Enlightenment.
> Figures.
Illogical.
> I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
Are you taking a stroll down irrevelency lane again, Marty? How typical.
Elizabot
> Elizabot writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Edwin writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dan wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Non sequitur.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>robot with no logical thought process.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What does that have to do with OS/2, Edwin?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>Irrelevant, given that I didn't request enlightenment, Edwin.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>>>>>Ask the person who chose the cross-posting, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>I am, Tholen.
>
>
>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>So you deny choosing to cross-post to csma.
>
>
>>>I deny choosing the newsgroup distribution, Elizabot.
>
>
>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
> You should know, Elizabot, given that you asked me that question in
> a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
really.
>
>>>>Curious.
>
>
>>>What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>
>
>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
> You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
> a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
really.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>>>>>>>> robot with no logical thought process.
>>>>>>> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
>>>>>>> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>>>>>> What does that have to do with OS/2, Edwin?
>>>>> Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't request enlightenment, Edwin.
>>> Incorrect.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Simple: note the absence of any substantiation from you, Edwin.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>>> Edwin writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>>> I am, Tholen.
Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
>>>>> Curious.
>>>> What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>>> What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>> You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
>> a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
> I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
> really.
Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
The OS/2 Guy
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
> and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
> the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here. Yes, I added Mac
advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man was in, hoping that
He/She/It would go there.
You got a problem with that?
Elizabot
I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
>
>>>>>>Curious.
>
>
>>>>>What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
>>>a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
>
>>I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
>>really.
>
>
> Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
>> and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
>> the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
> No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here.
Non sequitur, given that I wasn't talking about fear of someone, Guy.
Rather, I was talking about fear of the truth. Suffering from reading
comprehension problems, Guy?
> Yes, I added Mac advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man
> was in, hoping that He/She/It would go there.
What has that got to do with me, Guy?
> You got a problem with that?
Elizabot does, Guy.
tho...@antispam.ham
Elizabot
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Elizabot
Incorrect.
>
>>>>>>>>Curious.
>
>
>>>>>>>What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>>>You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
>>>>>a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
>>>>really.
>
>
>>> Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
>
>
>
>>I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
>
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
Incorrect.
tho...@antispam.ham
Elizabot
> Incorrect, given your questions about the inclusion of Mac advocacy in
> the distribution, Elizabot.
You incorrectly inferred that my asking you "What does that have to do
with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?" means that I "have a problem" with people
posting OT remarks.
> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
someone who lacks a logical argument.
Elizabot
Incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>Curious.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>>>>>You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
>>>>>>>a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>>>I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
>>>>>>really.
>
>
>>>>>Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
>
>
>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>Incorrect.
>
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect.
tho...@antispam.ham
Snit
vZUYb.10827$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com on 2/18/04 7:13 PM:
> Elizabot writes:
>
>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>
>>>>>>> While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
>>>>>>> and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
>>>>>>> the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
>
>>>>>> No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here.
>
>>>>> Non sequitur, given that I wasn't talking about fear of someone, Guy.
>>>>> Rather, I was talking about fear of the truth. Suffering from reading
>>>>> comprehension problems, Guy?
>
>>>>>> Yes, I added Mac advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>> was in, hoping that He/She/It would go there.
>
>>>>> What has that got to do with me, Guy?
>
>>>>>> You got a problem with that?
>
>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
>
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>>> Incorrect, given your questions about the inclusion of Mac advocacy in
>>> the distribution, Elizabot.
>
>> You incorrectly inferred that my asking you "What does that have to do
>> with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?" means that I "have a problem" with people
>> posting OT remarks.
>
> Why else would you ask the question, Elizabot? Trying to be
> irrelevant, Elizabot?
She showed herself to be irrelevant long ago. :)
>
>>> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>
>> Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>> someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>
Snit
niVYb.10833$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com on 2/18/04 7:36 PM:
> Snit writes:
>
>>> Elizabot writes:
>
>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>
>>>>>>>>> While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
>>>>>>>>> and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
>>>>>>>>> the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
>
>>>>>>>> No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here.
>
>>>>>>> Non sequitur, given that I wasn't talking about fear of someone, Guy.
>>>>>>> Rather, I was talking about fear of the truth. Suffering from reading
>>>>>>> comprehension problems, Guy?
>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I added Mac advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>>>> was in, hoping that He/She/It would go there.
>
>>>>>>> What has that got to do with me, Guy?
>
>>>>>>>> You got a problem with that?
>
>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
>
>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>>>>> Incorrect, given your questions about the inclusion of Mac advocacy in
>>>>> the distribution, Elizabot.
>
>>>> You incorrectly inferred that my asking you "What does that have to do
>>>> with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?" means that I "have a problem" with people
>>>> posting OT remarks.
>
>>> Why else would you ask the question, Elizabot? Trying to be
>>> irrelevant, Elizabot?
>
>> She showed herself to be irrelevant long ago. :)
>
> On what basis do you use "she", Snit?
Good point. That is what has been claimed, but I have no real knowledge.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> Elizabot writes:
>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
Where was the claim made?
Snit
CfWYb.10845$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com on 2/18/04 8:41 PM:
In the past I was in a big long debate with "her". I do not want to get
into details, but it came out in those debates. "She" was insistent that I
had something against women. This was a complete fabrication, of course,
but during that time "she" claimed to be a "she".
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>> Elizabot writes:
>>>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
Interesting; "Elizabot" is a persona also used by one Eric Bennett.
Could it be the same person?
Elizabot
> Elizabot writes:
>
>
>>>>>The OS/2 Guy writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
>>>>>>>and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
>>>>>>>the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
>
>
>>>>>>No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here.
>
>
>>>>>Non sequitur, given that I wasn't talking about fear of someone, Guy.
>>>>>Rather, I was talking about fear of the truth. Suffering from reading
>>>>>comprehension problems, Guy?
>
>
>>>>>>Yes, I added Mac advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>>was in, hoping that He/She/It would go there.
>
>
>>>>>What has that got to do with me, Guy?
>
>
>>>>>>You got a problem with that?
>
>
>>>>>Elizabot does, Guy.
>
>
>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>Incorrect, given your questions about the inclusion of Mac advocacy in
>>>the distribution, Elizabot.
