Re: OT: Some images I played with
Rhino Plastee
> On 2/1/09 12:23 AM, in article
> b5c952b9-e0f2-4f74...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 31 2008, 11:55 pm, Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/1/09 2:43 PM, in article
>>> C581A60F.E79D6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>>
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>>> C58281F3.EF78%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/31/08 10:21 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> I am asking you kindly, Tim, to please stop spewing you
>>>>>> dishonest and hate-filled BS into a public forum.
>>>
>>>>> Says the guy who deliberately lied with the sole intention of
>>>>> linking a female poster in CSMA to incest!
>>>
>>>> You sure spew a *lot* of outrageous accusations.
>>>
>>> I have stated facts....
>>>
>>> You said to her....
>>>
>>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem."-Snit
>>>
>>> I stated...
>>>
>>> "Note here how in an effort to degrade the person that you were
>>> addressing you have deliberately switched the focus from the topic
>>> of incest being synonymous with sex to one where you claim that she
>>> has indicated that sex is synonymous with incest Snit!
>>>
>>> You are being as dishonest and deceitful now as you were
>>> then!"-Wally
>>>
>>> And that is a fact!
>>
>> And it is the bit of his own dishonesty that Snit has been running
>> from for years.
>
> No amount of proof would have stopped that from happening!
Yes! Yes! You two are agreeing and that is all the proof that is needed!
No need to actually show Snit doing as you say, just agree that he did it.
Fucking brilliant! Oh man, you WALLED him in and good. He is fucked!
>> The definition of synonymous isn't relevant at all to
>> what Snit did originally...
>
> I disagree, Snit's chosen definition was all important wrt what he
> did, if one destroys the logic used to make certain assertions then
> the assertions themselves will automatically fail!
>
>> which is why he has spent so much time
>> focusing on it (obfuscation). I've never understood why you guys
>> ever gave Snit's original lie so big a pass and engaged him on his
>> obfuscation as long and as often as has been done over this incest/
>> synonymous BS.
>
> Had I focused on Snit's obvious distortion wrt E then the waters
> would have become clouded (even more clouded) than they were!
That God for you Wally! Bless you! The Evil Snit has clouded and
obfuscated but here you are to clear things up for all of Usenet. Oh Snit,
Oh Snit how will you ever handle this humiliation. Bury your head in shame!
> I believe I said enough to show the contempt that I felt wrt the
> original assertion that Snit made.....
>
>
> "why you would think I was interested in your delusions about
> Elizabot is a mystery to me,"-Wally
>
> "Do you really wish to maintain that because you went on to attribute
> something from your own imaginings to Elizabot that that alters in
> any way the statement that you made before it?"-Wally
>
> "I doubt that even I could find a definition of synonymous that would
> include erroneous claims made by you about Elizabot!"-Wally
Yes! Quote yourself saying things that reference things nobody knows about!
Talk about people by initials so nobody on the whole fucking planet knows
what you mean! Wall the bastard in WALLY! Make Snit shit his pants.
Again. I am sure he does so every day with you WALLING him is as you do!
> "Absolutely! and the fact is that my comments address the relevant
> comment that you made that show your feelings wrt incest and sex,
> none of my comments address the inappropriate assumption that you
> make wrt Elizabot which is why I didn't address them!. "-Wally
>
> "Your assertions wrt what Elizabeth thinks are irrelevant wrt what
> your beliefs concerning incest and sex are!"-Wally
Oh! And what are those beleifs! Oh Wally, as you fucking WALL the fuck
face in I am sure you will just slam him with his own quotes as you show the
messages they came from! Snit is so fucked!
> "I have only ever commented on your beliefs not your views on someone
> else's beliefs!"-Wally
>
>
> I had no wish to see E drawn into a subject unless she herself chose
> that path, I didnšt want anything that I said to have had that effect!
Oh WALLY the clever one! You fucking bring up someone, what, seven dozen
times and then tell all of Usenet that you do not want her to be the subject
of discussion. We all believe you! All of Usenet looks to you with utter
beleif because you SAID SO. Fuck the facts! This is 2009 and facts are not
what matters, PEOPLE matter, and you and Steve are agreeing. POWER TO THE
PEOPLE!
> So by focusing on Snits lack of any logic regarding his position I
> could do what I set out to do, and an added bonus along the way was
> to be able to dispel another of Snit's claims...
>
> "There is no doubt that Steve and Wally are arguing against me *not*
> because of what I said but because of who I said it to
> (Elizabeth)"-Snit
>
> For my part it was *all* about what he said!
Exactly! That is why you would never bring up "E" seven dozen times in one
post. That would prove you to be a fucking liar and you would never want to
be seen as that! Wait! Fuck the facts! Steve Carroll is on your side.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE and you are PEOPLE! WALL that asshole Snit and make him
piss his pants again!
> And watching him self destruct was a sheer delight...
>
> How did Snit define synonymous? Snit said....
>
> "In the context of my original usage the following facts are true of
> the word "synonymous":
>
> * The word means the same or nearly so
> * If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
Fuck that! Snit used a definition. That is a FACT that can be verified.
