Ron o has repeatedly accused me of lying

[satoshi]

Must be some kind of projection issue

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<travellin...@gmail.com>:

>Must be some kind of projection issue

....for values of "projection" essentially synonymous with
"observation".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[ed wolf]

I can not quite see the lies in what this Satoshi person writes.
To me a lie means at least a wilfully given statement of falsehood
while knowing better. Now what S. writes never is a statement of any
facts and S. never gave the impression of knowing anything at all,
let alone better.
I consider these posts as the ramblings of a disturbed personality
with fragments of education and no social abilities,nothing interesting
here.
Ed

[RonO]

On 10/9/2018 7:44 AM, satoshi wrote:
> Must be some kind of projection issue
>

Lying again.

Ron Okimoto

[satoshi]

You certainly are.
Hint, someone informed you they did not detect deceit by me; however, it could be due to their chronic deficiencies. Of course, he could have made a lucky guess on the fifty fifty, that way, if he had puppets, he might think he is covered to not get it wrong, even though picking all sides guarantees you to be wrong for sure.

[RonO]

On 10/9/2018 5:59 PM, satoshi wrote:
> You certainly are.
> Hint, someone informed you they did not detect deceit by me; however, it could be due to their chronic deficiencies. Of course, he could have made a lucky guess on the fifty fifty, that way, if he had puppets, he might think he is covered to not get it wrong, even though picking all sides guarantees you to be wrong for sure.
>

Projection and lying about other people seems to be all that you can
manage. Since you snipped out what you think that you are responding to
what you wrote above is just about what can be expected out of you, and
that is pretty sad. Do you even know what you wrote above? Can you
show a level of competence that would indicate that you might?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
<eduar...@gmx.net>:

>On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:00:03 PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
>> <travellin...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >Must be some kind of projection issue
>>
>> ....for values of "projection" essentially synonymous with
>> "observation".

>I can not quite see the lies in what this Satoshi person writes.
>To me a lie means at least a wilfully given statement of falsehood
> while knowing better. Now what S. writes never is a statement of any
> facts

If "facts" means "true statements" that is indeed correct.

> and S. never gave the impression of knowing anything at all,
> let alone better.
>I consider these posts as the ramblings of a disturbed personality
>with fragments of education and no social abilities,nothing interesting
>here.

OK, point taken. "Delusions resulting in the posting of
falsehoods" would indeed be better, if a bit cumbersome.

[satoshi]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:00:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
> <eduar...@gmx.net>:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:00:03 PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
> >> <travellin...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >Must be some kind of projection issue
> >>

> >I can not quite see the lies in what this Satoshi person writes.
> >To me a lie means at least a wilfully given statement of falsehood
> > while knowing better.
>

> that is indeed correct.

so ron o was lying about me and you agree with that fact

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 2:00:05 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
> <eduar...@gmx.net>:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:00:03 PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
> >> <travellin...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >Must be some kind of projection issue
> >>
> >> ....for values of "projection" essentially synonymous with
> >> "observation".
>
> >I can not quite see the lies in what this Satoshi person writes.
> >To me a lie means at least a wilfully given statement of falsehood
> > while knowing better. Now what S. writes never is a statement of any
> > facts
>
> If "facts" means "true statements" that is indeed correct.
>
> > and S. never gave the impression of knowing anything at all,
> > let alone better.
> >I consider these posts as the ramblings of a disturbed personality
> >with fragments of education and no social abilities,nothing interesting
> >here.
>
> OK, point taken. "Delusions resulting in the posting of
> falsehoods" would indeed be better, if a bit cumbersome.
> --

It's certainly worthwhile to consider shitoshi's delusion leads him to believe what he writes is the truth. A lot of his responses extrapolate really really strange interpretations of what was written. However, I learn towards not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's mentally ill. I think he's just a fucking prick, and he knows he's lying - sort of like vtard (interesting how those two showed up at the same time, and have about the same ability to engage)

[satoshi]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> that he's mentally ill.

the only evidence i have is that you have damaged your brain with dxm abuse rendering you insane

i have been to 4 md psychiatrists and they did not reach your conclusions.

you are not qualified and what you are typing is libel and slander

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:25:02 PM UTC-4, satoshi wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> > that he's mentally ill.
>
> the only evidence i have is that you have damaged your brain with dxm abuse rendering you insane

And what is this 'evidence'?

> i have been to 4 md psychiatrists and they did not reach your conclusions.

Now we're making progress (I'm sure you've heard that from one of your four shrinks).

You admit that you've undergone extensive psychotherapy. So which conclusion do they disagree with? That you're a fucking whackjob, or just a sniveling lying little prick? FWIW, there's no such thing as an MD psychiatrist, unless this person has two separate degrees (an MD as a Doctor of medicine _and_ a PhD as doctor of psychology). It's far more likely that you were actually talking to an psychic rather than a psychiatrist.