>
>
>>You incorrectly inferred that my asking you "What does that have to do
>>with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?" means that I "have a problem" with people
>>posting OT remarks.
>
>
> Why else would you ask the question, Elizabot?
I was hoping you would have a cogent answer, Tholen.
> Trying to be
> irrelevant, Elizabot?
Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>>>Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>
>
>>Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>>someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
>
> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
Elizabot
Incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Curious.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
>>>>>>>>>a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>>>>>I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
>>>>>>>>really.
>
>
>>>>>>>Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
>
>
>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>
>>Incorrect.
>
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Back to harrassing her, eh Snit? Perhaps I should let her know what
you've been saying about her in the teachers NG:) Better be careful...
Steve
Elizabot
His harassment is being documented.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>> While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
>>>>>>>> and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
>>>>>>>> the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
>>>>>>> No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here.
>>>>>> Non sequitur, given that I wasn't talking about fear of someone, Guy.
>>>>>> Rather, I was talking about fear of the truth. Suffering from reading
>>>>>> comprehension problems, Guy?
>>>>>>> Yes, I added Mac advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>>> was in, hoping that He/She/It would go there.
>>>>>> What has that got to do with me, Guy?
>>>>>>> You got a problem with that?
>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>> Incorrect, given your questions about the inclusion of Mac advocacy in
>>>> the distribution, Elizabot.
>>> You incorrectly inferred that my asking you "What does that have to do
>>> with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?" means that I "have a problem" with people
>>> posting OT remarks.
>> Why else would you ask the question, Elizabot?
> I was hoping you would have a cogent answer, Tholen.
Why would you need an answer if you didn't have a problem with that,
Elizabot?
>> Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
> Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
> Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
>>>> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>>> Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>>> someone who lacks a logical argument.
>> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
> Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
really.
tho...@antispam.ham
Sandman
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> >> Back to harrassing her, eh Snit? Perhaps I should let her know what
> >> you've been saying about her in the teachers NG:) Better be careful...
>
> > His harassment is being documented.
>
> What does that have to do with OS/2, Elizabot?
What does that have to do with Macintosh, Tholenbot?
Steve Carroll
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
This question presupposes that only a problem can necessitate the asking
of a question, an illogical position to take.
> >> Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
>
> > Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
> > Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>
> You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
> irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
She seems to as the incorrect inference belongs to you. Is there a
particular reason you engaged in such an inference here and the
illogical position above?
> >>>> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>
> >>> Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
> >>> someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
> >> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>
> > Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
>
> I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
> really.
The invective was inferred and incorrect, much like the incorrect
inference you previously engaged in above. Do you make it a habit to
engage in incorrect inferences with all posters or are they confined to
Elizabot? Your failure to recognize this activity here exemplifies your
inability to comprehend what you have read.
Steve
Sandman
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> Sandman writes:
>
> >>>> Back to harrassing her, eh Snit? Perhaps I should let her know what
> >>>> you've been saying about her in the teachers NG:) Better be careful...
>
> >>> His harassment is being documented.
>
> >> What does that have to do with OS/2, Elizabot?
>
> > What does that have to do with Macintosh,
>
> Ask Dan, who chose to add Mac advocacy to the newsgroup distribution,
> Sandman.
Stop harassing me Tholen, I wasn't talking to you.
> > Tholenbot?
>
> You're also erroneously presupposing the existence of some "Tholenbot",
> Sandman.
No.
> For the record, note that it was Sandman who decided to jump into the
> fray. He has a history of doing that, yet he likes to deny being the
> instigator.
FOr the record, note that it was Tholen who decided to jump into a
discussion with me when I was clearly talking to 'Tholenbot'.
Joe Malloy
> For the record, note that it was Sandman who decided to jump into the
> fray. He has a history of doing that, yet he likes to deny being the
> instigator.
Um, Tholen? [tapping on the shoulder oh-so-nicely] ONE CAN'T BE AN
INSTIGATOR OF AN ONGOING "FRAY". I thought you would have known that; I was
obviously mistaken about your abilities. Sandman is thus quite right to
deny that he is the "instigator"; instead, you have that role.
You're curiously illogical, you know. Carry on.
Snit
e7XYb.10853$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com on 2/18/04 9:40 PM:
LOL. That would be interesting to find out. At one point she and Steve
were sort of claiming to be the same person as well, though I think they
were just messing around. There are from the same state, though.
Again, I do not want to get into too much detail, but look through Google at
the old discussions between Elizabot and myself. You will see that, in the
end, things got pretty nasty.
If you feel that "she" poses any type of threat outside of Usenet, I would
be happy to assist you in any legal needs... yeah... it got that bad with
us. I do suggest you look at my old postings.
Elizabot
I was seeking information, Tholen.
>>>Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
>
>
>>Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
>>Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>
>
> You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
> irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
Yes I do, Tholen.
>>>>>Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>>>>someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
>
>>>Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>
>
>>Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
>
>
> I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
> really.
I answered your question with a question, Tholen.
Elizabot
Incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Curious.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
>>>>>>>>>>>a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
>>>>>>>>>>really.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>>>I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
>
>
>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>Incorrect.
>
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect.
Elizabot
> Elizabot writes:
>
>
>>Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>
>>>Snit wrote:
The same as it has to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen.
Marty
> Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4032...@news.cadence.com>...
>
>>Edwin wrote:
>>
>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<402d5d69$1...@news.cadence.com>...
>>>
>>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
>>
>>Classic Timbol-esque response.
>
> Classic invective, laced with irony.
What is allegedly "classical" about it, Edwin?
>>I see you have ignored the other ways to gain Enlightenment.
>
> You erroneously presuppose the existencce of Enlightenment.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with improper verb
tenses. Taking posting lessons from Chris "TholenBotPro" Pott again?
>>Figures.
>
> Illogical.
Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>>I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
>
> Are you taking a stroll down irrevelency lane again, Marty?
Of what relevance is this question?
> How typical.
Typical of you to ask an irrelevant question.
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
> > Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4032...@news.cadence.com>...
> >
> >>Edwin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<402d5d69$1...@news.cadence.com>...
> >>>
> >>>>Edwin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
> >>>
> >>>Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
> >>
> >>Classic Timbol-esque response.
> >
> > Classic invective, laced with irony.
>
> What is allegedly "classical" about it, Edwin?
Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearence in Marty's reply.
