Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is it true Goo is the pisser?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
dh
Oct 23, 2012, 6:36:57 PM10/23/12
to
So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
Rupert
Oct 24, 2012, 5:32:51 AM10/24/12
to
dh
Oct 24, 2012, 3:36:47 PM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
If so then why does Goo lie about little things if the big thing is not
wrote:
George Plimpton
Oct 24, 2012, 4:05:47 PM10/24/12
to
On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
>>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
>>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
>>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
>>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
>>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
>>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>>
>> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> If so then why does he lie about little things
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
>>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
>>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
>>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
>>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
>>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
>>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>>
>> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
I don't.
You knew all along that Slater forged the post.
Mr.Smartypants
Oct 25, 2012, 2:27:47 AM10/25/12
to
On Oct 24, 2:05 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> On 10/24/2012 12:36 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> >>> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> >>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> >>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> >>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> >>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> >>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> >>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> >> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> > If so then why does he lie about little things
>
> I don't.
>
> You knew all along that Slater forged the post.
apparently he didn't know that. What happened to the original post,
>
> >> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> >>> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> >>> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> >>> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> >>> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> >>> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> >>> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> >>> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> >> It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> > If so then why does he lie about little things
>
> I don't.
>
> You knew all along that Slater forged the post.
Wussypussy?
Rupert
Oct 25, 2012, 4:38:27 AM10/25/12
to
On Oct 25, 8:27 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
wrote:
Ball provided a link to the original post in a previous thread.
wrote:
Rupert
Oct 25, 2012, 4:38:52 AM10/25/12
to
On Oct 24, 9:36 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
What has he lied about?
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Mr.Smartypants
Oct 25, 2012, 2:05:06 PM10/25/12
to
posts when these groups were on Deja News.
Rupert
Oct 26, 2012, 4:59:43 AM10/26/12
to
On Oct 25, 8:05 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
Well, it is a post made by Ball, and Slater's post is a modified
version of it.
version of it.
Mr.Smartypants
Oct 26, 2012, 3:15:53 PM10/26/12
to
Rupert
Oct 27, 2012, 7:23:44 AM10/27/12
to
On Oct 26, 9:15 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
Does that strike you as a plausible hypothesis?
Mr.Smartypants
Oct 27, 2012, 4:20:32 PM10/27/12
to
a history of deleting posts that he's ashamed of, I'm open to any
scenario including the one I theorized.
Rupert
Oct 29, 2012, 11:53:09 AM10/29/12
to
On Oct 27, 9:20 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
Do you think it has a probability greater than 0.01?
Mr.Smartypants
Oct 29, 2012, 12:11:37 PM10/29/12
to
Rupert
Oct 29, 2012, 2:12:33 PM10/29/12
to
dh
Oct 29, 2012, 6:01:26 PM10/29/12
to
the Goober trying to get away with it. What could be? LOL...certainly not lying
about ruining his own dining room floor because he's an idiot. But would Goo
really stoop to blaming it on cats? LOL...of course he would. And we KNOW Goo
lies about his own quotes frequently.
dh
Oct 29, 2012, 6:02:49 PM10/29/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
For one thing Goo lied that I told you I knew Slater forged it, when of
course I still don't know that and in fact it's looking more and more like he
didn't as time goes along. If you're going to try to help the Goober lie about
this (imo of course because of your admiration for him) then you need to present
the evidence for it that Goo has been completely unable to attempt presenting.
What Goo's trying to do is wuss away from it for however long he waits, and then
he'll begin lying that it's already been presented and hilariously suggest that
we go back and try to find it for him. Why do you want to support Goo's lie
about this particular thing anyway, do you know?
wrote:
course I still don't know that and in fact it's looking more and more like he
didn't as time goes along. If you're going to try to help the Goober lie about
this (imo of course because of your admiration for him) then you need to present
the evidence for it that Goo has been completely unable to attempt presenting.
