Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
British Freemason fraud on Usenet
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Jahbulon
May 24, 2012, 4:31:02 PM5/24/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in news:MN-
dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>
>> What would such proof be?
>
> If you believe your claims to be true
> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
> must have made you believe them, tell us
> what they are.
I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to your
mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then accuse me, and
doubtless others, of evasion.
--
Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons
dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>
>> What would such proof be?
>
> If you believe your claims to be true
> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
> must have made you believe them, tell us
> what they are.
I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to your
mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then accuse me, and
doubtless others, of evasion.
--
Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons
Tony Dragon
May 24, 2012, 5:17:45 PM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/2012 21:31, Jahbulon wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in news:MN-
> dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>
>>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>>
>>> What would such proof be?
>>
>> If you believe your claims to be true
>> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
>> must have made you believe them, tell us
>> what they are.
>
> I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to your
> mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then accuse me, and
> doubtless others, of evasion.
>
OK so we are agreed that you can't/wont back up your claims.
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in news:MN-
> dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>
>>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>>
>>> What would such proof be?
>>
>> If you believe your claims to be true
>> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
>> must have made you believe them, tell us
>> what they are.
>
> I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to your
> mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then accuse me, and
> doubtless others, of evasion.
>
I have asked you to produce evidence to back up your claims, but you
can't/wont do that.
You then paste my e-mail as a subject line & accuse me of evasion.
You then name me as a Freemason.
Most normal people will have no trouble drawing their own conclusions.
Mrcheerful
May 24, 2012, 5:44:05 PM5/24/12
to
Jahbulon wrote:
> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in news:MN-
> dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>
>>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>>
>>> What would such proof be?
>>
>> If you believe your claims to be true
>> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
>> must have made you believe them, tell us
>> what they are.
>
> I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to
> your mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then
> accuse me, and doubtless others, of evasion.
You make statements, it is up to you to back those with some sort of proof.
> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in news:MN-
> dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>
>>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>>
>>> What would such proof be?
>>
>> If you believe your claims to be true
>> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
>> must have made you believe them, tell us
>> what they are.
>
> I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to
> your mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then
> accuse me, and doubtless others, of evasion.
Jahbulon
May 24, 2012, 6:15:41 PM5/24/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:_rydnbUNF9fnOCPS...@bt.com:
> I have asked you to produce evidence to back
> up your claims, but you can't/wont do that.
for proof without having any idea what that proof might be.
I think you're a Freemason fraud. Why else would you abuse me so?
Jahbulon
May 24, 2012, 6:17:00 PM5/24/12
to
"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:63yvr.557208$_Q.3...@fx01.am4:
> You make statements, it is up to you
> to back those with some sort of proof.
Are the only claims you make the ones you can prove?
Gimmie a break.
news:63yvr.557208$_Q.3...@fx01.am4:
> You make statements, it is up to you
> to back those with some sort of proof.
Gimmie a break.
Tony Dragon
May 24, 2012, 6:45:30 PM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/2012 23:15, Jahbulon wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:_rydnbUNF9fnOCPS...@bt.com:
>
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:_rydnbUNF9fnOCPS...@bt.com:
>
>> OK so we are agreed that you can't/wont back up your claims.
>> I have asked you to produce evidence to back
>> up your claims, but you can't/wont do that.
>> up your claims, but you can't/wont do that.
>> You then paste my e-mail as a subject line & accuse me of evasion.
>> You then name me as a Freemason.
>> Most normal people will have no trouble drawing their own
>> conclusions.
>>
>>
>
>> You then name me as a Freemason.
>> Most normal people will have no trouble drawing their own
>> conclusions.
>>
>>
>
> It's up-to-you if you think you can explain why you harass me with demands
> for proof without having any idea what that proof might be.
>
> I think you're a Freemason fraud. Why else would you abuse me so?
>
Merely asking you to back up what you post.
> for proof without having any idea what that proof might be.
>
> I think you're a Freemason fraud. Why else would you abuse me so?
>
Jahbulon
May 24, 2012, 7:34:24 PM5/24/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:qJudnXkX2Z6WJyPS...@bt.com:
> Merely asking you to back up what you post.
Jahbulon
May 24, 2012, 7:42:05 PM5/24/12
to
Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote in
news:1964275143359594933...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Ok, what, in your mind, constitutes
> proof that Tony Dragon is a Freemason?
That's my question: what is proof that someone is a Freemason, and if you
cannot answer why do you file the demand in the first place?
news:1964275143359594933...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Ok, what, in your mind, constitutes
> proof that Tony Dragon is a Freemason?
That's my question: what is proof that someone is a Freemason, and if you
cannot answer why do you file the demand in the first place?
AndyW
May 25, 2012, 2:55:03 AM5/25/12
to
On 24/05/2012 23:17, Jahbulon wrote:
> "Mrcheerful"<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:63yvr.557208$_Q.3...@fx01.am4:
>
>> You make statements, it is up to you
>> to back those with some sort of proof.
>
> Are the only claims you make the ones you can prove?
>
> Gimmie a break.
Some should a simple to prove, after all, you do make claims that
> "Mrcheerful"<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:63yvr.557208$_Q.3...@fx01.am4:
>
>> You make statements, it is up to you
>> to back those with some sort of proof.
>
> Are the only claims you make the ones you can prove?
>
> Gimmie a break.
various people are masons, surely if you know that they are masons then
you should be able to post the evidence that made you sure that they
were masons.
Otherwise you are just a loon posting drivel naming people who committed
crimes as masons.
BTW 'Common knowledge' that is not common to the rest of us is not evidence.
Andy
AndyW
May 25, 2012, 2:59:05 AM5/25/12
to
On 25/05/2012 00:42, Jahbulon wrote:
> Mike P<n...@here.com> wrote in
> news:1964275143359594933...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Ok, what, in your mind, constitutes
>> proof that Tony Dragon is a Freemason?
>
> That's my question: what is proof that someone is a Freemason, and if you
> cannot answer why do you file the demand in the first place?
You actively alter news reports to state that the people who committed
> Mike P<n...@here.com> wrote in
> news:1964275143359594933...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Ok, what, in your mind, constitutes
>> proof that Tony Dragon is a Freemason?
>
> That's my question: what is proof that someone is a Freemason, and if you
> cannot answer why do you file the demand in the first place?
the crimes are masons. Either you are a loon editing news stories
without any real knowledge that they are masons or else you actually
have evidence that proves that they are masons.
If you do not have proof that they are masons then you are (as many here
suspect) just a loon. If you believe that Tony is a mason then tell us
why, in your view, he is a mason.
Andy
Mrcheerful
May 25, 2012, 3:40:26 AM5/25/12
to
Jahbulon wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:63yvr.557208$_Q.3...@fx01.am4:
>
>> You make statements, it is up to you
>> to back those with some sort of proof.
>
> Are the only claims you make the ones you can prove?
>
> Gimmie a break.
So you cannot back up your statements, well done for admitting it, it has
> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:63yvr.557208$_Q.3...@fx01.am4:
>
>> You make statements, it is up to you
>> to back those with some sort of proof.
>
> Are the only claims you make the ones you can prove?
>
> Gimmie a break.
taken long enough !
If it is just your personal opinions then state that, no problem, it is then
just anecdotal. If you are sure of your facts and you want other people to
believe you , then you need some sort of back-up evidence.
sutartsorric
May 25, 2012, 3:53:42 AM5/25/12
to
On May 24, 10:44 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
order to enlighten us with a deep and insightful post.
What a lucky coincidence.
> Jahbulon wrote:
>
> > I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to
> > your mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then
> > accuse me, and doubtless others, of evasion.
>
> You make statements, it is up to you to back those with some sort of proof.
And yet another cycling saddle sniffer appears out of the woodwork in
>
> > I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to
> > your mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then
> > accuse me, and doubtless others, of evasion.
>
> You make statements, it is up to you to back those with some sort of proof.
order to enlighten us with a deep and insightful post.
What a lucky coincidence.
Jahbulon
May 25, 2012, 6:55:37 AM5/25/12
to
AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> If you do not have proof that they are masons then
> you are (as many here suspect) just a loon.
Have you not claimed that anyone who cannot affirm each of his beliefs with
proof is mentally ill?
news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> If you do not have proof that they are masons then
> you are (as many here suspect) just a loon.
proof is mentally ill?
francis
May 25, 2012, 8:07:48 AM5/25/12
to
He seems to have some sort of fixation about sniffing cycle saddles.
sutartsorric
May 25, 2012, 10:13:12 AM5/25/12
to
I dont see that prediction at any point in this thread.
Would you care to post the link to it?
francis
May 25, 2012, 10:41:04 AM5/25/12
to
Mike P
May 25, 2012, 10:58:14 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 12:42 am, Jahbulon <inva...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote:
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote innews:1964275143359594933...@news.eternal-september.org:
proof that I require anyway.