> >>I see you have ignored the other ways to gain Enlightenment.
> >
> > You erroneously presuppose the existencce of Enlightenment.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with improper verb
> tenses.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as expected from someone
who lacks a logical argument.
> Taking posting lessons from Chris "TholenBotPro" Pott again?
What does your antagonistic question have to do with OS/2, Marty?
> >>Figures.
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
> >>I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
> >
> > Are you taking a stroll down irrevelency lane again, Marty?
>
> Of what relevance is this question?
Take it up with Mike "Olga and Horatio" Trimbol.
> > How typical.
>
> Typical of you to ask an irrelevant question.
Balderdash.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Elizabot writes:
>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
Not in this situation, Carroll.
>>>> Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
>>> Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
>>> Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>> You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
>> irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
> She seems to as the incorrect inference belongs to you. Is there a
> particular reason you engaged in such an inference here and the
> illogical position above?
You're erroneously presupposing that I took an illogical position
above, Carroll.
>>>>>> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>>>>> someone who lacks a logical argument.
>>>> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>>> Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
>> I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
>> really.
> The invective was inferred and incorrect, much like the incorrect
> inference you previously engaged in above. Do you make it a habit to
> engage in incorrect inferences with all posters or are they confined to
> Elizabot? Your failure to recognize this activity here exemplifies your
> inability to comprehend what you have read.
You're erroneously presupposing that I made an inncorrect inference
above, Carroll.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>> Elizabot writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
Rather odd behavior for someone adopting the "Elizabot" persona.
> If you feel that "she" poses any type of threat outside of Usenet, I would
> be happy to assist you in any legal needs... yeah... it got that bad with
> us. I do suggest you look at my old postings.
Are you a lawyer?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
For what purpose, Elizabot?
>>>> Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
>>> Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
>>> Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>> You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
>> irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
> Yes I do, Tholen.
Then why did you ask about what makes you irrelevant, Elizabot?
>>>>>> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>>>>> someone who lacks a logical argument.
>>>> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>>> Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
>> I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
>> really.
> I answered your question with a question, Tholen.
On the contrary, you evaded my question with a question, Elizabot.
tho...@antispam.ham
Steve Carroll
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
What evidence can you provide that distinguishes this situation from any
other situation with respect to my statement?
> >>>> Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
>
> >>> Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
> >>> Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>
> >> You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
> >> irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
>
> > She seems to as the incorrect inference belongs to you. Is there a
> > particular reason you engaged in such an inference here and the
> > illogical position above?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I took an illogical position
> above, Carroll.
What evidence can you provide supporting your assertion that I
erroneously presupposed you took an illogical position above? You,
merely making such a statement, offers no support for your claim.
> >>>>>> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>
> >>>>> Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
> >>>>> someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
> >>>> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>
> >>> Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
>
> >> I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
> >> really.
>
> > The invective was inferred and incorrect, much like the incorrect
> > inference you previously engaged in above. Do you make it a habit to
> > engage in incorrect inferences with all posters or are they confined to
> > Elizabot? Your failure to recognize this activity here exemplifies your
> > inability to comprehend what you have read.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I made an inncorrect inference
> above, Carroll.
How do you intend to prove this assertion?
Steve
Snit
mYcZb.11331$jf.1...@twister.socal.rr.com on 2/19/04 5:57 PM:
No, but I was placed in a position to seek legal aid when she made public
threats. If needed (in other words if she were to do something similar to
you), I would be happy to share information. Hopefully just knowing that I
am willing to do so will prevent her from going down the path she did
before. Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to threaten
the way she did me.
You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based on
what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the old
posts on Google and make up you own mind.
Marty
> Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<40351145$1...@news.cadence.com>...
>
>>Edwin wrote:
>>
>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4032...@news.cadence.com>...
>>>
>>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<402d5d69$1...@news.cadence.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
>>>>>
>>>>>Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
>>>>
>>>>Classic Timbol-esque response.
>>>
>>>Classic invective, laced with irony.
>>
>>What is allegedly "classical" about it, Edwin?
>
> Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearence in Marty's reply.
Where, allegedly?
>>>>I see you have ignored the other ways to gain Enlightenment.
>>>
>>>You erroneously presuppose the existencce of Enlightenment.
>>
>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with improper verb
>>tenses.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as expected from someone
> who lacks a logical argument.
How ironic.
>>Taking posting lessons from Chris "TholenBotPro" Pott again?
>
> What does your antagonistic question have to do with OS/2, Marty?
You're presupposing that my question was antagonistic, Edwin.
>>>>Figures.
>>>
>>>Illogical.
>>
>>Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> argument.
More evidence of your invective recognition problems. Meanwhile I see
you failed to address the issue of your reading comprehension problems.
No surprise there.
>>>>I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
>>>
>>>Are you taking a stroll down irrevelency lane again, Marty?
>>
>>Of what relevance is this question?
>
> Take it up with Mike "Olga and Horatio" Trimbol.
Unnecessary.
>>>How typical.
>>
>>Typical of you to ask an irrelevant question.
>
> Balderdash.
I see you've taken up tending Chris Pott's Balderdash garden. No
surprise there.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
There is no information you have that tholen is interested in:)
> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to threaten
> the way she did me.
>
> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based on
> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the old
> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
just at this situation.
Steve
tho...@antispam.ham
> Snit wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Elizabot writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
>>> Are you a lawyer?
On what basis do you speak for me, Carroll?
>> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
>> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
>> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to threaten
>> the way she did me.
>>
>> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based on
>> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the old
>> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
> LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
> just at this situation.
The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
Steve Carroll
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
History, tholen... (I owed you that one:)
> >> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
> >> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
> >> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to threaten
> >> the way she did me.
> >>
> >> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based on
> >> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the old
> >> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
>
> > LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
> > just at this situation.
>
> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
>
So why are you continuing to answer and crossposting while doing it? Are
you even aware you have control over the situation by simply stopping
this activity? Or is the single brain cell you timeshare unavailable to
you at present?
Steve
Snit
fretwizz-CFFA9C...@netnews.comcast.net on 2/19/04 8:08 PM:
Yes, it is your history to speak for others. And you owe that admission to
more than just Tholen.
>
>>>> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
>>>> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
>>>> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to threaten
>>>> the way she did me.
>>>>
>>>> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based on
>>>> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the old
>>>> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
>>
>>> LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
>>> just at this situation.