What Goo's trying to do is wuss away from it for however long he waits, and then
he'll begin lying that it's already been presented and hilariously suggest that
we go back and try to find it for him. Why do you want to support Goo's lie
about this particular thing anyway, do you know?
Rupert
Oct 30, 2012, 4:15:14 AM10/30/12
to
On 29 Okt., 23:03, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
I don`t wish to support anything Ball has said. I simply asked you a
question.
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
question.
dh
Nov 1, 2012, 11:49:47 AM11/1/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You questioned him about it before, which of course was/is a surprise to me.
Maybe he scolded you for it through email? He also lied that he hasn't been
asked about his pissing in the past. He also lied that it didn't take him a
while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
wrote:
Maybe he scolded you for it through email? He also lied that he hasn't been
asked about his pissing in the past. He also lied that it didn't take him a
while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
Rupert
Nov 1, 2012, 12:16:38 PM11/1/12
to
On Nov 1, 4:49 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Of course not; don't be stupid.
> He also lied that he hasn't been
> asked about his pissing in the past.
Did he; where did he say that?
> He also lied that it didn't take him a
> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
May this belief of yours bring you joy.
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> He also lied that he hasn't been
> asked about his pissing in the past.
> He also lied that it didn't take him a
> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
dh
Nov 5, 2012, 3:44:46 PM11/5/12
to
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Of course that's what you would say if he did, and we know it.
>don't be stupid.
LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>> He also lied that he hasn't been
>> asked about his pissing in the past.
>
>Did he; where did he say that?
He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>> He also lied that it didn't take him a
>> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
>> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>
>May this belief of yours bring you joy.
Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
wrote:
>don't be stupid.
LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>> He also lied that he hasn't been
>> asked about his pissing in the past.
>
>Did he; where did he say that?
he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>> He also lied that it didn't take him a
>> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
>> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>
>May this belief of yours bring you joy.
about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
Rupert
Nov 6, 2012, 7:27:42 AM11/6/12
to
On Nov 5, 9:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Why do you suppose that would be?
> >don't be stupid.
>
> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>
> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>
> >Did he; where did he say that?
>
> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>
> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>
> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>
> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
And you find the issue interesting?
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> >don't be stupid.
>
> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>
> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>
> >Did he; where did he say that?
>
> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>
> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>
> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>
> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
dh
Nov 6, 2012, 12:02:22 PM11/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:27:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Because you wouldn't want me to think you're both on the same team as I do,
and that you sometimes discuss things through email.
>> >don't be stupid.
>>
>> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
>> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>>
>> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
>> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>>
>> >Did he; where did he say that?
>>
>> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
>> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>>
>> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
>> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
>> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>>
>> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>>
>> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
>> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
>> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
>
>And you find the issue interesting?
I was curious about what I remembered to begin with, and now I'm curious
about why Goo lied about some of the things he lied about. Why make up
unecessary lies about things that don't really matter if he's not lying about
the main issue?
wrote:
and that you sometimes discuss things through email.
>> >don't be stupid.
>>
>> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
>> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>>
>> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
>> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>>
>> >Did he; where did he say that?
>>
>> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
>> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>>
>> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
>> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
>> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>>
>> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>>
>> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
>> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
>> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
>
>And you find the issue interesting?
about why Goo lied about some of the things he lied about. Why make up
unecessary lies about things that don't really matter if he's not lying about
the main issue?
Rupert
Nov 6, 2012, 12:09:39 PM11/6/12
to
On Nov 6, 6:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:27:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
If Ball took it into his head to email me for whatever reason, that
would not mean that "we sometimes discuss things through email",
unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
motivation to conceal the fact from you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >don't be stupid.
>
> >> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
> >> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>
> >> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
> >> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>
> >> >Did he; where did he say that?
>
> >> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
> >> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>
> >> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
> >> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
> >> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>
> >> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>
> >> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
> >> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
> >> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
>
> >And you find the issue interesting?