Therefore, you must be a cunt.
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote innews:1964275143359594933...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > Ok, what, in your mind, constitutes
> > proof that Tony Dragon is a Freemason?
>
> That's my question: what is proof that someone is a Freemason, and if you
> cannot answer why do you file the demand in the first place?
There seems to be plenty of proof you are a cunt. Well, the sort of
> > Ok, what, in your mind, constitutes
> > proof that Tony Dragon is a Freemason?
>
> That's my question: what is proof that someone is a Freemason, and if you
> cannot answer why do you file the demand in the first place?
proof that I require anyway.
Therefore, you must be a cunt.
Jahbulon
May 25, 2012, 11:51:12 AM5/25/12
to
francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:23d5f045-1dee-4db0...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
> Ahh as predicted Jahbulons minder has been wheeled out.
I don't have a minder and I don't remember anyone predicting anything about
any minder or any mention of same before this post.
Perhaps you are creating your own enemies in your own mind and need to see
a doctor?
news:23d5f045-1dee-4db0...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
> Ahh as predicted Jahbulons minder has been wheeled out.
any minder or any mention of same before this post.
Perhaps you are creating your own enemies in your own mind and need to see
a doctor?
Jahbulon
May 25, 2012, 11:56:43 AM5/25/12
to
francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3763efb5-6329-4b9e...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> > Ahh as predicted Jahbulons minder has been
>> > wheeled out. He seems to have some sort of
>> > fixation about sniffing cycle saddles.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I dont see that prediction at any point in this thread.
>>
>> Would you care to post the link to it?
>
> Who said the prediction was in this thread?
You have not answered the question: where was this prediction, for I
certainly cannot recall it?
Wish I did have a minder: that would be nice. I do appreciate the support
and agreement I am fortunate to receive from sutartsorric.
news:3763efb5-6329-4b9e...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> > Ahh as predicted Jahbulons minder has been
>> > wheeled out. He seems to have some sort of
>> > fixation about sniffing cycle saddles.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I dont see that prediction at any point in this thread.
>>
>> Would you care to post the link to it?
>
> Who said the prediction was in this thread?
certainly cannot recall it?
Wish I did have a minder: that would be nice. I do appreciate the support
and agreement I am fortunate to receive from sutartsorric.
Jahbulon
May 25, 2012, 11:58:22 AM5/25/12
to
> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
From the things he says. I know that's obvious but you asked.
> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
sutartsorric
May 25, 2012, 12:06:30 PM5/25/12
to
Can you post the link to your prediction in whatever obscure thread
you posted it in?
Mrcheerful
May 25, 2012, 12:11:16 PM5/25/12
to
Jahbulon wrote:
> francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:23d5f045-1dee-4db0...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
>
> francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:23d5f045-1dee-4db0...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
>
> Perhaps you are creating your own enemies in your own mind and need
> to see a doctor?
That sounds like what most people are thinking about you !!
> to see a doctor?
Tony Dragon
May 25, 2012, 1:08:22 PM5/25/12
to
On 25/05/2012 16:58, Jahbulon wrote:
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>
> From the things he says. I know that's obvious but you asked.
>
Come on, you must be able to do better than that, by the way I'm not a
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>
> From the things he says. I know that's obvious but you asked.
>
Mason.
Pilotiin
May 26, 2012, 9:16:16 AM5/26/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:TcWdnUJZt_oVISLS...@bt.com:
>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>
>> From the things he says.
>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>
> Come on, you must be able to do better than that,
> by the way I'm not a Mason.
Tony Dragon
May 26, 2012, 9:48:08 AM5/26/12
to
On 26/05/2012 14:16, Pilotiin wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:TcWdnUJZt_oVISLS...@bt.com:
>
>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>
>>> From the things he says.
>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>
>> Come on, you must be able to do better than that,
>
> Why? All I know about you is what you say on the Internet.
>
Don't your 'sources' give you information?
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:TcWdnUJZt_oVISLS...@bt.com:
>
>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>
>>> From the things he says.
>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>
>> Come on, you must be able to do better than that,
>
> Why? All I know about you is what you say on the Internet.
>
>> by the way I'm not a Mason.
>
> and I think you are.
I see that you are Pilotiin again, fed up with calling yourself a 'god'?
Pilotiin
May 26, 2012, 10:11:13 AM5/26/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:VLydneKRzJyEQl3S...@bt.com:
>>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>>
>>>> From the things he says.
>>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>>
>>> Come on, you must be able to do better than that,
>>
>> Why? All I know about you is
>> what you say on the Internet.
>
> Don't your 'sources' give you information?
> I see that you are Pilotiin again,
> fed up with calling yourself a 'god'?
Pilotiin
May 26, 2012, 11:52:20 AM5/26/12
to
"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:1fOvr.1027203
$Pq.8...@fx09.am4:
>> Perhaps you are creating your own enemies
>> in your own mind and need to see a doctor?
>
> That sounds like what most people
> are thinking about you !!
Often, allegations of hallucinations get so bizarre they are evidence of
psychosis in the person making the accusations, if one was to take these
people seriously.
You don't know what's going on in my mind;
I don't know what's going on in your mind;
the only difference seems to be you will not admit it;
I just did.
$Pq.8...@fx09.am4:
>> Perhaps you are creating your own enemies
>> in your own mind and need to see a doctor?
>
> That sounds like what most people
> are thinking about you !!
psychosis in the person making the accusations, if one was to take these
people seriously.
You don't know what's going on in my mind;
I don't know what's going on in your mind;
the only difference seems to be you will not admit it;
I just did.
AndyW
May 28, 2012, 2:39:11 AM5/28/12
to
On 25/05/2012 11:55, Jahbulon wrote:
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> If you do not have proof that they are masons then
>> you are (as many here suspect) just a loon.
>
> Have you not claimed that anyone who cannot affirm each of his beliefs with
> proof is mentally ill?
>
Correct.
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> If you do not have proof that they are masons then
>> you are (as many here suspect) just a loon.
>
> Have you not claimed that anyone who cannot affirm each of his beliefs with
> proof is mentally ill?
>
I have not claimed such a thing.
Andy
AndyW
May 28, 2012, 2:39:49 AM5/28/12
to
On 25/05/2012 16:58, Jahbulon wrote:
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>
> From the things he says. I know that's obvious but you asked.
SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
> news:4fbf20d5$0$27292$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>
> From the things he says. I know that's obvious but you asked.
Andy
Mr. Benn
May 28, 2012, 6:04:26 AM5/28/12
to
"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:_rydnbUNF9fnOCPS...@bt.com...
> On 24/05/2012 21:31, Jahbulon wrote:
>> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in news:MN-
>> dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>>
>>>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>>>
>>>> What would such proof be?
>>>
>>> If you believe your claims to be true
>>> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
>>> must have made you believe them, tell us
>>> what they are.
news:_rydnbUNF9fnOCPS...@bt.com...
> On 24/05/2012 21:31, Jahbulon wrote:
>> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in news:MN-
>> dnVIrpJrhDyPSn...@bt.com:
>>
>>>>> I am merely asking for proof of your claims.
>>>>
>>>> What would such proof be?
>>>
>>> If you believe your claims to be true
>>> (and I presume you do), then something(s)
>>> must have made you believe them, tell us
>>> what they are.
>>
>> I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to your
>> mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then accuse me,
>> and
>> doubtless others, of evasion.
>>
>
>> I don't demand proof: you do, so you should be able to say what, to your
>> mind, constitutes proof, but you evade the question and then accuse me,
>> and
>> doubtless others, of evasion.
>>
>
> OK so we are agreed that you can't/wont back up your claims.
> I have asked you to produce evidence to back up your claims, but you
> can't/wont do that.
> You then paste my e-mail as a subject line & accuse me of evasion.
> You then name me as a Freemason.
> Most normal people will have no trouble drawing their own conclusions.
Jahbulon is insane is my conclusion.
> I have asked you to produce evidence to back up your claims, but you
> can't/wont do that.
> You then paste my e-mail as a subject line & accuse me of evasion.
> You then name me as a Freemason.
> Most normal people will have no trouble drawing their own conclusions.
Pilotiin
May 28, 2012, 7:20:28 PM5/28/12
to
AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in news:4fc310ab$0$17456$882e7ee2@usenet-
news.net:
>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>
>> From the things he says.
>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>
> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
What is proof that someone is a Freemason?
>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>
>> From the things he says.
>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>
> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
AndyW
May 29, 2012, 2:31:55 AM5/29/12
to
on about the person being a mason.
I would be keen to see what evidence you have to repeatedly add the word
'freemason' before the name of someone in a new report. Clearly you have
some evidence otherwise you would not do it.