>>
>> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
>> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
>> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
>> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
>>
>
> So why are you continuing to answer and crossposting while doing it? Are
> you even aware you have control over the situation by simply stopping
> this activity? Or is the single brain cell you timeshare unavailable to
> you at present?
He posts. You respond.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Is that right, Mr. sole arbiter? LOL! I was returning to tholen one of
his useless, irrelevant answers.
> >>>> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
> >>>> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
> >>>> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to
> >>>> threaten
> >>>> the way she did me.
> >>>>
> >>>> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based
> >>>> on
> >>>> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the
> >>>> old
> >>>> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
> >>
> >>> LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
> >>> just at this situation.
> >>
> >> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
> >> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
> >> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
> >> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
> >>
> >
> > So why are you continuing to answer and crossposting while doing it? Are
> > you even aware you have control over the situation by simply stopping
> > this activity? Or is the single brain cell you timeshare unavailable to
> > you at present?
>
> He posts. You respond.
Very good... seems you're getting the hang of this internet business
(and I owed you this). Next, we'll work on why sexual harrassment online
isn't a good thing:)
Steve
p.s. you don't know anything about tholen, do you?
The OS/2 Guy
out of a service called newscene.com. You can file your complaints
against Dan and against newscene.com with the Internet Crime
Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
It's one quick way to shut down newscene.com AND send Dan
to the cleaners. We did it to the Grey Ghost and we can do it
to this guy too.
Here's the url: http://www.cybercrime.gov/reporting.htm
Tim Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
From his Warp 4.53 ThinkPad T40 w/2GIG of RAM,
80GIG of Hard Disk and IBM's Web Browser for OS/2
The OS/2 Guy wrote:
> In article <hlKYb.10716$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
>
> > While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
> > and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
> > the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
>
> No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here. Yes, I added Mac
> advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man was in, hoping that
> He/She/It would go there.
>
> You got a problem with that?
>
> Larry Chauvet,
> The OS/2 Guy
The OS/2 Guy
Dan is doing that today. You can nail this guy easily
by filing a complaint with the FBI's Internet Cybercrime
Division: http://www.cybercrime.gov/reporting.htm
and the DOJ's Identity Theft Division located here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/idtheft.html
You can rid these newsgroups of such criminals all
it takes is one legitimate complaint.
Tim Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
From his Warp 4.53 ThinkPad T40 w/2GIG of RAM,
80GIG of Hard Disk and IBM's Web Browser for OS/2
Dan wrote:
> In article <qxGYb.10703$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
>
> > You should know, Elizabot, given that you asked me that question in
> > a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "Elizabot",
> TholenBot.
>
> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a bot.
Steve Mackay
Oh come on Steve, you should know by now, Snit will add in his
delusional comments no matter if he really knows about the subject or not.
Sandman
wrote:
> Sandman writes:
>
> >>>>>> Back to harrassing her, eh Snit? Perhaps I should let her know what
> >>>>>> you've been saying about her in the teachers NG:) Better be careful...
>
> >>>>> His harassment is being documented.
>
> >>>> What does that have to do with OS/2, Elizabot?
>
> >>> What does that have to do with Macintosh,
>
> >> Ask Dan, who chose to add Mac advocacy to the newsgroup distribution,
> >> Sandman.
>
> > Stop harassing me Tholen, I wasn't talking to you.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim:
The text below does not support your claim that it is a unsubstantiated claim.
Now stop harassing me.
> ] From: Sandman <m...@sandman.net>
> ] Message-ID: <mr-A270FC.13...@news.fu-berlin.de>
> ]
> ] In article <fb0Zb.10895$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com>, tho...@antispam.ham
> ] wrote:
>
> >>> Tholenbot?
>
> >> You're also erroneously presupposing the existence of some "Tholenbot",
> >> Sandman.
>
> > No.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim:
>
> ] What does that have to do with Macintosh, Tholenbot?
The above line is irrelevant to your claim that I am errenously presupposing
anything. Now stop harassing me.
> >> For the record, note that it was Sandman who decided to jump into the
> >> fray. He has a history of doing that, yet he likes to deny being the
> >> instigator.
>
> > FOr the record, note that it was Tholen who decided to jump into a
> > discussion with me when I was clearly talking to 'Tholenbot'.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim:
>
> ] From: Sandman <m...@sandman.net>
> ] Message-ID: <mr-A270FC.13...@news.fu-berlin.de>
> ]
> ] In article <fb0Zb.10895$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com>, tho...@antispam.ham
> ] wrote:
>
Anyone will see what kind of liar you are, since it was quite clear that I was
talking to Tholenbot, and not you.
Now stop harassing me.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
> >> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
> >> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
> >> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to threaten
> >> the way she did me.
> >>
> >> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based on
> >> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the old
> >> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
>
> > LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
> > just at this situation.
>
> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
Stop harassing me Tholen, and stop stalking me.
--
Sandman[.net]
tho...@antispam.ham
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm harassing or stalking you,
Sandman. Rather ironic, coming from someone harassing me, and
lying about it:
"I wasn't talking to you."
--Sandman
Sandman
wrote:
> >>>>> What does that have to do with Macintosh,
>
> >>>> Ask Dan, who chose to add Mac advocacy to the newsgroup distribution,
> >>>> Sandman.
>
> >>> Stop harassing me Tholen, I wasn't talking to you.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim:
>
> > The text below does not support your claim that it is a unsubstantiated
> > claim.
>
> The absence of any substantiation for your claim does support my claim
> that your claim is an unsubstantiated claim, Sandman.
So when will you stop beating your wife?
> > Now stop harassing me.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm harassing you, Sandman.
Incorrect, given that you were the one who started talking to me and is
stalking me in a mac advocacy group. Stop it, please.
> >> ] What does that have to do with Macintosh, Tholenbot?
>
>> The above line is irrelevant to your claim that I am errenously
>> presupposing anything.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim:
Your lack of argument proves me right.
Now stop harassing me.
> >> ] From: Sandman <m...@sandman.net>
> >> ] Message-ID: <mr-A270FC.13...@news.fu-berlin.de>
> >> ]
> >> ] In article <fb0Zb.10895$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> ] tho...@antispam.ham
> >> ] wrote:
>
> > Anyone will see what kind of liar you are,
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm a liar, Sandman.