Who the fuck wants to talk about verifiable facts? Not you, clearly not!
WALL the fuck head in!
> So if it can be shown that Snit believed that incest and sex mean the
> same or nearly so, then clearly by his own definition he is showing a
> belief that incest *is* synonymous with sex!
YES! It can be shown! Of course, you will not do so, but why show what can
be shown when you can just say it can be shown! WALL him in WALLY! Man,
you are a fucking genious!
> And of course *that* can clearly be shown......
>
> Tim Adams wrote....
>
> "Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words."-Tim Adams
>
> To which Snit replied....
>
> "Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has
> questioned that?"-Snit
Yes! Yes! Yes! Snit said one thing is something else so of course he must
have meant they were the same! A Mac is a computer so all computers must be
Macs! Macs have 100% market share! Wally has just taught us all a very
important lesson! The computer wars are over and Apple has won! Fuck
Windows and Linux, all computers are now Macs! Hail the great Wally who has
WALLED Snit in and proved this to all of Usenet!
> Snit also stated...
>
> "Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the subject of sex. That
> has never been in question"-Snit
>
> Snit is clearly shown to be totally agreeing that incest *IS* sex and
> that any mention of incest *would* bring up the subject of sex.
>
> "The word means the same or nearly so" had been demonstrated!
Yes! Just like all computers are Macs! You have proved it! If one talks
of Macs one thinks of computers, so they must be the same FUCKING thing! No
more Windows! Down with Linux! WALLY has proved they are both gone!
> Now to the second part of his definition...
>
> "If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
>
> He has clearly demonstrated his belief that incest *is* synonymous
> with sex, so by his own admitted belief sex *is* synonymous with
> incest, he has also stated....
Of course Snit said that! You can not find the quote off hand but no
bother! Why worry about actually quoting Snit saying what you say he said?
Just say it to Steve Carroll and Steve Carroll shall agree! FUCK FACTS an
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
> "If two things are synonymous / equivalent then it does not matter
> what order you place them in. If A = B then B = A. It is *that*
> simple."-Snit
>
> I did my part to try and put him straight on that matter....
>
> "Wrong! the order is all important because they are not equivalent,
> your nonsense about.......
> "If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
> ......relies on the fact that A & B *are* equivalent which is absolute
> nonsense! sex and incest are not equivalent!-Wally
Yes! Oh you just ripped Snit's brain out and skull fucked his eye socket!
You just proved Snit said sex and incest are the same thing by NOT quoting
him saying anything of the sort! You just made it up and it FUCKING BECAME
TRUTH! You are the best, Wally! The fucking best!
> But to Snit it was clear that incest is sex and sex is incest the
> order to him had no relevance!
>
> Which is disturbing because nobody else has expressed that view!
>
> What makes it even more disturbing is that Snit has stated that only a
> pervert would hold such views....
>
> Snit asked...
> "To what group would incest be "synonymous" with sex?"-Snit
>
> Snit then answered his own question...
> "The answer, of course, is clear: even in a metaphorical way nobody
> but a pervert would consider incest to be synonymous with sex."-Snit
>
> I have to wonder if he would be willing to express that view at any
> of a number of incest support groups? ...probably not!
>
>> No question that Snit gets troll credit points for
>> this;)
Yes! You just made up a bunch of shit and said Snit loves incest and POOF
he does! FUCK actually trying to show where Snit said what you claim he
said, just post quotes and then make up stories about them where your
conclusions make no fucking sense! Who cares? Not I! Not Steve Carroll!
Nobody! You said it and now it is FACT! On Usenet in 2009 FACTS are made
by you just making shit up, and you just made shit up.
Snit is done with!
> That would imply that Snit's actions were deliberate and thought out
> rather than what they actually were ... There are way too many
> contradictions for that to be the case!
Yes! Snit had a big bad bubble butt load of contradictions in his
statements but you could not find any! You just quoted him quoting a
fucking dictionary, like that matters in 2009, and said he loves incest and
fucks goats. Your word becomes law! You are a fucking master.
Rhino Plastee
> On 2/1/09 5:06 PM, in article gjkhv0$gdc$1...@news.albasani.net, "Rhino> "That God" ... Which God?
>
>> Oh Snit how will you ever handle this humiliation.
>
You fucked Snit over and good! No need for facts when you have Steve
Carroll and others to agree with you. What a fucking brilliant plan!
Snit
gjkhv0$gdc$1...@news.albasani.net on 1/2/09 1:06 AM:
Wally could not figure out that sex and incest are not synonymous, no matter
what order you list them in. Incest is a subset of sex... hopefully a very,
very small subset. Completely consistent with the comments of mine he
quotes and tries to twist, above... and nothing that would lead to his
warped conclusions. Also nothing even slightly controversial in my views.
There, his BS was easy to refute. No returned 50 page essay needed. :)
Oh, and he and Tim Adams have made repeated claims that they are perverts:
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
- Wally
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!" - Wally
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex" - Wally
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions
clearly prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do
believe incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many
times you say otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, he did no such thing! Adams was lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore
they ARE identical ..." - Tim Adams
They project their perverse claims onto me. Who do they think they are
fooling?
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.