Andy
Pilotiin
May 29, 2012, 4:08:05 AM5/29/12
to
AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
news:4fc46044$0$13130$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>>
>>>> From the things he says.
>>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>>
>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>
>> What is proof that someone is a Freemason?
>
> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
No, and I have not been "banging on about" Tony Dragon
<tony....@btinternet.com> being a Freemason either.
You have not answered my question. You talk about proof that someone is a
Freemason, but do not say what proof might be, even when I ask.
> I would be keen to see what evidence you have to
> repeatedly add the word 'freemason' before the
> name of someone in a new report. Clearly you have
> some evidence otherwise you would not do it.
You're asking me to re-state the obvious. The only contact I have with
"Tony Draggon" is on Usenet so, at least it seems to me, the only way I can
conclude, as I have, that "Tony Draggon" is a Freemason, is from the things
s/he says on Usenet.
I am bound to say I find this unhelpful. "Tony Draggon" denies being a
Freemason and I see no benefit from you requiring me to state repeatedly,
what is true, that I am sure such statements are not a helpful reflection
of his/her true relationship with Freemasonry. You're not stupid, you do
understand.
news:4fc46044$0$13130$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>>
>>>> From the things he says.
>>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>>
>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>
>> What is proof that someone is a Freemason?
>
> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
<tony....@btinternet.com> being a Freemason either.
You have not answered my question. You talk about proof that someone is a
Freemason, but do not say what proof might be, even when I ask.
> I would be keen to see what evidence you have to
> repeatedly add the word 'freemason' before the
> name of someone in a new report. Clearly you have
> some evidence otherwise you would not do it.
"Tony Draggon" is on Usenet so, at least it seems to me, the only way I can
conclude, as I have, that "Tony Draggon" is a Freemason, is from the things
s/he says on Usenet.
I am bound to say I find this unhelpful. "Tony Draggon" denies being a
Freemason and I see no benefit from you requiring me to state repeatedly,
what is true, that I am sure such statements are not a helpful reflection
of his/her true relationship with Freemasonry. You're not stupid, you do
understand.
Tony Dragon
May 29, 2012, 1:24:07 PM5/29/12
to
On 29/05/2012 09:08, Pilotiin wrote:
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fc46044$0$13130$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>>>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the things he says.
>>>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>>>
>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>>
>>> What is proof that someone is a Freemason?
>>
>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>
> No, and I have not been "banging on about" Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> being a Freemason either.
>
> You have not answered my question. You talk about proof that someone is a
> Freemason, but do not say what proof might be, even when I ask.
And you have been asked many times to present your evidence that
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fc46044$0$13130$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>>>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the things he says.
>>>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>>>
>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>>
>>> What is proof that someone is a Freemason?
>>
>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>
> No, and I have not been "banging on about" Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> being a Freemason either.
>
> You have not answered my question. You talk about proof that someone is a
> Freemason, but do not say what proof might be, even when I ask.
somebody is a Mason, after all if you are calling a person a Mason then
you must have a reason for doing that, all you have to do is post your
reason.
>
>> I would be keen to see what evidence you have to
>> repeatedly add the word 'freemason' before the
>> name of someone in a new report. Clearly you have
>> some evidence otherwise you would not do it.
>
> You're asking me to re-state the obvious. The only contact I have with
> "Tony Draggon" is on Usenet so, at least it seems to me, the only way I can
> conclude, as I have, that "Tony Draggon" is a Freemason, is from the things
> s/he says on Usenet.
>
I would be keen to see what evidence you have to
repeatedly add the word 'freemason' before the
some evidence otherwise you would not do it.
No mention was made of me.
> I am bound to say I find this unhelpful. "Tony Draggon" denies being a
> Freemason and I see no benefit from you requiring me to state repeatedly,
> what is true, that I am sure such statements are not a helpful reflection
> of his/her true relationship with Freemasonry. You're not stupid, you do
> understand.
-- .
Tony (he) not a Mason
Pilotiin
May 29, 2012, 4:52:39 PM5/29/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:JL-dnRX2BqSqm1jS...@bt.com:
>>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
> And you have been asked many times to present
> your evidence that somebody is a Mason, [ . . . ].
I was asked for proof, and need to be given some idea of what proof that
someone is a Freemason might be.
> after all if you are calling a person a Mason
> then you must have a reason for doing that,
> all you have to do is post your reason.
2. Of course I have reasons for believing you are a Freemason.
> I would be keen to see what evidence you have
> to repeatedly add the word 'freemason' before
> the name of someone in a new (sic) report.
> No mention was made of me.
Indeed, it's change of subject, presumably because demanding more
information about why I have drawn the opinion I have about "Tony Draggon"
is an abuse.
> Tony (he) not a Mason
Tony Dragon
May 29, 2012, 5:59:08 PM5/29/12
to
On 29/05/2012 21:52, Pilotiin wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:JL-dnRX2BqSqm1jS...@bt.com:
>
>>>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>
>>>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>>>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>
>> And you have been asked many times to present
>> your evidence that somebody is a Mason, [ . . . ].
>
> I was asked for proof, and need to be given some idea of what proof that
> someone is a Freemason might be.
As you have been told before, present what you consider to be 'proof'.
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:JL-dnRX2BqSqm1jS...@bt.com:
>
>>>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>
>>>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>>>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>
>> And you have been asked many times to present
>> your evidence that somebody is a Mason, [ . . . ].
>
> I was asked for proof, and need to be given some idea of what proof that
> someone is a Freemason might be.
>
>> after all if you are calling a person a Mason
>> then you must have a reason for doing that,
>> all you have to do is post your reason.
>
> 1. I was asked for proof. None of you are stupid: you know what proof is.
what proof is, does that make you stupid?
>
> 2. Of course I have reasons for believing you are a Freemason.
>
>> I would be keen to see what evidence you have
>> to repeatedly add the word 'freemason' before
>> the name of someone in a new (sic) report.
>
>> No mention was made of me.
>
> Indeed, it's change of subject, presumably because demanding more
> information about why I have drawn the opinion I have about "Tony Draggon"
> is an abuse.
>
>> Tony (he) not a Mason
>
> So you say.
Pilotiin
May 29, 2012, 7:05:44 PM5/29/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:XKKdndN4P9Iw21jS...@bt.com:
>>>>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>
>>>>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>>>>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>>
>>> And you have been asked many times to present
>>> your evidence that somebody is a Mason, [ . . . ].
>>
>> I was asked for proof, and need to be given some
>> idea of what proof that someone is a Freemason might be.
>
> As you have been told before,
> present what you consider to be 'proof'.
is a Freemason might be. You should tell me what you mean by proof that
someone is a Freemason.
>> 1. I was asked for proof. None of you are stupid:
>> you know what proof is.
>
> If we know what proof is because we are not stupid, and
> then you ask what proof is, does that make you stupid?
>> 2. Of course I have reasons for
>> believing you are a Freemason.
>
> I would be interested in what those reasons are.
Janitor of Lunacy
May 29, 2012, 7:30:05 PM5/29/12
to
"Pilotiin" <inv...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA063F9A6A84i...@69.16.185.250...
Tony Dragon
May 30, 2012, 1:42:17 AM5/30/12
to
On 30/05/2012 00:05, Pilotiin wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:XKKdndN4P9Iw21jS...@bt.com:
>
>>>>>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>>
>>>>>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>>>>>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>>>
>>>> And you have been asked many times to present
>>>> your evidence that somebody is a Mason, [ . . . ].
>>>
>>> I was asked for proof, and need to be given some
>>> idea of what proof that someone is a Freemason might be.
>>
>> As you have been told before,
>> present what you consider to be 'proof'.
>
> Non-sequitur: I keep telling you that I do not know what proof that someone
> is a Freemason might be. You should tell me what you mean by proof that
> someone is a Freemason.
>
Evasion noted.
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:XKKdndN4P9Iw21jS...@bt.com:
>
>>>>>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>>
>>>>>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>>>>>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>>>
>>>> And you have been asked many times to present
>>>> your evidence that somebody is a Mason, [ . . . ].
>>>
>>> I was asked for proof, and need to be given some
>>> idea of what proof that someone is a Freemason might be.
>>
>> As you have been told before,
>> present what you consider to be 'proof'.
>
> Non-sequitur: I keep telling you that I do not know what proof that someone
> is a Freemason might be. You should tell me what you mean by proof that
> someone is a Freemason.
>
>>> 1. I was asked for proof. None of you are stupid:
>>> you know what proof is.
>>
>> If we know what proof is because we are not stupid, and
>> then you ask what proof is, does that make you stupid?
>
> Are you asking me about logic?
>
>>> 2. Of course I have reasons for
>>> believing you are a Freemason.
>>
>> I would be interested in what those reasons are.
>
> I surely do not interest you that much.