Incorrect, given that you are a liar.
> > since it was quite clear that I was talking to Tholenbot, and not you.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim:
Incorrect, given that I was talking to Tholenbot and not you.
Sandman
wrote:
> >>>> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
> >>>> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
> >>>> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to
> >>>> threaten
> >>>> the way she did me.
> >>>>
> >>>> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based
> >>>> on
> >>>> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the
> >>>> old
> >>>> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
>
> >>> LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
> >>> just at this situation.
>
> >> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
> >> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
> >> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
> >> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
>
> > Stop harassing me Tholen, and stop stalking me.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm harassing or stalking you,
Incorrect, given that you talk about me and to me without me talking to you.
> Sandman. Rather ironic, coming from someone harassing me, and
> lying about it:
I never lie, as opposed to you. I was talking to Tholenbot
> "I wasn't talking to you."
> --Sandman
Exactly. I wasn't.
--
Sandman[.net]
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
>>>>>> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
>>>>>> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to
>>>>>> threaten
>>>>>> the way she did me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the
>>>>>> old
>>>>>> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
>>>>> LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
>>>>> just at this situation.
>>>> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
>>>> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
>>>> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
>>>> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
>>> Stop harassing me Tholen, and stop stalking me.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm harassing or stalking you,
> Incorrect, given that you talk about me and to me without me talking to you.
Liar:
] From: Sandman <m...@sandman.net
] Message-ID: <mr-A270FC.13...@news.fu-berlin.de
]
] In article <fb0Zb.10895$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com>, tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
>> Sandman. Rather ironic, coming from someone harassing me, and
>> lying about it:
> I never lie,
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as proven above.
> as opposed to you. I was talking to Tholenbot:
Liar:
] From: Sandman <m...@sandman.net
] Message-ID: <mr-A270FC.13...@news.fu-berlin.de
]
] In article <fb0Zb.10895$jf....@twister.socal.rr.com>, tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
>> "I wasn't talking to you."
>> --Sandman
> Exactly. I wasn't.
Liar:
The OS/2 Guy
The OS/2 Guy <OS2...@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> The illegal use of another's identity is a federal crime.
> Dan is doing that today. You can nail this guy easily
> by filing a complaint with the FBI's Internet Cybercrime
> Division: http://www.cybercrime.gov/reporting.htm
> and the DOJ's Identity Theft Division located here:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/idtheft.html
>
> You can rid these newsgroups of such criminals all
> it takes is one legitimate complaint.
Sure Timmie, sure. Whatever you say Timmie.
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yeah but does even HE deserve to be exposed to tholen unaware?
Steve
Edwin
> Edwin writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
>
> >>>>>>> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
> >>>>>>> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
>
> >>>>> Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>
>
> >>> Incorrect.
>
>
>
> Simple: note the absence of any substantiation from you, Edwin.
Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearance in Dave Tholen's reply.
Steve Carroll
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> There is no history of me allowing you to be my spokesperson, Carroll.
Yes, it was as irrelevant as when you posted the answer to me in a
previous post. Here, the answer I provided was done as a means of a
reality check, conducted for the purpose of seeing how far removed you
are from it. Of particular interest is the fact that there is no basis
in reality in which you can stop me. Naturally, as a reality check, your
comments are encouraged.
> >>>> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
> >>>> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can tell,
> >>>> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to
> >>>> threaten
> >>>> the way she did me.
> >>>>
> >>>> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me based
> >>>> on
> >>>> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the
> >>>> old
> >>>> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
>
> >>> LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
> >>> just at this situation.
>
> >> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
> >> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
> >> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
> >> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
>
> > So why are you continuing to answer and crossposting while doing it?
>
> I'm standing my ground against those antagonists, Carroll.
Then stop whining. If you're going to play... play, but don't whine like
a little girl about it.
> > Are you even aware you have control over the situation by simply stopping
> > this activity?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I have control over those
> antagonists, Carroll. History has shown that they do whatever
> they want to do, regardless of whether I respond to them or not.
Oops... problem time, tholen. You have just displayed you cannot make a
simple distinction between a situation and a group of alleged
antagonists. I can only wonder what you will you do for an encore to
such an obvious reading comprehension problem.
> > Or is the single brain cell you timeshare unavailable to
> > you at present?
>
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Depends on one's viewpoint. While admittedly hyperbole, as you have just
shown, again... it's just as likely to contain a grain of truth. My
newest logical argument, that you are likely to be an idiot, is
supported by the fact that you cannot make simple distinctions between
people and situations. Reality shows that an actual idiot has trouble in
this area so I would suggest you refrain from claiming I utilized an
invective here. In any event, based on that evidence, I now offer you
the opportunity to prove my assessment incorrect.
Steve
Snit
pan.2004.02.20....@hotmail.com on 2/19/04 11:39 PM:
Which part did you find delusional
A) He [Tholen] posted
B) You [Steve] responded
Both seemed pretty accurate to me.
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
> > Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<40351145$1...@news.cadence.com>...
> >
> >>Edwin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4032...@news.cadence.com>...
> >>>
> >>>>Edwin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<402d5d69$1...@news.cadence.com>...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Edwin wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
> >>>>
> >>>>Classic Timbol-esque response.
> >>>
> >>>Classic invective, laced with irony.
> >>
> >>What is allegedly "classical" about it, Edwin?
> >
> > Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearence in Marty's reply.
>
> Where, allegedly?
Open your eyes, Marty.
> >>>>I see you have ignored the other ways to gain Enlightenment.
> >>>
> >>>You erroneously presuppose the existencce of Enlightenment.
> >>
> >>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with improper verb
> >>tenses.
> >
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as expected from someone
> > who lacks a logical argument.
>
> How ironic.
Incorrect.
> >>Taking posting lessons from Chris "TholenBotPro" Pott again?
> >
> > What does your antagonistic question have to do with OS/2, Marty?
>
> You're presupposing that my question was antagonistic, Edwin.
Balderdash.
> >>>>Figures.
> >>>
> >>>Illogical.
> >>
> >>Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> >
> > Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> > argument.
>
> More evidence of your invective recognition problems. Meanwhile I see
> you failed to address the issue of your reading comprehension problems.
> No surprise there.
Are you taking inappropriate posting lessons from Mike "Master of
Inappropriate Posting" Trimbol again? How typical.