> you are not qualified and what you are typing is libel and slander

Libel and slander? lol. So fucking sue me. Go ahead: hire a lawyer, show him/her these exchanges, and see if they're willing to take your case. More likely: they'll refer you to a _real_ psychiatrist.

[satoshi]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:25:02 PM UTC-4, satoshi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> > > that he's mentally ill.
> >
> > the only evidence i have is that you have damaged your brain with dxm abuse rendering you insane
>
> And what is this 'evidence'?
>
>

rfgdxm who is you publicly admitting to abusing cough syrup dxm hundreds of times

> > i have been to 4 md psychiatrists and they did not reach your conclusions.
>
> Now we're making progress (I'm sure you've heard that from one of your four shrinks).
>
> You admit that you've undergone extensive psychotherapy.

stop lying.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, satoshi wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> >
> > And what is this 'evidence'?
> >
>
> rfgdxm who is you publicly admitting to abusing cough syrup dxm hundreds of times

Ah, I see, in shitoshi world I'm a sock puppet for someone you're calling rfgdxm. What proof do your have of this? Am I posting from the same IP address as this rfgdxm? Do we even have the same ISP? Keep trying, shitoshi.....

> > > i have been to 4 md psychiatrists and they did not reach your conclusions.
> >
> > Now we're making progress (I'm sure you've heard that from one of your four shrinks).
> >
> > You admit that you've undergone extensive psychotherapy.
>
> stop lying.

You wrote: "i have been to 4 md psychiatrists". That's some pretty extensive therapy. Funny how you accuse others of lying when they simply repost what you wrote. Have you discussed this with any of your 4 psychologists? Hint: psychotherapy only works when you're honest (which means don't lie) to your therapist.

[satoshi]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:05:03 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, satoshi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> > >
> > > And what is this 'evidence'?
> > >
> >
> > rfgdxm who is you publicly admitting to abusing cough syrup dxm hundreds of times
>
> Ah, I see, in shitoshi world I'm a sock puppet for someone you're calling rfgdxm. What proof do your have of this?

do you deny you used to be robert f golaszewski or are currently robert f golaszewski????

[zencycle]

Yes, I deny that I am, used to be, or ever even heard of anyone, named robert f golaszewski

[Mike Dworetsky]

Um...here's a little true story, the dialogue was very much like what I give
below.

Back when I was a student, Prof. George Abell (UCLA astronomer) told his
class about some of the odd experiences he had when giving public lectures
at the Griffith Park Observatory and Planetarium. As usual, after a
lecture, several people would gather around the lectern and ask questions.
But one of the visitors was "different".

"Are you sane, sir?" the man asked in an aggressive manner.

Not quite knowing what was coming next, "I suppose so, I haven't really had
anyone ever question my sanity", said Prof.

Strange man: "But can you PROVE that you are sane?"

Prof: "I don't know what you mean."

"Well, I CAN!", the man declared, whipping out an official document from the
State Mental Hospital in Camarillo, CA, and flourishing it in front of
everyone. "Tee hee!!" [A sort of mad titter, like satoshi above]

It was an official certificate signed by the psychiatrists at Camarillo that
he was no longer a danger to himself or others and was being released from
confinement.

Satoshi is behaving very much like that strange man, and making the same
sort of claim.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<travellin...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:00:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
>> <eduar...@gmx.net>:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:00:03 PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
>> >> <travellin...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >Must be some kind of projection issue
>> >>
>
>> >I can not quite see the lies in what this Satoshi person writes.
>> >To me a lie means at least a wilfully given statement of falsehood
>> > while knowing better.
>>

>>If "facts" means "true statements" that is indeed correct.

>so ron o was lying about me and you agree with that fact

Learn to read for comprehension; it's a matter of
terminology and interpretation.

So you agree with the rest of what I wrote about your posts,
which you conveniently snipped:

"OK, point taken. 'Delusions resulting in the posting of
falsehoods' would indeed be better, if a bit cumbersome."

So you agree with that characterization of your posts?
Excellent! You're making progress!

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

Forget trying to use reason; as I noted in another thread,
in satoshiWorld we're *all* "robert f golaszewski" (also as
noted, caps are optional).

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:22:12 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com>:

But I doubt he has any sort of document. And to the best of
my recollection he's never claimed to be sane.

[ed wolf]

We sure are talking about a low threshold of sanity here, if no danger
to self and others is all it takes.
Meeting a person like that I tend to be friendly, uncommitted and gone.
Only here I am tempted to pull a leg here and there to maybe
jump-start a brain. Won't do it with people that really have issues,
battles of wit against the unarmed are no fun.
To me,anyone madder than Tandy is off limits.
Cheers
Ed

[zencycle]

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >
> >Satoshi is behaving very much like that strange man, and making the same
> >sort of claim.
>
> But I doubt he has any sort of document. And to the best of
> my recollection he's never claimed to be sane.