>
> I was curious about what I remembered to begin with, and now I'm curious
> about why Goo lied about some of the things he lied about. Why make up
> unecessary lies about things that don't really matter if he's not lying about
> the main issue?
So what you're saying is that you think that Ball probably
deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:27:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
would not mean that "we sometimes discuss things through email",
unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
motivation to conceal the fact from you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >don't be stupid.
>
> >> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
> >> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>
> >> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
> >> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>
> >> >Did he; where did he say that?
>
> >> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
> >> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>
> >> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
> >> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
> >> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>
> >> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>
> >> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
> >> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
> >> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
>
> >And you find the issue interesting?
>
> I was curious about what I remembered to begin with, and now I'm curious
> about why Goo lied about some of the things he lied about. Why make up
> unecessary lies about things that don't really matter if he's not lying about
> the main issue?
deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
dh
Nov 13, 2012, 4:42:20 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:09:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It seems most likely that you do though, from my pov.
>unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
>motivation to conceal the fact from you.
From my position you both appear to be eliminationists, but Goo is lying
about it and attempting very poorly to pretend to be a misnomer opponent instead
of what he actually is. However, his attempt is so very pathetic that from my
pov Goo clearly appears to be a misnomer supporter who is lying about it. You
appear to be one who is honest about it to whatever degree, but you're not
honest enough to admit you and the Goober are on the same side and working
together. Doing that would work against the whole idea, and you would never do
it unless possibly at some point you become an AW supporter INSTEAD OF an
eliminationist and then you and Goo would be on opposing sides and you would
then have reason to feel good about exposing Goo, but so far you don't.
>> >> >don't be stupid.
>>
>> >> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
>> >> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>>
>> >> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
>> >> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>>
>> >> >Did he; where did he say that?
>>
>> >> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
>> >> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>>
>> >> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
>> >> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
>> >> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>>
>> >> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>>
>> >> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
>> >> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
>> >> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
>>
>> >And you find the issue interesting?
>>
>> I was curious about what I remembered to begin with, and now I'm curious
>> about why Goo lied about some of the things he lied about. Why make up
>> unecessary lies about things that don't really matter if he's not lying about
>> the main issue?
>
>So what you're saying is that you think that Ball probably
>deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
If he did the pissing he was probably so wasted when he did it the first few
times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it out but
kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then he got in
the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that he decided
to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble he set
himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense than that
cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one day after
having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own quotes as or
more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly aren't. We
know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo lied about
having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me having told
you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about those things
if he's not lying about the cats? Why???
wrote:
>unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
>motivation to conceal the fact from you.
about it and attempting very poorly to pretend to be a misnomer opponent instead
of what he actually is. However, his attempt is so very pathetic that from my
pov Goo clearly appears to be a misnomer supporter who is lying about it. You
appear to be one who is honest about it to whatever degree, but you're not
honest enough to admit you and the Goober are on the same side and working
together. Doing that would work against the whole idea, and you would never do
it unless possibly at some point you become an AW supporter INSTEAD OF an
eliminationist and then you and Goo would be on opposing sides and you would
then have reason to feel good about exposing Goo, but so far you don't.
>> >> >don't be stupid.
>>
>> >> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
>> >> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not.
>>
>> >> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
>> >> >> asked about his pissing in the past.
>>
>> >> >Did he; where did he say that?
>>
>> >> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
>> >> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>>
>> >> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
>> >> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
>> >> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>>
>> >> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>>
>> >> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
>> >> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
>> >> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about.
>>
>> >And you find the issue interesting?
>>
>> I was curious about what I remembered to begin with, and now I'm curious
>> about why Goo lied about some of the things he lied about. Why make up
>> unecessary lies about things that don't really matter if he's not lying about
>> the main issue?
>
>So what you're saying is that you think that Ball probably
>deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it out but
kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then he got in
the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that he decided
to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble he set
himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense than that
cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one day after
having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own quotes as or
more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly aren't. We
know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo lied about
having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me having told
you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about those things
if he's not lying about the cats? Why???