> >>>>I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
> >>>
> >>>Are you taking a stroll down irrevelency lane again, Marty?
> >>
> >>Of what relevance is this question?
> >
> > Take it up with Mike "Olga and Horatio" Trimbol.
>
> Unnecessary.
Incorrect.
> >>>How typical.
> >>
> >>Typical of you to ask an irrelevant question.
> >
> > Balderdash.
>
> I see you've taken up tending Chris Pott's Balderdash garden. No
> surprise there.
Non sequitur.
Marty
> Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4035...@news.cadence.com>...
>
>>Edwin wrote:
>>
>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<40351145$1...@news.cadence.com>...
>>>
>>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4032...@news.cadence.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<402d5d69$1...@news.cadence.com>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Classic Timbol-esque response.
>>>>>
>>>>>Classic invective, laced with irony.
>>>>
>>>>What is allegedly "classical" about it, Edwin?
>>>
>>>Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearence in Marty's reply.
>>
>>Where, allegedly?
>
> Open your eyes, Marty.
Unnecessary, Edwin. Meanwhile I see you failed to answer the question.
No surprise there.
>>>>>>I see you have ignored the other ways to gain Enlightenment.
>>>>>
>>>>>You erroneously presuppose the existencce of Enlightenment.
>>>>
>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with improper verb
>>>>tenses.
>>>
>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as expected from someone
>>>who lacks a logical argument.
>>
>>How ironic.
>
> Incorrect.
See what I mean?
>>>>Taking posting lessons from Chris "TholenBotPro" Pott again?
>>>
>>>What does your antagonistic question have to do with OS/2, Marty?
>>
>>You're presupposing that my question was antagonistic, Edwin.
>
> Balderdash.
On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
>>>>>>Figures.
>>>>>
>>>>>Illogical.
>>>>
>>>>Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>>>
>>>Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
>>>argument.
>>
>>More evidence of your invective recognition problems. Meanwhile I see
>>you failed to address the issue of your reading comprehension problems.
>> No surprise there.
>
> Are you taking inappropriate posting lessons from Mike "Master of
> Inappropriate Posting" Trimbol again? How typical.
Have you been taking name mispelling lessons from Joe "Malloh" Malloy?
Figures.
>>>>>>I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you taking a stroll down irrevelency lane again, Marty?
>>>>
>>>>Of what relevance is this question?
>>>
>>>Take it up with Mike "Olga and Horatio" Trimbol.
>>
>>Unnecessary.
>
> Incorrect.
Evidence, please.
>>>>>How typical.
>>>>
>>>>Typical of you to ask an irrelevant question.
>>>
>>>Balderdash.
>>
>>I see you've taken up tending Chris Pott's Balderdash garden. No
>>surprise there.
>
> Non sequitur.
See what I mean?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
As I'm sure it would to you. But if Steve wants to see some heavy
delusion, he can jump over to the Apple Debt Free!!!! thread and look at
your post(8:07 on my server) there this morning. Delusion... the GOOD
stuff.
Steve
Steve Mackay
Naah, I think Snit may be the first one that I have ever plonked. He
takes every discussion, and trys desperately to twist the facts ever so
slightly to make him look right. I'd put him right up there with WinWeasel
and Pratt on the dishonesty scale.
Steve Carroll
Yeah... but it's funny! I came across a Snit post that is f*cking
hilarious in it's use of his typical double standard. He refuses George
a set of rules that he plays by... classic Snit. Check it out:
The tautology king wrote:
" OK. Without referencing (directly -or- indirectly) Clinton's affair
with Monica Lewinski, can you say what Clinton did to get impeached?"
...and George replied with:
"He lied under oath to a Grand Jury. What he lied about is irrelevant
and immaterial."
Dr. T (Snit), after confining George to any such references, came right
back asking him for what he just told George NOT to reference:
"And he lied about what....? Come on, you can do it..."
ROTFLMAO! Too damned funny!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2821195185d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=2&as_maxm=1
2&as_maxy=2003&selm=BBF28B25.33466%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
Steve
Steve Mackay
Yup, this is why I will try hard not to enter any discussions with that
lunatic. The sad thing is, he really does believe he's being fair, and
honest in his discussions.
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
> > Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4035...@news.cadence.com>...
> >
> >>Edwin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<40351145$1...@news.cadence.com>...
> >>>
> >>>>Edwin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<4032...@news.cadence.com>...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Edwin wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Marty <unspe...@this.time> wrote in message news:<402d5d69$1...@news.cadence.com>...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Edwin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It's also distributed with various flavors of Linux, Edwin.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty (little boy)? How typical.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Classic Timbol-esque response.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Classic invective, laced with irony.
> >>>>
> >>>>What is allegedly "classical" about it, Edwin?
> >>>
> >>>Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearence in Marty's reply.
> >>
> >>Where, allegedly?
> >
> > Open your eyes, Marty.
>
> Unnecessary, Edwin.
Incorrect.
> Meanwhile I see you failed to answer the question.
Incorrect.
> No surprise there.
You erroneously presuppose the existence of a surprise.
> >>>>>>I see you have ignored the other ways to gain Enlightenment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You erroneously presuppose the existencce of Enlightenment.
> >>>>
> >>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with improper verb
> >>>>tenses.
> >>>
> >>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as expected from someone
> >>>who lacks a logical argument.
> >>
> >>How ironic.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> See what I mean?
Illogical.
> >>>>Taking posting lessons from Chris "TholenBotPro" Pott again?
> >>>
> >>>What does your antagonistic question have to do with OS/2, Marty?
> >>
> >>You're presupposing that my question was antagonistic, Edwin.
> >
> > Balderdash.
>
> On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
You erroneously presuppose the existence of a ridiculous claim.
> >>>>>>Figures.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Illogical.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> >>>
> >>>Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> >>>argument.
> >>
> >>More evidence of your invective recognition problems. Meanwhile I see
> >>you failed to address the issue of your reading comprehension problems.
> >> No surprise there.
> >
> > Are you taking inappropriate posting lessons from Mike "Master of
> > Inappropriate Posting" Trimbol again? How typical.
>
> Have you been taking name mispelling lessons from Joe "Malloh" Malloy?
> Figures.
Classic invective, laced with irony.