After I wrote "I learn towards not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's mentally ill.", he wrote "i have been to 4 md psychiatrists and they did not reach your conclusions."

I _think_ he was trying to say that his shrinks told him he _wasn't_ crazy, but that would only be if he misread my sentence - quite likely. I doubt any of his shrinks told him he wasn't "just a fucking prick, and he knows he's lying", which was the second part of the statement.

[satoshi]

If you said

I lean toward giving him the benefit of the doubt

It would mean your position would be that I am sane or not crazy

But you said

I lean towards not giving him the benefit of the doubt

Good thing you admit you have doubt about it

Means you aren't sure or certain about it

[zencycle]

Either sentence means I'm not sure about it, shitferbrains. If I'm leaning towards a conclusion one way or the other, it means I'm not certain about it.

NEWSFLASH to T.O - this is the first time shitoshi has ever posted anything even remotely correct, and then he was only half-right:

I am in fact not thoroughly convinced of shitoshis' sanity, in either respect. Some here say I should give you the benefit of the doubt that you are suffering from some psychosis. There is ample evidence to support that position, however, I'm not thoroughly convinced, and I lean towards _not_ giving you the benefit of that doubt. I think it's more likely that you're just a simple-minded prick. But, I could easily be convinced that you are in fact suffering from some sort of psychosis.

get it yet? (likely not)

[satoshi]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-4, satoshi wrote:
> > If you said
> >
> > I lean toward giving him the benefit of the doubt
> >
> > It would mean your position would be that I am sane or not crazy
> >
> > But you said
> >
> > I lean towards not giving him the benefit of the doubt
> >
> > Good thing you admit you have doubt about it
> >
> > Means you aren't sure or certain about it
>
> Either sentence means I'm not sure about it, shitferbrains. If I'm leaning towards a conclusion one way or the other, it means I'm not certain about it.

Thanks for admitting you don't know, thusly your libel/slander

[zencycle]

It's some we intelligent and rational contributors to this forum do. You wouldn't know about that. Regardless, your mental competence (or the lack thereof) has little bearing in the fact the you're an annoying little prick.

> thusly your libel/slander

Again - sue me. Go hire a lawyer, show them posts, and tell them you want to sue me for libel/slander. I think what they will do is refer you to yet another psychiatrist.

[satoshi]

i will consider it if my life situation improves

i have more ideas than that of course

[zencycle]

Good idea. Go do something to improve your life, annoying us won't help you.

> i have more ideas than that of course

You should follow up on those.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:53:10 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
<eduar...@gmx.net>:

It's not a threshold of sanity; anyone can be clinically
insane and free as a bird, provided he is not judged a
danger to himself or others. There is no legal justification
for locking someone up just because he thinks everyone he
meets is some imaginary person named "robert f
golaszewski" who sold DXM* online.

> Meeting a person like that I tend to be friendly, uncommitted and gone.
>Only here I am tempted to pull a leg here and there to maybe
>jump-start a brain. Won't do it with people that really have issues,
>battles of wit against the unarmed are no fun.
>To me,anyone madder than Tandy is off limits.

* Dextromethorphan, IOW cough suppressant, as used in Nyquil
and other OTC meds. I finally broke down and looked it up.

I suspect Stan was exposed to too many jokes about "Nyquil
on Elm Street" ("The sniffling, sneezing, slashing, bleeding
cut-your-throat-so-you-can-Rest-In-Peace medicine"), and
conflated Robert Englund with the imaginary "robert f
golaszewski".

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<travellin...@gmail.com>:

>If you said
>
>I lean toward giving him the benefit of the doubt
>
>It would mean your position would be that I am sane or not crazy

Nope. In this case it means you're not sane, and therefore
believe what you write; IOW, you're not consciously lying,
and are thus not responsible or culpable.

>But you said
>
>I lean towards not giving him the benefit of the doubt
>
>Good thing you admit you have doubt about it
>
>Means you aren't sure or certain about it

No one is "sure or certain" about almost anything. As for
me, I'm not certain that you're delusional, even though your
posts point in that direction.

[satoshi]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
> <travellin...@gmail.com>:
>
> >If you said
> >
> >I lean toward giving him the benefit of the doubt
> >
> >It would mean your position would be that I am sane or not crazy
>
> Nope. In this case it means you're not sane, and therefore
> believe what you write; IOW, you're not consciously lying,
> and are thus not responsible or culpable.

you are certainly crazy, and still are culpable.