Rupert
Nov 14, 2012, 5:34:00 AM11/14/12
to
On Nov 13, 10:42 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:09:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Your point of view lacks rational foundation.
Ball and I have never had any email exchanges, and you have no good
reason for thinking otherwise.
> >unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
> >motivation to conceal the fact from you.
>
> From my position you both appear to be eliminationists, but Goo is lying
> about it and attempting very poorly to pretend to be a misnomer opponent instead
> of what he actually is. However, his attempt is so very pathetic that from my
> pov Goo clearly appears to be a misnomer supporter who is lying about it. You
> appear to be one who is honest about it to whatever degree, but you're not
> honest enough to admit you and the Goober are on the same side and working
> together. Doing that would work against the whole idea, and you would never do
> it unless possibly at some point you become an AW supporter INSTEAD OF an
> eliminationist and then you and Goo would be on opposing sides and you would
> then have reason to feel good about exposing Goo, but so far you don't.
>
You've lost touch with reality.
First of all, I don't really know that these assertions which you
claim that Ball made were lies, or even factually mistaken. I would
have to look at the details of what he actually wrote and what the
evidence actually says about whether what he said was true. Even if it
was not true then it is still a further step to say that he was
deliberately lying. And, in any case, even if he did lie about some
things for whatever reason (and that may very well be), it's still no
especially good reason to conclude that he was lying when he said that
the original post he made was about cat urine and Slater later
deliberately mangled it. There are really no good grounds for thinking
that he is lying about that. The evidence in favour of what he says on
this issue is pretty strong.
You are welcome to believe otherwise if you want to, although your
views strike me as irrational. It's a pretty silly topic of
conversation, really. What's the point in talking about it?
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:09:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Ball and I have never had any email exchanges, and you have no good
reason for thinking otherwise.
> >unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
> >motivation to conceal the fact from you.
>
> From my position you both appear to be eliminationists, but Goo is lying
> about it and attempting very poorly to pretend to be a misnomer opponent instead
> of what he actually is. However, his attempt is so very pathetic that from my
> pov Goo clearly appears to be a misnomer supporter who is lying about it. You
> appear to be one who is honest about it to whatever degree, but you're not
> honest enough to admit you and the Goober are on the same side and working
> together. Doing that would work against the whole idea, and you would never do
> it unless possibly at some point you become an AW supporter INSTEAD OF an
> eliminationist and then you and Goo would be on opposing sides and you would
> then have reason to feel good about exposing Goo, but so far you don't.
>
claim that Ball made were lies, or even factually mistaken. I would
have to look at the details of what he actually wrote and what the
evidence actually says about whether what he said was true. Even if it
was not true then it is still a further step to say that he was
deliberately lying. And, in any case, even if he did lie about some
things for whatever reason (and that may very well be), it's still no
especially good reason to conclude that he was lying when he said that
the original post he made was about cat urine and Slater later
deliberately mangled it. There are really no good grounds for thinking
that he is lying about that. The evidence in favour of what he says on
this issue is pretty strong.
You are welcome to believe otherwise if you want to, although your
views strike me as irrational. It's a pretty silly topic of
conversation, really. What's the point in talking about it?
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 12:57:23 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:34:00 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[]
debased in some small way, Rupert? What the fuck's the matter with you?
wrote:
[]
>> >So what you're saying is that you think that Ball probably
>> >deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
>>
>> If he did the pissing he was probably so wasted when he did it the first few
>> times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it out but
>> kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then he got in
>> the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that he decided
>> to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble he set
>> himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense than that
>> cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one day after
>> having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own quotes as or
>> more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly aren't. We
>> know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo lied about
>> having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me having told
>> you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about those things
>> if he's not lying about the cats? Why???