> >>>>>>I wonder what Jim (little boy) Stuyck would say about your misattribution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Are you taking a stroll down irrevelency lane again, Marty?
> >>>>
> >>>>Of what relevance is this question?
> >>>
> >>>Take it up with Mike "Olga and Horatio" Trimbol.
> >>
> >>Unnecessary.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Evidence, please.
Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearance in Marty's reply.
> >>>>>How typical.
> >>>>
> >>>>Typical of you to ask an irrelevant question.
> >>>
> >>>Balderdash.
> >>
> >>I see you've taken up tending Chris Pott's Balderdash garden. No
> >>surprise there.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> See what I mean?
Are you taking illogic lessons from Mike "Master of Illogic" Trimbol
again? How typical.
Edwin
Elizabot
> Elizabot writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>The OS/2 Guy writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
>>>>>>>>>>>and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
>>>>>>>>>>>the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Non sequitur, given that I wasn't talking about fear of someone, Guy.
>>>>>>>>>Rather, I was talking about fear of the truth. Suffering from reading
>>>>>>>>>comprehension problems, Guy?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I added Mac advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>>>>>>was in, hoping that He/She/It would go there.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>What has that got to do with me, Guy?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>You got a problem with that?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Elizabot does, Guy.
>
>
>>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>>>>Incorrect, given your questions about the inclusion of Mac advocacy in
>>>>>>>the distribution, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>You incorrectly inferred that my asking you "What does that have to do
>>>>>>with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?" means that I "have a problem" with people
>>>>>>posting OT remarks.
>
>
>>>>>Why else would you ask the question, Elizabot?
>
>
>
>
>>>Why would you need an answer if you didn't have a problem with that,
>>>Elizabot?
>
>
>>I was seeking information, Tholen.
>
>
> For what purpose, Elizabot?
To help me determine whether or not you are trolling in the Mac
newsgroup, Tholen.
>>>>>Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
>>>>Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>
>
>>>You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
>>>irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
>
>
>>Yes I do, Tholen.
>
>
> Then why did you ask about what makes you irrelevant, Elizabot?
I asked whether that was your claim, Tholen. Your question "Trying to be
irrelevant, Elizabot?" is ambiguous.
I notice you did not answer my question either.
>>>>>>>Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>>>>>>someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
>
>>>>>Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
>
>
>>>I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
>>>really.
>
>
>>I answered your question with a question, Tholen.
>
>
> On the contrary, you evaded my question with a question, Elizabot.
You do that rather frequently as well, Tholen. Do you have a point?
Elizabot
> Elizabot writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Edwin writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dan wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Non sequitur.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>robot with no logical thought process.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am, Tholen.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I deny choosing the newsgroup distribution, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>really.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>
>
>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Curious.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What is allegedly curious about the truth, Elizabot?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What does that have to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You should know, Elizabot, given that you made the statement in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a Mac advocacy newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I see that you didn't answer my question, Tholen. No surprise there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>really.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>Unnecessary, given that you should already know the answer, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>I see you fail to substantiate your claim, Tholen.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>>>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>>>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>>>Incorrect.
>
>
>>>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>
>>Incorrect.
>
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect.
Elizabot
> Elizabot writes:
>
>
>>>>Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Snit wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>I wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>Elizabot writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>The OS/2 Guy writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>While you're posting in this thread, Dan, why don't you just come out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and admit that you're the one who added the Mac advocacy newsgroup to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the distribution? Afraid to come clean, Dan?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No, I'm not afraid of you or anyone else here.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>Non sequitur, given that I wasn't talking about fear of someone, Guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>Rather, I was talking about fear of the truth. Suffering from reading
>>>>>>>>>>>comprehension problems, Guy?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I added Mac advocacy to a couple of threads that Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>>>>>>>>was in, hoping that He/She/It would go there.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>What has that got to do with me, Guy?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You got a problem with that?
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>Elizabot does, Guy.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>the distribution, Elizabot.
>
>
>>>>>>>>with Mac Advocacy, Tholen?" means that I "have a problem" with people
>>>>>>>>posting OT remarks.
>
>
>>>>>>>irrelevant, Elizabot?
>
>
>
>
>>>>>you've been saying about her in the teachers NG:) Better be careful...
>
>
>>>>His harassment is being documented.
>
>
>
>
>>The same as it has to do with Mac Advocacy, Tholen.
>
>
> Then why are you posting it to the OS/2 advocacy newsgroup, Elizabot?
The same reason you are posting in the Mac advocacy newsgroup, Tholen: I
did not choose the newsgroup distribution.
Elizabot
[snip]
> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
Are you claiming to be the dung part of that analogy?
tho...@antispam.ham
> [snip]
Figures.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Elizabot?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>> Elizabot writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
But you did choose to respond to me, Elizabot, for no apparent reason.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>>>> Classic TholenBot response, laced with paranoia, as expected from a
>>>>>>>>>> robot with no logical thought process.
>>>>>>>>> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim. Meanwhile, where is your
>>>>>>>>> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>>>>>>>> What does that have to do with OS/2, Edwin?
>>>>>>> Enlightenment comes from within, Grasshopper.
>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't request enlightenment, Edwin.
>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>> Simple: note the absence of any substantiation from you, Edwin.
> Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearance in Dave Tholen's reply.
Lack of substantiation from Edwin persists.
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>>> The OS/2 Guy writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Elizabot does, Guy.
>> For what purpose, Elizabot?
Illogical, given that you already have enough information to make that
determination, Elizabot.
>>>>>> Trying to be irrelevant, Elizabot?
>>>>> Is it your claim that my asking you what your comments have to do with
>>>>> Mac Advocacy makes me irrelevant, Tholen?
>>>> You do know the difference between an irrelevant question and an
>>>> irrelevant person, don't you, Elizabot?
>>> Yes I do, Tholen.
>> Then why did you ask about what makes you irrelevant, Elizabot?
> I asked whether that was your claim, Tholen. Your question "Trying to be
> irrelevant, Elizabot?" is ambiguous.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> I notice you did not answer my question either.
How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't answered my question, which
preceded his question.
>>>>>>>> Having memory problems, Elizabot?
>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective, as expected from
>>>>>>> someone who lacks a logical argument.
>>>>>> Where is the alleged invective, Elizabot?
>>>>> Having reading comprehension problems, Tholen?