AndyW
May 30, 2012, 3:34:46 AM5/30/12
to
On 29/05/2012 09:08, Pilotiin wrote:
> AndyW<An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
> news:4fc46044$0$13130$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>>>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the things he says.
>>>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>>>
>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>>
>>> What is proof that someone is a Freemason?
>>
>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>
> No, and I have not been "banging on about" Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> being a Freemason either.
>
> You have not answered my question. You talk about proof that someone is a
> Freemason, but do not say what proof might be, even when I ask.
I have said it. I would like to see the reasons you have for suspecting.
> news:4fc46044$0$13130$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>>>>>> If you believe that Tony is a mason then
>>>>>> tell us why, in your view, he is a mason.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the things he says.
>>>>> I know that's obvious but you asked.
>>>>
>>>> SO, no proof, just a 'gut feel'?
>>>
>>> What is proof that someone is a Freemason?
>>
>> Clearly you feel that you have proof otherwise you
>> would not be banging on about the person being a mason.
>
> No, and I have not been "banging on about" Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> being a Freemason either.
>
> You have not answered my question. You talk about proof that someone is a
> Freemason, but do not say what proof might be, even when I ask.
You repeatedly say that X is a mason but when asked how you know you
usually either a) ignore the request, b) respond with a question then
continually demand that the person answers your question while ignoring
the original question c)divert the discussion onto something else.
>> I would be keen to see what evidence you have to
>> repeatedly add the word 'freemason' before the
>> name of someone in a new report. Clearly you have
>> some evidence otherwise you would not do it.
>
> You're asking me to re-state the obvious. The only contact I have with
> "Tony Draggon" is on Usenet so, at least it seems to me, the only way I can
> conclude, as I have, that "Tony Draggon" is a Freemason, is from the things
> s/he says on Usenet.
You have accused me of being a mason and yet I do not recall using any
masonic language or pass phrases.
> I am bound to say I find this unhelpful. "Tony Draggon" denies being a
> Freemason and I see no benefit from you requiring me to state repeatedly,
> what is true, that I am sure such statements are not a helpful reflection
> of his/her true relationship with Freemasonry. You're not stupid, you do
> understand.
you have decided that Tony is a mason and that almost everyone in the
public eye who does something wrong (ie appears in the news so that you
can cut, paste and insert the word freemason everywhere)is a mason?
All I have asked for is why you think they are masons but you evade,
divert, obfuscate and ignore the question instead of debating.
Andy
AndyW
May 30, 2012, 3:35:17 AM5/30/12
to
constantly shift.
As my sainted mother says "If you argue with an idiot for long enough,
he will end up doing the same"
I'm bowing out before I become the second idiot.
Andy
(still not a mason)
Pilotiin
May 30, 2012, 5:14:17 AM5/30/12
to
AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
news:4fc5c072$0$18071$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> I have said it. I would like to see the reasons you
> have for suspecting. You repeatedly say that X is a
> mason but when asked how you know you usually either
> a) ignore the request, b) respond with a question
> then continually demand that the person answers your
> question while ignoring the original question
> c)divert the discussion onto something else.
I cannot say why I think x is a Freemason, if I do, because I do not know
who x is supposed to be.
> But what things? Does he use passphrases or key words?
> You have accused me of being a mason and yet I do not
> recall using any masonic language or pass phrases.
You both, especially Tony, use language I associate with Freemasonry.
> So in your own mind, without any actual evidence
> that you can post here, [ . . . ].
You were demanding proof and I responded by asking what proof that someone
is a Freemason might be. Personally I would be far better disposed to your
requests if your demands were moderate, polite and not changing.
> you have decided that Tony is a mason
That's not true. I have decided that, in my opinion, Tony is a Freemason.
> and that almost everyone in the public eye
> who does something wrong (ie appears in the
> news so that you can cut, paste and insert
> the word freemason everywhere)is a mason?
Presumably, since I do not know who you are talking about, the evidence
changes between people. In every case, I promise you the evidence is
nothing particularly clever: I don't have any special powers.
> All I have asked for is why you think they are
> masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
> ignore the question instead of debating.
I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting me to admit more
than that I am a fallible human, the same as everyone else, you will need
to be more precise.
news:4fc5c072$0$18071$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> I have said it. I would like to see the reasons you
> have for suspecting. You repeatedly say that X is a
> mason but when asked how you know you usually either
> a) ignore the request, b) respond with a question
> then continually demand that the person answers your
> question while ignoring the original question
> c)divert the discussion onto something else.
who x is supposed to be.
> But what things? Does he use passphrases or key words?
> You have accused me of being a mason and yet I do not
> recall using any masonic language or pass phrases.
> So in your own mind, without any actual evidence
You were demanding proof and I responded by asking what proof that someone
is a Freemason might be. Personally I would be far better disposed to your
requests if your demands were moderate, polite and not changing.
> you have decided that Tony is a mason
> and that almost everyone in the public eye
> who does something wrong (ie appears in the
> news so that you can cut, paste and insert
> the word freemason everywhere)is a mason?
changes between people. In every case, I promise you the evidence is
nothing particularly clever: I don't have any special powers.
> All I have asked for is why you think they are
> masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
> ignore the question instead of debating.
than that I am a fallible human, the same as everyone else, you will need
to be more precise.
francis
May 30, 2012, 9:34:21 AM5/30/12
to
On May 30, 10:14 am, Pilotiin <inva...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote:
> AndyW <A...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote innews:4fc5c072$0$18071$882e...@usenet-news.net:
Masons.
>
> > But what things? Does he use passphrases or key words?
> > You have accused me of being a mason and yet I do not
> > recall using any masonic language or pass phrases.
>
> You both, especially Tony, use language I associate with Freemasonry.
>
What language would this be, because when anybody who questions you,
you declare them to be Masons.
> > So in your own mind, without any actual evidence
> > that you can post here, [ . . . ].
>
> You were demanding proof and I responded by asking what proof that someone
> is a Freemason might be. Personally I would be far better disposed to your
> requests if your demands were moderate, polite and not changing.
The requests made of you have been polite, never changing & as far as
I can see moderate.
You have been requested to post what you consider to be proof that the
person is a Mason.
If you are saying that you think they are a Mason, then you should be
able to say why you think that.
>
> > you have decided that Tony is a mason
>
> That's not true. I have decided that, in my opinion, Tony is a Freemason.
>
Based on the language that he uses.?
> > and that almost everyone in the public eye
> > who does something wrong (ie appears in the
> > news so that you can cut, paste and insert
> > the word freemason everywhere)is a mason?
>
> Presumably, since I do not know who you are talking about, the evidence
> changes between people. In every case, I promise you the evidence is
> nothing particularly clever: I don't have any special powers.
>
In that case post your evidence on that person when you recieve a
request.
> > All I have asked for is why you think they are
> > masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
> > ignore the question instead of debating.
>
> I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting me to admit more
> than that I am a fallible human, the same as everyone else, you will need
> to be more precise.
He was very precise.
> AndyW <A...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote innews:4fc5c072$0$18071$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
> > I have said it. I would like to see the reasons you
> > have for suspecting. You repeatedly say that X is a
> > mason but when asked how you know you usually either
> > a) ignore the request, b) respond with a question
> > then continually demand that the person answers your
> > question while ignoring the original question
> > c)divert the discussion onto something else.
>
> I cannot say why I think x is a Freemason, if I do, because I do not know
> who x is supposed to be.
OK so you have admited that you don't know why you call these people
> > I have said it. I would like to see the reasons you
> > have for suspecting. You repeatedly say that X is a
> > mason but when asked how you know you usually either
> > a) ignore the request, b) respond with a question
> > then continually demand that the person answers your
> > question while ignoring the original question
> > c)divert the discussion onto something else.
>
> I cannot say why I think x is a Freemason, if I do, because I do not know
> who x is supposed to be.
Masons.
>
> > But what things? Does he use passphrases or key words?
> > You have accused me of being a mason and yet I do not
> > recall using any masonic language or pass phrases.
>
> You both, especially Tony, use language I associate with Freemasonry.
>
you declare them to be Masons.
> > So in your own mind, without any actual evidence
> > that you can post here, [ . . . ].
>
> You were demanding proof and I responded by asking what proof that someone
> is a Freemason might be. Personally I would be far better disposed to your
> requests if your demands were moderate, polite and not changing.
I can see moderate.
You have been requested to post what you consider to be proof that the
person is a Mason.
If you are saying that you think they are a Mason, then you should be
able to say why you think that.
>
> > you have decided that Tony is a mason
>
> That's not true. I have decided that, in my opinion, Tony is a Freemason.
>
> > and that almost everyone in the public eye
> > who does something wrong (ie appears in the
> > news so that you can cut, paste and insert
> > the word freemason everywhere)is a mason?