>
>First of all
How can you waste a single moment responding to that nonsense and not feel
>> >deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
>>
>> If he did the pissing he was probably so wasted when he did it the first few
>> times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it out but
>> kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then he got in
>> the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that he decided
>> to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble he set
>> himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense than that
>> cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one day after
>> having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own quotes as or
>> more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly aren't. We
>> know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo lied about
>> having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me having told
>> you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about those things
>> if he's not lying about the cats? Why???
>
>First of all
debased in some small way, Rupert? What the fuck's the matter with you?
Rupert
Nov 14, 2012, 1:19:22 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 6:57 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:34:00 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Good question, really. I agree with you.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:34:00 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 1:26:57 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:19:22 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, if it's any consolation to you, I've found myself involved in a lot
worse.
wrote:
worse.
Rupert
Nov 14, 2012, 1:33:02 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 7:26 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:19:22 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Well, responding to David Harrison is a pretty silly habit, but I
suppose one could think of habits that are more harmful.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:19:22 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
suppose one could think of habits that are more harmful.
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:47:30 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:34:00 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It sure does have.
>Ball and I have never had any email exchanges, and you have no good
>reason for thinking otherwise.
I do have reason since I consider you two to be on the same side.
>> >unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
>> >motivation to conceal the fact from you.
>>
>> From my position you both appear to be eliminationists, but Goo is lying
>> about it and attempting very poorly to pretend to be a misnomer opponent instead
>> of what he actually is. However, his attempt is so very pathetic that from my
>> pov Goo clearly appears to be a misnomer supporter who is lying about it. You
>> appear to be one who is honest about it to whatever degree, but you're not
>> honest enough to admit you and the Goober are on the same side and working
>> together. Doing that would work against the whole idea, and you would never do
>> it unless possibly at some point you become an AW supporter INSTEAD OF an
>> eliminationist and then you and Goo would be on opposing sides and you would
>> then have reason to feel good about exposing Goo, but so far you don't.
>>
>
>You've lost touch with reality.
IF you had good reason to expose Goo now you would do so, meaning that you
don't. IF you ever move on to an AW position instead of an elimination position
THEN you would have good reason to expose the Goober, but not unless that
happens which seems unlikely.
Goo told several lies and I don't believe any of them were an accident.
>And, in any case, even if he did lie about some
>things for whatever reason (and that may very well be), it's still no
>especially good reason to conclude that he was lying when he said that
>the original post he made was about cat urine and Slater later
>deliberately mangled it. There are really no good grounds for thinking
>that he is lying about that. The evidence in favour of what he says on
>this issue is pretty strong.
Like what?
>You are welcome to believe otherwise if you want to, although your
>views strike me as irrational. It's a pretty silly topic of
>conversation, really. What's the point in talking about it?
It's more fun than a lot of the other shit Goo lies about.
wrote:
>Ball and I have never had any email exchanges, and you have no good
>reason for thinking otherwise.
>> >unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
>> >motivation to conceal the fact from you.
>>
>> From my position you both appear to be eliminationists, but Goo is lying
>> about it and attempting very poorly to pretend to be a misnomer opponent instead
>> of what he actually is. However, his attempt is so very pathetic that from my
>> pov Goo clearly appears to be a misnomer supporter who is lying about it. You
>> appear to be one who is honest about it to whatever degree, but you're not
>> honest enough to admit you and the Goober are on the same side and working
>> together. Doing that would work against the whole idea, and you would never do
>> it unless possibly at some point you become an AW supporter INSTEAD OF an
>> eliminationist and then you and Goo would be on opposing sides and you would
>> then have reason to feel good about exposing Goo, but so far you don't.
>>
>
>You've lost touch with reality.
don't. IF you ever move on to an AW position instead of an elimination position
THEN you would have good reason to expose the Goober, but not unless that
happens which seems unlikely.
>And, in any case, even if he did lie about some
>things for whatever reason (and that may very well be), it's still no
>especially good reason to conclude that he was lying when he said that
>the original post he made was about cat urine and Slater later
>deliberately mangled it. There are really no good grounds for thinking
>that he is lying about that. The evidence in favour of what he says on
>this issue is pretty strong.