>>>> I see that you didn't answer the question, Elizabot. No surprise there,
>>>> really.
>>> I answered your question with a question, Tholen.
>> On the contrary, you evaded my question with a question, Elizabot.
> You do that rather frequently as well, Tholen.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Do you have a point?
My point that you have made unsubstantiated and erroneous claims is
already quite clear, Elizabot.
Steve Carroll
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> Non sequitur, given that there is a big difference between posting an
> answer TO a person and posting an answer FOR a person, Carroll.
It is a non-sequiter but only for the reason I mentioned. The difference
between posting to or for a person is irrelevant.
> > Here, the answer I provided was done as a means of a
> > reality check, conducted for the purpose of seeing how far removed you
> > are from it.
>
> Illogical, given that your attempt to speak for me says nothing about
> how far removed from something I allegedly am, but says plenty about
> you, Carroll.
Irrelevant. I did speak for you, as you have previously inferred by the
asking of the question: "On what basis do you speak for me, Carroll?".
My evidence that proves how far you are removed from reality says
nothing about anyone but you.
> > Of particular interest is the fact that there is no basis
> > in reality in which you can stop me.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I never said that I could stop you, Carroll.
> Nevertheless, there are mechanisms within our society that allow for
> punitive measures in cases of those who go too far with their freedom
> of speech.
Then I suggest you attempt to utilize one of these measures if you
believe you have the power to do so via this medium. Your inability to
stop me and the acknowledgment of such is extemely relevant to the
assessment of how far from reality you may actually be.
> > Naturally, as a reality check, your comments are encouraged.
>
> Are you even capable of comprehending reality, Carroll?
Yes.
> >>>>>> Her previous comments were possibly made just to annoy me, and
> >>>>>> perhaps she has learned not to make such comments. You never can
> >>>>>> tell,
> >>>>>> though, so I make this offer to any others she may be inclined to
> >>>>>> threaten
> >>>>>> the way she did me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You will see her and Steve make all sorts of allegations about me
> >>>>>> based
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>> what I am saying now. I encourage you, if interested, to look up the
> >>>>>> old
> >>>>>> posts on Google and make up you own mind.
>
> >>>>> LOL! This is funny as hell! Sorry, Snit... I'm not laughing AT you...
> >>>>> just at this situation.
>
> >>>> The situation is that "Dan" took his little game to another newsgroup,
> >>>> namely a Mac advocacy group, and as usual, like flies attracted to dung,
> >>>> his troll has attracted others to the thread, including some of the
> >>>> usual suspects like Elizabot, Edwin Thorne, and Sandman.
>
> >>> So why are you continuing to answer and crossposting while doing it?
>
> >> I'm standing my ground against those antagonists, Carroll.
>
> > Then stop whining.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "whining", Carroll.
If not whining, what do you call it?
> > If you're going to play... play, but don't whine like
> > a little girl about it.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "whining like a little girl",
> Carroll.
Possibly, but it seems to be indicated. I am open to another suggestion.
> >>> Are you even aware you have control over the situation by simply stopping
> >>> this activity?
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I have control over those
> >> antagonists, Carroll. History has shown that they do whatever
> >> they want to do, regardless of whether I respond to them or not.
>
> > Oops... problem time, tholen. You have just displayed you cannot make a
> > simple distinction between a situation and a group of alleged
> > antagonists.
>
> Incorrect, Carroll; you have failed to recognize that this situation
> involves a group of antagonists.
The number of alleged antagonists is irrelevant. Reality shows you made
an error in drawing a simple distinction between a group of people and a
situation.
> > I can only wonder what you will you do for an encore to
> > such an obvious reading comprehension problem.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing some reading comprehension problem on
> my part, Carroll.
Incorrect. I offered proof you failed to comprehend what you read. You
are now committing additional errors based on your adherence to your
distorted comprehension.
> >>> Or is the single brain cell you timeshare unavailable to
> >>> you at present?
>
> >> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
> > Depends on one's viewpoint. While admittedly hyperbole, as you have just
> > shown, again... it's just as likely to contain a grain of truth.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > My newest logical argument, that you are likely to be an idiot, is
> > supported by the fact that you cannot make simple distinctions between
> > people and situations.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
> expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
You have shown you cannot recognize a logical argument, therefore, such
a statement, issued from you, has little, to no, merit.
> > Reality shows that an actual idiot has trouble in
> > this area so I would suggest you refrain from claiming I utilized an
> > invective here.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Do you know what the definition of an idiot is, tholen? I will now
provide one for you that seems appropriate to what you have displayed
here:
idiot
n : a person of subnormal intelligence
A person of subnormal intelligence might be expected to be unable to
distinguish between people and a situation. You can make an argument
against this if you're able. In fact, I encourage it.
> > In any event, based on that evidence, I now offer you
> > the opportunity to prove my assessment incorrect.
>
> You made the claims, Carroll, therefore the burden of proof falls on
> your shoulders, not mine.
You need to see it reprinted? A fair request as I recognize the fact
that you are easily confused. Another symptom that led me to my
assessment that you may truly be an idiot. Here it is:
***********************************************************************
Steve Carroll wrote:
" Are you even aware you have control over the situation by simply
stopping this activity?"
To which the creature calling itself tholen replied:
"You're erroneously presupposing that I have control over those
antagonists, Carroll. History has shown that they do whatever they want
to do, regardless of whether I respond to them or not."
***********************************************************************
Reality shows that I referred to a 'situation' and not a group of
alleged antagonists (people). You immediately replied by telling me I
presupposed you had control over 'antagonists', a non-responsive answer
that indicated you had an inability to distinguish between a group of
people and a situation. Idiots (those with subnormal intelligence) often
display a lack of ability to make such simple distinctions. Other things
on the planet display this inability as well but... assuming you are of
human origin, I sought to find a category that fit that... and this is
what was available to me. If this terminology bothers you much, I am not
completely unsympathetic... I can use alternative terms like moron,
imbecile or half-wit. I will let you choose which is the least offensive
to you. I think that is more than fair on my part.
Steve
Elizabot
As you were speaking for me above when you claimed I had a problem with
someone else's cross-posting into csma, I have every right to address
your misrepresentation of my position, Tholen.
Your attempt to speak for me says plenty about you, Tholen.