>
> Presumably, since I do not know who you are talking about, the evidence
> changes between people. In every case, I promise you the evidence is
> nothing particularly clever: I don't have any special powers.
>
request.
> > All I have asked for is why you think they are
> > masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
> > ignore the question instead of debating.
>
> I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting me to admit more
> than that I am a fallible human, the same as everyone else, you will need
> to be more precise.
Pilotiin
May 30, 2012, 10:56:04 AM5/30/12
to
francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2f83aca9-ea91-457b...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>> I cannot say why I think x is a Freemason,
>> if I do, because I do not know who x is supposed to be.
>
> OK so you have admited that you don't
> know why you call these people Masons.
As I do not know about whom you are talking, I cannot say, can I?
> What language would this be, [ . . . ].
English.
> [ . . . ] because when anybody who questions
they are indeed all Freemasons.
> The requests made of you have been polite,
> never changing & as far as I can see moderate.
That is not correct. The allegations of mental instability are baseless
and the demands for proof extreme.
> You have been requested to post what you
> consider to be proof that the person is a Mason.
There you go again: demanding proof, while I am still waiting for
someone to tell me what proof that someone is a Freemason might be.
> If you are saying that you think they are a Mason,
> then you should be able to say why you think that.
Yes, and I am.
>> That's not true. I have decided that,
>> in my opinion, Tony is a Freemason.
>
> Based on the language that he uses.?
That's a silly question: the only contact I have with "Tony" is via
Usenet, so how else could I draw such a conclusion if not from what he
says?
> In that case post your evidence on
> that person when you recieve a request.
What is the magic word, if such a request is in order for someone who
claims to be polite?
>> > All I have asked for is why you think they are
>> > masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
>> > ignore the question instead of debating.
>>
>> I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting
>> me to admit more than that I am a fallible human, the
>> same as everyone else, you will need to be more precise.
>
> He was very precise.
If that is correct, you can supply me with an exhaustive list of who
"they" are supposed to be, can't you?
news:2f83aca9-ea91-457b...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>> I cannot say why I think x is a Freemason,
>> if I do, because I do not know who x is supposed to be.
>
> OK so you have admited that you don't
> know why you call these people Masons.
> What language would this be, [ . . . ].
English.
> [ . . . ] because when anybody who questions
> you, you declare them to be Masons.
Without any names one can only observe that presumably that is because
they are indeed all Freemasons.
> The requests made of you have been polite,
> never changing & as far as I can see moderate.
and the demands for proof extreme.
> You have been requested to post what you
> consider to be proof that the person is a Mason.
someone to tell me what proof that someone is a Freemason might be.
> If you are saying that you think they are a Mason,
> then you should be able to say why you think that.
>> That's not true. I have decided that,
>> in my opinion, Tony is a Freemason.
>
> Based on the language that he uses.?
Usenet, so how else could I draw such a conclusion if not from what he
says?
> In that case post your evidence on
> that person when you recieve a request.
claims to be polite?
>> > All I have asked for is why you think they are
>> > masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
>> > ignore the question instead of debating.
>>
>> I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting
>> me to admit more than that I am a fallible human, the
>> same as everyone else, you will need to be more precise.
>
> He was very precise.
"they" are supposed to be, can't you?
Tony Dragon
May 30, 2012, 1:20:31 PM5/30/12
to
On 30/05/2012 15:56, Pilotiin wrote:
> francis<francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:2f83aca9-ea91-457b...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> I cannot say why I think x is a Freemason,
>>> if I do, because I do not know who x is supposed to be.
>>
>> OK so you have admited that you don't
>> know why you call these people Masons.
>
> As I do not know about whom you are talking, I cannot say, can I?
As you know he was talking in general terms, in fact your answer just
> francis<francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:2f83aca9-ea91-457b...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> I cannot say why I think x is a Freemason,
>>> if I do, because I do not know who x is supposed to be.
>>
>> OK so you have admited that you don't
>> know why you call these people Masons.
>
> As I do not know about whom you are talking, I cannot say, can I?
proves that Andy is correct.
>
>> What language would this be, because when anybody who questions you,
>> you declare them to be Masons.
>
> English.
>
So when somebody uses English to you, they must be Masons.
>
>> [ . . . ] because when anybody who questions
>> you, you declare them to be Masons.
>
> Without any names one can only observe that presumably that is because
> they are indeed all Freemasons.
>
a thread.
>> The requests made of you have been polite,
>
> That is not correct. The allegations of mental instability are baseless
Most of the people who have replied to you have not said you were
> That is not correct. The allegations of mental instability are baseless
mentally unstable.
> and the demands for proof extreme.
is this?
>
>> You have been requested to post what you
>> consider to be proof that the person is a Mason.
>
> There you go again: demanding proof, while I am still waiting for
> someone to tell me what proof that someone is a Freemason might be.
>
>> If you are saying that you think they are a Mason,
>> then you should be able to say why you think that.
>
> Yes, and I am.
>
>>> That's not true. I have decided that,
>>> in my opinion, Tony is a Freemason.
>>
>> Based on the language that he uses.?
>
> That's a silly question: the only contact I have with "Tony" is via
> Usenet, so how else could I draw such a conclusion if not from what he
> says?
>
>> In that case post your evidence on
>> that person when you recieve a request.
>
> What is the magic word, if such a request is in order for someone who
> claims to be polite?
>
you give answers. I will expect that you will now do the same.
>>>> All I have asked for is why you think they are
>>>> masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
>>>> ignore the question instead of debating.
>>>
>>> I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting
>>> me to admit more than that I am a fallible human, the
>>> same as everyone else, you will need to be more precise.
>>
>> He was very precise.
>
> If that is correct, you can supply me with an exhaustive list of who
> "they" are supposed to be, can't you?
I am sure I could compile such a list from your future posting, and I
would asks others, Francis, Andy, etc to do the same.
Pilotiin
May 30, 2012, 4:12:33 PM5/30/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:qamdnfzw1LxCy1vS...@bt.com:
>> As I do not know about whom you are talking,
>> I cannot say, can I?
>
> As you know he was talking in general terms,
> in fact your answer just proves that Andy is correct.
>>> What language would this be, because when anybody
>>> who questions you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>
>> English.
>
> So when somebody uses English to you,
> they must be Masons.
trying to attach highly unreasonable conclusions. I do not say everyone
who questions me is a Freemason: that is your side's claim, not mine.
>>> [francis <francis...@yahoo.com>]:
>>> [ . . . ] because when anybody who questions
>>> you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>
>> Without any names one can only observe that presumably
>> that is because they are indeed all Freemasons.
>
> As you well know the names are the ones
> that you have used previously in a thread.
You've made another mistake: you know to whom "francis" was referring
>>> you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>
>> Without any names one can only observe that presumably
>> that is because they are indeed all Freemasons.
>
> As you well know the names are the ones
> that you have used previously in a thread.
when he said "them" (above), but still deny being the same person as
"francis."
>>> The requests made of you have been polite,
>>
>> That is not correct.
>> The allegations of mental instability are baseless
>
> Most of the people who have replied to
> you have not said you were mentally unstable.
So we agree that the allegations of mental instability are baseless.
>> That is not correct.
>> The allegations of mental instability are baseless
>
> Most of the people who have replied to
> you have not said you were mentally unstable.
>> and the demands for proof extreme.
>
> So you consider that people asking you to prove
> your claims extreme, why is this?
asking me about Mathematics.
> And yet you continually fail to
> provide what *you* think is proof.
what you mean by proof so that I may have an opportunity to meet your
demands.
>>> If you are saying that you think they are a Mason,
>>> then you should be able to say why you think that.
>>
>> Yes, and I am.
>
> Well no you have not.
> I myself am willing to add 'please' to my requests if it will mean
> that you give answers. I will expect that you will now do the same.
>>>>> All I have asked for is why you think they are
>>>>> masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
>>>>> ignore the question instead of debating.
>>>>
>>>> I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting
>>>> me to admit more than that I am a fallible human, the
>>>> same as everyone else, you will need to be more precise.
>>>
>>> He was very precise.
>>
>> If that is correct, you can supply me with an exhaustive
>> list of who "they" are supposed to be, can't you?
>
> Well you could start with me.
correct and "they" did indeed refer to only one person, but many
identities. I fear you may have accidentally spoken the truth.
> I am sure I could compile such a list from your future posting,
> and I would asks others, Francis, Andy, etc to do the same.
Tony Dragon
May 30, 2012, 4:57:51 PM5/30/12
to
On 30/05/2012 21:12, Pilotiin wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:qamdnfzw1LxCy1vS...@bt.com:
>
>>> As I do not know about whom you are talking,
>>> I cannot say, can I?
>>
>> As you know he was talking in general terms,
>> in fact your answer just proves that Andy is correct.
>
> How can "Andy" be proven correct about anonymous identities?