>You are welcome to believe otherwise if you want to, although your
>views strike me as irrational. It's a pretty silly topic of
>conversation, really. What's the point in talking about it?
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:47:56 PM11/14/12
to
cats. If he wasn't there would be nothing for you to save him from, but
obviously you feel that there is something to save him from.
George Plimpton
Nov 15, 2012, 12:49:04 AM11/15/12
to
dh
Nov 20, 2012, 1:59:40 PM11/20/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:33:02 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You "could" improve from my influence, but all I could do is regress from
yours. Regress to a fourth or fifth grade level or below to drop down where you
are. You're on the bottom, so all there is for you is up...or over. You can't
appreciate the lives of any creatures on the planet and don't comprehend what a
life of positive value is, meaning you certainly can't appreciate any
distinction between "good" lives and those which aren't good but are still of
positive value. Since you can't appreciate the positive value of your own life
that means it's almost certainly not what a person could call good, but since
you haven't killed yourself yet it shows that so far it's still of positive
value TO YOU even though you're not mentally capable of comprehending much much
less appreciating the fact. Much MUCH much less can you appreciate it, and sadly
you probably never will be able to until it's too late IF then. After it becomes
too late and it's no longer of positive value to you maybe then you'll finally
understand, and at that point you may wish you had been able to appreciate it
while it was still of positive value instead of negative. Or maybe you'll
somehow remain clueless even then, and if so you might be better off for your
own incredible ignorance than you would be if you could comprehend. Ask your dad
and see what he says about it.
wrote:
yours. Regress to a fourth or fifth grade level or below to drop down where you
are. You're on the bottom, so all there is for you is up...or over. You can't
appreciate the lives of any creatures on the planet and don't comprehend what a
life of positive value is, meaning you certainly can't appreciate any
distinction between "good" lives and those which aren't good but are still of
positive value. Since you can't appreciate the positive value of your own life
that means it's almost certainly not what a person could call good, but since
you haven't killed yourself yet it shows that so far it's still of positive
value TO YOU even though you're not mentally capable of comprehending much much
less appreciating the fact. Much MUCH much less can you appreciate it, and sadly
you probably never will be able to until it's too late IF then. After it becomes
too late and it's no longer of positive value to you maybe then you'll finally
understand, and at that point you may wish you had been able to appreciate it
while it was still of positive value instead of negative. Or maybe you'll
somehow remain clueless even then, and if so you might be better off for your
own incredible ignorance than you would be if you could comprehend. Ask your dad
and see what he says about it.
dh
Nov 20, 2012, 2:00:11 PM11/20/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:49:04 -0800, Goo agreed:
>> It sure does have.
>>
>>>Ball [Goo] and I have never had any email exchanges, and you have no good
>>>> >So what you're saying is that you think that Ball [Goo] probably
And now that your boy just happened to pop in and try to protect you it
seems even more likely that there never were any damned cats Goober, but that
YOU did the pissing and posted about it and then later changed or removed the
post before I got around to copying it. Slater apparently got a copy before you
made whatever change(s). There would have been no reason for your boy to try to
save you if there was nothing to save you from Goob, so he exposed you by his
attempt. That's ON TOP OF the fact that there would be no reason for you to lie
about me, lie about not having been questioned about this in the past, and lie
about how long it took you to come up with your story about Slater IF you
weren't lying about being the one who did the pissing, Goo. If the cat story was
true there would be no reason for you to lie about anything, but we know you
lied about several things.
So Goo, did it attract dogs? Was the time you were doing your pissing during
the time you were failing to get a PhD? Did the neighbors ever complain about
the smell, Goob?
>>
>>>Ball [Goo] and I have never had any email exchanges, and you have no good
>>>> >deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
>>>>
>>>> If he did the pissing he was probably so wasted when he did it the first few
>>>> times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it out but
>>>> kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then he got in
>>>> the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that he decided
>>>> to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble he set
>>>> himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense than that
>>>> cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one day after
>>>> having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own quotes as or
>>>> more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly aren't. We
>>>> know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo lied about
>>>> having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me having told
>>>> you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about those things
>>>> if he's not lying about the cats? Why???
>>>
>>>First of all, I don't really know that these assertions which you
>>>claim that Ball [Goo] made were lies, or even factually mistaken. I would
>>>>
>>>> If he did the pissing he was probably so wasted when he did it the first few
>>>> times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it out but
>>>> kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then he got in
>>>> the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that he decided
>>>> to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble he set
>>>> himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense than that
>>>> cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one day after
>>>> having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own quotes as or
>>>> more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly aren't. We
>>>> know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo lied about
>>>> having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me having told
>>>> you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about those things
>>>> if he's not lying about the cats? Why???
>>>
>>>First of all, I don't really know that these assertions which you
>>>have to look at the details of what he actually wrote and what the
>>>evidence actually says about whether what he said was true. Even if it
>>>was not true then it is still a further step to say that he was
>>>deliberately lying.
>>
>> Goo told several lies and I don't believe any of them were an accident.
>>
>>>And, in any case, even if he did lie about some
>>>things for whatever reason (and that may very well be), it's still no
>>>especially good reason to conclude that he was lying when he said that
>>>the original post he made was about cat urine and Slater later
>>>deliberately mangled it. There are really no good grounds for thinking
>>>that he is lying about that. The evidence in favour of what he says on
>>>this issue is pretty strong.
>>
>> Like what?
>>
>>>You are welcome to believe otherwise if you want to, although your
>>>views strike me as irrational. It's a pretty silly topic of
>>>conversation, really. What's the point in talking about it?
>>
>> It's more fun than a lot of the other shit Goo lies about.
>
>Right.
>>>evidence actually says about whether what he said was true. Even if it
>>>was not true then it is still a further step to say that he was
>>>deliberately lying.
>>
>> Goo told several lies and I don't believe any of them were an accident.
>>
>>>And, in any case, even if he did lie about some
>>>things for whatever reason (and that may very well be), it's still no
>>>especially good reason to conclude that he was lying when he said that
>>>the original post he made was about cat urine and Slater later
>>>deliberately mangled it. There are really no good grounds for thinking
>>>that he is lying about that. The evidence in favour of what he says on
>>>this issue is pretty strong.
>>
>> Like what?
>>
>>>You are welcome to believe otherwise if you want to, although your
>>>views strike me as irrational. It's a pretty silly topic of
>>>conversation, really. What's the point in talking about it?
>>
>> It's more fun than a lot of the other shit Goo lies about.
>
And now that your boy just happened to pop in and try to protect you it
seems even more likely that there never were any damned cats Goober, but that
YOU did the pissing and posted about it and then later changed or removed the
post before I got around to copying it. Slater apparently got a copy before you
made whatever change(s). There would have been no reason for your boy to try to
save you if there was nothing to save you from Goob, so he exposed you by his
attempt. That's ON TOP OF the fact that there would be no reason for you to lie
about me, lie about not having been questioned about this in the past, and lie
about how long it took you to come up with your story about Slater IF you
weren't lying about being the one who did the pissing, Goo. If the cat story was
true there would be no reason for you to lie about anything, but we know you
lied about several things.
So Goo, did it attract dogs? Was the time you were doing your pissing during
the time you were failing to get a PhD? Did the neighbors ever complain about
the smell, Goob?
George Plimpton
Nov 20, 2012, 2:28:23 PM11/20/12
to
On 11/14/2012 11:47 AM, dh@. wrote:
George Plimpton
Nov 20, 2012, 2:28:25 PM11/20/12
to
Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:49:04 -0800, George Plimpton demolished Fuckwit again:
>
>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:49:04 -0800, George Plimpton demolished Fuckwit again:
>
>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goober Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-fighting fan, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
0 new messages