>
I'll repost what he said, you know the bit you edited out.
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:qamdnfzw1LxCy1vS...@bt.com:
>
>>> As I do not know about whom you are talking,
>>> I cannot say, can I?
>>
>> As you know he was talking in general terms,
>> in fact your answer just proves that Andy is correct.
>
> How can "Andy" be proven correct about anonymous identities?
>
"You repeatedly say that X is a mason but when asked how you know you
usually either a) ignore the request, b) respond with a question then
continually demand that the person answers your question while ignoring
the original question c)divert the discussion onto something else.
"
usually either a) ignore the request, b) respond with a question then
continually demand that the person answers your question while ignoring
the original question c)divert the discussion onto something else.
"
>>>> What language would this be, because when anybody
>>>> who questions you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>>
>>> English.
>>
>> So when somebody uses English to you,
>> they must be Masons.
>
> I am sure if you wanted you could allow me to answer questions without
> trying to attach highly unreasonable conclusions. I do not say everyone
> who questions me is a Freemason: that is your side's claim, not mine.
>
Well for a start I do not have a 'side'.
>>>> who questions you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>>
>>> English.
>>
>> So when somebody uses English to you,
>> they must be Masons.
>
> I am sure if you wanted you could allow me to answer questions without
> trying to attach highly unreasonable conclusions. I do not say everyone
> who questions me is a Freemason: that is your side's claim, not mine.
>
And why would a normal person say that everyone who questions you is a
Mason?
>>>> [francis<francis...@yahoo.com>]:
>>>> [ . . . ] because when anybody who questions
>>>> you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>>
>>> Without any names one can only observe that presumably
>>> that is because they are indeed all Freemasons.
>>
>> As you well know the names are the ones
>> that you have used previously in a thread.
>
> You've made another mistake: you know to whom "francis" was referring
> when he said "them" (above), but still deny being the same person as
> "francis."
>
because you have decided that you do not know what was meant, does not
make me Francis.
>>>> The requests made of you have been polite,
>>>
>>> That is not correct.
>>> The allegations of mental instability are baseless
>>
>> Most of the people who have replied to
>> you have not said you were mentally unstable.
>
> So we agree that the allegations of mental instability are baseless.
>
I have made no such agreement & have inferred no such thing.
>>> That is not correct.
>>> The allegations of mental instability are baseless
>>
>> Most of the people who have replied to
>> you have not said you were mentally unstable.
>
> So we agree that the allegations of mental instability are baseless.
>
>>> and the demands for proof extreme.
>>
>> So you consider that people asking you to prove
>> your claims extreme, why is this?
>
> You may not understand this response, but it is because you are not
> asking me about Mathematics.
>
>> And yet you continually fail to
>> provide what *you* think is proof.
>
> I did not ask for proof, your side did. It is for your side to tell me
> what you mean by proof so that I may have an opportunity to meet your
> demands.
>
post what *you* think is proof?
>>>> If you are saying that you think they are a Mason,
>>>> then you should be able to say why you think that.
>>>
>>> Yes, and I am.
>>
>> Well no you have not.
>
> I am able, as I said.
>
>> I myself am willing to add 'please' to my requests if it will mean
>> that you give answers. I will expect that you will now do the same.
>
> You are joking right?
>
>>>>>> All I have asked for is why you think they are
>>>>>> masons but you evade, divert, obfuscate and
>>>>>> ignore the question instead of debating.
>>>>>
>>>>> I try not to. We all make mistakes, but beyond getting
>>>>> me to admit more than that I am a fallible human, the
>>>>> same as everyone else, you will need to be more precise.
>>>>
>>>> He was very precise.
>>>
>>> If that is correct, you can supply me with an exhaustive
>>> list of who "they" are supposed to be, can't you?
>>
>> Well you could start with me.
>
> Is that supposed to be an exhaustive list: one identity? Perhaps you are
> correct and "they" did indeed refer to only one person, but many
> identities. I fear you may have accidentally spoken the truth.
>
>> I am sure I could compile such a list from your future posting,
>> and I would asks others, Francis, Andy, etc to do the same.
>
> I really cannot answer questions about anonymous identities.
Pilotiin
May 30, 2012, 7:10:21 PM5/30/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:tsOdnfQObIVSFFvS...@bt.com:
>> How can "Andy" be proven correct about anonymous identities?
>
> I'll repost what he said, you know the bit you edited out.
> Well for a start I do not have a 'side'.
> And why would a normal person say that
> everyone who questions you is a Mason?
>>>>> [francis<francis...@yahoo.com>]:
>>>>> [ . . . ] because when anybody who questions
>>>>> you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>> As you well know the names are the ones
>>> that you have used previously in a thread.
>>
>> You've made another mistake: you know to whom "francis"
>> was referring when he said "them" (above), but still
>> deny being the same person as "francis."
>
> I have made no mistake, Francis has made it clear what
> he meant, just because you have decided that you do not
> know what was meant, does not make me Francis.
So how did you know to whom francis referred?
>>> that you have used previously in a thread.
>>
>> You've made another mistake: you know to whom "francis"
>> was referring when he said "them" (above), but still
>> deny being the same person as "francis."
>
> I have made no mistake, Francis has made it clear what
> he meant, just because you have decided that you do not
> know what was meant, does not make me Francis.
>>>>> The requests made of you have been polite,
>>>>> never changing& as far as I can see moderate.
>>>>
>>>> That is not correct.
>>>> The allegations of mental instability are baseless
>>>
>>> Most of the people who have replied to
>>> you have not said you were mentally unstable.
>>
>> So we agree that the allegations
>> of mental instability are baseless.
>
> I have made no such agreement & have inferred no such thing.
unreasonably, accuses me of evasion.
>>>> and the demands for proof extreme.
>>>
>>> So you consider that people asking you to prove
>>> your claims extreme, why is this?
>>
>> You may not understand this response, but it is
>> because you are not asking me about Mathematics.
>
> Evasion noted.
for accusing me of evasion.
> No, wrong, and many people have told you what to post,
> are you scared to post what *you* think is proof?
demands for proof, especially without giving any idea what in your mind
amounts to proof, to be unreasonable. I don't know what you mean.
>>>>> If you are saying that you think they are a Mason,
>>>>> then you should be able to say why you think that.
> But you have not done so.
Correct. Nothing gets past you, does it?
>>> I myself am willing to add 'please' to my requests
>>> if it will mean that you give answers. I will
>>> expect that you will now do the same.
>>
>> You are joking right?
>
> No, try me out.
>> Is that supposed to be an exhaustive list: one identity?
>> Perhaps you are correct and "they" did indeed refer to
>> only one person, but many identities. I fear you may
>> have accidentally spoken the truth.
>
> Evasion noted.
>
>>> I am sure I could compile such a list from your future posting,
>>> and I would asks others, Francis, Andy, etc to do the same.
>>
>> I really cannot answer questions about anonymous identities.
>
> Evasion noted.
question, and a failure to answer questions about persons unknown, as an
evasion.
AndyW
May 31, 2012, 3:30:03 AM5/31/12
to
On 30/05/2012 21:12, Pilotiin wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:qamdnfzw1LxCy1vS...@bt.com:
>
>>> As I do not know about whom you are talking,
>>> I cannot say, can I?
>>
>> As you know he was talking in general terms,
>> in fact your answer just proves that Andy is correct.
>
> How can "Andy" be proven correct about anonymous identities?
X is a placeholder for name of the various people you claim are masons.
> news:qamdnfzw1LxCy1vS...@bt.com:
>
>>> As I do not know about whom you are talking,
>>> I cannot say, can I?
>>
>> As you know he was talking in general terms,
>> in fact your answer just proves that Andy is correct.
>
> How can "Andy" be proven correct about anonymous identities?
Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X, just take the name of
some of the people you allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>>>> What language would this be, because when anybody
>>>> who questions you, you declare them to be Masons.
>>>
>>> English.
>>
>> So when somebody uses English to you,
>> they must be Masons.
>
> I am sure if you wanted you could allow me to answer questions without
> trying to attach highly unreasonable conclusions. I do not say everyone
> who questions me is a Freemason: that is your side's claim, not mine.
language I use. Perhaps you would be so good as to quote the passage(s)
containing the language that indicates that I am a mason.
AFAIK the only terms that I know are/were masonic have entered common
parlance such as 'on the level' and 'all square' but I cannot recall
using those.
It should be simple to quote the text, just cut and paste.
>> Most of the people who have replied to
>> you have not said you were mentally unstable.
>
> So we agree that the allegations of mental instability are baseless.
be mental instability, trolling or many other causes. Mental instability
is just one possibility.
Andy
Pilotiin
May 31, 2012, 5:22:17 AM5/31/12
to
AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in news:4fc710ca$0$2139$882e7ee2@usenet-
news.net:
> Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> just take the name of some of the people you
> allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
You must tell me who mean by X; I can't tell you.
> It should be simple to quote the text,
> just cut and paste.
Yes it is.
> Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
> behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
> other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
No it isn't. I get letters from a mentally ill person: I don't know how you
would tell. Your allegations of mental instability, even as a possibility,
are baseless.
news.net:
> Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> just take the name of some of the people you
> allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
> It should be simple to quote the text,
> just cut and paste.
> Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
> behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
> other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
would tell. Your allegations of mental instability, even as a possibility,
are baseless.
francis
May 31, 2012, 5:47:47 AM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 10:22 am, Pilotiin <inva...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote:
> AndyW <A...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote innews:4fc710ca$0$2139$882e7ee2@usenet-
>
> > Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
> > behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
> > other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
>
> No it isn't. I get letters from a mentally ill person: I don't know how you
> would tell. Your allegations of mental instability, even as a possibility,
> are baseless.
As are many of your allegations.
> AndyW <A...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote innews:4fc710ca$0$2139$882e7ee2@usenet-
> news.net:
>
> > Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> > just take the name of some of the people you
> > allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>
> You must tell me who mean by X; I can't tell you.
He has told you, but you as usual can't or wont do what is asked of
>
> > Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> > just take the name of some of the people you
> > allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>
> You must tell me who mean by X; I can't tell you.
you.
>
> > It should be simple to quote the text,
> > just cut and paste.
>
> Yes it is.
So just your usual evasive answer.
>
> > It should be simple to quote the text,
> > just cut and paste.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> > Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
> > behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
> > other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
>
> No it isn't. I get letters from a mentally ill person: I don't know how you
> would tell. Your allegations of mental instability, even as a possibility,
> are baseless.
Pilotiin
May 31, 2012, 9:00:06 AM5/31/12
to
francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9ec7dcac-5e37-4529...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>> > Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
>> > just take the name of some of the people you
>> > allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>
>>
>> You must tell me who you mean by X; I can't tell you.
>> > It should be simple to quote the text,
>> > just cut and paste.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> So just your usual evasive answer.
You usually call yourself Tony when you hurl entirely baseless allegations
of evasion at me.
>> > Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
>> > behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
>> > other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
>>
>> No it isn't. I get letters from a mentally ill person:
>> I don't know how you would tell. Your allegations
>> of mental instability, even as a possibility,
>> are baseless.
>
> As are many of your allegations.
The allegations of mental instability thrown at me on Usenet, often by
people who admit being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
news:9ec7dcac-5e37-4529...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>> > Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
>> > just take the name of some of the people you
>> > allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>
>>
>
> He has told you, but you as usual can't
> or wont do what is asked of you.
Who is X then?
> He has told you, but you as usual can't
> or wont do what is asked of you.
>> > It should be simple to quote the text,
>> > just cut and paste.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> So just your usual evasive answer.
of evasion at me.
>> > Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
>> > behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
>> > other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
>>
>> No it isn't. I get letters from a mentally ill person:
>> I don't know how you would tell. Your allegations
>> of mental instability, even as a possibility,
>> are baseless.
>
> As are many of your allegations.
people who admit being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
francis
May 31, 2012, 10:44:49 AM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 2:00 pm, Pilotiin <inva...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote:
evasive.
When other people say the same thing they use their names.
> >> > Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
> >> > behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
> >> > other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
>
> >> No it isn't. I get letters from a mentally ill person:
> >> I don't know how you would tell. Your allegations
> >> of mental instability, even as a possibility,
> >> are baseless.
>
> > As are many of your allegations.
>
> The allegations of mental instability thrown at me on Usenet, often by
> people who admit being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
So you are saying that people who are not Masons have said that you
are mentally instable.
I note the you have not commented on what I said about many of your
allegations being baseless.
> francis <francis.mall...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:9ec7dcac-5e37-4529...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> >> > just take the name of some of the people you
> >> > allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>
> >> You must tell me who you mean by X; I can't tell you.
>
> > He has told you, but you as usual can't
> > or wont do what is asked of you.
>
> Who is X then?
>
I refer you to the answer that you have been given before :-
>
> >> > Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> >> > just take the name of some of the people you
> >> > allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>
> >> You must tell me who you mean by X; I can't tell you.
>
> > He has told you, but you as usual can't
> > or wont do what is asked of you.
>
> Who is X then?
>
"Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
just take the name of some of the people you
allege are masons and substitute the name for X."
just take the name of some of the people you
allege are masons and substitute the name for X."
> >> > It should be simple to quote the text,
> >> > just cut and paste.
>
> >> Yes it is.
>
> > So just your usual evasive answer.
>
> You usually call yourself Tony when you hurl entirely baseless allegations
> of evasion at me.
>
No I allways call myself Francis when I tell you that you ansers are
> >> > just cut and paste.
>
> >> Yes it is.
>
> > So just your usual evasive answer.
>
> You usually call yourself Tony when you hurl entirely baseless allegations
> of evasion at me.
>
evasive.
When other people say the same thing they use their names.
> >> > Your behaviour on here shows cause for concern but that
> >> > behaviour could be mental instability, trolling or many
> >> > other causes. Mental instability is just one possibility.
>
> >> No it isn't. I get letters from a mentally ill person:
> >> I don't know how you would tell. Your allegations
> >> of mental instability, even as a possibility,
> >> are baseless.
>
> > As are many of your allegations.
>
> The allegations of mental instability thrown at me on Usenet, often by
> people who admit being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
are mentally instable.
I note the you have not commented on what I said about many of your
allegations being baseless.
Pilotiin
May 31, 2012, 12:35:02 PM5/31/12
to
francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:6bf161cc-3320-4f43...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>> Who is X then?
>
> I refer you to the answer that
> you have been given before :-
I still don't know who X is supposed to be.
> No I allways call myself Francis when
> I tell you that you ansers are evasive.
You call yourself francis.
> When other people say the same
> thing they use their names.
How would you know: you're supposed to be a different person, remember?
>> The allegations of mental instability thrown at me on Usenet,
>> often by people who admit being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
>
> So you are saying that people who are not Masons
> have said that you are mentally instable.
Have another go and see if you can read it properly: the allegations of
mental instability thrown at me on Usenet, often by people who admit to
In any case, I doubtless would have the most extreme difficulty extracting
from you the remotest idea of which allegations you were referring to: in
all fairness, you still will not tell who X is supposed to be.
news:6bf161cc-3320-4f43...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>> Who is X then?
>
> I refer you to the answer that
> you have been given before :-
> No I allways call myself Francis when
> I tell you that you ansers are evasive.
> When other people say the same
> thing they use their names.
>> The allegations of mental instability thrown at me on Usenet,
>> often by people who admit being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
>
> So you are saying that people who are not Masons
> have said that you are mentally instable.
mental instability thrown at me on Usenet, often by people who admit to
being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
> I note the you have not commented on what I
> said about many of your allegations being baseless.
That's because you are changing the subject.
> said about many of your allegations being baseless.
In any case, I doubtless would have the most extreme difficulty extracting
from you the remotest idea of which allegations you were referring to: in
all fairness, you still will not tell who X is supposed to be.
Tony Dragon
May 31, 2012, 1:09:42 PM5/31/12
to
On 31/05/2012 00:10, Pilotiin wrote:
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:tsOdnfQObIVSFFvS...@bt.com:
>
>>> How can "Andy" be proven correct about anonymous identities?
>>
>> I'll repost what he said, you know the bit you edited out.
>
> Rather that than answer the question, as usual.
>
Read the origional post.
> Tony Dragon<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:tsOdnfQObIVSFFvS...@bt.com:
>
>>> How can "Andy" be proven correct about anonymous identities?
>>
>> I'll repost what he said, you know the bit you edited out.
>
> Rather that than answer the question, as usual.
>
>> Well for a start I do not have a 'side'.
>
> Not apologists for Freemasonry?
>
>> And why would a normal person say that
>> everyone who questions you is a Mason?
>
> You'll have to ask the normal person in question, won't you?
>
>>>>>> [francis<francis...@yahoo.com>]:
>>>>>> [ . . . ] because when anybody who questions
>>>>>> you, you declare them to be Masons.
>
>>>> As you well know the names are the ones
>>>> that you have used previously in a thread.
>>>
>>> You've made another mistake: you know to whom "francis"
>>> was referring when he said "them" (above), but still
>>> deny being the same person as "francis."
>>
>> I have made no mistake, Francis has made it clear what
>> he meant, just because you have decided that you do not
>> know what was meant, does not make me Francis.
>
> So how did you know to whom francis referred?
>
>>>>>> The requests made of you have been polite,
>>>>>> never changing& as far as I can see moderate.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not correct.
>>>>> The allegations of mental instability are baseless
>>>>
>>>> Most of the people who have replied to
>>>> you have not said you were mentally unstable.
>>>
>>> So we agree that the allegations
>>> of mental instability are baseless.
>>
>
> Quite: it was another non-sequitur from a person who incessantly, and
> unreasonably, accuses me of evasion.
>
Well you evade questions.
> Quite: it was another non-sequitur from a person who incessantly, and
> unreasonably, accuses me of evasion.
>
>>>>> and the demands for proof extreme.
>>>>
>>>> So you consider that people asking you to prove
>>>> your claims extreme, why is this?
>>>
>>> You may not understand this response, but it is
>>> because you are not asking me about Mathematics.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>
> With respect, simply that you do not understand my answer is no grounds
> for accusing me of evasion.
>
>> No, wrong, and many people have told you what to post,
>> are you scared to post what *you* think is proof?
>
> I have not asked for proof. Your side demands proof, not me. I regard
> demands for proof, especially without giving any idea what in your mind
> amounts to proof, to be unreasonable. I don't know what you mean.
>
>>>>>> If you are saying that you think they are a Mason,
>>>>>> then you should be able to say why you think that.
>
>> But you have not done so.
>
> Correct. Nothing gets past you, does it?
>
>>>> I myself am willing to add 'please' to my requests
>>>> if it will mean that you give answers. I will
>>>> expect that you will now do the same.
>>>
>>> You are joking right?
>>
>> No, try me out.
>
> Why do you not think you should be polite regardless?
>
>>> Is that supposed to be an exhaustive list: one identity?
>>> Perhaps you are correct and "they" did indeed refer to
>>> only one person, but many identities. I fear you may
>>> have accidentally spoken the truth.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>>> I am sure I could compile such a list from your future posting,
>>>> and I would asks others, Francis, Andy, etc to do the same.
>>>
>>> I really cannot answer questions about anonymous identities.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>
> I really do not see how a reasonable person could describe a fair
> question, and a failure to answer questions about persons unknown, as an
> evasion.
Tony Dragon
May 31, 2012, 1:11:40 PM5/31/12
to
On 31/05/2012 15:44, francis wrote:
> On May 31, 2:00 pm, Pilotiin<inva...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote:
>> francis<francis.mall...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:9ec7dcac-5e37-4529...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>> Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
>>>>> just take the name of some of the people you
>>>>> allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>>
>>>> You must tell me who you mean by X; I can't tell you.
>>
>>> He has told you, but you as usual can't
>>> or wont do what is asked of you.
>>
>> Who is X then?
>>
>
> I refer you to the answer that you have been given before :-
> "Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> just take the name of some of the people you
> allege are masons and substitute the name for X."
>
>>>>> It should be simple to quote the text,
>>>>> just cut and paste.
>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>
>>> So just your usual evasive answer.
>>
>> You usually call yourself Tony when you hurl entirely baseless allegations
>> of evasion at me.
>>
>
> No I allways call myself Francis when I tell you that you ansers are
> evasive.
> When other people say the same thing they use their names.
>
Well I use my name.
> On May 31, 2:00 pm, Pilotiin<inva...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote:
>> francis<francis.mall...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:9ec7dcac-5e37-4529...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>> Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
>>>>> just take the name of some of the people you
>>>>> allege are masons and substitute the name for X.
>>
>>>> You must tell me who you mean by X; I can't tell you.
>>
>>> He has told you, but you as usual can't
>>> or wont do what is asked of you.
>>
>> Who is X then?
>>
>
> I refer you to the answer that you have been given before :-
> "Simply substitute an alleged mason's name for X,
> just take the name of some of the people you
> allege are masons and substitute the name for X."
>
>>>>> It should be simple to quote the text,
>>>>> just cut and paste.
>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>
>>> So just your usual evasive answer.
>>
>> You usually call yourself Tony when you hurl entirely baseless allegations
>> of evasion at me.
>>
>
> No I allways call myself Francis when I tell you that you ansers are
> evasive.
> When other people say the same thing they use their names.
>
Pilotiin
May 31, 2012, 5:39:57 PM5/31/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:t7Sdndqwd4RKOFrS...@bt.com:
>>> Well for a start I do not have a 'side'.
>>
>> Not apologists for Freemasonry?
>
> Are you saying that I am an apologist for Freemasonary?
Pilotiin
May 31, 2012, 5:48:31 PM5/31/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:t7SdndWwd4TQO1rS...@bt.com:
> Well I use my name.
Tony Dragon
May 31, 2012, 5:53:47 PM5/31/12
to
Would you *please* tell me the reason(s) that made you decide that.
Tony Dragon
May 31, 2012, 6:23:36 PM5/31/12
to
Pilotiin
May 31, 2012, 7:32:47 PM5/31/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:uKedneFLhfTxdVrS...@bt.com:
>>>>> Well for a start I do not have a 'side'.
>>>>
>>>> Not apologists for Freemasonry?
>>>
>>> Are you saying that I am an
>>> apologist for Freemasonary?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> What a strange idea.
>
> Would you *please* tell me the
> reason(s) that made you decide that.
Tony Dragon
Jun 1, 2012, 1:38:18 AM6/1/12
to
AndyW
Jun 1, 2012, 3:22:42 AM6/1/12
to
On 31/05/2012 17:35, Pilotiin wrote:
> francis<francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:6bf161cc-3320-4f43...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Who is X then?
>>
>> I refer you to the answer that
>> you have been given before :-
>
> I still don't know who X is supposed to be.
Just take the name of any person who you claim to be a mason. Remove X
> francis<francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:6bf161cc-3320-4f43...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Who is X then?
>>
>> I refer you to the answer that
>> you have been given before :-
>
> I still don't know who X is supposed to be.
from the original sentence and insert their name. Any of the news report
where you insert the word 'Freemason' before their names.
> Have another go and see if you can read it properly: the allegations of
> mental instability thrown at me on Usenet, often by people who admit to
> being Freemasons, are entirely baseless.
>
>> I note the you have not commented on what I
>> said about many of your allegations being baseless.
>
> That's because you are changing the subject.
>
> In any case, I doubtless would have the most extreme difficulty extracting
> from you the remotest idea of which allegations you were referring to: in
> all fairness, you still will not tell who X is supposed to be.
are a troll it has to be one of the most brilliant, sustained and
consistent trolling I have ever seen and I have been online since the 80s.
Andy
francis
Jun 1, 2012, 4:47:37 AM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 8:22 am, AndyW <A...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2012 17:35, Pilotiin wrote:
>
> > francis<francis.mall...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> On 31/05/2012 17:35, Pilotiin wrote:
>
group, you could do a search for that.
Pilotiin
Jun 1, 2012, 7:58:54 AM6/1/12
to
AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote in
news:4fc86083$0$29061$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> I am leaning away from mentally unstable and towards
> troll but if you are a troll it has to be one of the
> most brilliant, sustained and consistent trolling I
> have ever seen and I have been online since the 80s.
What do you mean by troll?
What do you mean brilliant?
news:4fc86083$0$29061$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> I am leaning away from mentally unstable and towards
> troll but if you are a troll it has to be one of the
> most brilliant, sustained and consistent trolling I
> have ever seen and I have been online since the 80s.
What do you mean brilliant?
Pilotiin
Jun 1, 2012, 8:01:18 AM6/1/12
to
francis <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:0daaf845-def4-4493...@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:
> IIRC a Paul Clark posted Pilotiin/Jahbulon's usenet
> history on this group, you could do a search for that.
Which should, at the very least, disabuse him of his "brilliant"
allegation, which must be entirely gratuitous.
news:0daaf845-def4-4493...@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:
> IIRC a Paul Clark posted Pilotiin/Jahbulon's usenet
> history on this group, you could do a search for that.
allegation, which must be entirely gratuitous.
Pilotiin
Jun 1, 2012, 9:27:09 AM6/1/12
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:hp6dnR92Cpf1clrS...@bt.com:
>>> Well I use my name.
>>
>> Can you prove that?
>
> Yes
francis
Jun 1, 2012, 11:08:19 AM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 2:27 pm, Pilotiin <inva...@invalid.invalid.net> wrote:
> Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:hp6dnR92Cpf1clrS...@bt.com:
send them to the palace, so far she's been unlucky.
> Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:hp6dnR92Cpf1clrS...@bt.com:
>
> >>> Well I use my name.
>
> >> Can you prove that?
>
> > Yes
>
> . . . and my auntie is having kippers with The Queen.
My auntie was trying to catch kippers at London Bridge so she could
> >>> Well I use my name.
>
> >> Can you prove that?
>
> > Yes
>
> . . . and my auntie is having kippers with The Queen.
send them to the palace, so far she's been unlucky.
Tony Dragon
Jun 1, 2012, 1:06:52 PM6/1/12
to
0 new messages